UCSD Vs. Free Speech, Round 2

what goes around, comes around by ChipMonk · 2004-10-11 13:34 · Score: 1, Funny

If they try to shut down a protest site, we just turn Slashdot loose on their asses. It may not shut them down, but it'll strain their bandwidth.

Re:what goes around, comes around by Mistlefoot · 2004-10-11 13:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

And playing with the Universities bandwidth hurts who?

Not likely anyone who's responsible for the censorship.
Re:what goes around, comes around by drinkypoo · 2004-10-11 15:36 · Score: 1

Probably the phone companies, most public educational institutions get their internet and telephone access for nearly nothing. My school has a DS3 which they wouldn't have if it were spectacularly expensive.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:what goes around, comes around by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 16:07 · Score: 1, Funny

Plus, all their stuff is written in Pascal!
Re:what goes around, comes around by Gentlewhisper · 2004-10-11 21:09 · Score: 1

/. can strain their server, but no way are they going to strain their bandwidth.

I always thought /. is big.. I guess this is a case where the big meets the bigger...

--
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Re:what goes around, comes around by hesiod · 2004-10-12 09:04 · Score: 1

Like trying to /. the New York Times, we're not that big.

Why would this be a threat? by mind21_98 · 2004-10-11 13:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

It just seems fishy. The more popular sites (like SDuncensored) are the ones that get hammered by the administration, while sites like ucsdfacebook.com aren't touched. I have a feeling UCSD is planning on launching their own service, or otherwise have some reason other than vigorously defending their trademarks.

--
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature

Re:Why would this be a threat? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 14:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA did something similar a few years ago. There was a website named drexel.com which was used to promote the college community. Offering a place for students to post comments on message boards, and even had a system for students to share their viewpoints about professors. Drexel U threatened legal action, however, the drexel.com owners later settled with the university for an 'undisclosed amount.' Drexel University later that summer went on a buying spree of domain names that were related or combinations to drexel (ie: drexxxel.com, drexelshaft.com, etc) I'm surprised they haven't gone after duparties.com yet, since it promotes parties on or around the campus.
Re:Why would this be a threat? by gcaseye6677 · 2004-10-11 16:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is clearly just a case of university lawyers trying to stop criticism of the school by sending out threatening letters, with little case law to back them up. Notice they did not actually sue, and they wouldn't, because they would get their asses handed to them. Some lawyers are slow learners and haven't yet figured out that they can't have a website shut down just because it says something their client doesn't like. But from the university's perspective, it doesn't hurt to try to stifle criticism. If the website operator is easily intimidated, they might just shut down right away. Moral of the story: if you're running a website that is critical of someone or something, know the laws and know what your rights are. If you're going to cave at the first sign of a legal battle, save yourself the trouble and don't put up the site to begin with.
Re:Why would this be a threat? by avarame · 2004-10-11 19:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

2) Since when can a corporation trademark a building? They can trademark their stylized rendering of it, certainly. But they have zero authority or rationale to prevent anyone from using their own photograph of a building.

Why does a university need to protect its trademark? Is it afraid of losing business? Yeah, I'm going to write out my tuition check to ucsdfacebook.com because I confused the two. The intent of a trademark is to protect a corporation's identity and the branding symbols they do business under. A university doesn't do business in the same way a typical corporation does. UCSD doesn't have a 'brand' to protect, so why should they be allowed to enforce their trademarks against someone who's clearly not directly competing in business with them (youcsd)

-a UCSD student

--
Save time now so you can waste it later
Re:Why would this be a threat? by Alioth · 2004-10-11 21:02 · Score: 1

The problem is even if you win your case, you have to pay lots of fees to your lawyers. A large and powerful organization can afford the lawyer fees even on a case they are sure to lose. The defendants - a bunch of students - will be seriously out of pocket even if they win.

When I was a student, finding the money for the next meal or my rent was often a problem. Spending money on lawyers would be totally out of the question.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Why would this be a threat? by Bios_Hakr · 2004-10-11 22:30 · Score: 1

The law will provide little cover for a student being critical of the faculty. Even if he is technicaly in the right in this case, he'll be hammered for the least little thing in the future.

Throw a cigiratte butt down: Busted for littering.
Hanging out in the quad: Loitering.
Talking to a friend outside the library: Disturbing the peace.

Face it, once you shit where you eat, you're fucked.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Re:Why would this be a threat? by Ricwot · 2004-10-11 23:31 · Score: 1

Aah, you poor thing,

At Saint Andrews, Donald Findlay, former Lord Rector, pledged to fight any case, however triveal, for any student in need.
Re:Why would this be a threat? by avarame · 2004-10-12 11:43 · Score: 1

Then why isn't the university protecting its trademark against sites like, say, UCSDguardian.org, sandiegoccc.org/UCSD, UCSDcycling.org, and so forth?

--
Save time now so you can waste it later

Red Hot Chili Pepper is in trouble by usefool · 2004-10-11 13:37 · Score: 3, Funny

Californication

--
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged

I'd do the same, wouldn't you? by lottameez · 2004-10-11 13:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

If some punks were dragging my name thru the mud I'd threaten them too....

--
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.

Re:I'd do the same, wouldn't you? by ChipMonk · 2004-10-11 13:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, I wouldn't. If someone just plain doesn't like me, they can say so, and call it "free speech," and they have my full blessing to enjoy that freedom. That's something UC seems to have forgotten about.

OTOH, if someone starts making false accusations, then yes, the means are there to shut it down, but only after the accusations have been proven false (temporary injunction notwithstanding).
Re:I'd do the same, wouldn't you? by magefile · 2004-10-11 14:01 · Score: 1

At least you didn't threaten me, which was the point of my post ;-)
Re:I'd do the same, wouldn't you? by lottameez · 2004-10-11 14:06 · Score: 1

Too late at night to find a lawyer. ;-)

--
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.

it's tricky, really... by bechthros · 2004-10-11 13:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

cuz sure, the university owns the name, and won't want their name being used to promote things they disagree with.

OTOH, it's a *public* university, if it's in the UC system. So then if you're a taxpayer, doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights?

Morally speaking, of course. I'm sure they'll win in court.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the

Re:it's tricky, really... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 13:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Immaterial. The 1st Amendment applies here. This would be like George W. Bush trying to sue John Kerry for mentioning his name on his website or suing some random person for making the website "georgewbushsucks.com" (which probably does exist, haven't bothered to check).
Re:it's tricky, really... by bechthros · 2004-10-11 13:46 · Score: 1

right, but i'm sure their ostensible beef is that people would get confused and think this was somehow the official product of the university. Brand confusion, as it were.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:it's tricky, really... by vectorian798 · 2004-10-11 13:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I think that the University should not be slamming these sites, and I think it has to do with bashing of said administration. Regardless of public or private, it is just plain stupid and is akin to many of the other stupid shit we see everyday from corporations. You would think that they would first try and listen to what their students have to say about their administration.

OTOH, it is NOT really a *public* university as you say, because we (the students) pay for nearly all of it. Since the Gubernator (who pledged to never cut education during his campaign) cut $372 million dollars from the UC system's budget, our fees continually rise. We were told that the fee raises will continue for the next four semesters AT LEAST. And if you will recall, until Reagan, the UC system was a true public system where our tuition was free. So we haven't been 'public' for a while now, only half-assed public.
Re:it's tricky, really... by GoofyBoy · 2004-10-11 13:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

They own their name, but how else are people suppose to critize them without using their name?

The University with the acronym that begins with "U", ends with "D", and has the letters "C" and "S" in the middle in that order?

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:it's tricky, really... by dougmc · 2004-10-11 13:50 · Score: 1

doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights
No.
Re:it's tricky, really... by gl4ss · 2004-10-11 13:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

*right, but i'm sure their ostensible beef is that people would get confused and think this was somehow the official product of the university. Brand confusion, as it were.*

certainly there's very little chance of that.. and if they don't seem to have trouble with non-critical sites that argument goes out of the window..

they're just trying to shut down the critics the 'easy' way(i don't know the issues at hand, but this is hardly the right way to do it since a) you're not shutting up anybody and b) they just get mainstream attention - so, if the sites are dissing them for being stupid biggots then they could even be right!).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:it's tricky, really... by bechthros · 2004-10-11 14:03 · Score: 1

like i've said before and will say again, have fun taking this one all the way to the rehnquist/scalia supreme court...

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:it's tricky, really... by bechthros · 2004-10-11 14:08 · Score: 1

see my earlier post... the most common complaint from corps who are being lampooned is that the satire or criticism will be misinterpreted as "official version".

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:it's tricky, really... by Pituritus+Ani · 2004-10-11 14:54 · Score: 1

Not intending to be dismissive of your pain, but if UCSD has enough money to send lawyers after websties on trumped up copyright claims because they don't like what they have to say, they need their funding cut some more. Were I a California resident, I'd write to the Board of Regents with a copy to the Governator and say so myself.

--
Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag
Re:it's tricky, really... by drinkypoo · 2004-10-11 15:28 · Score: 3, Informative

OTOH, it's a *public* university, if it's in the UC system. So then if you're a taxpayer, doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights?

I doubt it. The University is created for the public with public funds, and there are public funds paid for students who attend classes, but the fact is that a significant percentage of the money is paid by students and by donors. How many new buildings do you see showing up at any kind of school without a private grant? Unless bonds are sold to finance it, that's pretty much none. New schools, on the other hands, are occasionally built by municipalities.

Anyway the CSU's mission statement is encased in the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, the meat of which can be found http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sect ion=edc&group=66001-67000&file=66010.1-66010.8">he re.
You want 66010.4.b and .c:

(b) The California State University shall offer undergraduate and graduate instruction through the master's degree in the liberal arts and sciences and professional education, including teacher education. Presently established two-year programs in agriculture are authorized, but other two-year programs shall be permitted only when mutually agreed upon by the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. The doctoral degree may be awarded jointly with the University of California, as provided in subdivision (c) and pursuant to Section 66904. The doctoral degree may also be awarded jointly with one or more independent institutions of higher education, provided that the proposed doctoral program is approved by the California Postsecondary Education Commission. Research, scholarship, and creative activity in support of its undergraduate and graduate instructional mission is authorized in the California State University and shall be supported by the state. The primary mission of the California State University is undergraduate and graduate instruction through the master's degree.

(c) The University of California may provide undergraduate and graduate instruction in the liberal arts and sciences and in the professions, including the teaching professions. It shall have exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education over instruction in the profession of law and over graduate instruction in the professions of medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. It has the sole authority in public higher education to award the doctoral degree in all fields of learning, except that it may agree with the California State University to award joint doctoral degrees in selected fields. The University of California shall be the primary state-supported academic agency for research.

Anyway it doesn't say anything about ownership but the fact is that you can't even be on the property without the permission of the state and Universities typically have their own police force in order to protect them, a clear sign that they are a governmental entity. Your government doesn't really belong to you and neither do the schools. :P

You could also try looking in the CSU Archives.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:it's tricky, really... by The+One+and+Only · 2004-10-11 15:57 · Score: 1

This would be like George W. Bush trying to sue John Kerry for mentioning his name on his website or suing some random person for making the website "georgewbushsucks.com" (which probably does exist, haven't bothered to check).

He didn't sue, but Bush did complain vehemently when someone set up an anti-Bush website at http://www.gwbush.com/. It was in this context that he said the immortal words, "There ought to be limits to freedom."

--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Re:it's tricky, really... by calidoscope · 2004-10-11 17:04 · Score: 3, Funny

OTOH, it is NOT really a *public* university as you say, because we (the students) pay for nearly all of it.
I think you are wildly overestimating the share of costs supported by tuition. When I was an UC student (overlapping the final two years of the Reagan governorship) tuition was ~$300/year for CA residents - figure total tuition revenue from residents was 30 million per year which was a drop in the bucket compared to UC's budget. Tuition is a lot higher now (as is most prices), but I would be really surprised that it was anywhere near the cost of running the system.
The University is also subsidized in that it doesn't pay property tax, land in La Jolla is worth on the order of 1 million/acre - so UCSD's land would be able to generate several million per year in property tax revenue if it was privately owned.

--
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Re:it's tricky, really... by jadavis · 2004-10-11 17:05 · Score: 1

Well, people could get confused and think that gwbush.com is official. I think that's a legitimate complaint. If it's not an official bush site, it should be something like gwbushsucks.com, or gwbushrules.com (In a shocking twist, that domain happens to be available!).

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:it's tricky, really... by bigman2003 · 2004-10-11 17:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Vectorian-

If you really are a UC student, you should educate yourself a little bit on how the University is funded.

Student fees (the stuff you pay) makes up about 10% of the University of California budget.

Since it is a public institution (no, your 10% does not make it private) they make their budget readily available to the public. In fact, you can view it here: UC Budget in PDF

Anyone who has seen the budget, and understands what students really pay, finds it pretty amusing when the students 'protest' on campus (whichever one you're on, it happens everywhere) the way their money is being spent. I'm not against the idea that the university should answer to the public, but students have an inflated sense of their (or their parents) financial contribution.

