Slashdot Mirror


Teacher Fired for P2P Lecture

An anonymous reader writes "A teacher at the Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain, was forced to resign after a talk about P2P networks. You can read his side of the story on his blog." From the article: "The day before the conference, the Dean (pressured by the Spanish Recording Industry Association 'Promusicae' as I found out later, and he recognized himself in a quote to the national newspaper El Pais, and even the Motion Picture Association of America, as another newspaper quotes) tried to stop it by denying permission to use the scheduled venue. So I scheduled a second one, and that was denied again. And a third time. Finally I gave the conference on the university cafeteria, for 5 hours, in front of 150 people." Commentary on this story at BoingBoing as well.

749 comments

  1. To make the lecture worth it... by FlyByPC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...he should have ended it with "I'll probably be fired for this, so each of you go tell everybody you know." Or something to that effect.

    How are you going to suppress a n^x communication growth curve?

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      But as far as we can tell, he didn't. He needed a "trackerless" lecture system.

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    2. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *snicker* Good one.

    3. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...he should have ended it with "I'll probably be fired for this, so each of you go tell everybody you know." Or something to that effect.

      Just as you should have preceded your comment with "I'll probably get modded down for this..." in order to get moderated higher.

    4. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Optali · · Score: 5, Informative

      He indeed did.

      The fact is that as a result he's got a real lot of publicity. And now he is on tour like a rock-star, LOL.

      The situation is Spain is somewhat different as in the rest of the world:

      We have a monster called SGAE:

      It's kinda mixture of trade union, governmental department and private enterprise (?), which acts as a lobby group for EMI-Odeon Spain, as an obligatory trade-union (authors must pay fees to them so that they can see a cent from their IP), does music production as a private enterprise (it's partly responsible for the infamous "Latin Grammies"), fights against piracy, pirates copyrighted stuff from the spanish Wikipedia and at the same time runs an online music store, lobbys for non-related stuff such as an internet driving license and gets fees for public broadcast of public television and music bands which are not members of the SGAE.

      MPAA should be concerned, as those guys also get payd for the IP of "unknown" artists, this means anybody which is potentially non-spaniard.

      Now they are even getting money from a blank media 'tax' (30% of a CD or DVD's price), a 'tax' which is paid even by the Spanish administration itself (!)

      So, we Spaniards can be cosidered a dumb bunch, but in matters of robbery and piracy those guys are Number One.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    5. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Optali · · Score: 1

      > anybody which is potentially non-spaniard.
      Potentially anybody which is non-Spaniard.

      Sorry :P

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    6. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by mforbes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > > anybody which is potentially non-spaniard. > Potentially anybody which is non-Spaniard. Potentially anyone who is non-Spaniard. Sorry :p

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    7. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Wile_E_Peyote · · Score: 1

      ...he should have ended it with "I'll probably be fired for this, so each of you go tell everybody you know." Or something to that effect.

      Ah, the old-fashioned P2P network...
    8. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by chesterjosiah · · Score: 1

      This story has already been covered by over 400 Spanish bloggers, national radio stations, magazines and newspapers. But nobody seems to have noticed this outside Spain. Could you please help me spread the word outside Spain?

      Wanna spread the word to the US? Just /. it.

    9. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      That sounds horrific. How do they manage to get money for non-spanish artists. You don't just mean through the blank media tax, do you?

      And Internet Driving Licence? Please tell me you are joking? How can that possibly work?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    10. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Olaserov · · Score: 1

      Actually, wouldn't it be a logistic growth curve?

      --
      * Olaserov is in the process of thinking up a signature.
    11. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Albio · · Score: 1

      Actually, wouldn't it be a logistic growth curve?

      Logarithmic?

    12. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Optali · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Partly: Those guys are IP-right holders. They represent authors and editors and act as intermediary in transactions between customers such as online stores and the music industry.

      They get a fee from the authors as their legal representants and also get fees from the customer who would like to use these rights. Finally they get a percentage of the IP earnings (of record sales and repertoire use in broadcasts and live shows). A big byte of the IP income belongs to 'unknown authors': this means that as long as the author is not there to be paid for his/her IP it's the SGAE which cashes this money. I can remember that the percentage was near 3-10% of the total amount, which is a lot of money anyway, tens of thausands of Euro-bucks which go into no-one-knows who's pockets. So that every foreign artist which sells music in Spain or is being braodcast in the Spanish media will not see a cent if her record company doesn't has an agreement with the SGAE. This counts for almost any smaller indy or single artist as we are normally talking about bulk agreements with big US companies. There have already been two cases of the German record industry against the SGAE (the weirdness has no end, sorry for your brains). To keep it simple: They get money from all and every IP transaction related to music, theater and other media which occurs inside the Spanish territory. And they also has subsidiaries in South America and the USA...

      The blank-media 'tax' is indeed a fee for permitting the private copy of IPed stuff, the result is divided among the SGAE itself and the companies with which they have an agreement. As it is indeed a tax on IP, there are also evading payment of all those whose IP is being used and are 'unknown' to the SGAE. This not only involves musicians, but also the software industry in all its forms, from Free Software, where users have to pay for the media to burn an ISO of her favorite distro, to propietary software as they are also charging for the media used to store backup copies and data.

      It's very very difficult to try to explain to a stranger how this madhouse really works and why those guys are doing their will instead of being in jail.

      If you are wondering why we Spaniards aren't storming the streets armed to the teeth right now and shooting those bastard politicians and lobbysts back to hell, the only thing I can tell you is "me too"...

      And Internet Driving Licence?

      Nop, I wasn't joking at all, here's the link: Spanish: P. Farré demands the end of intenet anonymity

      This guys is the second-in-charge in the SGAE, a really smart guy, as you can imagine, who seems to think the internet only exists in Spain.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    13. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that's fair enough, I often don't capitolize the names of nations, as that's the habit in mexico (and spain, so I thought).

    14. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    15. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awh, stop it, it hurts!

    16. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we can to be calm, because the "defensor del pueblo" (citizen defender) request a months ago to limit the internet privacy.

      Yes, the "citizen defender"...

      (sorry for my bad english)

    17. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 0
      So, we Spaniards can be cosidered a dumb bunch, but in matters of robbery and piracy those guys are Number One.

      Hombre, runlevel0, tampoco nos pongas asi :)

      ______
      Pablo Diaz, AKA Riviera.

    18. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Logarithmic is y = ln(x), whereas parent is talking about y = n^x style growth...

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    19. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Optali · · Score: 1

      "Ombudsman" IMHO this is related to the new EU-Comission's Directive on data retention. Perhaps all this noise is a way to make see there is a certain level of concernment within the Spanish society so that they have a reason to agree to the Directive and the provisions for data retention. I'm quite sure that there are also a lot of this kind of noise in the rest of the UE. As of Germany, there are also a good bunch of wacky lobbying like govenrment access to medical data, even dental-care records so that (in words of privacy defnders)'they can detect a terrorist by he's caries'... Kewl! good old Europe is getting nutz!

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    20. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      How are you going to suppress a n^x communication growth curve?

      By attemtping to divide by zero.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    21. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by vistic · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'll probably get modded down for this...

      but you should have taken your own advice and preceded your own comment...

    22. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone, go back to barrapunto right now! :)

    23. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Uhmmm...I assume 'conflict of interest' doesn't translate too well into spanish?

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    24. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nop, I wasn't joking at all, here's the link: Spanish: P. Farré demands the end of intenet anonymit
      Sounds like someone should "leak" Sr. Farré's "driver's licence" info onto the net so everyone can share in his name...
    25. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by tepples · · Score: 1

      The blank-media 'tax' is indeed a fee for permitting the private copy of IPed stuff, the result is divided among the SGAE itself and the companies with which they have an agreement. As it is indeed a tax on IP, there are also evading payment of all those whose IP is being used and are 'unknown' to the SGAE.

      Anything sent over the Internet is "IPed", as the Internet uses Internet Protocol, or IP for short. What did you mean? If you meant the confusing term "intellectual property", which conflates copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and rights of publicity, then does this recordable media tax grant immunity from patent and trade secret liability incurred as part of private copying?

    26. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

      It's actually more like a

      y=tan^-1 x

      relationship

      --
      Does it go on forever?
    27. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

      No. Dividing by zero would increase the number of people who know. As x approaches zero, y tends to infinity, unless you use a different funtion to represent the growth... ie

      y = tan^-1 x

      --
      Does it go on forever?
    28. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by phobos13013 · · Score: 1

      How are you going to suppress a n^x communication growth curve?

      Easy! Make n=1

      --
      ...and it should be known by now
    29. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "conflict of interest" translates as "conflicto de intereses". Quite straightforward.

    30. Re:To make the lecture worth it... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Short form for "under Intelectual Property right", "Copyrighted","Patented"... Your right, "Intellectual Property" is not only confusing but contradictory. I was just trying to write as fast as I could and used the first which came to my mind.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  2. Techinical Point by gowen · · Score: 3, Informative

    He wasn't fired. He (claims he) was pressurised into resigning. I ain't making any judgement or saying anything else until I've heard an account of events from someone less close to the controversy.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Techinical Point by Danuvius · · Score: 5, Funny
      He wasn't fired. He (claims he) was pressurised into resigning. I ain't making any judgement or saying anything else until I've heard an account of events from someone less close to the controversy.
      I'm quite certain that "having his contents confined under a pressure greater than that of the outside atmosphere" was not his reason for resigning.

      Being pressured, however, may have have had something to do with it.

      - The Word Police
      --
      Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
    2. Re:Techinical Point by Threni · · Score: 1

      Still, at least he has more time available to update his blog, should he decide that's a worthwile use of his spare time.

