Slashdot Mirror
MTU President Peeved At RIAA
mcdude writes "The president of Michigan Technological University has responded to the RIAA suit against one of his students, accusing the RIAA of encouraging cooperation with universities but then bypassing those procedures with the current suit. Curtis Tompkins says, 'I am very disappointed that the RIAA decided to take this action in this manner. As a fully cooperating site, we would have expected the courtesy of being notified early and allowing us to take action following established procedures, instead of allowing it to get to the point of lawsuits and publicity.'" Attention universities: lawsuits are your reward for being a "fully-cooperating site". If you missed the lawsuit news, see our earlier story.
The RIAA are pushing forward with a number of highly publicized actions in order to draw attention to the problem (as they see it) and try to scare people off. There is nothing to be gained by them dealing with people through the sort of process described Mr Thompkin's letter.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
The RIAA seems to consider itsself a pretty powerful force, but really, they're just another sales organization. Universities, on the other hand, hold substantial power as gatekeepers to one of the music industry's largest customer groups. If colleges start banning RIAA-affiliated bands from performing on campus, and eliminate all RIAA-affilitated material from their on campus stores, the message to the RIAA might become a little clearer:
You are an unnecessary organization.
Music can and will be made, produced, and sold without you.
Leave us alone or cease to exist.
There is an important point here for universities.
Having served on a comittee that heard some of these cases come up, the RIAA generally asks that the school shut down the site, cut of network access, and turn over the students name.
The fully cooperating university must be aware of what this last step means. It means the RIAA has the power to bypass any intermediate sanctions and sue a (usually poor) college student directly.
You would be surprised, but losing dorm room internet access for a year is considered a pretty significant sanction. This raises the issue to whole new level, one that is rarely seen on a college campus in another context.
The schools involved need to jump into this with their eyes wide open. It doesn't seem they were that aware in this case.
With the RIAA? If the RIAA had notified the school of the transgressions, I think they would have had a much better success rate in reducing piracy. Because they pursued legal action, they now have pissed off everyone in that community.
I wonder, if they pursued legal action at Michigan State University, could they be held legally accountable for the ensuing riot?
Tom
So sayeth the editor
Attention universities: lawsuits are your reward for being a "fully-cooperating site".
The university isn't being sued, it's the student. The president dislikes the bad publicity that the lawsuit is generating, and I can't blame him for that. It drives away potential students when they find that one of the places they're looking at allows the RIAA in so easily. Sure, you can find out about how MTU was 'fully-cooperating' with the RIAA with a little bit of research, but now anyone who has a slight interest in the RIAA knows about it.
... not that the RIAA filed suit without informing MTU what it was doing, but because he actually expected advanced notice!!!
Let's get real here! The RIAA has been exploiting the DMCA since it passed! If anything, somebody at some time is going to have to stand up for "fair use" rights (whether this student is guilty of infringement or not!). My sense is that universities, who have the most to gain from strong fair use laws, should step up to the plate. Instead, in a prime example of the pussification of America, universities cowtow and kiss ass to the RIAA out of fear of legal reprecussions.
Well, what's worse? Allowing the RIAA to slowly weaken fair use so that any lawsuit becomes a multi-billion dollar slam dunk for them, or stepping up to the plate (and paying the legal fees) to defend now?
Either way, the universities (whoever) are going to be out of a lot of cash. But, by fighting now, they at least can say they had the balls to do something about it!
-A
Hello there,
I go to the University of Iowa.
We had a service here for a while called "HawkSearch" (our team being the Hawkeyes), run by a student. It existed for a while in the form of a http search page. One day, an article was written about it in the paper. The University had Hawksearch down within 10 minutes, and everyone they could prove used it had their internet connection shut off.
Of course, the university isn't stupid. They know exactly what I know, which is, every student in the school with a computer has kazaa and 80% of them run it like a vital piece of their windows XP. p2p will never die, so we have to live with it. until everyone realizes this (which may never happen), there will be this ongoing, useless struggle where some people suffer and some don't - it's the luck of the draw.
As for local area network sharing... it's just the wrong place to do it (on campus). I mean, if one of your friends wants a CD, they can borrow it. If you want music off the radio, you may tape it. I mean, let's be honest - your friends burn your cds, and you burn theirs. Is this worse or better? Better because it's not on a large scale?
p2ps next stage (if wide area sharing dies, IF) will be small local area networks, and without a university packet sniffer to rat out a small percentage of the guilty people, there will be no way to prevent it.
Let not the guilty go unpunished? Ha.
"It was like trying to hand out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."
- Apocalypse Now
Set aside, for a moment, the credibility (or lack thereof) pertaining to this case. What scares me is the way a large bullying corporation can intimidate and screw individuals through litigation. Even if they lose the lawsuit, if they can prevent individuals from creating software and services which fringe upon RIAA financial interests and venues of profitability, then they will see themselves as successful. Must we all be looking over our shoulders anytime we work on projects which potentially could be used for piracy in addition to legitimate purposes? Will I be the next person in the RIAA's crosshairs, meat for a litigation nightmare.