Why is it? Well, the University of California is not just an institution dedicated to teaching, but it also is an institution of research, outreach to the public, medicine for the state, etc. etc. When you walk through your science building, know that every faculty member there is trying desperately to get outside grants.

Go to your Ag department (if you are at Davis, Riverside, or Berkeley), and find out how much money comes from the USDA.

Find out how much money the Federal government gives your school before your friends protest the ROTC classes. We won't even talk about the Department of Energy- because that could be going away soon...

But list goes on, and on and on. Student fees are only a small part of the budget.

--
No reason to lie.
Re:it's tricky, really... by dgatwood · 2004-10-11 17:23 · Score: 1

That's too bad. Trademarks are never protected when it comes to criticism or parody. Never. If I want to create the website slashdotsucks.com (assuming it doesn't already exist), I would have every right to do so, and OSDN could sue all they want, but they would get their asses handed to them, and might actually be liable for damages as a result of bringing the suit.
See Also:
SLAPP (extended definition)
Slapp-back

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:it's tricky, really... by Cybrr · 2004-10-11 22:36 · Score: 1

That shows their lack of faith in the "official version".

--
Why did GEAR crush RDP?
Re:it's tricky, really... by ggy · 2004-10-11 23:53 · Score: 1

Well, it's always easier to be critical against Kerry than to actually try to compile a list why Bush rocks.
Re:it's tricky, really... by ObiWanKenblowme · 2004-10-12 02:46 · Score: 1

Do you have a source for this quote? I'm not trying to troll, I'm genuinely curious...

--
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.

legal system designed to control populace by Cryofan · 2004-10-11 13:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Our legal system is really designed to control our populace, the ordinary people. So the laws are aimed to the people in general. But we really need a entire legal system aimed at controlling those at the top of the hierarchy, the elite. They are the ones who really cause a lot of the trouble in life. Not just those who run the universities, but those in charge of institutions everywhere, in government and in commerce. They are the ones causing so many problems.

Extraordinary power requires extraordinary controls. We need extra-strict laws and punishments aimed at those in charge of institutions.

I am talking about civil law, but criminal law here.

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

Re:legal system designed to control populace by delirium+of+disorder · 2004-10-11 13:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Mod parrent up! In addition, we must realise that such laws will not be made by elites unless they have their lives or their wealth on the line. Its up to the rest of us to act. We need direct democracy that goes beyond voting. We need boycotts, strikes, protests, gurilla theater, piracy, and more. We must make our own media and our own economy outside of the realm of coporate America. A radical movement like that of the 30's or 60's would press the center to the left and make real progress finally happen.

--
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by BungoMan85 · 2004-10-11 13:50 · Score: 1

I was going to say something to the effect of, "No rich elite person has ever mugged me." until I read your little caveat at the end. But you're still dead wrong. If we start doing that we undermind the very principles on which our country was founded. If we started creating seperate sets of laws for different people then we would be no different than that which we rebelled against in the first place.

--
Bungo!
Re:legal system designed to control populace by DAldredge · 2004-10-11 13:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The people from the 60's are now in power and things are worse.

Why does everyone forget that?
Re:legal system designed to control populace by renehollan · 2004-10-11 14:04 · Score: 1

But we really need a entire legal system aimed at controlling those at the top of the hierarchy, the elite.
You've got one. It's called the Second Ammendment. Given that the U.S. has a poor record of fighting a guerrela (sp?) war, if enough people are equally pissed off at the powers that be, sucessfull "enforcement" might not be that far-fetched.

--
You could've hired me.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · 2004-10-11 14:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think the legal system works when people's deeds come to light no matter what thier status... the problem is congress and the supreme court over time have created a superclass of citizen, the Corporation, whos rights supercede yours and mine. This creates a great opportunity for the elite that control the institution to hide behind that veil and get away with a lot more than they normally could. People controlling other types of entities (such as UCSD) have taken notice and now are acting as if their institutions are supercitizens too... and after a few court ruling s they very well may be!
The legal system works fine... the problem is more with comfortable career politicians in corporate pockets giving them more and more priviledges while eroding our rights. If that isn't criminal, I don't know what is.
Check out This if you want to know more.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by ak3ldama · 2004-10-11 14:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is only slightly related, but I'll run with it. Everyone seems to remember Thomas Jefferson saying that every ten or so years we need a revolution, maybe not a bloody one, but a revolution non-the-less. Why? To keep people involved and continunually thinking critically of the 'Government'. This keeps what is known as the 'Goverment' as being the people, not the beaurocracy. But when the southern states thought that they were no longer being represented fairly, they decided to get the fight the issue. The bloody war that ensued set an example, that the rights of the people and the states were to take back seat to the rules enforced by the central goverment. The central government is now so out of touch with the people that they believe that they are still in touch. They've told themselves their little lie for so long they believe it.

Here's the bad part, for as much as the Democrats and Republicans can say they are different, they are both so authoritarian and elitist, that they see no problem with what is going on. Republicans can say that they are more fiscally responsible, that they try to lower taxes, that they support rights, but where are their examples? Bush increased spending during his term, and we all know that Democrats support larger government.

The rest of the world can stop bitching and just wait, because our direction is heading right toward Socialism, there is no questioning that. And most of America is to complacent to even notice.

--
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Re:legal system designed to control populace by bechthros · 2004-10-11 14:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Huh?

Oh wait, you're right. W, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are "people from the 60's". Ken Lay, Andy Fastow and Jeff Skilling were a bunch of freakin hippies. Why, Alan Greenspan cut off his mullet just last week, and can still be seen covertly head-bopping to the Dead on his walkman. I forgot. And you don't even wanna hear about Rupert Murdoch... Two words, my friend... *party ANIMAL!*

Um, in case you just woke up from a long, long sleep, Clinton hasn't been president for a while now. Oh, and since you bring up how excruciatingly horrible things were under those dreadful "people from the 60's", remember that he presided over the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history.

Exactly who's forgetting what here, Aldredge?

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:legal system designed to control populace by Jardine · 2004-10-11 14:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

The people from the 60's are now in power and things are worse.

Why does everyone forget that?

Because the people who are in power are not the same people who were into free love and getting high smoking weed. The people in power are the relatives of those who were in power in the last generation.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by delirium+of+disorder · 2004-10-11 14:26 · Score: 1

People who were around in the 60's are in power, yes, but certainly no one cool ever got any authority. The current whearabouts of some old radicals: Abbie Hoffman, Malcom X, the weather underground (as an orginisation), and Herbert Marcuse are dead. Jerry Ruban and John Kerry sold out. Tom Hayden, Howard Zinn and Noam chomksy are old and grey but still writting inspiring things. I can't think of any real leftest who has kept their ideals AND made it in the mainstream.

--
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by bechthros · 2004-10-11 14:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Here's the bad part, for as much as the Democrats and Republicans can say they are different, they are both so authoritarian and elitist,"

i think the word you're looking for is "corporatist".

"Republicans can say that they are more fiscally responsible, that they try to lower taxes, that they support rights, but where are their examples? Bush increased spending during his term,"

As did King George the First, as did King Ronnie. My favorite republican quote is "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Karl Rove, I think...

"and we all know that Democrats support larger government."

Do we? Bill Clinton did a lot of wrong shit, but he made a campign promise to end welfare as we know it, and damned if he didn't come within a hairs breadth of doing exactly that. And eliminated the federal defecit. How?

By taxing most those whom taxes affect the least.

"The rest of the world can stop bitching and just wait, because our direction is heading right toward Socialism, there is no questioning that."

Wow. I wish I lived in the same America you do. No, my friend, the direction we are heading in is most definately *not* toward socialsm, unfortunely. I saw this cited in somebody's sig file here once, and kick myself daily for not bookmarking it, but the Italian Dictionary from 1936, written by and for the people who pretty much *invented* modern Fascism, defined Fascism as "a government by Corporations". Fascism is where we're headed, and we're uncomfortably close today. And beyond that lies only Corporate Feudalism (you eat, sleep and bathe at the workplace, have little to no rights thanks to a pre-employment EULA, and have a corporate surname... watch it happen)

"And most of America is to complacent to even notice."

Amen to that.

You load sixteen tons. What do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter don't you call me, cuz I can't go - I owe my soul to the company store.

Google it.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:legal system designed to control populace by Artifakt · 2004-10-11 14:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Ancient Maya supposedly had a legal system where the penalties for various things increased as the person's social status increased. Drunk and disorderly in public? Farmers got a small fine. Merchants got locked away for a few days. Beurocrats got paddled publicly and fired. Priests were lashed and exiled, and Generals beheaded. This system hasn't been used too much. The opposite, in one form or another, is almost universal.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:legal system designed to control populace by scrod · 2004-10-11 14:47 · Score: 5, Informative

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini

"Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology which embraces nationalism as the transcendent value of society. The rise of Fascism relies upon the manipulation of populist sentiment in times of national crisis. Based on fundamentalist revolutionary ideas, Fascism defines itself through intense xenophobia, militarism, and supremacist ideals. Although secular in nature, Fascism's emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and violent struggle places highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement, intellectuals, and the media."
- Ben Tripp, paraphrasing Mussolini's diary

"By setting up special parastate agencies or "corporations" to replace failing or inadequate private enterprises, [Mussolini] was able to control the important economic sectors. Elitists everywhere found that laudable."
- Ernest Fitzgerald
Re:legal system designed to control populace by vijayiyer · 2004-10-11 15:06 · Score: 1

Right on. Unfortunately, most people seem to have limited knowledge of our history and seem to think that opression is alright as long as it's targeted at somebody else. Amendment XIV of the constitution has the equal protection clause whici is supposed to prevent that.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by Joey7F · 2004-10-11 15:45 · Score: 1

Oh wait, you're right. W, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are "people from the 60's". Ken Lay, Andy Fastow and Jeff Skilling were a bunch of freakin hippies.

Yeah because of there is group of people that are dependable and hardworking it is the hippies...

--Joey
Re:legal system designed to control populace by tsm_sf · 2004-10-11 15:45 · Score: 2, Funny

What, are you saying we shouldn't trust anyone over 30? I think I've heard that somewhere before...

--
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by operagost · 2004-10-11 16:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Bill Clinton did a lot of wrong shit, but he made a campign promise to end welfare as we know it, and damned if he didn't come within a hairs breadth of doing exactly that.
In fact, he vetoed two welfare reform bills before the Republican "coup" in 1994 made it clear that there would no longer be any long-term freeloading on the back of tax-paying citizens. He had no intention on actually following through with that promise until it was forced upon him - then he botched it, because his crap plan has forced people off welfare without properly funding job programs.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by westlake · 2004-10-11 16:20 · Score: 1

Its up to the rest of us to act. We need direct democracy that goes beyond voting. We need boycotts, strikes, protests, gurilla theater, piracy, and more. We must make our own media and our own economy outside of the realm of coporate America. A radical movement like that of the 30's or 60's would press the center to the left and make real progress finally happen.
Radical movements like those of the 30's and 60's tend to push the United States to the right and not the left. Guerilla theater is a piss-poor substitute for a hot meal and a place to sleep.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by DAldredge · 2004-10-11 16:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Some of them are in places of power. You would be shocked if you check into the backgrounds of those who run the Fortune 500.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by Phragmen-Lindelof · 2004-10-11 17:35 · Score: 1

I am not sure what you mean by "made it in the mainstream" but the following people come to mind:

Bruce Conner

Michael McClure

Of course, there is Bob Dylan. Has he "made it in the mainstream"?
Re:legal system designed to control populace by leereyno · 2004-10-11 18:13 · Score: 1

Whatever you say comrade.

First of all, you don't get it. There is no vast conspiracy of the powerful against the little man. It is true that the law can and has been abused by those in power to further agendas of their own (DMCA, Union labor laws in some areas), but that doesn't mean that these examples of corruption are indicative of the intent or the state of our laws in general.

Ideally the law is supposed to be reason, free from passion. Sometimes it is. There are laws (whether they be legislative or from case law) that exemplify this ideal. Then there are others that fall far short of it. This is why the fight for what is right never ends.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, whether it be against tyrrany from a king, an aristocracy, or any other group whose power vastly exceeds their numbers.

The root problem is that there are forces of good and evil at work in the world. Evil isn't just an abstract philosophical construct, it exists. One must be ready to confront it wherever it exists, and that is everywhere.

If anyone wants to put the hurt on UCSD, the best people to appeal to are the alumni. This university, like all universities, depends upon the financial contributions of their alumni. A few well written letters send to prominent alumni might do a lot to make the university see the error of its ways.

Here at ASU there was a case a few years ago where a convicted murderer was admitted to the law school. ASU lost an untold ammount of money when alumni stopped supporting it in protest. Obviously this case isn't as heinous as that one, but it is still a case of the university doing something immoral.