    3. Re:Techinical Point by databyss · · Score: 1

      I am less close to the controversy.

      I tell you he was pressured into resigning.

      You have s/heard/read/ it.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    4. Re:Techinical Point by gowen · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Also, I mispelled technical.

      And I mispelled "misspelled" ... twice

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    5. Re:Techinical Point by guitaristx · · Score: 1

      When I read the GP, I had a mental image of a professor in glasses and a necktie being squished in a trash compactor until he finally said, "Okay, okay! I'll resign!" Figuratively, it's almost correct usage.

      --
      I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    6. Re:Techinical Point by gowen · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean that much less close ;)

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    7. Re:Techinical Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was obviously ready to quit from the beginning. If repeatedly denying him a venue wasn't enough pressure, what other pressure could be applied to make him resign? He knew the score the whole time. The whole thing was to make his point and leave.

    8. Re:Techinical Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but pressurized is much funnier than technical and misspelled in the context in which you put it. Everyone makes a spelling mistake, but when you make a funny one, don't get upset when people bring it up. Giggle along with the rest of us. It's fun!

    9. Re:Techinical Point by databyss · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm not that reliable of a source either. I already forgot the guys name :)

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    10. Re:Techinical Point by gowen · · Score: 1

      Oh, I was laughing.
      I thought the correction I received was very funny indeed.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    11. Re:Techinical Point by miodekk · · Score: 1
      I am sure it varies a lot in different countries. Here in Poland it is extremally difficult to fire a public university teacher. Even if he/she does something illegal, do not come to lectures etc. It may take sometimes even a few years to fire someone. Really!

      It's a lot easier to convince someone to resign.

      Regards

    12. Re:Techinical Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While you're at it, word police, nab this guy too:


      Then they "resign", but it's tenamount to firing.

      I believe it's Tantamount.

    13. Re:Techinical Point by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think is generally a good point about any hot-button controversy: reserve judgement until the facts come out.

      Of course, we should be very concerned about the allegations. If true they represent a serious breach of academic freedom. If the researcher is crying wolf, then, deservedly, his career is at an end.

      It's a bit curious though. If we take his story at face value, he resigned rather than face the various nasty things a hostile dean could do to his life. On the other hand, he clearly means to fight this, otherwise why stir up the hornet's nest? It must therefore be the case that his resignation was tactical in nature. This would mean, depending on which conclusion you wish to jump to, one of two things. Either he felt that fighting it through administrative channels would leave him vulnerable to being painted him as somebody who is griping about the normal committee gruntwork of being an untenured prof. Alternatively, he is fabricating this to conver his unwillingness to do his duties.

      It's also possible that both parties are wrong: the dean violated academic freedom, but this was the last straw in a pattern of misbehaving.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:Techinical Point by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Funny
      He wasn't fired. He (claims he) was pressurised into resigning.
      Why didn't he just open his mouth?
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    15. Re:Techinical Point by Optali · · Score: 1

      This whole spelling thread reminds me of a Monty Python sketch, LOL.

      Kewl

      BTW, te original poster, the teacher and me are all Spaniards, and in JC's and my case we are neither Spanish-speakers as we are from the Valencian/Catalonian zone (Yes, Spain is this weird)...

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    16. Re:Techinical Point by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      He did!
      Check his website: do you know any better way to open his mouth than the ways he's using?

    17. Re:Techinical Point by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      If we take his story at face value, he resigned rather than face the various nasty things a hostile dean could do to his life.

      It's probably bad form to point this out, but the above shows pretty clearly that you haven't actually read the story. He didn't resign because he was threatened. He said that he resigned because his dean and his department were threatened. I believe he says that it was pretty clear that his boss would lose his job if he stayed there doing what he was doing.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    18. Re:Techinical Point by mustangsal66 · · Score: 1

      I think is generally a good point about any hot-button controversy: reserve judgement until the facts come out.

      Reserve Judgement until the facts come out?? Where do you think we are? This is Slashdot... Sheesh, next he'll want us to actually read the article before posting...

      For those who have moved your /dev/funny-bone to /dev/null... I'm not serious... It's a sad day when you have to add a disclaimer to a joke...
      Welcome to slashdot.

      --
      Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
      Sig changed for readability by G.W.
    19. Re:Techinical Point by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't take offence.

      It's just that the story doesn't really make sense to me. Maybe its a cultural difference, but it seems hard to believe that this situation is not far worse for the dean than geting into a pissing match with some movie companies. In the universities over here, the dean might be forced to resign if he was complicit with an outside party in restricting academic freedom. It's resigning and making a stink about it than seems a bit odd.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:Techinical Point by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Actually, now I've gone and done it too. It wasn't the Dean that would have lost his job, it was the lecturer's immediate boss and and his masters colleagues that would have gone. It was the dean that told the lecturers boss to get rid of him.

      As to why the Dean buckled under, I'm likewise a little confused by that, but I'm assured that the threat of major auditing and investigation and strings being pulled regarding funding were more than enough to threaten him with. From what the spanish guy around here, their equivalent of the RIAA is very powerful.

      Regardless, if their intention was to stop him demonstrating the legality of P2P networks, then it's backfired quite spectacularly. Good! :D

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    21. Re:Techinical Point by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      I would dare say you speak/write english better than the majority of native english speakers in this forum... :)

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  3. People are pussies. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Have some balls. Stick up for yourself.

    Most importantly: stop fucking resigning if you do shit that others don't agree with. Fuck what they think.

    Give them the fucking finger and tell them to get over it and kiss your ass.

    Simple, really.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    1. Re:People are pussies. by Scruffeh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it was as simple as that then very few people would ever be pressurised into resigning. However, if they make your job (and subsequently your life) unbearable then you have to weigh up whether it is worth it. In many cases it wont be. If the guy had the balls to do the lecture in the cafe after it was cancelled twice then I doubt he was a pushover as you seem to be implying.

    2. Re:People are pussies. by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes the grief you can get from standing up for yourself at the wrong time isn't worth it at that moment.

      Sometimes its better to wait to make your case...

      Spending the next 6 months in prison to make your point ( or dead ) even if you are right, isn't cool. Especially when postponing your 'statement' a little will keep you outside.

      Proper timing is everything. Especially when you have a life to lead, and a family to support.

      And in this case he's getting his word out, and saved his financial butt in the process.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:People are pussies. by forgetmenot · · Score: 1

      Oh sure... then he'd be fired for certain.

      People in power don't kiss ass and resent the suggestion to do so.

    4. Re:People are pussies. by niiler · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Easier said than done.

      First, it would have cost the university a software audit. "Who cares?" you say. This would undoubtedly turn up something on someone's machine that was illegal, and the university would be fined. Then the university would make damn sure that this guy never worked anywhere in academia ever again.

      So, if you are prepared to deal with this sort of thing, it's not a big deal. Stand up for your rights. But, unless you want to lose your job anyway and then not get hired elsewhere, it's best to resign.

      Unfortunately, as previous posters have noted, that's the way it works in academia.

    5. Re:People are pussies. by froghermit · · Score: 0

      There are reasons why someone would resign instead of just get fired. For example, if someone gets fired, they most likely lose all kinds of benefits and gets a bad reputation because he was fired. If instead the person resigns, he most likely get his benefits and doesn't leave the workplace with as bad of a reputation as getting fired.

    6. Re:People are pussies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, Internet Tough Guy.

    7. Re:People are pussies. by gebbeth · · Score: 2, Funny
      Spending the next 6 months in prison to make your point ( or dead ) even if you are right, isn't cool. Especially when postponing your 'statement' a little will keep you outside.

      But its ok to spend a year dead for tax reasons :).


      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    8. Re:People are pussies. by Kupek · · Score: 1

      Tough talk. But it wasn't your quality of life on the line.

    9. Re:People are pussies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, Internet Pussy.

    10. Re:People are pussies. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 0, Troll

      How does my post get marked flamebait?

      Because it's the fucking truth?

      Seriously, all the people fucking resign after doing pretty trivial shit. If people had guts, they would stick to their beliefs and fight tooth and nail for what they believe in.

      Instead we get a group of talkers that, when put on the line, cower away and back down from what is important.

      The loss of self-dignity is a tough thing to live with.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    11. Re:People are pussies. by sloth+jr · · Score: 1
      And in this case he's getting his word out, and saved his financial butt in the process

      He was forced to resign. Hard to see how that saves him financially in any way.
    12. Re:People are pussies. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      There are laws against that, you know.

      The guy made a speech, therefore they're gonna make sure he never works again? Don't think so.

      That'd bad news fro the university, not for him. You actually get nice settlements from people trying to blackball others and destroy their careers.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    13. Re:People are pussies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to anymore - they've got to being in power, so they get their asses kissed (and they don't like it when people refuse to pucker-up)

    14. Re:People are pussies. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      In my area, when you get fired you lose many benefits on the way out the door.

      If you resign, you do retain some, and you dont have that big black mark on your record.

      It may not be much in some cases, but there is a difference.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    15. Re:People are pussies. by MrByte420 · · Score: 1

      Your an expert at Spanish Law?

      --
      If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
    16. Re:People are pussies. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      My an expert at spanish law? No, it might be yours though.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  4. I don't get it by shreevatsa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just don't get it. Why should talking about P2P networks be considered illegal, and why was he forbidden in the first place? Of course, after being forbidden once, he should have fought with the authorities and argued his case until he got permission, not ignored them and gone on to speak.

    1. Re:I don't get it by object88 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why should talking about P2P networks be considered illegal...

      It's not, and it was never suggested that it was. What was suggested was that his lecture was so disliked by individuals in power, because they don't want people to get the idea that P2P systems have legitimate uses, that he was coerced into resigning. The penalty for not resigning would have been a total crackdown on his entire department. He chose to resign to save the department that pain. And in return for that "favor", his 5 years of teaching is not even being recognized.

      and why was he forbidden in the first place?

