Slashdot Mirror
UCSD Vs. Free Speech, Round 2
Suburbanpride writes "Last year, as Slashdot readers may remember, the University of California, San Diego forced student website UCSDuncensored to change its name to SDuncensored, citing California education code that gives it exclusive rights to the name. This year, the target is youCSD, a student blog that has been critical of the administration. The university denies that the site's content had anything to do with the nastygram they received, which informed them that were in violation for not only the name, but for an image they took of the Geisel Library, which the university claims to hold a trademark on. There are dozens of sites that use UCSD in the name, not to mention the 1000+ members of the UCSD xanga blogring. What's next, campus police stopping people from taking pictures of the library?"
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
Californication
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
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
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
And playing with the Universities bandwidth hurts who?
Not likely anyone who's responsible for the censorship.
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.
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).
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!
... 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/
For more on censorship in California public universities, view this excellent documentary:
(download links on site)
http://academicbias.com/bw101.html
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)
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...
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
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.
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?
no, the uc belongs to the the uc board of regeants - a trust.
It's cheaper to let Slashdot take it down than to pay lawyers to do it.
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
I think they meant copyrighted, but whatever.
Assuming:
...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
"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.
Copyright, Trademarks, Corporate self interest and greed are the laws of the land.
/. posts an article such as this.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Their site is hosted in Germany, according to campus press coverage, which is how they've managed to remain anonymous.
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.
Hey, but the cops do stop you from taking pictures of the library...
(Rice, USCD... close enough) Rice University.
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.
Also, California has a strong anti-SLAPP law.
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?
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