Lee

--
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by Cryofan · 2004-10-11 18:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

you wrote:

Whatever you say comrade.

What does it gain you to invoke labels?

First of all, you don't get it. There is no vast conspiracy of the powerful against the little man.

So? What makes you think there has to be? If I drop a $100 bill in front of 100 people in a row, I bet they almost all will reach down for it. Conspiracy, or self interest? The elite will use their power for their own best interests, and that should come as no surprise. But why on earth should we not control them with sanctions commensurate with the damage they can cause us, considering the power they wield? Why on earth do so many at the bottom of the hierarchy willing walk into the slaughterhouse?

It is true that the law can and has been abused by those in power to further agendas of their own (DMCA, Union labor laws in some areas), but that doesn't mean that these examples of corruption are indicative of the intent or the state of our laws in general.

I disagree.

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Re:legal system designed to control populace by kraut · 2004-10-11 23:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

In Germany, fines are calculated as day rates. So you might be ordered to pay 10 day rates as a fine - and if you make EUR 100 a day, you pay EUR 1000; if you make EUR 1000 a day, you have to pay EUR 10000.

--
no taxation without representation!
Re:legal system designed to control populace by bechthros · 2004-10-12 14:37 · Score: 1

"In fact, the rich pay almost all the taxes anyway. In the US, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 70% of the taxes."

And those same groups get way more out of the experience of living in whatever it is they're paying taxes to, so why shouldn't that added value be compensated for? Americans still pay among the lowest overall taxes in the world, IIRC. To live anywhere else in the world and maintain my standard of American life I'd have to pay through the ass. Canada, Europe, England, Japan... all have higher taxes than the US. Even some 3rd world countries do.

"But even before that they can go back to the tax shelters."

I'm all for abolishing tax shelters.

"John Kerry and his charming wife have been paying a tax rate of about 12%."

I'm not a student of tax statistics, but I've always heard, anecdotally, that the *very* richest people in the country, like John Kerry and Bill Gates, pay next to nothing.

"don't support socialism thinking you're going to get the Kerrys to pay for it."

oh, don't get me wrong. I'll never be the president of the John Kerry fan club. I'm well aware that Kerry is just as corporate as Bush is. At this point the only reason I'm voting for him is that he's at least a multi-lateral corporatist. Who won't go around talking about crusades, let his generals say we're fighting a Christian war on Islam, piss off almost everybody that matters in the world, let the Pakistanis and North Koreans get nukes, and start a war with a country that didn't do anything to us and wasn't capable of doing so even when attacked. And then fuck that up like every opportunity he was handed, every duty he owed his country, every business he ran, every well he dug, every team he owned.

it's the little things, I guess.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:legal system designed to control populace by fireboy1919 · 2004-10-12 16:38 · Score: 1

On the other hand, the Ancient Maya had an incredibly strong class structure, so you pretty much knew what laws you had to live by from birth to death.

Ours is a more fluid world. The only measure of class is how much money you have, not how you were born.

Would you like combine our tax system with our legal system? What would you call the people who ran it? Demons? The Evil Ones? Children of the Corn?

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:legal system designed to control populace by orangemike · 2004-10-13 07:27 · Score: 1

There are a few of the old protestors in power, but the ones who are in power, with rare exceptions, are the "weekend hippies": the weinies and wusses who wanted to be 'hip' but not threaten their trust funds and chances of getting into a good law school.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by tsotha · 2004-10-13 14:54 · Score: 1

I should know better than to post anything on slashdot that isn't to the left of Michael Moore. It'll just get modded down and people will spew bile at me without addressing my points. But, as they say, I've got karma to burn.
Americans still pay among the lowest overall taxes in the world, IIRC
If you consider 14th highest out of 150 some odd to be "among the lowest". That's the tax burden as a percentage of income. But the actual marginal tax burden (not tax rate, mind you, tax burden) for high income people is remarkably similar. It turns out once you take more than about 25% of someone's income they will make adjustments (up to and including not bothering to make money) to reduce that burden. It makes sense when you think about it - if you take the fruits of my labors I'll stop laboring. The Europeans get more out of people by using a VAT to tax everyone when they buy goods and services (similar to American sales tax, but it's applied to a far wider range of economic activity). But that isn't going to be very progressive.
I'm all for abolishing tax shelters.
So is everyone else. Tax shelters are never (well, almost never) written into the law as such. The reason super rich people don't pay much in taxes is they have flexibility the rest of us don't have. I'm guessing you're probably either still in school or just out recently. Let me tell you, "abolishing tax shelters" is a common refrain, and it's been done over and over. But no 6000 page body of law is perfect, and the legal meaning of a sentence can be different than the intent. Having complex law is like having complex code - more bugs.
The other problem is the super-rich won't take any risks with their money if they don't get to keep more of the profits. That means economic stagnation - for you and me that means not very many jobs. You brought up the highly-taxed western European countries. They all have very high unemployment compared to the U.S. In fact, official unemployment numbers in Europe understate the extent of the problem, since in the wealthier countries if you get laid off you go to a state-supported retraining center. That means you still don't have a job but you don't count as "unemployed".
I'm well aware that Kerry is just as corporate as Bush is.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Where do you think jobs come from? The government?
The rest here is just an anti-bush diatribe. I'll try to take your points one at a time.
Who won't go around talking about crusades: "Crusade" as a word has entered the lexicon as meaning any heartfelt cause opposing a perceived social evil. "crusade against drugs", "crusade against poverty", etc. If it's offensive to Muslims you can blame the translator, as far as I'm concerned.
...let his generals say we're fighting a Christian war on Islam. I'd like to see a citation on that. The Bush administration has been very clear from the beginning hostilities in the Middle East are not a "Christian war on Islam". I garauntee you Bush didn't "let" anybody say any such thing, and any general who said that would be reprimanded.
...piss off almost everybody that matters in the world. If you don't piss people off, you're not doing anything at all. I think after the Deulfer report it's pretty clear why they were pissed off - the gravy train was about to end. France, China, and Russia were all taking bribes and lining up big contracts to take effect after sanctions were lifted.
...let the Pakistanis and North Koreans get nukes. The pakistanis have had nukes for more than ten years - you can't pin that on Bush. As far as North Korea is concerned, nothing anybody has done has slowed their nuke program. Would you support an invasion? You realize they led Clinton and Albright down the garden path by taking money for not having a nuclear program and having one anyway? The difference in policy is merely a
Re:legal system designed to control populace by HoboMaster · 2004-10-13 19:25 · Score: 1

No kidding, think there's a moral in there somewhere?

Pot doesn't make you important, and free love just gets you the clap.

Besides, very few hippies actually cared about the moral side of all of that, they just saw it as a change to smoke pot and have sex a lot.

Damn hippies :-P

--
Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
Re:legal system designed to control populace by bechthros · 2004-10-14 16:25 · Score: 1

" I should know better than to post anything on slashdot that isn't to the left of Michael Moore."

Oh stop feeling sorry for yourself. Nobody held a gun to your head to make you write this. You actually think you're right.

"(up to and including not bothering to make money)"

This is ludicrous. Nobody anywhere in America is making the voluntary decision to not make money. Nobody. Bill Gates and George Soros are still trying to make more money. I mean, they must not know they are being taxed or else they would just stop working, right?

In point of fact, Einstein, most of us who don't have rich family are working two or more jobs just to pay the bills. I know I am (production support analyst/apartment manager/freelance web designer). My mom, who actually has a degree from a reputable school, is teaching remedial english in a rural Florida public high school (fun!), while simultaneously being director of RE at her church, and caretaker of a developmentally disabled child. And that's with a bachelor's. My dad, a former regional VP for a very old telecom, has his in EE, with years of telecom experience. He teaches at another public high school in north Florida, while working the sound for his church for a pittance. They just sold everything they owned. Their last rent check bounced.

Between the two of them, they hold five jobs.

Currently, how many jobs have you, sir?

"14th highest out of 150"

But isn't our standard of living FIRST out of 150? Isn't the gap between 1 and 14, like... two touchdowns or something? I mean, a 14-year-old human probably already has public hair, and there's states out west where it's legal to have sex with them. 14 points on a test could at least make the difference between an A and a C, or at worst make or break an entire semester. But I belabor, where I had intent only to illustrate... but I tell you what, Bobby, if I could pay the rent for the 14th nicest house on the block, but live in the FIRST nicest... Mmmm hmm. Yup.

And while we're taking a nice, close look at that scale of your'n thar, exactly how close together are those bottom 136? RANK of taxation doesn't matter, it's just another statistical red herring thrown out by people who would rather you not notice just how many times they could buy and sell you and your entire family.

Look at it this way - If I beat somebody in a race by twenty laps, and he in turn is followed closely by the rest of the pack within the span of a second, it doesn't matter that he came in second of 100. He was still almost last in terms of quantity of time. And quantitatively, I still whupped 'em all.

RANK of taxation doesn't matter. It's not quantitative, it's relative, it tells you what everything is next to. RATE of taxation does, because it IS quantitative, it tells you where everything *is*, right now. We pay incredibly low taxes given the benefits. If you want fewer benefits for fewer taxes, quit talking bullshit and move. Start packing that suitcase for Botswana, singing joyfully about how few taxes you'll have to pay.

And don't forget your pistol. And a lot of fresh water. And a lot of batteries. And probably some suntan lotion, like a gallon or so. Have fun, don't forget to write to tell us how great it is not having to pay taxes and hunting for ferrets!

You're dancing around the issue like all the other tax-haters. What do you think pay for your police, your firemen, your schools? You think they come from, like, magic pixie dust? Cuz I guarantee you, pal, that when some of my hoodlum friends break into your house to steal your stereo, you *will* want to call the police. Do you expect them to hand you a bill when they leave, or just swipe your card?

Look, you don't have to deal with reality if you don't want to. You and I both know if you could have an American standard of life for cheaper, you'd move. There's a reason people line up around the globe to get into this country. It's because they're literally dyi

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:legal system designed to control populace by tsotha · 2004-10-14 20:33 · Score: 1

"(up to and including not bothering to make money)"
This is ludicrous. Nobody anywhere in America is making the voluntary decision to not make money. Nobody. Bill Gates and George Soros are still trying to make more money. I mean, they must not know they are being taxed or else they would just stop working, right?
...
Between the two of them, they hold five jobs
I hate to break this to you... but if your parents don't make enough to pay the rent they don't pay any income taxes. When I was talking about marginal tax rates I wasn't talking about the end that doesn't pay. I was talking about rich people. So while you're right most people don't have a choice not to make money, the wealthy people (remember that 5% that pays 70% of the taxes?) do. If a wealthy guy (say, a CEO or a partner in a law firm) has to decide between retirement or sticking it out in the work force for a couple of more years, you can bet the tax rate has a large effect on his decision. So instead of collecting, say, 30% of his million dollar salary for four or five more years, you don't get anything when he decides the golf course looks like a better deal.
"You brought up the highly-taxed western European countries. They all have very high unemployment compared to the U.S."
And they also have much better unemployment insurance, and higher quality jobs when they're not unemployed. Next.
Sure, they have so many benefits it's hard to imaging why they work. That's temporary. Economic necessity will eventually force the curtailing of many of those benefits. You can't do it without a tax base. And mind you - those jobs are the tax base, since it's the middle class that pays for the larger state. The rich people pay about the same as ours do.
But isn't our standard of living FIRST out of 150?
No, in fact it's not. But in any event we do pay the most taxes in absolute terms, just not as a percentage of our incomes. But the real question is "who will pay those extra taxes?" Not Bill Gates. Me, you, your parents. That's my point.
The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States.
Are you being deliberately dense? I didn't ask who was the largest employer. The government doesn't create jobs in the sense it doesn't create wealth. Those government jobs only exist because the private sector creates wealth that can be taxed for their creation.
If government can create jobs, why don't we nationalize everything? Then everyone can work for the government and we can all be rich. Oh wait, that's been tried. Didn't work out very well, did it?
You're dancing around the issue like all the other tax-haters. What do you think pay for your police, your firemen, your schools?
The taxes I pay are certainly adequate for those services. I don't see why I should pay more. In any event these are not services the federal government provides, but the federal government certainly takes its cut. Just what does the Department of Education do anyway?
Keep guessing, Einstein. I'm over 30...
Have you been in jail for the last decade? You seem kind of ignorant of unintended consequences in tax policy.
Holy shit, you really said that, didn't you? Here. Take your pick. Your ignorance is fucking *breathtaking*. Stop posting before you embarass yourself further.
Let me quote from the sub-header of the first search result:
The Pentagon official, an evangelical, was nearly fired for insulting Islam
There's no way anybody in the administration would condone that kind of talk. Supports my point, doesn't it: Bush didn't "let" anybody say any such thing.
Sure, but duh, it's not just Europe that's pissed, Einstein. It's like every Muslim everywhere. Maybe you're naive enough to think there's no consequences for pissing off that many people, but I could think of, oh, about two. Two very big (you might

Hollywood Star by loid_void · 2004-10-11 13:42 · Score: 1

Normally in need of a cause, where are the stars when you need them?