      See above. The university administration, under coercion by the Spanish Recording Industry Association and the MPAA (I think-- I didn't quite understand that bit), didn't want the population at large to see that P2P is a valid and legal tool, as that would damage their fight against piracy.

    2. Re:I don't get it by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      It's the real world intruding on the ideal world. In other words, politics behind the scenes.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    3. Re:I don't get it by joe2doe · · Score: 1

      You really don't get it that's why you should get permission from the "authorities" before posting such a stupid comment like this. (he ignored an obvious restraint to SPEAK give me a fricking break)

    4. Re:I don't get it by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      Here, take mine --> break

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    5. Re:I don't get it by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 1

      Altough it would be ridicilous today someone to be fired for speaking about legalizing prostitution, that would be actually a good reason to get fired in XIX century. Today, with all presure from **AAs and other IP lords it is a great herecy to speak about potentional legality of P2P networks, so you get fired.

      Actually we haven't advanced a single step from the fake morality of XIX century.

      --
      No sig today.
    6. Re:I don't get it by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      By firing this guy, the university makes it seem like it has something to hide.

      If the spanish recording association didn't give a damn before, they do now.

    7. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MPAA (I think-- I didn't quite understand that bit) Well, you are aware of the fact, that the MPAA does bully people/institutions outside the USA?

    8. Re:I don't get it by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      We just have different flavors AND American Idol.

      I love devolution.

    9. Re:I don't get it by mahmud · · Score: 1
      Bad analogy.

      Prostitution is harmful to health (STDs, violent pimps, emotional handicap of many prostitutes).

      Right to fair use, on the other hand, isn't.

    10. Re:I don't get it by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Prostitution is harmful to health (STDs, violent pimps, emotional handicap of many prostitutes)."

      CRIMINALIZED prostitution makes pimps and slaves, not legalized prostitution. Not to mention impoverished prostitutes. The emotional damage is caused by pimps, johns who can't be found or charged, police that don't care, and the fact that the women are de facto slaves with no escape route.

      Legalized prostitution, done right, eliminates pimps, who exist outside the law, makes prostitutes rich, if they handle the money right, and empowers the woman rather than enslaves her, because she's a volunteer, being highly paid, rather than a chained and abused slave.

      The major reason why women couldn't sell sex legally in our history is this: they'd be rich and independent, and that was NOT to be allowed by men, period. After all, they are the sole providers of a highly valued commodity.

      Illegal prostitution gave men the ability to take the women's money away, in one form or another: by artificially lowering the price, by inserting male middlemen who could use their physical or political power to take a huge cut, and turning the business into a slave market.

    11. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely right. He should have stood his ground, and let the issues be dealt with in public. The department should have supported him throughout. This dismissal reflects negatively on the academic organization that is bendable to prejudiced intentions.

    12. Re:I don't get it by joncue · · Score: 1

      Talking about P2P networks isn't illegal (at least in the USA, maybe Spain is different). My suspicion is that the university didn't want anyone on their payroll to be endorsing illegal activity (which obviously happens on P2P networks). It would be similar to someone inciting a riot, only without the physical harm and property damage, only monotary damage. The university may also have been afraid of lawsuits because they gave the teacher resources (time, place, etc.) to encourage using P2P for distribution of copyrighted material. Like it or not (I don't) it is illegal to distribute music, movies, etc without permission.

      I do wish that /. would have posted the other side of this instead of just the link to the teacher's blog where only his side is brought out. It would have been nice to have an opposing point of view to see if there were other circumstances surrounding the pressured resignation.

    13. Re:I don't get it by Beatbyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually they were pressured to be audited for licenses of software/media and to lose all future benefits of gifts from certain organizations.

    14. Re:I don't get it by mahmud · · Score: 1
      A friend who frequently uses services of working girls (and is friends with some of them) told me that the emotional handicap is still there, even if the other problems don't exist - prostitues have trouble getting romantically attached.

      Sexuality is a complex thing, and it's tied to person's psyche in very delicate ways, hence prostitutes may still be harming themselves.

      But anyway, my point wasn't that prostitution is evil, or that prostitutes don't get some perks from their occupation. The point was that you can't compare something potentially harmful to something harmless and even necessary (like P2P).

      Anyway, this is going way off-topic:)

    15. Re:I don't get it by featherbottom · · Score: 1

      "The penalty for not resigning would have been a total crackdown on his entire department." I don't understand. What kind of crackdown? Are you saying that their dept was being specifically targeted by anti-P2P organizations? It all seems kind of contrived to me. Why would this professor have been singled out from the multitudes of people worldwide using P2P networks to share files? http://www.sparklelikethestars.com/

    16. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also performed practical examples of P2P use which, in his opinion, do not violate any law. This was in response to the Collecting Society's ("SGAE") claims that P2P use was indeed illegal. He also notified them beforehand, which gave them a chance to intervene and have his venue reservations cancelled. He then proceeded to work around these censorship attempts by holding the lecture in the cafeteria.

    17. Re:I don't get it by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Nonprostitute women also have trouble getting romantically attached. Especially the ones who get attached for the gifts, possiblity of early retirement, or protection from a threatening world.

      Of course, the professionalization of the romance isn't the distinction. It depends on the woman, as anyone not objectifying them into roles can tell.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    18. Re:I don't get it by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      SGAE (equivalent of MPAA in spain, more or less) is a private company, but that doesn't stops them from using their power "if you don't want a visite from BSA to inspect all your software, I recommend you ...") or things like that.

      it's not talking about P2P. Jorge said he'd make a live demonstration of him getting a copyright-protected song from a P2P network in front of all the audience. Law in Spain allow you to do this for your personal use as long as you get no money from it. He challenged anyone to sue him - he knew he was doint nothing illegal. SGAE, like MPAA, don't like that kind of things.

    19. Re:I don't get it by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      The penalty for not resigning would have been a total crackdown on his entire department. He chose to resign to save the department that pain. And in return for that "favor", his 5 years of teaching is not even being recognized.
      That's why the correct course of action would be not to have resigned, forcing the whole thing to blow up as much as possible. I would imagine if the SGAE tried to shut down (or fine, or whatever) the University, the Uni would be forced to sue or something, and the courts would have a chance to smack down the SGAE.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    20. Re:I don't get it by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      Spanish Recording Industry Association and the MPAA [...] didn't want the population at large to see that P2P is a valid and legal tool, as that would damage their fight against piracy.

      Don't use the word piracy to describe copyright infringement.

      Piracy is a word that properly described the thugs and bullies, i.e. the Spanish Recording Industry Association and the MPAA.

      Which group "boards your ship" (i.e. how about a BSA software "audit") to pillage and plunder you? (Pillage and plunder: what happens if you have even one single unlicensed BSA member application?)

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    21. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is, in Spain, is NOT illegal to use P2P networks EVEN for download music or movies IF you don't profit from that. And the speech was about that.

    22. Re:I don't get it by LordAlpha · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with logic but power.

      It's the golden rule working.

      He who has the gold makes the rules

    23. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      I find it very hard to believe that anyone becomes a prostitute as a chosen career path. There may be some psychologically disturbed exceptions to this.

      I mean, think what it must be like to have to sleep with someone repulsive, to have to open yourself up to a succession of these men in order to have money for rent, or food, or to look after your children.

      While it may be possible to still form a relationship with a man, someone you care about after being a prostitute, I'd bet that it's hard. How do you seperate his desires for you from the desires of all those other men that you despised. Wouldn't the boundaries blur and wouldn't you resent him for wanting sex with you? Once you've come to see sex as something you sell, something you trade to get something, how do you ever unsee it can be something that you share with someone. It's a long way back from being a prostitute to that.

      Am I in favour of legalizing prostitution? Maybe, I'm not sure, but only because punishing someone for prostitution is like kicking someone for being hurt. Not because prostitution is an okay thing.

      If prostitution were some movie style abstraction, where a working girl never has to sleep with a succession of men she hates to pay the rent, then perhaps some girls would dabble in it. Some girls do by choice, but that's experimenting, not dependence. How many men do you think you would have to sleep with every day to pay rent on an apartment? Just to start with? And you think women could earn be a professional prostitute?

      There is a debate to be had on prostitution, but on this subject, no-one should be talking unless they have really known prostitutes or been one.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    24. Re:I don't get it by Optali · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I just don't get it Neither we Spaniards do. Under Spanish law P2P networks and downloading files from them are perfectly legal and even protected by law under the definition of "private copy" which is considered fair use as long as there is no monetary transaction involved. As a counterpart Spanish authors are rewarded a percentage of a 'Private Copy' fee wich taxes recordable media. The fact is that this 'tax' is completely ilegal since it applies even to the Spanish administration itself and is cashed by a weird kind of semi-private organization called SGAE instead of the Culture Ministery or the Autonom Governments (kinda states). So the fact is that those guys are not specially popular. Now they came to the totally braindead idea of starting a campaing (paid by the taxpayers, of course) which states "Downloading ilegal stuff from the internet is ilegal, now the law works" (sic) at the same time as they try to expand the meme that P2P networks are ilegal. The fun fact is that the SGAE depends on P2P networks as an excuse to cash from the private-copy tax, so that if P2P networks become really ilegal they wouln't be able to state that they are loosing sales because of the widespread piracy... Uuuuh. Now I really need an aspirine or two.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    25. Re:I don't get it by object88 · · Score: 1

      Don't use the word piracy to describe copyright infringement.

      You are entirely correct, copyright infringement is the correct term. I tend to get a little sloppy with my colloquialisms.

