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
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.
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).
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.
... 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
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.
*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.
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...
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?
It's cheaper to let Slashdot take it down than to pay lawyers to do it.
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.
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 andAnyway 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.'"
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.
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.
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.