--
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?

Re:Hollywood Star by techno-vampire · 2004-10-11 15:19 · Score: 1

The only cause most celebrities care about is their own public image. If the "cause" isn't well-known, there's no publicity worth garnering by backing it and they won't bother.

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting

Yeah, "rights" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 13:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

I care so much about protection of their name. Not after they kept mine and 38,000 others name, addresses, and social security numbers on an unsecure computer. W#hy they had my ss# 2 years after I declined to enroll I'll never know.
A source
This is a case of an institution that didn't care about my rights suddely crying foul when someone critques them.

Re:Yeah, "rights" by kendoka · 2004-10-11 13:46 · Score: 2, Funny

don't laugh man, I was a prospective student, a student, and now a staff member - i got fucked thrice. =)
Re:Yeah, "rights" by take5 · 2004-10-11 23:09 · Score: 1

I got the opposite problem: I was employed by the UC system and when I wanted to get a copy of my employment records they said all records before 1984 were destroyed.

So there go my rights (and retirement money I would receive in my case if they kept their records properly)

Re:Does Slashdot provide a forum for free speech? by the_mad_poster · 2004-10-11 13:46 · Score: 2, Funny

One potential problem with that story is that the doctor "delivered ... everything but his ... head" yet she remembers it had "the most perfect, angelic face"

What is this, some form of dead baby joke? Are you stupid? Did you survive a botched partial birth abortion or something?

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!

Go ahead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 13:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Piss off your future alumni.

Universities should crave students to promote their name and images, even when it seems to be negative.
Universtities are starting to suck like the RIAA.

Re:Go ahead by westlake · 2004-10-11 16:51 · Score: 1

Piss off your future alumni
I look back and I can't remember why I became involved in all those silly little campus dust-ups that seemed so desperately important at the time.

Patriot Act??!?! by CakerX · 2004-10-11 13:47 · Score: 1, Funny

First they want to know who is taking what out of the library.

Next, they don't want you taking pictures of the library.

I think I get it, they are going to round up librarians into concentration camps, the horror, oh the horror.

I was young once . . . by erick99 · 2004-10-11 13:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

... and I recall pretty much automatically disliking anything and anybody in authority and I would have done what these students are doing in a heartbeat. It's part of growing up and learning. Now that I am an old fart of 46 I can also see the University's side of this as well. But, that whole process of growing up and learning helped me to see opposing points of view and to even come to respect them. This is an age old battle that will be enacted over and over again so long as we have young people and old institutions (and a few old farts like myself.) Hopefully the end results is that people learn and become increasingly more respectful of, and tolerant of, opposing points of view.

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

Re:I was young once . . . by psykocrime · 2004-10-11 14:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

... and I recall pretty much automatically disliking anything and anybody in authority and I would have done what these students are doing in a heartbeat.

Good for you.

It's part of growing up and learning. Now that I am an old fart of 46 I can also see the University's side of this as well.

That's not growing up and learning, it's selling out and sacrificing your principles. If you see anything remotely appropriate about a university being able to prevent somebody from displaying a picture of a building on a website, then you have completely lost touch with anything resembling a love of things like Freedom, Liberty and Justice.

I dunno about anybody else, but if I feel like you do now, when I'm 46, I hope I have the courage to just euthanize myself.

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Re:I was young once . . . by Mazem · 2004-10-11 14:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

In this situation there is no "other side" to see. UCSD thinks that maintaining its public image is more important than freedom of speech. Thats wrong, plain and simple.
Re:I was young once . . . by GoofyBoy · 2004-10-11 14:52 · Score: 1

>That's not growing up and learning, it's selling out and sacrificing your principles.

Hell yes! I agree totally!

Forget about this drinking in milk in glasses, cleaning up your room, doing your homework and kissing girls. Thats just a cowardly sellout.

GRADE SIX RULES!!!

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:I was young once . . . by ortcutt · 2004-10-11 15:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

No one is being disrespectful of UCSD's viewpoint. Their viewpoint has been thoroughly discussed and people are trying to assess whether it holds water. I don't see what this has to do with being young or being old though. Maybe you just stop caring about your rights when you get older. If so, then let's pray for the youth of the world.
Re:I was young once . . . by anti-pop-frustration · 2004-10-11 21:13 · Score: 1

What is this kissing girls you speak of?
Re:I was young once . . . by UnrepentantHarlequin · 2004-10-11 21:36 · Score: 1

Now that I am an old fart of 46 I can also see the University's side of this as well.

SEEING the university's side isn't the problem. Most of us (except a couple AC's with puberty issues) can see the university's side very clearly: There is a website that is critical of them, and they want it shut down. They looked around for weapons that they could use to force it to shut down, and found lawyers. That's not at all hard to see.

But, that whole process of growing up and learning helped me to see opposing points of view and to even come to respect them.

As someone else said, what you did isn't called growing up -- it's called selling out. Seeing opposing points of view, and respecting the rights of their proponents to hold those points of view, is not the same thing as agreeing that those points of view are valid.

In this case, you're agreeing that students do not have the right to use the university's name when they say something critical of it, you're agreeing that the university owns the rights to all pictures taken of its buildings, and you're agreeing that it is right and just to use malicious litigation to force students not to say anything critical of the university. That's rather a lot to agree with -- and it goes far beyond seeing the university's side or respecting their right to have one.

This is an age old battle that will be enacted over and over again so long as we have young people and old institutions (and a few old farts like myself.)

I'm in my early 40's myself, so I suppose I also count as an "old fart" -- but at least I haven't sold out my principles. At least I haven't rolled over and said that civil liberties take second place to the demands of corporations, because those "corporate persons" deserve more rights than the flesh and blood persons that the Bill of Rights was written to protect. I'm as establishment as they come in some ways ... married, own a small business, registered Republican, the whole nine yards ... but I still think that individual freedom matters. I still think that the right to freedom of speech matters. I still think that the Constitution matters. And most of all, I think that people matter.

Hopefully the end results is that people learn and become increasingly more respectful of, and tolerant of, opposing points of view.

We agree on something there, certainly. But I don't think we agree on what that point of view is. You seem to think that people who want the freedom to criticize a public institution should become respectful of that institution's desire to prevent any criticism of it, and accepting of that institution's misuse and abuse of the copyright and trademark laws to squelch their freedom of speech. I, on the other hand, think that the university (dare I even use its name here?) should be the one to develop that tolerance and respect, and not try to stifle any and all opinions that its administrators do not agree with.
Re:I was young once . . . by Rob+the+Bold · 2004-10-12 05:13 · Score: 1

I think you're confusing 'old' with 'too tired to care about anything'.
Plenty of folks of all ages can understand both sides of an argument. You, on the other hand seem to interpret 'respect' and 'tolerate' as 'agree completely with'.

--
I am not a crackpot.

On censorship in CA by PunchSix · 2004-10-11 13:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

For more on censorship in California public universities, view this excellent documentary:
http://academicbias.com/bw101.html
(download links on site)

Re:On censorship in CA by ortcutt · 2004-10-11 15:12 · Score: 1

I've been at Universities for years as a student and teacher. I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against by academic staff for a political opinion. There are standards of argument which must be maintained, and people need to justify the claims that they make. I don't know whether Conservatives consider that threatening, but that's not bias, that's inquiry.
Re:On censorship in CA by DongleFondle · 2004-10-11 17:59 · Score: 1

The documentary you linked to is a very intesting example of exactly how the liberal bias at University institutions affects conservative minded students. I remember back when I was a freshman at the University of Lincoln, Nebraska I took an entry level english composition course from an instructor who was gay, female and very open about her views. Now absolutely nothing would be wrong with that except for the fact that she vigorously attacked anyone whose views opposed her. And I'm not talking about telling her that homosexuality is wrong and that she's going to hell or some horribly insulting thing like that. I expressed the view that I didn't believe a women's right to choose to have an abortion was adequate cause to legalize what *in my opinion* is the killing of an innocent life. I was basically told that my view couldn't possibly have any relevance because I was a naive youth & that I was brainwashed by the Catholic church. At any rate, being 18 at the time, she shut me up pretty quick. I think most anyone who has gone to college recently has a basic idea of the bias that exists there, at least with some groups/professors.

However, when the documentary you linked to tries to justify five white kids putting on black face and pretending to be the Jackson Five for Halloween, they lose all credibility in my opinion. I don't care if they're from a city called Jackson. I don't care if "some of their best friends are black". You can dress up as the Jackson Five without the blackface. Blackface first came about when white slaveowners in the South started putting on mock "minstrel shows" to portray the stereotypical "lazy ignorant nigger" view that was so commonly held in those days. Blackface is an inherently racially charged image in this country due to our history. And I'm willing to bet these five 'innocent' little white kids from Jackson, Tenn. probably knew that.

nothing to speculate about by kendoka · 2004-10-11 13:48 · Score: 1

They got rid of ucsduncensored because they liked the idea and wanted to put out an official site endorsed by the university. they were pushing out the competition.

It Actually Seems Pretty Reasonable by diagnosis · 2004-10-11 13:52 · Score: 3, Informative

All the provision says (see here) is that people may not use the UC.* abbreviations to promote things like business/financial enterprises. The code says:

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or restrict the right of any person to make a true and accurate statement of his or her present or former relationship or connection with, his or her employment by, or his or her enrollment in, the University of California...

So there's nothing preventing them from changing their name and just plastering all over the site that they're UCSD students, the site is about UCSD, for UCSD students, etc.

------------------
Rate free iPod offers: RateTheOffers.com
(Flat screens and Desktop PCs too)

Re:It Actually Seems Pretty Reasonable by tsunamifirestorm · 2004-10-11 17:20 · Score: 1

there's nothing preventing them from changing their name and just plastering all over the site that they're UCSD students, the site is about UCSD
Actually the UC system is trying to control that. Within sduncensored.com the title of the main thread is called "UCSD Uncensored." UCSD has mentioned that they are considering action for having the letters "UCSD" so prominent within the site.

Public school, public property by Antony-Kyre · 2004-10-11 13:52 · Score: 1

If I'm not mistaken, University of California-San Diego is a public school, meaning it belongs to the public, doesn't it? Doesn't that mean the public should hold the rights?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I feel I may be on one of the things I said above.

Re:Public school, public property by kendoka · 2004-10-11 13:58 · Score: 2, Informative

no, the uc belongs to the the uc board of regeants - a trust.
Re:Public school, public property by Brandybuck · 2004-10-11 16:04 · Score: 1

And that trust manages that property for it's owner, the State of California. Arnold Scharzenegger is actually one of the Regents of the University of California.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Steps to takedown by I+kan+Spl · 2004-10-11 13:53 · Score: 1

1) UCSD sends threatening notice
2) Information makes it to slashdot
3) Bijilions of slashdotters take the site down for UCSD
4) ..?

Profit!!

--
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.

Don't blame them all... by disbaldman · 2004-10-11 13:53 · Score: 4, Informative

I know a few members of the faculty, and from what I hear, the majority of the faculty is completely disgusted because of these actions, and some even fear their own websites may be taken away by force in the future...

kwitcherbeefin by winkydink · 2004-10-11 13:55 · Score: 1

If the university owns the rights to the images of the library and the name UCSD, then they can choose to arbitrarily enforce said rights (note: I am specifically avoiding the terms copyright and trademark).

--

"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

Re:kwitcherbeefin by jtev · 2004-10-11 14:44 · Score: 1

You shouldn't. Trademark cannot be selectively enforced. In order to remain a trademark it must be aggressively protected.

--
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Re:kwitcherbeefin by drinkypoo · 2004-10-11 15:34 · Score: 1

The only kind of rights they could have are copyright and trademark. No other rights that could apply actually exist. The rights you have besides property rights can only be based on copyright law, or trademark law. As the sibling comment says they are not eligible for trademark protection even if they actually register(ed) one because they would have to aggressively protect it, and they are not eligible for copyright protection because they are a public institution and you can photograph it all you want, unless it's a picture that the school owns, in which case they can prevent you from using it. They can't prevent you from reverse-engineering the picture and taking a similar one (same focal length, same film, same paper, approximately the same lighting conditions, et cetera.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:kwitcherbeefin by dgatwood · 2004-10-11 17:49 · Score: 1
That's not entirely true. It must be protected against becoming a generic term, and it must be protected against competing use in commerce.
However, it is illegal to attempt to prosecute someone for using a trademark for purposes of criticism of said product. Anything less would effectively represent a complete ban on criticism of corporations and products. Further, trademark infringement does not, under any circumstances, occur for any non-commercial use of the mark, of which criticism is just one example.
I'm sure you'd like me to cite precedent here, so you should have a look at:
- Federal Trademark Dilution Act, Title 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(c)(4)
and the following case law:
- Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber (CA central district court)
- Mattel Inc. v. MCA Records Inc. (9th circuit)
- L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc. (1st circuit)
for starters. Two out of three of the above cases are California casees....
Put another way, IMHO, UCSD has about as much chance of winning a suit as I do of winning the lottery without buying a ticket.
IANAL, this is not legal advice, yadda, yadda, yadda.
--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by ortcutt · 2004-10-11 13:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

The following is an editorial from The Stanford Daily by Kai Stinchcombe (not me).