    26. Re:I don't get it by Optali · · Score: 1

      Hey, but there's even more weirdness in the Spanish Comedy Theater:

      Last month the Ministery of Culture revamped a law called LSSI-CE (internet services and e-commerce law) which the Socialist Party fought against as they was in the opposition.

      This law reform was made at a request from the SGAE and is said to "Fight Piracy" and consider sharing files as a crime...

      The freak part of it is that the law actually didn't change a single comma from the previous version in which file sharing was not only ilegal but protected.

      Even funnier is that in the 3 years the previous version of the law existed there where not a single action related to it.

      The only reason I can thing for this weirdness is either Fnord or the Spanish government having been taken over by radical kibologists.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    27. Re:I don't get it by mce · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If it would have been me, I would most likely have let the crackdown come. If the univ has nothing to hide, no harm is done. If it does have something to hide, it would have been the univ that would have been caught with its pants down, not the teacher who did nothing wrong. Of course, after all that he'd have been forced out of the job anyay, but that's exactly why he shouldn't have been afraid of staying till the shit would have hit the fan. Defnitely not considering that he's now doing everything he can to keep this in the news and to glue it for ever after to his CV.

    28. Re:I don't get it by object88 · · Score: 1

      I would imagine if the SGAE tried to shut down (or fine, or whatever) the University, the Uni would be forced to sue or something, and the courts would have a chance to smack down the SGAE.

      How would it have reached the courts? I'm not being snide, I honestly don't know what your reasoning is.

    29. Re:I don't get it by mce · · Score: 1
      I remember whan I was first scanning the market for an ISP (a looong time ago).

      There was one that looked OK (one of the larger ones in my country; solid looking; good financial conditions; etc. etc.), until I checked out their code of conduct. It litterally read: "It is not allowed to transfer copyright (sic) material over the <ISP name here> network."

      I sent them an e-mail to point out the error in their ways, but they did not even understand what I said! Needless to say I took my business elsewhere.

    30. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      The major reason why women couldn't sell sex legally in our history is this: they'd be rich and independent, and that was NOT to be allowed by men, period. After all, they are the sole providers of a highly valued commodity.

      I disagree. Firstly though, the main reason women have been repeatedly denigrated in patriarchal cultures is because naturally, they can assign status. All the posturing and the wealth and dominance games of men is about one thing - getting laid. If women are free to choose their partners, to leave their partners, to change their partners, then every man's status is at the mercy of women. The only solution is to repress female sexual choice.

      But this is not the reason for denigrating prostitutes. You are under the misapprehension that prostitutes have much choice in who they sleep with. Not if they need the money they don't. Prostitution is the last resort.

      Young men hope a woman will choose to have sex with him. Young women want to choose a good partner. A woman who is a prostitute has lost that choice which is central to being a woman.

      Instead of undermining male supremacy, prostitution actually undermines female power. If you're a wife or a girlfriend, i.e. you've made a choice of a man and you want to keep him yours, the last thing you want is him to be able to indulge himself with a string of easily available and discardable women. There are words like "slut" and "tart" and "slapper" and they're insults that a woman will use about another woman. There aren't really any male equivalents though, are there? The reason for that is because we don't really blame a man for sleeping with a woman. We blame the woman. There's a cultural aspect to that, but it has a biological basis.

      And prostitutes are the ultimate discardible woman and it's not men who hate them.

      I think you are wrong portraying prostitution as something that would be a source of wealth if it weren't for the illegality. Prostitution is a last resort. The wealth, for those women who want it, is in marrying a rich man and keeping hold of him. And those women would hate any prostitute their husband slept with.

      It should be noted in all this however, that we are overlooking the equally unfortunate men (usually very young) who end up as prostitutes. A friend of mine was one. He commited suicide a few years ago. Prostitution should be legalised, but only so we can help those who have to turn to it and so we can deal with those scum who live off prostituting others.

      My £0.02.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    31. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Informative


      You seem to be under the impression that P2P software is illegal. It is not. The teacher was giving a demonstration of and a lecture on the legality of P2P networks. It was this subject that meant his lecture was prevented three times.

      I agree it would be good to read a response from the University, hopefully we will get one. However, you should have at least read his story - he wasn't endorsing illegal activity - he was presenting an argument that P2P networking was legal (and he is right, actually).

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    32. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The university should have never allowed a non-lawyer to teach the subject of "intellectual property" in the first place.

      And he should have never tried to prove the "legality" of this issue in the first place --- since he's not licensed as a lawyer in his country.

    33. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lecturer himself is not a lawyer --- he has no expertise on the issue of legality of P2P networks.

      He should be fired for giving legal opinions just because he is not license to practice law in his country.

    34. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'd agree with your final proclamation if you were talking about encouraging someone to take up prostitution as a career, I think the general subject of prohibiting behaviors that some people don't approve of is a much more general topic that others can participate in, and to try to cut off discussion like that is rude.

      If you're right that no one would choose prostitution as a career, then why would it matter if it was legalized? Because you think it would be unpleasant? Have you considered that if it was legal, women might have more choice of clientele, for example? Besides, there are plenty of unpleasant professions, do you suggest we make all of them illegal to protect people from having to take those jobs out of necessity?

      Given that even with it illegal, it still happens, and under conditions that are almost certainly worse than if it was legal, I don't see how you can be unsure about legalization if your concern is really for the prostitutes. I agree that many women would have problems with having a personal relationship while also selling sex - and if having a personal relationship is important to them, then they probably shouldn't take that up as a career. There are other women who would have no problem with it. Putting your own sexual mores onto them is arrogant.

    35. Re:I don't get it by joncue · · Score: 1

      I did read it. I also knew that someone would misunderstand what my point was because I didn't word it very well. I know P2P software in itself isn't illegal. What I was trying to convey was that the university may have had a concern because P2P is used for illegal activity as well legal activity, and may not have wanted any association with it. This is why I would like to have seen a release that had their POV on it, so we could be more informed about their reason for, and logic behind, pressuring him to resign.

      Not saying I agree with the university or the instructor, just another point of view on the subject.

    36. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, you should look at societies where prostitution (or similar occupations) were/are socially acceptable. In Japan, for instance, being a geisha was one of the few ways women could be come financially independant and highly educated. The better Geishas were actually admired individuals of high society.

      Your argument is based on the context of a highly intolerant patriarchal society, and culturally-ingrained views about the proper role of a woman. Based on your comment that women who want money should marry a rich man, I'd almost have thought you a troll. Marrying for financial security, societal status, etc. are all the same as prostitution, but the woman surrenders her independance as well as her body, which is the key distinguishing factor that makes the practice acceptable in a traditionally patriarchal society.

    37. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... why is it that male prostitutes are illegal?

    38. Re:I don't get it by mysticalreaper · · Score: 1

      why don't you PRINT THE NAME of this company? They are a public company, are they not? Their name is known. Mentioning their name in their post, as an ISP that you should not choose, is a service in the public good.

      Hiding them, keeping their evil ways secret is HELPING THEM, not us. Please, when you have a comment about a corporation, TELL US THE NAME so that we might avoid them. Concepts like freedom of speech protect you, and all of us, from persecution for telling the truth. Since you are telling the truth, no harm will come to you for speaking the whole truth, instead of aiding and abbetting these villians.

      Please, slashbots, be BOLD in calling these corporations on their shennanigans.

    39. Re:I don't get it by trewornan · · Score: 1

      But was he forbidden? If what he says is true the University cancelled his reservation of a room - that's all.

    40. Re:I don't get it by mce · · Score: 1

      Because: 1) they did change their terms a few years later; 2) they don't exist anymore, as the ISP market over here has gone through a major restructuring since then.

    41. Re:I don't get it by loqi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Instead of undermining male supremacy, prostitution actually undermines female power. If you're a wife or a girlfriend, i.e. you've made a choice of a man and you want to keep him yours, the last thing you want is him to be able to indulge himself with a string of easily available and discardable women.

      I don't feel your conclusion is very solid here. Are you saying prostitution is bad because it allows men to easily obtain sex? If your wife/girlfriend is likely to be emotionally hurt because you slept with a protitute, that's because you made the choice to cheat. If you're so inclined, I find it more likely than not that you'll end up cheating at some point anyway. The participants of the actual relationship are responsible for their own fidelity, period.

      If sex for sale is all it takes to stimulate betrayal, something wasn't right to begin with.

      --
      If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
    42. Re:I don't get it by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I have known prostitutes personally - outside of their professional lives. And, of course, I know nonprostitutes personally, too. I have learned from those people that the most serious harm comes from "prostituting oneself", whether that's getting paid for sex, or not. Even the severity of the sexual abuse, and its effects, is not defined primarily by employment as a sex worker. The more general form of prostitution, in other employment, in other romantic exchanges, is the most harmful to womens' psyches, and their sexuality. It need not be the simplest form, getting paid for sex. I expect this is also true of men, to some degree, but I don't know enough male prostitutes to have a clear sense of that comparison.

      My point is that that selling intimacy or passion, without choosing the recipient for one's own value of their receiving it, does the damage. Some women are hurt more by that, some less. Some women are hurt more by selling their passion in artistic expression than other women are hurt by selling their passion in sex. So the sex work itself is not the distinguishing factor, and the individual woman is more so.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    43. Re:I don't get it by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 0
      What authorities? The Dean? He's the one forbidding him. The central government? They're the ones allowing SGAE (sort of a Spanish RIAA on steroids) to charge an outrageously unfair fee for each blank CD or DVD you buy in Spain, and fining stores that buy them abroad to sell them without the fee.

      Popular musicians (those behind SGAE) have supported the current government so strongly that these politicians are now completely handcuffed by them. It's probably the biggest lobby in Spain, and they're obviously using their power.