Thanks be to the RIAA for creating a reverse fortune lottery. Millions of Americans are players. I wonder who'll be the next lucky winner who gets his/her life screwed? Perhaps the RIAA can kill two birds with one stone -- innovation and justice.
Do you really mean "free (as in speech) exchange of ideas" or free (as in beer) music.
It is the university's responsibility to protect the former, but discourage the latter. Let's try not to confuse the two.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
That's not at all what I got out of it. Whether we agree with the law or not, Joe broke it. The University appears to be interested in protecting him (and all students) as much as possible. This would include disciplinary action by the school that would allow the student to move on after college rather than being burdened for the rest of his life by criminal charges and unjustified financial debts. Bear in mind that the RIAA may choose to smack down the University because their equipment was involved in this incident. Therefore, they have to play ball at least a little. They could have chosen to just tell Joe: "Sorry, you broke the law. Suffer the consequences. Try to enjoy what's left of your life." Instead, they at least had to guts to send an open letter which not only expresses their disappointment to the RIAA, but also informs the public and other universities about the situation. This can be a pretty powerful blow if other universities demand a written contract governing actions to be taken before they are willing to work with the RIAA on anything.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
A physical or digital signature of the owner of an exclusive copyright right (i.e., the copyright owner himself or the owner's exclusive licensee of the right(s) to reproduce, distribute, display, perform or create derivatives) or the owner's authorized agent;
A description of the works claimed to be infringed;
A description of the allegedly infringing works, sufficient to enable the agent to find them;
Sufficient information to enable the agent to contact the complainer;
A statement that the complainer believes in good faith that the use of the material is not authorized by the owner, the owner's agent or the law; and
A statement that the information in the notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that the complainer is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of one or more exclusive copyright rights.
Usually #1, the physical or digital signature of the copyright holder, is never sent with the complaint. So the college responds with a request for the signature. Usually there is never a reply back.
A lot of the work in tracking down pirates is done by third-party companies which have to send the signature request back up to the people they are working for. This small but significant bit of red tape seems to become an annoyance enough that no signature is provided. Thus making the complaint more or less dead.
So one can be fully-cooperating with the MPAA but at the same time not cooperating in a way the MPAA would like, mainly to ignore the signature requirement and just shut off whoever is providing the pirated content.
This isn't about those schools. It didn't matter whether the President of MTU, of Princeton or of Wake bent down and licked the choccy starfish of the RIAA---they wanted to make this a loud, ugly lawsuit. Two reasons:
(1) Chilling effect. Every local sharing service I know of is shut down. The UConn Phynd hub had a message up the day of the lawsuit, and the website had vanished the next day. By making every kid in American thinking "I could be next0rz!!", they shut down every Phynd/Direct Connect/Flatlan system in the nation. But that's just gravy, because the real goal is...
(2) Precedent. If they can get these kids to knuckle under (which they most certainly will do, given the threat) and waive their federal appeal in return for a reduced settlement (pay $1k/year for the rest of your life, for instance), a big, shiny precedent will have been set---that the original settlement amount ($98B or whatever it gets reduced to) is a legit fine for the offense. Then, armed with precedent, they go after the bigger fish---KaZaA, ShareReactor---for setting up similar services.
It's dastardly clever.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
No, with that logic, it makes the MTU IT department, the hardware manufacturers, the OS vendors and programmers responsible.
Heck, i'd counter sue stating that since these CD's did not have any copyright protection on them that it is the recording industry itself is to blame. Let's see, make it a $98 Billion countersuit. Is this any more bizzarre?
In Soviet Russia, Nigel makes plans for you!
Our RIAA is acting as though it were Standard Oil from ~1900. Anyone that interferes with it becomes a target for outrageous lawsuits nad public humiliation in hopes that everyone else will cease and desist. What is most concerning here is that the RIAA is a de facto trust that is likely breaking the law by monopolization of intellectual property and distribution with respect to music. Technical innovation is being stifled by the DMCA because they apparently can't keep up to date with current means of distributing music. Mostly this is about greed: both on the part of the RIAA to maintain its non-realistic profit expectations and of some people who refuse to pay for music at all. There are some people out there engaged in blatently criminal acts of intellectual property theft as currently defined by the law.
What we need to do is 1) Reform the current laws (maybe with a "DMCA Lite"?) 2) Educate incoming freshmen at major universities about what the hell can happen to you for getting involved in this crap and 3) putting the RIAA in check by either legal means or a boycott on their products. Standard Oil did the same sorts of things to potential competitors and had all kinds of legal protection before TR came along and broke it up, but GW is certainly not interested in hurting potential campaign donors nor is anyone else I can think of given the proximity of a presidential election. Certainly the RIAA does not expect to collect 0.097 trillion dollars from a student but I'll wager a Golden Dollar or two that we'll hear that exact same number used in reference to Congress on why the RIAA needs "protection" against a new technology they can not use to their benefit. Allowing this sort of corporate welfare hurts both the consumer by allowing higher prices and the entire populace by allowing a de facto trust to run into the rights of the people simply for corporate benefit. Can anyone else present potential solutions to this problems?
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.