University Free Speech Restrictions Are Illegal
Stanford is illegally restricting my constitutional rights. Yesterday they prevented me from engaging in a peaceful assembly on campus to exercise my freedom of speech. I won't let them stop me again.
Last week two friends of mine invited students to get together for an hour to make phone calls on behalf of John Kerry. That's a classic First Amendment activity. When the British government banned Committees of Correspondence, constituted by the patriots to write letters opposed to King George, the men who eventually framed the Constitution vowed never to tolerate a government that restricted peacefully assembly or free expression. They wrote the First Amendment to protect events like the John Kerry Power Hour.
In its wisdom, the California legislature passed the Leonard Law, section 94367 of the California Educational Code, to protect the First Amendment rights of California's students. The law protects on-campus activities that would be protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment if performed off-campus.
Cut to the present. Stanford's administration decided that the proposed John Kerry Power Hour constituted an event, and that University policy prohibits partisan political events on campus.
This was a good-faith interpretation of a good-faith policy, intended to protect Stanford's not-for-profit status. As a 501c3 nonprofit, Stanford University cannot use its facilities or other resources in a way that advantages one candidate over another. Because of recent apparent violations of this policy, administators were intent on full enforcement. The administration decided that, rather than allow equal access to White Plaza for supporters of any candidate, the University would prohibit this sort of event altogether.
In light of the Leonard Law, though, this interpretation seems illegal. Students' right to gather in public areas off-campus to advocate for John Kerry is constitutionally protected, and the Leonard Law extends that right onto campus.
The Power Hour was scheduled for White Plaza, Stanford's designated open-to-the-public free speech zone. The students were told that they could not assemble in any location on campus, and would face the Judicial Panel if they continued. Accordingly, they decided to have the "John Kerry Power Hour" off-campus in a private residence.
It seems the only legal, nonpartisan University policy would be to allow students of any opinion to peacefully assemble and exercise their free speech rights anywhere on campus where students are allowed to gather.
The Leonard Law allows students to obtain court injunctions against illegal university policies. I checked with a handful of lawyers, and with folks from the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and People for the American Way, and they seemed to think that the case would be a slam dunk on our end if it came to that.
I hope it won't come to that, because the administration's decision to push the event off campus wasn't just illegal, it's also a bad policy. Young people are increasingly alienated from the political process. If Stanford students are passionate about politics and eager to get involved, the University should put as few restrictions as possible in the way of their idealism.
This coming Sunday at 1pm, I intend to peacefully assemble in White Plaza to express my opinion. As an individual I'll be advocating for John Kerry, but I hope students for Bush join me, because free speech is bigger than any political party. I hope the University also understands that, and lifts the restrictions before then.
The political process only works if people get involved. The time is now: as George Bush declared in the debate the other night, freedom is on the march. Nobody's stopping our generation from weighing in.

Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by Stiletto · 2004-10-11 14:06 · Score: 1

Too bad.. These days, well-reasoned kids like this are likely to get pepper sprayed and dragged away in handcuffs for their disobedience. Sure, not as bad as Kent State, but we're getting there.
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by drinkypoo · 2004-10-11 15:13 · Score: 1

On one hand, it's too bad. On the other hand, I think we need to get there again, because without it, we're not going to see any actual change. The fact that the kids of today are the adults of tomorrow doesn't help if they don't become incensed enough today to still be pissed off tomorrow.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by rthille · 2004-10-11 15:15 · Score: 1

Not sure if Stanford gets state or federal funds, and whether that would make the Leonard law apply or not, but it seems to me that since they are a private university they can make the policy they were trying to enforce on you.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by ortcutt · 2004-10-11 15:28 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter. The law applies to all colleges in California public and private, regardless of where they get their funds. The only exception is for colleges controlled by a religious institutions, which Stanford is not. The section applying to Private Colleges reads as follows:
"California Education Code 94367. (a) No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution."
More info here
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by Idarubicin · 2004-10-11 15:40 · Score: 2, Informative

In light of the Leonard Law, though, this interpretation seems illegal. Students' right to gather in public areas off-campus to advocate for John Kerry is constitutionally protected, and the Leonard Law extends that right onto campus.
It could be argued that as soon as the University permitted a partisan group to use its phone lines, it was moving beyond merely allowing free expression. It could be construed as directly supporting a partisan cause, which is something they're forbidden to do under other California law. (As the editorial writer notes, they cannot support partisan activities and retain their 501c3 nonprofit status.)
The University wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were to interfere with a public protest, or a political rally, or students distributing pamphlets on campus. Making facilities available for partisan telemarketing...it's a very interesting legal question. The school would definitely be on the wrong side of the law if they let pamphleteers photocopy campaign material for free--is giving free use of the phones in the same category? Where is the line drawn with respect to what constitutes 'support' for partisan activities?
The students here shouldn't be protesting the University's decision. They should be protesting the California tax code. Or, possibly, they should be using their own telephones. As has been said on Slashdot so many times before, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee an audience, nor does it compel anyone else to pay for your soapbox.
The usual disclaimers apply to my post: I am not a lawyer; I am a Canadian; I have lived and worked in the United States (in Indiana--I was a Hoser Hoosier, if you will.)

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by cei · 2004-10-11 16:18 · Score: 1

Funny, the Lyndon LaRouche people have been camped out on the Santa Monica College campus for months, and nobody seems too concerned...

--
This sig intentionally left justified.
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by Dynedain · 2004-10-11 18:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Sorry, go back and read your defense.

The Leonard Law protects you from "disciplinary action" should you violate a university policy that violates your free speech rights.

And you only get to file in court if there is a disciplinary action.

Being told to stop is not a disciplinary action.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by ortcutt · 2004-10-11 19:01 · Score: 1

>Being told to stop is not a disciplinary action
"The students were told that they could not assemble in any location on campus, and would face the Judicial Panel if they continued."
What part of "facing the Judicial Panel" didn't you understand?
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by Dynedain · 2004-10-11 19:20 · Score: 1

Being threatened with a judicial panel is one thing, actually facing a judicial panel is quite another.

And its still not a disciplinary action until said judicial panel trys to administer a punishment. If the judicial panel says "we aren't/can't punish you" then they still haven't violated The Leonard Law.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by ortcutt · 2004-10-11 19:48 · Score: 1

This is the text of the Student Organization Handbook
OSA and ASSU have the responsibility to take administrative action against individuals and/or groups that violate University and ASSU regulations. Such actions may include loss of recognition, resulting in loss of access to University services, and/or referral to the Dean of Students Office or Judicial Affairs for possible disciplinary action.

The University interpreted their written policies as not allowing the John Kerry Power Hour. Thus they have made a rule, subjecting students to disciplinary sanction for speech which would be protected if it were produced off-campus. If there was any question of whether they would be subject to sanction, that was answered when the organizers were told that they would face the Judicial Panel if they went ahead with the meeting.
This is the relevant section of the Leonard Law referring to Private Colleges.
California Education Code 94367. (a) No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution."

Stanford has made a rule which subjects students to disciplinary sanction for conducting in speech which would be protected where it produced off campus. Could this be more clear-cut? I don't understand why you are harping on this question of whether there has actually been any sanction yet.
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by Dynedain · 2004-10-12 03:52 · Score: 1

If the university policy predates The Leaonard Law, which it probably does since it is related to their tax status, then only the "enforcement" part would apply.

And if you read that line carefully, you'd see that if they never subject you to disciplinary sanctions soley on first-amendment reasons, then they are in the clear.

Besides, 501(c)3 is a Federal tax status. If the CA state law conflicts with the Federal tax code, it's going to go to Federal Court where the law will probably be overturned as unconstitutional in that it limits the rights of private organizations.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by rthille · 2004-10-12 04:22 · Score: 1

Well, being a detail oriented geek, I notice it says you can't subject a student to diciplinary action, but it doesn't say you can't stop a peaceful assembly on campus...
I'd like to read the law the way you do, but I'm not sure that's what is intended...

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by John+Harrison · 2004-10-12 04:55 · Score: 1

You should have assembled in a dorm room. I had a sweet room at the top of the stairs in Yost. Between the loft, the floor, and the balcony you could easily hold 100 people. Then go nuts with your cell phones.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by ortcutt · 2004-10-12 07:34 · Score: 1

You're going to have to give some justification for these two claims rather than just baldly stating them. Otherwise, I'm just going to believe what you say in your .sig

"rightwingnews.com", huh? by Cryofan · 2004-10-11 13:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

One question we need to answer is whether the political Right and Left are diametrically opposed regarding authority. It seems to me that the Right is a "great respecter" of authority. In some regards, however, the Left sees authority as an oppressive force, in that it does not apply force to itself as it rightfully should.
However, in order to implements Leftist policies, a strong state would seem necessary.

But I think the ultimate issue is whether the status quo must be maintained with respect to transparency of government and whether the institutional elite should be held to a higher standard.

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

Re:"rightwingnews.com", huh? by myowntrueself · 2004-10-11 14:26 · Score: 1

"One question we need to answer is whether the political Right and Left are diametrically opposed regarding authority."

This would depend on your locality...

When I came to NZ from the UK, the UK was under a savage Right wing regime (Mrs Thatcher) whereas NZ had what was called a 'Labor' government.

I had to write to my pals in the UK and explain that NZ had two Conservative parties; one was called the National party... the other the Labor party.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:"rightwingnews.com", huh? by Fnkmaster · 2004-10-11 14:47 · Score: 1

However, in order to implements Leftist policies, a strong state would seem necessary.

Well, to a certain extent, a social safety net and so on do require some functions to be assumed by a central governing agency, yes. But those are beneficent functions, not authoritarian ones - a "strong" central government just means more authority is handled by that government than state or local governments. It doesn't mean the government is oppressive or seeks to deny people their personal freedoms, as an authoritarian government does.

But regardless of your stance on that, you are basically conflating two positions - economic liberalism with social liberalism. A social liberal is the diametric opposite of an authoritarian. If somebody happens to also be an economic liberal, they may be willing to accept certain tradeoffs in terms of personal freedoms (first of all, the freedom to keep 100% of your earned income to yourself) in exchange for the overall social benefit they perceive in a social safety net, national healthcare system, and other "left wing" economic policies.

Now, if you are talking about true communism, yes you absolutely need a strict authoritarian government to implement it. Even in the most egregious of welfare states, there can still be incentives to work, since people still earn money and personal property rights exist. In a communist system, at least in theory, none of these exist, so you have to motivate people to comply with the central planning commitees in some other way (usually a gun to their backs helps keep them marching forward).
Re:"rightwingnews.com", huh? by pnot · 2004-10-11 17:24 · Score: 1

I had to write to my pals in the UK and explain that NZ had two Conservative parties; one was called the National party... the other the Labor party.

Heh. And now the UK has one Conservative party called New Labour, and a running joke called the Conservative Party.

(P.S. Spelling nitpick: surely it's the New Zealand Labour party...)

Copyrightability of Architectural Works by mooreBS · 2004-10-11 13:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Sec 120(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 states, "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photoghaphs or other pictorial representations of the work," if the building is in a public place.

UCSD could sue for copyright infringement if said photo was pulled directly off it's site, because they own the rights to that photo. If a student were to take their own photo and place it on the site there would be no grounds for suit.

Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by GoofyBoy · 2004-10-11 14:17 · Score: 2, Informative

UCSD is claiming trademark on the building (its image is the brand of the university). Copyright is would involve the artistic or original rendering of the building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Comparisons _to_copyright_and_patent_law

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by DrHung · 2004-10-11 14:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

California seems awfully possessive about their views. When I visited Monterey, I enjoyed the views along the coast, but I was forbidden from taking a picture of a certain tree because Pebble Beach Resorts had trademarked the image of that tree (see it at their website). There were signs up all around the pull-off in the road saying that photographing the tree was illegal!
So, of course I had to take a picture...
(Damn! Should have posted anonymously!)
Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by Lehk228 · 2004-10-11 14:57 · Score: 1

well the signs were full of shit, trademark covers the use of an identifying mark, it does not restrict the right of anyone to take a picture. in fact you could post that image online if you wanted, though you could not use it for anything related to resorts , lodging, or travel.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by CaptainSuperBoy · 2004-10-11 15:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can't trademark a building. This is a student paper, and it's likely that they confused trademark with copyright. The site probably took a photograph of the library from the UCSD website, which is property of UCSD.
Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by SonicSpike · 2004-10-11 18:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah... a quick lesson in "intellectual property"

One can copyright a photograph. So, if you take a pic of building, you own the copyright to the pic - not of the objects you copyrighted. The law provides for photographs to be taken of buildings.