    44. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, nice try with the analogy, and I wish you were right, but it doesn't hold.

      Here in Nevada, we DO have legalized prostitution, and it turns out it is only slightly better that the illegal variety.

      Legal prostitution does protect the prostitutes (mostly) from drugs, STDs, and getting beaten up, but that's about it.

      At the legal brothels, prostitutes still work for someone else, who takes a chunk of their money, and while they do make a bit more than streetwalkers, most still don't know how to manage their money, and only a few ever save enough to retire.

      I remember a retired prositute, who worked at the legal brothels, once described her job as "Serial gang rape - punctuated by exchanges of cash."

      The truth is, while legal prostitution is somewhat less harmful than illegal prostitution - it still does NOT empower women.

    45. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      I get really pissed off when people hear what they choose to hear rather than what I am saying. It shows they have already made up their mind about who you are and think they can classify your arguments without actually having to listen.

      Based on your comment that women who want money should marry a rich man,

      I never said this. I think marrying someone for money is a very bad thing. I would not allow wealth to be a factor in who I chose to spend my life with. I was comparing this behaviour to prostitution, not advocating it. I pointed out that for women who want to use sex to get money from a man, the route is marriage, not prostitution. That is very clear in my post and it was a response to a previous poster that suggested prostitution would be a source of wealth if legalized. In my strong opinion it would not be.

      Your argument is based on the context of a highly intolerant patriarchal society, and culturally-ingrained views about the proper role of a woman.

      No it is not. I was very careful to argue the case from first principles. I would like you to re-read my post and let me know exactly what in it was based on a "highly intolerant patriarchal culture."

      the woman surrenders her independance as well as her body, which is the key distinguishing factor that makes the practice acceptable in a traditionally patriarchal society.

      This is an interesting point, but it is a corollary of what I was saying, which again makes me think you didn't read my post. We are in agreement on this: a woman faithful to her husband is not a threat to other women's relationships - she no longer has that indepenence and, as I said at the start of my previous post - no longer has the freedom to undermine a man's status by choosing a different partner. You have repeated what I said as if you think it counters me saying it in the first place.

      I don't know much about the Geishas, but I hope you are not holding up historical japan as an example of a non-highly intolerant, non-patriarchal culture. If anything, it is more so. A British girl of the same time period would give her husband Hell for visiting a prostitute. I would expect the Geisha role was more similar to more expensive "escorts." If you think that legalising prostitution would catapult streetwalkers to this sort of level of fees then you are really misguided. Even if it did, the work is still destructive to your self-respect and ability to form a relationship.

      I have really disliked being as misunderstood in what I wrote as I have been by you, AC. Please re-read my post and re-consider what you think I'm saying and do not assume that I'm parroting some cultural line that I've been brought up with. Everything I say, I can argue logically and I believe I've demonstrated that.


      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    46. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


      We're talking at cross-purposes so there's no disagreement - just misunderstanding. I fully agree that if sex for sale caused a betrayal then there was something wrong to begin with. I was a little harsh in implying that men will always cheat given the opportunity.

      What I was trying to do was determine why prostitutes were held in contempt and I disagreed with the original poster that it was because men didn't want women to be rich and independent. I think a lot of the cultural dislike of prostitutes was enforced by women. Women with boyfriends don't like women without. That's not true of course, but do you see what I'm getting at? Prostitutes are the ultimate "single" women.

      Anyway, regardless of the merits of that argument, I really don't see liberal prostitution as a means of undermining male patriarchy as the original poster said. I can see what she's getting at in that it's a woman's freedom to choose that is denied in atrong patriarchy, but the misconception is that the prostitute is making free choices. Other than some dabbling university students with escort agencies, there is no choice.

      I'm certainly not saying prostitution is bad because it provides easy sex for men (might stop them invading other countries all the time). I believe that it was considered bad because of this, and was often considered bad because of this, by women.

      I think prostitution is bad because it hurts the prostitute herself. Keeping prostitution criminalized makes things worse, I think, but legalizing it doesn't make it lovely and fluffy.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    47. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      "When you see what some girls marry, you realize how much they must hate to work for a living."

      Dorothy Parker - always a quote for every occasion.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    48. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Actually, the moment I posted that I regretted it. Big fan of Ms. Parker though I am, there's a time and a place. Guess I was just blowing off steam after writing a string of long and very emotional posts.

      Sorry.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    49. Re:I don't get it by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Or ... we could legalize that which does others no harm they didn't ask for or deserve. (Or rather, *not* criminalize it. Freedom is the default.)

      If rendering a service will harm the provider, that's a risk the provider needs to know about going in -- but that's no cause for making it illegal. And if the service harms the recipient, that's also something the recipient should know about -- but that's no cause for making it illegal. Prostitution, drugs, ... yes, we should all know about the risks involved so we can make informed decisions.

      But we don't need the state (nor you) telling us what harm we can and can't do to ourselves once we're allowed to consent to things. (reached the age of consent, minus those mentally incapable, plus those who've emancipated themselves prematurely, etc.)

      You can argue about whether or not prostitution is a good *choice*, but I don't see how that impacts the legality of prostitution.

      And yes, we'll talk about it regardless of whether or not we've known any prostitutes personally -- because that's irrelevant. I don't need to know an astronaut to talk about space, I don't need to know a geologist to talk about magma, and I don't need you to tell me what I can or can't talk about. Not all decisions are based on anecdotal evidence.

      And as to P2P -- who the hell cares if a device has "legitimate" uses? It doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not someone is actively using a device (P2P, gun, or lemon) in a way that infringes on someone else's freedom. (Excluding self-defense, law-imposed punishment, etc.)

    50. Re:I don't get it by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      She said "some" girls. I don't think it was inappropriate at all: it's a Spring weekend, and lots of girls are retiring all around the world, becoming "ladies" in the traditional ceremonies. I'm glad Ms. Parker remained a woman, long enough for us to enjoy her wisdom.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    51. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      If you're right that no one would choose prostitution as a career, then why would it matter if it was legalized?

      This suggests that you think I was arguing against legalisation. If so you didn't read my post. Please read it before deciding what I'm saying.

      Nor was I talking about prohibiting prostitution. I was exaplaining how destructive it is for the prostitute.

      I agree that many women would have problems with having a personal relationship while also selling sex ... there are other women who would have no problem with it.

      Do you know any?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    52. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      I've liked what you've written on this subject here. Calmer than I've been.

      What you were talking about above is respect for oneself. In common with the other areas of "prostituting" ourselves that you talked about, real prostitution can cost you your respect for yourself. Who we chose as our partner, who we would have children with really, is an important thing. Giving that up for money or whatever hurts us. It's not the only way we can lose our self-respect, but its one way. Once you've given that up, you have hurt yourself, usually for life.

      I'm glad Dorothy was around for as long as she was. She was a stubborn cow:
      Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
      Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
      Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
      Gas smells awful; You might as well live.


      Now which way was the topic again? ;)
      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    53. Re:I don't get it by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Back towards the server that hides within this deceptively P2P conversation that could easily get a teacher fired from a bogus "learning" institution ;).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    54. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      And yes, we'll talk about it regardless of whether or not we've known any prostitutes personally -- because that's irrelevant.

      Fine, go ahead then. I'm sure we will all benefit from your insight.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    55. Re:I don't get it by loqi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. Yeah, I agree with almost everything you said.

      I more or less agree that even when legalized it's "bad", and does hurt the prostitute, but only on average. I'm sure there are prostitutes that enjoy (or at least aren't bothered by) their work, and who suffer no psychological trauma from it. But that's essentially true of most "unpleasant" professions. Generally speaking, people who work those jobs have few choices, but some may not mind it.

      --
      If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
    56. Re:I don't get it by Snocone · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of the cultural dislike of prostitutes was enforced by women. Women with boyfriends don't like women without. That's not true of course, but do you see what I'm getting at? Prostitutes are the ultimate "single" women.

      Yep, mod parent up. In my experiences with various organizational forms of hedonism, it's sure not the men that have any disrespect for the party girls; it's OTHER WOMEN who get all territorial and competitive and jealous. Even in allegedly 'open'/'polyamorous'/whatever relationships where lack of monogamy is supposedly a mutually agreed ground rule.

      Funny, that...

    57. Re:I don't get it by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I have known two women who chose to become prostitutes. They both had plenty of other choices, but that's what they chose. (I don't think that either stayed with the profession for long, but that's a separate matter.)

      Interestingly enough, they were both rather hard and unpleasant people before they made the choice. And while I knew them, their personalities didn't change for the worse.

      This is too small a sample to be statistically significant, but I find it interesting, and it's all I have to go by that I consider reliable information. (OTOH, both were fairly beautiful caucasian women. One was extremely photogenic and claimed to have been a centerfold on a men's magazine. I never checked, but she was quite proud of it. And both were in their early 20's.)

      Anyway, SOME women will chose to become prostitutes for at least some short period of time without being strongly coerced economically (or in any other way that was obvious to an external observer).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    58. Re:I don't get it by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Who doesn't know a protitute??? The fact is that when you have sex in exchange for financial gain, whether that is cash or barter, you are a prostitute. The vast majority of women (at least here in the US) have been, or actively are prostitutes. It is not even uncommon to hear women bragging about it. They just make sure that they get goods instead of cash.

      In America, it is an insult to offer a woman money in exchage for sex. We work off a barter system!

    59. Re:I don't get it by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I don't think it should be "legalized". I think the laws making it illegal should be removed.

      There's a big distinction here. Not everything needs to be covered by laws. If you don't have laws coercing things, then people can chose social customs that they find convenient. I see no way in which prostitution falling into this category would be a bad thing. (OTOH, I'm not sure about allowing this to be advertised over the mass media.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    60. Re:I don't get it by HiThere · · Score: 1

      He did say "done right". I'm not sure that having a few tightly state run brothels counts as "done right".

      OTOH, most USians of whatever subculture don't learn to manage their debt. And an appallingly large fraction have a debt problem that's essentially out of control, where they can barely pay the interest. (Guess why they recently "reformed" the bankruptcy laws.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    61. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      I think a grey area could work but there have to be programs to help those people who want it.

      An area that probably can't be left grey is profiting from someone else's prostitution. Barnardos was working on getting such legislation passed here in the UK a few years ago, though I don't know if they've succeeded yet. Someone involved in prostitution should be able to get the law to help them to get rid of someone who makes them prostitute themselves for their own gain. In practice this is very difficult, but there is scope for improvement.

      Regarding advertising: I hadn't even thought of that. I don't even want to think about how horrible that would be, but yes - decriminalisation will result in brothels. Very unpleasant but safer for the workers.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    62. Re:I don't get it by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      That's outside of my experience, but I did concede that some people would choose it. I think it's telling that neither stuck with it, but as you say, it's not a statistically significant sample. I'm surprised you met two such women though.

      Interesting.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    63. Re:I don't get it by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part when Spain capitulated to terrorists?

      They may have been strong at one point, but now their response to adversity is to curl up and whimper.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    64. Re:I don't get it by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Err, isn't going to court what happens when someone files a lawsuit, by definition (assuming there's not a settlement)?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    65. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further:

      1. You didn't just get raped.
      2. You didn't get your ass kicked.
      3. Your ass wasn't kicked, either.
      4. That person is not a female dog.
      5. Your business partner didn't take your idea.
      6. No, he's not really on fire.
      7. The only zone he's beeb in tonight is the end zone.
      8. That person doesn't suck on male chickens.

      Please start using language correctly, otherwise some hypocrite on Slashdot is going to try to pick a fight over minutiae because he's an ideologue.

    66. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prostitutes bring serious shame to families in Japanese culture. A culture, I might add, that is as intolerantly patriarchal as they come.

    67. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SGAE is not a company, it's a non-profit assosiation.

      Well, they say they're non-profit, but we don't know the truth ;)

    68. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said you weren't sure if it should be legalized or not, and that you only had one reason in favor of legalizing it (that you didn't think it was right to punish prostitutes when they're already being hurt). Thus, you must have other reasons to think legalization isn't right. That's what I'm addressing.

      Yes, I've known women who have taken money for sex from strangers. If it was legal, some of them might well have chosen it as a career, though probably only for the short term. I've also seen documentaries on brothels in Nevada, and read accounts from workers in the sex trades in various countries. There are women in the sex trades (prostitution, "exotic" dancing, etc.) who would tell you to fuck off and quit trying to tell them what they should or shouldn't want to do.

    69. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Removing laws making something illegal is to "legalize" it. If you then add additional laws controlling it, then you're regulating it. Something can be both regulated AND illegal (e.g. marijuana). There are lots of things that I can do which don't have any laws specifically saying I can do them. We say that they are "legal". "Legalize" is to make something be legal.

      Now, granted, they could "legalize" marijuana by leaving it classified as a Schedule I drug, but allowing it be used in specific circumstances. Or, they could make prostitution illegal except under specific circumstances. Personally, I think prostitution SHOULD be covered under health regulations, as there is great potential for harm to both parties.

      Keeping street-walking illegal (i.e. restricting prostitution to licensed brothels) could probably be justified, but it should be done by making it illegal for the client and the pimp, not the prostitute - whereas it should go the other way with drugs (selling drugs remains illegal, but buying or using the drugs becomes legal).

  5. Re:from the faux-news dept. by FlyByPC · · Score: 1, Insightful

    $>eval("Forced to resign" != "fired");
    =0

    $>

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  6. Not fair... by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 1

    This is not fair!! Maybe one of the audience will be motivated and develop a complete P2P solution which is legal and benefits both *AA and users. Maybe the organizers should attend a conference where Balmer is the speaker.

    Developer, developer, developer....

    1. Re:Not fair... by csartanis · · Score: 1

      There is a legal solution that benefits both users and the industry, its called Bittorrent.

    2. Re:Not fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a student in a french university and weird things are happening there. Our project for the networking class was to write a small but usable P2P client in C. Worse, our teacher of cryptography gave us a big picture of how "blue cards" (bank account cards with PIN and chip) were working.

      I can't believe what's happening in Spain right now while I have so much freedom in France... This is really sad.

    3. Re:Not fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You totally missed the point. IT IS ALREADY LEGAL. The big businesses are trying to make it illegal, and to make their fight easier they're suppressing discussion of the legal uses so people only see the bad side.

    4. Re:Not fair... by ScooterBill · · Score: 1

      The "powers that be" who tried to stop this are only hurting themselves. Publicity will ensure the spread of P2P networks and users(for both legal and illegal activities). Remember when there was a move to stop the showing of Fahrenheit 911? All it did was make sure that everyone knew about it and curiosity did the rest. Didn't matter whether the movie was good, bad or illegal. It was a success.

      P2P networks will thrive on this publicity. The Recording industry is shooting itself in the foot.

      M

    5. Re:Not fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so you don't believe that that publicity for Fahrenheit 911 was on purpose?

      You probably also missed the (very well done) subtle pressure from TV and NYTimes to go to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    6. Re:Not fair... by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

      This is not fair!!

      Welcome to the world.

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  7. Cartel Coffin by .tardo. · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hoffa better start makin room in his coffin for this guy...

    1. Re:Cartel Coffin by WoBIX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Coffin? We buried him in a...

      Someone's at the door, be right back.

  8. This time they've gone too far. by IO+ERROR · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Just exactly why should I be buying music and movies and other such content from low-life snakes who pull stunts like this?

    This guy goes out to talk about the legal uses of P2P networks, and the recording industry gets him fired. How exactly do they expect to convince people to buy their products rather than downloading them, if they do this sort of thing?

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Lipsius · · Score: 0

      The fact is he didn't exactly talk about the legal uses of P2P networks. He said any use of P2P networks is legal. And of course that isn't quite good for the recording industry.

    2. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should you buy it? Well, don't, but if you want to posess it, you have to cough up the cash.

      What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).

      They don't have to convince anyone of anything, because they are the legal owners of the content. And since that content is by no means essential to your life in any way shape or form, they can control it as they like.

      Don't like how someone does business? Don't like their tactics? Boycott, get others to boycott... Protest... Write angry letters about it... whatever, but you can't really use it as a justification for theft.

      I think the University in this case is a lot more at fault, because the industry could try and pressure or threaten audits or whatever, but they should have stood up to it. If I was in the administration I would have recorded every bit of communication with the industry groups and would have said "You even TRY to nail us for exercising our academic freedoms, this will go out all over every major media outlet and we'll make sure to take you to court over it"

    3. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).

      Why not? Seriously, they do underhanded rat bastard shit *all* day, they steal money from musicians, steal money from consumers (do you remember the price fixing thing from a few years ago? That cost me at least 1000$) they're ruined music for several generations now, and we're supposed to treat them with kid gloves?

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    4. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, don't treat them with kid gloves, but you still don't have any valid argument to breaking the law. You have no right to music. You have no need to purchase it. You want it, so you have to play by the rules of those who control it. Don't like it? No one is forcing you to buy it. There's no gun to your head

      I think of this issue like people who don't eat meat because of moral reasons. Discounting the fanatics, they don't go out and steal the cows away so they can be treated better.

    5. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The reason to break the law is of course, the law is written and paid for BY the companies that benefit from those laws.

      The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    6. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you're wrong. Completely and unequivocally wrong. It's the same as saying Samuel Adams et al were not morally justified in their actions. And that is clearly not the case. They WERE morally justified in their act of property destruction, because those with the wealth and power were abusing their privelege.

      What this cartel are doing DOES justify theft/piracy/whatever-they-choose-to-label-it of the goods from which they are leeching their wealth and power.

      I'll go farther and say that anyone on the side of liberty and freedom should feel morally OBLIGED not to give another cent to these snakes.

      Either that, or it's rifle time.

    7. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dislike the whole system. It's loaded with crap, which includes the mind numbingly stupid content. I have bought maybe 2 or 3 music CDs in my entire lifetime and I'm not even touching prerecorded DVDs. What shit. There are definitely better and more creative ways to waste your time than on these industries.

    8. Re:This time they've gone too far. by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

      Why should you buy it? Well, don't, but if you want to posess it, you have to cough up the cash.

      Yeah, but not to them. Buy used, either from record stores or pawn shops. Find old tapes at garage sales. Once you own a copy of the song, then download it. IANAL, but this seems like a legit loophole to me. Sure, it's gonna be harder to find new releases used, but not impossible. The point is, the **AA doesn't get a cut.

      (tig)
      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
    9. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer game, I don't have to let anyone play it, or I can be very selective in who plays it, or how much it costs to play. It's my right as creator/owner of said creative content.

      This would be different if it weren't a luxury item, but because it is, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

    10. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but if you want to posess it, you have to cough up the cash.

      Sorry, but this doesn't follow at all.

    11. Re:This time they've gone too far. by langarto · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).

      What theft are you talking about? In Spain is legal to copy music (or whatever) as long as there is no profit and no damage to anybody.

      That was what Cortell wanted to say in his conference.