If you copy a building's design, and build an identical building, you have probably violated the copyright of the owner.

It might be possible to trademark the building's image as a logo of the entity. For example, if your engineering firm works out of a unique modern pyramid, they can take a drawing of thay pyramid and make it a logo (trademark) of their business.

To be a bona fide trademark the level of threshold is low and so if the trademark has been used in commerce, it is usually afford protection under the appliciable laws.

When a court determines what is/isn't a violation of trademark then the criteria they look at is this:

1) Was this trademark used in commerce previously?
2) How, what, when, and where was it used in commerce?
3) Is the infringing trademark in the same industry as the original?
5) Does the new trademark cause confusion in the marketplace?
6) Is the infringing trademark having a negative effect (damages) on the original owner?

There is no telling how a case would be ruled... ya never know what the back stories are.

However, I would have to say that they cannot get him for violating trademark or copyright on the building.

IANAL - but I am taking a copyright law course at my university for my major - recording industry!
http://mtsu.edu/~record/
It is an interesting time to be studying the recording industry; that is for sure!

--
Libertas in infinitum
Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by OldMiner · 2004-10-11 18:28 · Score: 1

Incorrected. Building designs can be trademarked. I clearly remember seeing a trademark notice at the end of a film I saw recently, probably Spiderman 2, which stated that a certain design was trademarked. See This page from the US Patent and Trademark Office. Please don't assume ignorance on the part of others when you haven't done the research yourself.

I was going to be slanderous with this, but I'll just take the time to say I could have been slanderous, and then decided just to mildly dilute the value of this message with this addendum.

--
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by mooreBS · 2004-10-12 02:11 · Score: 1

I have the same class. Who's your prof?
Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by SonicSpike · 2004-10-12 02:50 · Score: 1

Is this Dave?!?!?!

--
Libertas in infinitum

Public Property by Visaris · 2004-10-11 13:57 · Score: 1

I always though that since the university is partially funded by my tax dollars that it is, in a way, public property. Is this idea totally wrong? Doesn't this mean that it is perfetcly leagal to take a picture of the library? Someone please help me out here.

--

I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.

Xanga UCSD blogring by HoshiToshi9000 · 2004-10-11 13:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Based on a quick perusal of the Xanga blogring, the UCSD student population is composed of 90% Asian women, of which 99% of them are quite hot. WTHail?

Re:Xanga UCSD blogring by psoriac · 2004-10-11 14:21 · Score: 1

As someone who has been to the campus and used to date a student there, I can confirm that this is more or less true.

--
I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
Re:Xanga UCSD blogring by MikeXpop · 2004-10-11 14:22 · Score: 1

I've been a member of xanga for awhile now (2.3 years according to their nagscreen) and I can safely say that xanga has a huge asian community, so it's not just UCSD. If you choose a random weblog, you're about 80% likely to land on an asian persons. I have no idea why this is, it's not like the system is asian-centric or anything, but the community is.

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:Xanga UCSD blogring by psoriac · 2004-10-11 14:23 · Score: 1

I've noticed this as well. LiveJournal is apparently where most of the white people hang out. I'm not really sure how these things happen, but there it is.

--
I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
Re:Xanga UCSD blogring by ilduce · 2004-10-11 14:59 · Score: 1

UCSD 90% asian? Close.
99% of its women hot? I think not. ...but then maybe we're just spoiled here.

UCSD- Where the girls get another "Freshman 15" every quarter
Re:Xanga UCSD blogring by drinkypoo · 2004-10-11 15:51 · Score: 1

yes, and let us not forget that orkut is now apparently a brazilian service. first they try to ruin irc, then they take orkut away. (Okay, not really on the latter one, I just wanted to be sensationalistic.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Xanga UCSD blogring by imsabbel · 2004-10-11 21:08 · Score: 1

Reminds me on some of the first pages of GTO.
A campus full of beautiful girls .... with a footnote "there are guys, too, but there are filtered out by onizukas brain"

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?

You See es De by loid_void · 2004-10-11 13:59 · Score: 1

How 'bout this as a workaround?

--
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?

UCSD's solution? by dv8ed · 2004-10-11 14:02 · Score: 4, Funny

It's cheaper to let Slashdot take it down than to pay lawyers to do it.

terpidiots.com by tonyz2k · 2004-10-11 14:10 · Score: 2, Informative

this article hit a bit too close to home for me. back in college we used to run a website, terpidiots.com .. its gone now, thanks to the University of Maryland asserting its ownership over the word "Terp". after a nasty-gram from the head attorney for the university, we stopped running the site.

you can see the scattered pieces on google

come to think of it i think we went down without a fight. i was pretty caught up with trying to graduate and find a job. i tip my hat to these persistent young people, and i hope they keep running their site, and i hope their merit will keep the law on their side, and keep UCSD at bay!!

--
click here to incinerate homeless people

Trademarked architecture? by flieghund · 2004-10-11 14:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think they meant copyrighted, but whatever.

Assuming:

the photograph was taken by the web site owner and/or under "contract" thereof, or was taken from a public-domain/royalty-free source (as opposed to copied from the school or some other copyright-protected source);
the photograph was taken from public property or other public right-of-way (sidewalk, street, alley, etc.); and
the web site is not attempting to claim credit for the design, appearance, etc. of the building, nor trying to duplicate said design for any purpose other than describing the original building...

...then the school has nothing to stand on to ask them to remove the photograph of the library. Building owners (or architects, for that matter) have no control over images of their building captured from public property.

Can you imagine what a messed up world it would be if they could? What if you had to pay royalty fees for your vacation photos just because there are buildings in the background?

--
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp

Re:Trademarked architecture? by kps · 2004-10-11 14:35 · Score: 2, Informative

No, they mean trademarked. There are some things you can't photograph without permission because the image is a trademark - the "lone cypress" tree for instance. Copyright doesn't prevent making an original picture of a building. I'm not sure what the status of trademarking the appearance of a building is at present; I seem to recall cases involving the Rock&Roll Hall of Fame, and the Transamerica building, but I don't know how they turned out.
Re:Trademarked architecture? by Lehk228 · 2004-10-11 15:00 · Score: 1

Trademark does not stop you from taking pictures or posting those pictures, it would stop you from using those pictures for certain commercial purposes.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

youcsd != UCSD by Zebbers · 2004-10-11 14:14 · Score: 1

For yall who don't get that simple concept.
If he makes use of the concept of "you" in his site, the name should be allowed to be held. This is abuse, plain and simple.

photos of public buildings...? by myowntrueself · 2004-10-11 14:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

"What's next, campus police stopping people from taking pictures of the library?"

I thought that taking photos of any public building in the USA these days could result in arrest by the actual police?

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

This is America after all. by l0ungeb0y · 2004-10-11 14:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Copyright, Trademarks, Corporate self interest and greed are the laws of the land.

For those of you who didn't get the memo, Eisenhauer was a niave fool to whom no one listened. The common citizen is not in the interests of our Governments law making. It is the Corporations to who they attend.

Just how many laws have been enacted in the last 6 years that grant you additional rights and protections? And just how many laws have been enacted that create criminal prosecution of citizens for actions that lay against the best interest of Corporations?

Like those Bush tax cuts? Well, while you're cashing in a days pay check worth of tax cut, think about Microsoft. They pay no tax at all. Obviously placating MS and other mega-buck corps to the point of giving them a free ride means more than placating you and I. Funny how those that can least afford it pay the most while those that have bank accounts larger than developing nations pay the least.

Want to fight a corporation who tries to usurp your rights? Prepare to be driven to the gutter by legal fees and get nothing in return, even if you do win. Thank god for the ACLU and EFF, without them you'd have no hope in the world. Face it.. we no longer live in a true Democratic Republic. We live in a Plutocratic-Capitalist society, which functions by a wealthy elite using it's wealth to influence policy to their self interest.

Wake up people, seems everyday /. posts an article such as this.
And every day people will whine and bitch. But not many see the root of the problem.

Nader has "an" answer for it, but the problem is much bigger than he and without support in Congress and Senate (it's they who collect the check and enact law devised and written by Groups such as the RIAA/MPAA/MS), he stands a snow balls chance of accomplishing anything. But this is a real problem that effects each and every ordinary citizen. The question is, what will be done about it.

Re:This is America after all. by Peyna · 2004-10-11 14:52 · Score: 1

Well, while you're cashing in a days pay check worth of tax cut, think about Microsoft. They pay no tax at all.

In Bush's own words himself, rich people have lawyers and accountants so they can stick it to you. (That's why we shouldn't raise their taxes and get rid of loopholes like the stock option tax break that allows MS to pay no tax.... I think that's what he meant?)

--
What?

Easy solution by dsanfte · 2004-10-11 14:25 · Score: 1

Use a hosting service outside of the USA. Canada, for instance.

If the content on your site is the least bit controversial, you're a bloody moron if you're still hosting in the USA.

--
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb

Re:Easy solution by O · 2004-10-11 15:04 · Score: 1

Unless you're a Neo-Nazi living in Germany, then you'd host it in the USA. I recall seeing a company called "White Power Hosting" at some point, actually, just for these sorts of customers.

--

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
Re:Easy solution by wintermute1000 · 2004-10-11 15:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Their site is hosted in Germany, according to campus press coverage, which is how they've managed to remain anonymous.
Re:Easy solution by dsanfte · 2004-10-11 15:40 · Score: 1

Well, good for them.

--
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb

host the site out of state and give UCSD the by Indy1 · 2004-10-11 14:26 · Score: 1

bird. California education code doesnt mean jack shit in the 49 other states. Better yet, host the server in europe (havenco anyone?), so if UCSD decides to send a DMCA or some other bullshit violation notice, the web site owners can use it for toliet paper.

--
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!

Re:host the site out of state and give UCSD the by wk633 · 2004-10-11 14:42 · Score: 1

Read the article. It's already hosted in Germany.

You dolts... by Transcendent · 2004-10-11 14:37 · Score: 1

What you don't realize is that using the universities name makes them responsible for actions your organization may perform...

It only make good LEGAL sense for them to not let you include it in your name. I recently started a club at my university, and they explained to me that if we use University of ____ in our club name that it would cause legal complications that the university does not wish to have.

What the hell is the big deal anyway? It's THEIR name?

Re:You dolts... by twistedcubic · 2004-10-11 14:50 · Score: 2, Informative

please. remember the federal court ruling about [website]sucks.com? when you sue somebody in court (in the USA), the FIRST thing the judge establishes is whether you're suing the right person. go to a real court and observe the beginning of a civil suit.
Re:You dolts... by 0x0d0a · 2004-10-11 18:54 · Score: 1

What you don't realize is that using the universities name makes them responsible for actions your organization may perform...

Please provide a link to either reputable case law (findlaw, say) or to legal code (USC, etc) that supports this claim -- I, for one, am quite dubious.

--
May we never see th
Re:You dolts... by Lucky_Norseman · 2004-10-11 20:32 · Score: 1

What you don't realize is that using the universities name makes them responsible for actions your organization may perform...

So, if I create the website UCSDPushers.org and start selling drugs from it, the university is responsible, and they will go to jail instead of me?

Somehow, I don't think so.

Re:Does Slashdot provide a forum for free speech? by ChipMonk · 2004-10-11 14:41 · Score: 1

In answer to your topic line question, I'll ask you this in return:

Does Slashdot get public funds?

Because, you see, that's what it really comes down to.

It DOES exist! by Spy+der+Mann · 2004-10-11 14:50 · Score: 1

It redirects to this anti-bush site.

Hmmmm.... *thinks* I wonder what happens when a slashdot story cites whitehouse.gov? Will the whitehouse get slashdotted? Will they blame terrorist attacks?
Dunno...

Freedom of the Press == Owned. by d3ity · 2004-10-11 14:54 · Score: 1

Hey I got a brilliant Idea! We dont like the decisions foobar university is making, lets start a website about our views. *Lawers enter* Lawyers: now hold on little jimmy, dont go making that website just yet. You cant state your opinions and ACTUALLY tell anyone who they are about. That might be offensive. Anarchist Jim: So i cant have my downwithfoobar.com site? Lawyers: Of course not Anarchist Jim: Then how will I express my views. Lawyers: Well, your allowed to make statements, you just cant use anyones name. Yeah, This sounds plausible. Has anyone heard of the first ammendment here? it sounds like the freedom of the press is bieng trampled on. Think about it. Wouldnt the news be a bit boring if you couldnt use any names?

Re:Freedom of the Press == Owned. by k2dk · 2004-10-11 21:29 · Score: 1

Then again. How would they sue you without using your name?

UC's hypocritical censorship by logicnazi · 2004-10-11 15:06 · Score: 1

Unfortunatly the UC system has a long record of censorship going back to the free speech movement of the 60s at UC Berkeley. Of course now they claim to be in favor of free speech but this apparently only means free speech they deem appropriate.