    12. Re:This time they've gone too far. by rawb · · Score: 1

      It's one thing for the music industry to say that p2p has no legal use for downloading things they own. It's completely another to say that p2p has NO LEGAL USE at all. If all they were doing were stopping people from downloading THEIR products, this might be a more justifiable action on the part of the school, to cave to the organizations... assuming the teacher was preaching rampant copyright theft. But here, they're trying to ban an entire technology, and shut people up who simply say it has SOME legal uses. Disagreeing doesn't justify theft, but then theft doesn't justify banning a technology.

    13. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 1

      Most of the leaders of the American Revolution were the land-owning wealthy. They were the businessmen, the owners of means in the colonies.

      But you're talking about issues of unfair government representation, taxation, uneven application of all aspects of the law, quartering troops etc... Direct infringements on ones personal right to a free life. (well, a right once we got around to writing it)

      Here we're talking about movies and music... items that you have no right to, that you do not need to survive. Just because someone else has something you really like doesn't mean you have a right to it as well.

      I agree with your last bit, if you don't like it, don't buy anything from them. That's the solution I advocate. It's the only one you can do with any real justification.

      Rights can only be claimed when it's over something you need. We need to live free, we need to not have the government control our thoughts and our speech. We need to be able to move about freely and explore opportunities without unfair discrimination.

      We don't need to have the latest Britney Spears CD, or the latest DVD release. We'd like to have them maybe, but we don't need them. Our lives and our freedoms are not limited in any way if we don't have them.

    14. Re:This time they've gone too far. by frosh · · Score: 1

      What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).

      This statement is meaningless on it's face. Firstly, violation of copyright is not theft, nor is it criminal, it's a civil matter. This has been stated at least a dozen times in every thread about P2P, but people still don't get it.

      Secondly, what justifies compliance with their desires for copyright? Should people be required to comply with every outdated business model that some company desires, just because companies say they should? Should people follow unjust laws, simply by virtue that someone with sufficient money and influence has gotten them onto the books? History shows us that not all laws should be followed.

    15. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen, Zoomba. I've been reading your posts in this thread, and finally a little bit of sanity on Slashdot.

      If Slashdotters are unhappy with the way copyright law works, they need to work to change copyright law-- NOT simply pirate the products they want anyway which 1) doesn't accomplish anything because the lawmakers will never hear the Slashdotter's side fo the story and 2) changes you from a 'protestor' to a 'criminal.' (And yes, you're a 'criminal' regardless of how immoral you think the law is.)

      I'm sick of this (as Snopes.com puts it) SLACKtivism. If you want to change the world, you have to WORK AT IT. You can't sit on your ass, clicking "download now" on Kazaa and expect the copyright laws to miraculously change to the laws you'd prefer, it just won't happen.

    16. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't like how someone does business? Don't like their tactics? Boycott, get others to boycott... Protest... Write angry letters about it... whatever, but you can't really use it as a justification for theft.

      I'll try one justification. Without Kazaa, Napster, and the like there would be no iPod or iTunes today. Like it or not, illegal use of these P2P programs can cause positive change.

    17. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).
      your definition is wrong according to my dictionary "Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission." (theft was the act of stealing) When you download music you don't change the ownership of property. You make a copy. That is copyright infringement which is a seperate legal category from theft of physical property. Stop calling copyright infringement theft, it makes you sound dumb.

    18. Re:This time they've gone too far. by baerm · · Score: 1

      Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question. If I write the world's best computer game, I don't have to let anyone play it, or I can be very selective in who plays it, or how much it costs to play. It's my right as creator/owner of said creative content.

      This would be different if it weren't a luxury item, but because it is, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.


      On the other hand, I think part of what the earlier poster was getting is the following (although, this is somewhat U.S. centric). If you believe that copyright is supposed to cause creations to enter the public domain in a reasonable amount of time (I think it was 7 years originally) and that these companies have bought off politicians to affectively steal from all of us, then downloading older (and I don't know, 7 years sounds good or a nice round figure like a decade maybe) music, movies, or whatever is just taking back what has been stolen from you.

      I mean , singing 'Happy Birthday' in a restaurant is illegal!?, ludicrous.

    19. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Danse · · Score: 1

      Still doesn't negate the fact that you have no right to the content in question.

      I would change that statement to say "Still doesn't negate the fact that you probably have no legal right to the content in question, but that depends on the laws in your own country. ." Let us not forget that copyright is not a natural right, and in fact is quite counter to how things naturally work. It is but a legal construct that was originally intended to allow the creators of useful works to profit from them for a limited time. The fact that that original intent has been so dramatically perverted by the copyright industry is the reason we're having the problems we see today.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    20. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just proves the amount of (scary) power the music and film industry has amassed. I mean, we're not talking about any essential commodity like food, water, or energy, we're talking about medium-quality entertainment that's become artificially expensive. This is nothing essential and frankly, our societies would be better off without a lot of the mainstream crap, yet these "industries" are influencing politicians and universities wholesale, disrupting the lives of anyone who disagrees with them. There's much more groing on here than just money and loss of revenue. Dare I say it's becoming like mass religion in terms of crowd control?

    21. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Himring · · Score: 2

      but you can't really use it as a justification for theft.

      You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    22. Re:This time they've gone too far. by iolaus · · Score: 1

      What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).

      Why Not? I say fuck em!

      --
      I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.
    23. Re:This time they've gone too far. by frosh · · Score: 1

      What right do they have to have it protected? When any corporation with sufficient $$$ can purchase laws as they wish, maybe people should do their own thinking about what is right and wrong.

    24. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 0

      I provided my definition of theft for the purposes of the discussion. Copyright Infringement is the electronic equivalent to theft. You obtain something without providing the required payment.

      Yes, one deals with a physical object, but both achieve largely the same result. You have illegally obtained something by not paying for it.

    25. Re:This time they've gone too far. by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you fail to realize is that the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc. have near-total control over the channels by which copyright law is changed. Their advantages are insurmountable. Trying to change a law which they support is like Pee Wee Herman trying to win a barehanded fight with Mike Tyson. So when you suggest "changing the law", you're suggesting an impossible course of action.

      You present the choices as
      1) STFU and Obey The law
      2) Change the law through the accepted channels for doing so
      3) Violate the law

      and suggest 3) is undesirable. But because 2) is impossible, by opposing 3) you're supporting 1).

    26. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 1

      You have no right to it period actually. There is nothing saying in any great document about our freedoms and rights that we have the right to anything beyond life, liberty and the persuit of happiness (i.e. the right to lead a life without oppression... copyright laws don't fir that).

      People all too often think that if something exists, that they have some right to it, when in fact, unless it is something essential to their ability to live as a free person, they don't. Issues of property have gotten very fuzzy with the growth of The Internet. A lot of people think that if they can get it for free, that they should.

      Arguing that copyright isn't a natural right doesn't really matter a whole lot since there are no "rights" that it really runs contrary to. It may run contrary to people's personal ideals on how they think intellectual property should work, but there's never been anything saying that you have an actual right to anyone elses creation.

      At this point, I think we would still see this conflict, even if Copyright was still limited to the original 7 years (I think) because you'd still have people wanting the latest movie release or the latest song without having to pay, and you'd still have the RIAA and MPAA going nuts on anyone who touches the recent stuff.

    27. Re:This time they've gone too far. by WaxParadigm · · Score: 1
      The reason to break the law is of course, the law is written and paid for BY the companies that benefit from those laws.

      The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.

      There are ways to "not play the game" besides breaking the law. Just don't buy the music or give them any of your $$. Is the latest top-40 album so important to you that you'll shell out $15 to an organization fighting to take away your rights? I've been getting along for, oh, about 5 years just fine without "popular" music (don't download it, don't buy it, don't share it, etc).

      If you are breaking the law to listen to the music, I would argue you're way too attached to it...a sign of addiction if you will. Even though you are not paying them for it, you're still sucking at their tit. It's a symbiotic relationship and eventually they'll get your $$ (concerts, merchandising, ad revenue to stations that play the crap, etc). You've got to ween yourself. There is plenty of music out there that is good to listen to which doesn't support the RIAA.

    28. Re:This time they've gone too far. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but it is important to teach all the little sycophants to keep shouting out "Don't cheat, play the game like the rest of us"... otherwise, we all stop playing their games, and they have no more power over us.

    29. Re:This time they've gone too far. by DrZombie · · Score: 1

      Most of the leaders of the American Revolution were the land-owning wealthy. They were the businessmen, the owners of means in the colonies.

      BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......Wrong
      They didn't "own" anything, they merely managed it by leave of the King, who really was the one who owned everything in the British Empire. So they were doing exactly what the previous poster outlined in his comment.

    30. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then we're screwed, democracy is lost and we should all just give up and go home.

      It's this defeatist attitude that makes your prophecy of being unable to fix things self-fulfilling.

    31. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please someone MOD PARENT UP (russotto)

    32. Re:This time they've gone too far. by stubear · · Score: 1

      Copyright law was established in the US Constitution. How again was the law bought and paid for? Oh, you're going to suggest extensions to the terms were bought and paid for. Fair enough, but how does this explain the fact that intellectual property which is still protected under original copyright terms is still the vast majority of content on the P2P networks? Quit being a pussy and hiding behind bullshit excuses; you just want shit for free, period, end of story.

    33. Re:This time they've gone too far. by crabpeople · · Score: 2, Insightful
      wow nice troll buddy

      "What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment)."

      OH NO i am depriving some company of PERCIEVED LOSSES. stop being a tool. i guess if i watch a dvd at my friends house i have to go out and buy another copy right? otherwise its stealing via public performance. right?

      boycotts and angry letters do a whole lotta nothing when the side you are fighting is evil. they will stop at nothign to dominate and you would have us to ask them to please stop. when the revolution comes, i wonder who will be up against the wall. the ones who fight, or the ones who write letters.

      oh and BTW you cant re define words to make them whatever you want mmmkay?