The same week UC Berkeley gave it's official celebration of the aniversery of the free speech movement it invoked it's trademark power to ban T-shirts which said "Fuck Trojans."

Quite frankly I don't think much has changed since the 60's. They still claim to favor free speech but it only goes so far as speech they think is 'appropriate'.

--

If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

Re:UC's hypocritical censorship by ortcutt · 2004-10-11 15:14 · Score: 1

Athletic merchandise is their big cash cow though. They would never let anyone threaten that.
Re:UC's hypocritical censorship by Dynedain · 2004-10-11 18:58 · Score: 1

Odds are they banned them not because they said "Fuck Trojans" but because they had a UCBerkley trademark on them.

USC (and probably every other college campus) has similar problems with tshirts (and other merchandise) that uses their logo without paying any royalties (let alone getting permission) from the university.

Selling the university logo on sports apparel is the #1 funding for aethletic programs.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....

Be vewy, vewy qwiet... by mooreBS · 2004-10-11 15:07 · Score: 1

I can hear their server melting.

How about the DOS on the spam blacklists? by tstoneman · 2004-10-11 15:13 · Score: 2

Wrong. You can take pictures of whatever you want that is not copyright-protected, and you can sell them, display them, etc, as long as it is done legally. You cannot copyright-protect a fucking tree for fuck's sake. It's a tree. No one can prevent me from taking a picture of that tree and selling it. That is clear-cut law because it was not a work produced by a person, it is nature. I can take a picture of the Mona Lisa and sell it if I want, because it is so old you cannot copyright something like that to prevent people from taking pictures, etc.

However, a particular instance of a picture can be copyright-protected. So, for example, the one picture you see of Mona Lisa is the same image, probably for Corbis, ie. Bill Gates. Corbis has deal with the Louvre so that only they were allowed to photograph the Mona Lisa in a particularly high quality way, the only particular picture of the Mona Lisa. If I went to the Louvre and took a picture, I could use that, however, the Louvre won't let you take a picture of the same level of quality as Corbis. This is how they have "hacked" the on things that normally cannot be copyright protected.

I can take a picture of whatever public structure I want. Barbara Steisand tried to stop people from posting a pic of her house, but she was denied in court. The exact same verdict would go against UCSD if these guys had legal support. It's pretty clear-up law that you cannot copyright or trademark something like a picture of the library that they themselves took.

Re:How about the DOS on the spam blacklists? by Tiram · 2004-10-11 21:14 · Score: 1

If I went to the Louvre and took a picture, I could use that, however, the Louvre won't let you take a picture of the same level of quality as Corbis.

IIRC, the reason they won't let you and everyone else who want a snapshot of the Mona Lisa take the picture in whatever way you like, is that all the flash would ruin the painting. Don't take my word for it, though -- I can't be bothered to google for sources to back me up right now:)
/me at work

--
The knuckles, the horrible knuckles!
(I'm a girl, you know)

Ownership of UCSD images by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 15:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

I worked for a company that printed stuff for some colleges. It turns out that most of these colleges and universities have trademarked lots of images, starting with the school mascot, emblem/coat of arms/logo/letterhead, on through many images of many of the buildings. They have turned the "management" of the trademarked images, that is, the collection of money for reproducing any part in any manner over to a company that specializes in doing this for colleges and, of course, makes its money by jealously guarding it all. We had to account for the distribution, sale or destruction of everything we printed for the college. Our company was responsible for paying the "Management" company. Whether the university ever got a penny back I have no idea. One possibility is that this company had the University's lawyers fire off the letter. The "trademark management" company might lose money if uppity students misuse some form of the university's trademarked stuff.

Sorry, wrong title by tstoneman · 2004-10-11 15:18 · Score: 1

Thanks Mozilla for remembering a title I of an comment I submitted months ago.

UC San Diego and censorship by tedit · 2004-10-11 15:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think that, at least for UC San Diego, this is particularly a matter of censorship of critical opinions, or even obscene content. In my four years at UCSD, there were a number of "free speech" rights incidents, and the university seems to be more concerned with protecting trademark rather than silencing any voices. For example:

1. The Koala: An associated student funded organization which constantly used its funds to print obscene material, including an issue called "The Jizzlam" featuring women in burqas superimposed on porn images. The paper has been accused of racism and anti-semitism many times over, and yet the UCSD administration has not shut it down despite the fact it is printed with student funds.

2. The Che Cafe linking fiasco. Details here in an article I wrote at the time. This is actually a DeCSS case where the university invoked the principle that hyperlinking to terrorist groups was tantomount to supporting terrorism, but ultimately backed down once it was clear that the Che was only linking to other groups and not hosting any material. The douse of national media attention probably helped a bit as well.

3. The UCSD Livejournal community. Embarresingly enough, I actually precipitated this one with this article. Shortly after this was written, the university demanded that the LJ community change it's name to the "unofficial UCSD livejournal community."

The consistent tone among all of this is that the university is willing to tolerate both terrorist and obscene content, and even content highly critical of the university (as is shown in many AS-funded student newspapers, along with the LJ community). What they are not fine with is:

1. Bad publicity - which is probably why they won't censor things based on content.

2. Being associated with any media: critical of the administration or not, without big "UNOFFICIAL" and "INDEPENDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY" stickers slapped on it, especially on the internet. This is because they do not want their trademark diluted, which is entirely understandable, because if they don't enforce it, they lose it.

The short response: things aren't always as simple as they seem. Not every large institution thinks stilfing dissent is the path to peace. The record shows the university isn't trying to muzzle anyone; it just wants to protect itself and its assets.

Re:UC San Diego and censorship by Brandybuck · 2004-10-11 16:10 · Score: 1

My how times have changed! Back when I was attending UCSD things were much different. The Koala was a parody newspaper whose most obscene moment was drawing a phallus on a photo of the sun god. And back then the Che Cafe most certainly WAS supporting terrorism.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:UC San Diego and censorship by dgatwood · 2004-10-11 18:08 · Score: 1

2. Being associated with any media: critical of the administration or not, without big "UNOFFICIAL" and "INDEPENDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY" stickers slapped on it, especially on the internet. This is because they do not want their trademark diluted, which is entirely understandable, because if they don't enforce it, they lose it.
That's not their decision to make. They have no right to enforce a trademark used in criticism or parody. Period. That is not within their rights under trademark law. If they try to sue on those grounds, it's called a SLAPP, and can be met with hefty legal penalties.
The University -only- can protect its trademarks against -commercial- use in areas in which it has explicitly registered those marks. For example, if they have registered that mark as a branding of apparel, they could sue someone making non-parody apparel with that mark (and by parody, "UCSD sucks" qualifies, as does the "Fuck Trojans" slogan someone mentioned, as clearly these could not possibly be mistaken as official UCSD merchandise).
The University needs to fire their lawyers and hire someone who understands trademark law. These sorts of frivolous legal actions can get them into serious trouble. The university doesn't actually have to file a suit to get hit with a defamation counter-suit, and if the uni -does- file a suit, they can get hit with a SLAPP-back that could be even more costly.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:UC San Diego and censorship by tedit · 2004-10-11 21:04 · Score: 1

I agree, ucsdsucks.com is clearly protected, because it is clearly criticism/parody. Youcsd.edu, however, is not, because it is not clearly parody (although the content itself most definetly is criticism). Copyright law does not protect a critic of McDonald's from registering mccdonalds.com and using it for criticism. Be careful about confusing the content of the site in question and the root-level domain that they have taken. They are afforded the protection of the former under the law, but the latter has far less protection because the domain by itself could be construed as misleading.
Re:UC San Diego and censorship by tedit · 2004-10-11 21:06 · Score: 1

Whoops, please note youcsd.com, rather than .edu above. I've typed in my alma mater's domain in far too many times.
Re:UC San Diego and censorship by dgatwood · 2004-10-12 04:43 · Score: 1

Mccdonalds might be misleading because some idiot might mistype it. Nobody with a brain bigger than a peanut is going to type in youcsd.com and expect to get ucsd.edu.
Further, the only way mccdonalds.com would be a problem would be if someone used it in commerce. Trademark law does not ever limit non-commercial use of a mark. Go read Title 15, Chapter 22, Subchapter III, Section 1125.
(a)(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--...
(b) Importation: not relevant
(c) Remedy for dilution of famous marks:...
(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
2)Noncommercial use of a mark.
3)All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
A domain name is no different from any other use of a mark, from a legal perspective. Take L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc. as precedent. They used the exact name of L.L. Bean in a parody advertisement. L.L. Bean still lost. The court ruled that they weren't parodying "sex in the woods", but were parodying L.L. Bean, and thus, use of the exact mark L.L. Bean was acceptable. With a variation on that mark, such as the case of youcsd.com, there is even -less- protection.
The name used does not have to be parody or criticism. The -exact- name of a trademark may be used in parody or criticism. It doesn't matter if it causes confusion. If it is criticism (even a criticism website set up by a competitor as long as it doesn't look like the competitor makes the trademarked product), parody, or any non-commercial use, it does not represent trademark dilution, and thus the trademark owner has no legal rights to take action against it. Period.
This isn't a grey area. It's spelled out in the applicable law, and is reinforced by hundreds of case law precedents. If UCSD sues, it is a SLAPP suit and should be handled accordingly. UCSD's lawyers would be utterly laughed out of court.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Thanks by shon · 2004-10-11 15:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I just registered fuckucsd.com just to fuck with them. Free speech and all that... Censorship really pisses me off.

Excercise your speech. www.fuckfrance.com

2 years? You've got nothing on me. by NotQuiteReal · 2004-10-11 15:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

I got the "your records were compromised" notice too. I haven't worked or attended in over 20 years!

WTF!

I have my little alumni "we're-begging-for-money" letter right in front of me. Maybe they won't be getting what they expect in the envelope.

If they have money to harrass web sites and store 20 year old sensitive data, they don't need my donation.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

Re:2 years? You've got nothing on me. by Dynedain · 2004-10-11 18:44 · Score: 1

I highly suggest you use that courtesy-reply envelope to tell the alumni donation fund exactly why you won't be donating this year.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....

Get it confiscated anywhere by xixax · 2004-10-11 15:44 · Score: 1

It would seem that it doesn' matter where the server is provided you can argue that it has *possible* links to terrorism, kidnapping or money laundering. Of course a civil case isn't going to count (maybe that's another reasn why RIAA are so keen on criminalising IP transgressions).

Xix.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

I can see where they are comming from... by jonwil · 2004-10-11 16:02 · Score: 1

Basicly, they dont want any sites that are critical of the university set up in such a way that people may think they are associated with UCSD.

I remember back in high school when I was going to a private cristian school (not because of religious reasons, but because it was a good school).

At one point, a friend of mine had a website on the school server and he put some stuff on there about his views on religion (something about atheisim or something) and the admins got annoyed (for obvious reasons) and he had to take it down.

The same would apply in any similar circumstance.

Re:I can see where they are comming from... by jonwil · 2004-10-11 20:34 · Score: 1

It may not be on a school server but people seeing a domain name like UCSDuncensored.com could assume that it is supported/endorsed/authorized/whatever by UCSD when in fact it is not.

This happens elsewhere too. For example, anyone using the trademarked name LEGO (of plastic building bricks fame) in a domain name will get hit with a lawsuit (again because of the confusion)

Photography and "actual police" by Kaseijin · 2004-10-11 16:13 · Score: 1

I thought that taking photos of any public building in the USA these days could result in arrest by the actual police?

No law explicitly authorizes such arrests. Citizens have been molested for photographing public buildings and threatened with arrest, but it's difficult to know when that's a reliable threat and when it's an empty scare tactic. One Mike Maginnis of Denver, Colorado claims he was arrested when he refused to surrender his film after taking pictures of and around a hotel where Vice-President Cheney was staying, but the Denver PD denies this, and nobody has corroborated his story.

Also, the UCPD are state police with limited jurisdiction. I don't know how it is in New Zealand, but this is typical of public universities over here.

Re:Photography and "actual police" by Kaseijin · 2004-10-12 06:31 · Score: 1

Visit http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/

Yes, you can be arrested for taking pictures of public structures.

I've read Mr. Spiers's story before, and I've just read it again now. He was harassed and intimidated but not arrested.

library pictures? by Xpresso85 · 2004-10-11 16:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hey, but the cops do stop you from taking pictures of the library...
(Rice, USCD... close enough) Rice University.

What trademark? by Animats · 2004-10-11 17:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

The only registered trademarks with "Geisel" in them relate to Ted Geisel of "Dr. Seuss" fame. They both are drawings, not word marks, and they're not pictures of that library.

California also has state trademark registration, but that's narrow, only applies to "goods and services", and you have to register with the state. There's even a specific clause intended to prevent the use of trademarks to suppress publications, at Business and Professions Code 14320.

(3) Injunctive relief is not available to the owner of the right infringed with respect to an issue of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or electronic communication containing infringing matter if restraining the dissemination of the infringing matter in any particular issue of the periodical or in an electronic communication would delay the delivery of the issue or transmission of the electronic communication after the regular time for delivery and the delay would be due to the method by which publication and distribution of the periodical or transmission of the electronic communication is customarily conducted in accordance with sound business practice, and not to any method or device adopted for the evasion of this section or to prevent or delay the issuance of an injunction or restraining order with respect to the infringing matter.

Also, California has a strong anti-SLAPP law.

Re:What trademark? by Animats · 2004-10-11 17:44 · Score: 1

And related to this, the "photograph of a trademarked building" issue has already been litigated., in "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum vs. Gentile". The photographer won on appeal. And he was selling a poster of the building, in competition with a poster sold by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

In other news by strider44 · 2004-10-11 17:59 · Score: 1

In other news, police have arrested several people after taking pictures of the University of California library.

technically the UCSD blogring by tsunamifirestorm · 2004-10-11 18:25 · Score: 1

doesn't have the letters "UCSD" in the actual URL so it probably will be ok. (well i know UC won't care about xangas anyway).

Photographing architecture by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-10-11 18:34 · Score: 1

Most photogs I know are wary of selling photos of buildings without expressed permission, but it is in fact completely legal.

According to the Copyright Act (1976), Section 120(a) -- Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

(a) Pictorial representations permitted.

The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
(emphasis mine)

Free speech? by gotr00t · 2004-10-11 19:24 · Score: 1

The UC regents are just as conservative as the leadership of any private school. It's just that in the 60's they were forced to concede free speech due to a massive student movement.

UC tolerates free speech, it does not support it. Pretty much everything related to free speech on the UC Berkeley campus, minus a few historical plaques here and there, are student run. Even the Free Speech Movement Cafe (on campus) is not technically affiliated with the university.

that's pretty irrelevant though by Trepidity · 2004-10-11 20:28 · Score: 1

Trademarks are only for specific purposes. Unless they can argue that this site was using the trademark in a way that competes with the university (i.e. they started another university and used it as their logo), then I don't see how trademark law would apply. There is no likelihood of confusion between the two entities, as one is a university and one is some kid's website that is clearly not a university.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:that's pretty irrelevant though by GoofyBoy · 2004-10-12 02:18 · Score: 1

Trademarks are for identity and branding purposes. I can't make a car called Pepsi or a type of drink named McDonalds.

You don't have to show that something competes with another company, just that there a good chance for confusion.

The World Wrestling Federation changed their name to WWE because of the World Wildlife Fund. It was a trademark issue and you would have make a pretty clever argument to say that the two companies competed with each other.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

Terror fearmongering... by EmagGeek · 2004-10-11 21:56 · Score: 1

"What's next, campus police stopping people from taking pictures of the library?"

Exactly... see, terrorists often take pictures of buildings that they plan to attack, so if they see you taking pictures of the library, they will just cart you off, deny you due process, lock you up, and throw away the key - well, they'll ship you off to some foreign country where torture is legal, first..

Re:Terror fearmongering... by snap-hiss · 2004-10-12 01:59 · Score: 1

Patriot Act

--

"Yeah, a shrink ray! Just like that time on Muppet Babies!"

No corporation pays any tax, you pay it all. by Shivetya · 2004-10-11 22:04 · Score: 1

I am so tired of idiots who harp on the issue of corporate taxes. Just like my brother in laws small business and my cousins small business there are no taxes paid by corporations.

It all comes out of the end consumers pocket. That tax my relatives pay for their business? Tacked on to their normal bill disguised as normal business cost.

Guess what, big corporations do that too. That new car you want that cost 25K? Hate to tell you, but all the corporate tax the automotive company paid is EMBEDDED in each car they sell.

So before getting on some stupid soapbox crying how big corporations are not paying their fair share realize just who pays that fair share.

Money for paying taxes is not something that corporations find coming out of thin air, it only comes from one source, their custoemers.

Nader is just an idiot, he like other politicians relies on the general ignorance of the American public. What sounds good is not necessarily true. Just like "evil corporations" paying taxes sounds good it doesn't mean it is.

EMBEDDED taxes. The easiest way to lull ignorant people into paying even MORE of their income to the ever wastes government.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:No corporation pays any tax, you pay it all. by Cybrr · 2004-10-11 22:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you're saying the rich won't pocket the money they save, but sell their products cheaper in order to crush competitors?

I'm all for this if it means quality products and less harmful waste.

--
Why did GEAR crush RDP?

Same thing happend at SIU...Southern IL University by pflloyd · 2004-10-12 00:26 · Score: 1

When I was an undergrad at Southern Illinois University several student started a website (siunightlife.com) I think and the school shut time down.

More Lieing Nonsense About "Rights" by reallocate · 2004-10-12 00:57 · Score: 1

These stupid alleged 'rights" post are getting boring.

First, why the frequent reference to police? Can't Slashdot's crack uneditorial team tell the difference between civil and criminal law? More likely, they deliberately toss that in just to stir up more pageviews.

There's no reason to say that USCD is a trademark the school "claims" to own. It's a matter of public record. Look it up. (Of course, Slashdot is too damned lazy and incompetent to do that.) By using the word "claims", Slashdot is deliberately and falsely creating the impression the USCD is lieing about the trademark.

Trademake stories are a favorite here, trumpeted as being about "rights". That's bogus, of course. If USCD is trademarked, then no one else has nay right to use it. The only way Slashdot can argue that this is about rights is to argue that the concept of trademark itself is invalid. OSTG's corporate lawers, however, might have something to say about that.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:More Lieing Nonsense About "Rights" by snap-hiss · 2004-10-12 01:56 · Score: 1

I agree. The school has every right to protect their image. Their motives may be questionable, and the person is obviously being targeted because of their site's content, but the school has the legal ability to do what it's doing.

--

"Yeah, a shrink ray! Just like that time on Muppet Babies!"
Re:More Lieing Nonsense About "Rights" by reallocate · 2004-10-12 05:50 · Score: 1

What free speech rights have been violated? If they, or you, think trademark registration is unConstitutional and violates the First Amendment, find some lawyers who agree and sue.

No one is telling the people who run that site what they can or cannot say. Some is telling them that they are violating a trademark. Whether this is true or not we will never learn from Slashdot, since Slashdot has no respect for journalistic ethics or the truth.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:More Lieing Nonsense About "Rights" by reallocate · 2004-10-12 05:54 · Score: 1

I'm not especially in favor of universities going after websites and publications that criticize the school, but these folks are naive if they imagine that the school won't happily use the tool -- trademark violation -- that has been given to them.

That's especially true if the site uses any university facilities -- server space, network bandwidth, space on a dormitory floor, etc.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Byzantium also by Cardbox · 2004-10-12 01:27 · Score: 1

... divided people into "honestiores" and "humiliores": penalties were greater for the former.

In fact this is surprisingly common throughout history: a correlative of the variation of weregild depending on the status of the person harmed/killed. Until the professionals got in on the act, justice did more or less mean justice.

Who's this "Eisenhauer" guy? by fizbin · 2004-10-12 01:39 · Score: 1

I admit that I'm usually above the base spelling troll, but seriously.

I mean, come on.

Funny thing is, lawyers are hurting UCSD's image by Linuxathome · 2004-10-12 02:07 · Score: 1

What's worse from a public relations standpoint? Having thousands upon thousands of people reading that UCSD is threatening litigation against these sites via a post on slashdot or having whatever trickle of people end up reading the criticisms on those "banned" sites? I hope the university weighed the consequences of their actions before going after the sites. In all honesty, how many of you prospective students would decide to go to a university where you knew they'd sic their dogs on you if you said something they didn't like?

--
Linux at home

lucasnursery.com Circuit Court of Appeal by Garry+Anderson · 2004-10-12 02:08 · Score: 1

Perhaps lawyers and judges should be more concerned with how the Law is being violated by trademark holder to .

For example - the overreaching of trademark rights against tribute or criticism sites - to bully the law abiding registrant of domain.

Please check out court case in America - lucasnursery.com:

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this domain did not violate the law when female owner used the name of Lucas Nursery for a Web site she created to complain about them.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Here is another:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

www.WIPO.org.uk
World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)

Many Happy Returns by virg_mattes · 2004-10-12 02:12 · Score: 1

> The law will provide little cover for a student being critical of the faculty. Even if he is technicaly in the right in this case, he'll be hammered for the least little thing in the future.

If he wins the lawsuit and stuff like this begins happening to him, he'll have good grounds for charges of retaliation, and judges take a startlingly dim view of that sort of thing. One of my classmates had the same thing happen at college, and the head of the Residence Life office ended up going to jail for thirty days as a result.

Virg

Wrong Response by virg_mattes · 2004-10-12 02:15 · Score: 1

> if you were a hunter and one time you killed a deer... then the national media posted a picture of you and had an article about how you were a murderer and people should not converse with you (without mentioning at all what you murdered)... I think you might change your mind.

That situation doesn't fit his comment. There's no state in the U.S. where killing a deer is legally considered "murder", so by calling him a murderer for killing a deer, they're committing libel, which is legally actionable.

Virg

Re:Wrong Response by FLEB · 2004-10-12 03:59 · Score: 1

s/murder/kill/g probably.

--
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.

If the image of the Geisel Library is so important by Fortran+IV · 2004-10-12 02:25 · Score: 1

to UCSD, then youCSD.com should create a wide-angle campus photo with the library photoshopped out, and use that as their banner.

--
I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.

In Other News UCSD... by Fuzzy_The_Quantum_Du · 2004-10-12 02:43 · Score: 1

... Is also waging war on the student operated Co-ops.

The co-ops are the Che Cafe, a popular counterculture hangout; Groundwork Books, a bookstore with eclectic, leftist selections; the General Store Co-op, which features notebooks, sweat shirts and snacks; and the Food Co-op, which sells organic and health foods.

Each operates as a nonprofit, funneling any profits back into operations.

These Co-ops have been around for 30 years, and are quite popular with the students.

An attorney who has battled the administration on behalf of the co-ops in the past decade, said this is the university's latest attempt to eliminate the co-ops, which are less lucrative for UCSD than commercial businesses.

"This is the third major attempt by the administration to eviscerate the co-ops," said attorney Lottie Cohen of Los Angeles. "The administration wants control and money."

=0) Fuzzy The Quantum Duck

Starbucks anyone? by eformo · 2004-10-12 03:50 · Score: 2, Informative

"What's next, campus police stopping people from taking pictures of the library?"

Starbucks has policies doing essentially that. You are not allowed to take photos, because one of your photos might include an image that is trademarked by Starbucks Inc.

I learned this when I tried taking a photo once (At a Beijing location), and have had that confirmed at two other locations (in LA)

-ex

Re:Funny thing is, lawyers are hurting UCSD's imag by Inebrius · 2004-10-12 03:59 · Score: 1

It's not just about students deciding where they want to go, although that does have some impact. I was following a Cal Poly case where the university was attempting to punish a student whose speech some individuals disagreed with and wanted to silence. The university, not being able to charge the student for his speech, held an unfair judicial hearing charging the student with "disrupting a meeting" when no such thing happened. Luckily, the student decided to stand up for his rights. Eventually, the bad publicity caused the university to drop the charges. http://www.thefire.org/pr.php?doc=cal_poly_ongoing _injustice.html When the university called me up asking for alumni donations, I declined. I was going to support the university, but knowing how much money they wasted to persecute someone, I can't in good conscience send support any more. If more alumni are informed and join the students in support, the bad publicity will eventually force the university to cave. It also helps to have someone on your side, www.thefire.org , to help get your side out in the media.

On censorship by Cybrr · 2004-10-12 04:41 · Score: 1

It is, though.

--
Why did GEAR crush RDP?

This happened to my school by jonhuang · 2004-10-12 04:42 · Score: 1

This happened to my school, Claremont Mckenna.
A student registered claremontmckenna.com, and started posting news articles critical of the administration.

They were sued for trademark violation.. but then they actually took it to court and won the case; countersued; and eventually settled. (the site is now cmcstudents.com)

Re:This happened to my school by jonhuang · 2004-10-12 04:44 · Score: 1

hate to reply to myself, but realized my post was ambiguous. the STUDENTS won the case, and changed the name as part of the settlement that granted them a 50k operating budget over 10 years, 3 grant porgrams established in their name, and a cover story in the alumi magazine about how great they were!

Still the Same by virg_mattes · 2004-10-12 08:32 · Score: 1

> s/murder/kill/g probably.

That would still be libel. By labelling you a "killer" without qualifying it, it would be simple to convince a judge that they damaged your reputation by deception. They'd have to recant it, which would eliminate their credibility, and would have to recompense you for the damage they did to your reputation, the price of which is left to the imagination.

Virg

Slashdot Mirror

UCSD Vs. Free Speech, Round 2

215 of 296 comments (clear)