      Theft (also known as stealing) is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent. In law, it is usually the broadest term for a crime against property. It is a general term that encompasses offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, trespassing, fraud (theft by deception), and sometimes criminal conversion. Legally, theft is generally considered to be synonymous with larceny.

      In the common law, theft is usually defined as the unauthorised taking or use of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    34. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Wile_E_Peyote · · Score: 1

      The reason to break the law is of course, the law is written and paid for BY the companies that benefit from those laws.

      I'm all for civil dis-obediance, but part of civil-disobediance is to take your punishment very publicly as the teacher in the article did. Civil-disobediance does nothing if you do it quietly.

      The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.

      Although he died in the process, Martin Luther King Jr. managed to win a fixed game. Not that I am equating P2P with the Civil Rights Movement, just saying it is possible to win a fixed game.

    35. Re:This time they've gone too far. by MightyYar · · Score: 1
      You are confusing legal and natural rights. Natural rights include things like "life", "liberty", etc...

      Legal rights are totally artificial and have no meaning in a moral discussion. In other words, there is no moral responsibility to uphold legal rights - only natural rights. In fact, sometimes moral responsibility dictates that you violate someone's legal rights.

      Unless, of course, you are arguing that there is a fundamental human right to restrict others from observing and copying photons, electrons, and sound energy. In that case, we have a very fundamental disagreement.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:This time they've gone too far. by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      Spanish law grants you rights to download music. That is another point that keeps being denied by the industry. You have the right to copy music off of someone else as long as he doesn't *sell* it. I.e. sharing is allowed, but not selling. This includes P2P, copying the disk to a friend, etc.

      This was done in the casette tape era because the legislator realized that it was unstoppable. In return, people got to pay taxes on recordable tapes. This has now been extended to CDs and DVDs (which is debatable because they have *many* uses besides music).

    37. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      The law in many countries provide a way to punish those who infringe the copyright of others.

      The above is without doubt, i would assume everyone would agree, true. From this you seem to come to the conclusion that infringing copyrights of others is moraly wrong. (As i interpret your post, unless you use "justify theft" in a way not related to morality)

      There is no ethical connection, none i have been able to find, between the fact that there is a law and the judgement that it is immoral. I don't know whetever you belive in moral absolutism or moral relativism, but I belive in the latter.

      My ethical views do not make it immoral to infring copyright in general. So there's nothing immoral for me not to "cough up the cash" in the way the media industry demands today. I just don't agree with the kind of ethical system they wish to impose on me, though that doesn't make their view "wrong".

      Unless someone can convince me that i should hold other views on this matter, or proves moral absolutism and the moral validity of the above law... I'll keep downloading stuff without feeling bad.

      Note that i do pay for stuff, like subscription to di.fm. So i'm not a freeloader, i just don't agree with the current price level and rules.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    38. Re:This time they've gone too far. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem with that reasoning: you're only the "owner" of the content because we let you be. Copyright isn't a right (despite the name), and the public can take that privilage away if we feel you've abused it.

      I agree that the way to do that is to get the laws changed, but when the government is bought and paid for by the content gestapo, the only means available to us to exercise our rights is civil disobedience.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    39. Re:This time they've gone too far. by orasio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with your reasoning is that you have made up your own definition from analogy to current state of affairs.
      The problem is that theft does have an actual meaning, and in every definition, it implies someone losing something.
      The act of theft has two consequences: 1- the owner loses his property, and 2- the thieve gains some property he didn't own.

      If 2- doesn't happen, then it's not theft.
      If, for example, I go to your house and break all your windows, then, 1- follows, you lost your property (the windows), but 2- doesn't, because I gained nothing. Then I would not be a thieve, I would be a mad man that breaks windows, a window destroyer, an aggresor, or I don't know what.

      If 1- doesn't happen, then it's not theft.
      If I go to a river, and get a bucket of water, then I haven't paid for it. I now own the water, and I didn't pay. 2- did happen, and 1- didn't.
      Then I am not a thieve.

      There's no way you can define theft as "gaining property without paying", without being inconsistent with the world, and outlawing most things that people do, like breathing.
      Plus, I won't start talking about capitalism, and how your statement only applies in a consumers society, but the concept theft applies in any society, other than real socialism.

      The real issue here is cloning. When you make a copy, 2- happens, but 1- doesn't.

      You can talk about lost revenue, but lots of things we do make companies lose revenue, and they don't sue us in result.

    40. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 1

      You call me a troll, yet I manage to keep a civil tone... something you fail to do.

      1. Viewing at a friend's house.
      Fair use. A copy was purchased, the purchaser can view it as much as he likes, let friends view it, lend it (the one copy) to another friend, make as many personal copies as he likes so long as they are not sold or distributed.

      2. Percieved Loss
      If you have something you did not pay for, which you should have if determined by the owner of the work, then there is a loss. You owe the owner the cost of the item as you would have paid for it normally. The claim of percieved loss is a weak one for people who want to justify not paying for software, movies or music.

      3. Violate the law, it's the RIGHT THING TO DO!
      Oh dear, we can't change the law, we just can't... the bad guys own the system. Well, with that attitude, yes they do. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      4. Definitions definitions definitions.
      Honestly, this one drives me nuts. It's a matter of people splitting hairs because the term existed before such a concept existed. The term theft embodies the sentiment of what's happening. You are obtaining something without paying for it. I clarified it intentionally to try and avoid this argument, but sadly it was to no avail. People who go nuts over this one are just trying to make the act sound better than it is. Theft sounds so harsh, copyright infringement sounds sophisticated and harmless.

      In this thread, many have taken issue with items of definitions, niggling over political rules, argued against the vile evil of corporations... but one thing NO ONE has been able to do yet is provide an argument saying that you have any RIGHT whatsoever to the content in question.

    41. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Heretik · · Score: 1

      Yeah, one little problem:

      We don't have a few billion dollars to buy off the government.

      In countries with non-broken systems of government, this wouldn't be an issue - if America wasn't forcing the rest of the world to obey their corrupt, purchased laws.

      Hmm.. make that two little problems:

      They are.

    42. Re:This time they've gone too far. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Not that I am equating P2P with the Civil Rights Movement
      Why not? Free exchange of information is just as important -- or even more so -- than freedom from discrimination.

      (Note that this isn't just about copyright infringment anymore -- this guy got censored for talking about a technology, not advocating violating the law. It really has become about Free Speech.)
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    43. Re:This time they've gone too far. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it means we're screwed, democracy is lost, and because of that, civil disobedience is the last recourse.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    44. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm sort of arguing natural rights too. It's established that you have no legal right to music or movies or software unless you pay for it. But also, do you have any natural right to said content? If I create a wonderful painting, do you have a right to view it if I don't want you to?

      The problem here is that there are no natural rights to view or consume intellectual property. People think it isn't fair that it be restricted, but that's a far cry from an actual right. There only natural right to restrict consumption is the right of property. It's mine, I say who gets to see it, touch it, use it etc. We have a very strong sense of personal property and it's considered to be a natural right now. We don't want people invading our homes with cameras or wire taps etc...

      At the very least there are no natural rights in either direction, so legal rights become the authority. In the case of downloading movies music and software, there isn't even much of a moral obligation because if you do not have access to the items in question, you are not deprived of any right either legal or natural.

      There are moral objections to business tactics and scare tactics, but that is separate from the content itself.

    45. Re:This time they've gone too far. by 26199 · · Score: 1

      Just a minor point really, but copyright infringement is typically a civil offence, not a criminal one. So it doesn't make you a criminal unless you do it a lot or make money out of it.

    46. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have something you did not pay for, which you should have if determined by the owner of the work, then there is a loss.

      No. A loss is defined as no longer having something you had before. They never had the money he didn't pay, so they haven't lost them. They haven't even lost a copy of the CD, they have just as many as they had before.

      It's called a "perceived loss", because it assumes that he would have bought the CD if he hadn't copied it. Remember all those people getting sued for more money than they have, because they copied more MP3's than they are ever going to listen to? Do you honestly believe that those people would have bought that many CDs? You NEED to believe that to be able to honestly claim that the price of those CDs is a loss.

      If you don't believe it, you are not honest. If you do believe, you're worse than Jehovas Witness... It's that far out.

    47. Re:This time they've gone too far. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      If the *IAA is unhappy with the way copyright works, they should change the law instead of spreading lies such as "all p2p is illegal", "all music is RIAA property", and using mafia tactics to get professors fired for speaking the truth.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    48. Re:This time they've gone too far. by soft_guy · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but when non-corporates do try to use the copyright laws fairly like using the GPL, they all say it is "communist".

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    49. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Maggott · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

      The law won't be changed by any means that is within the reasonable capacities of the average Slashdotter. The majority of us have no political authority or influence. At all. I write letters to Orin Hatch every year, and sure enough, every year he turns around and tells everyone that my state is very supportive of putting a death penalty on owning an mp3 player. I vote in every presidential election, and every time the presidential candidate whom I voted for ends up with 0 votes *total*. (Which is why I like to slap people who say "Every Vote Counts!")

      However, there are other ways to fight stupid and immoral laws, and one of them is to make sure they're unenforceable. Sure, that won't fix the law, but will fix it's effects and it's our only option. That's why the P2P arms race took place to begin with. We have no political authority, but we have a lot of combined technical knowhow.

      Anybody knows that you don't win a battle by fighting the enemy where he is the strongest. Legislators have no reason to listen to us. They have hundreds of thousands of crisp, green reasons to listen to the **AA-holes. Lobbyists get paid handsome salaries to push their rhetoric 7 days a week for years at a time. We'd have to finance it out of our own pocket. Can you afford to take three straight years off and lobby for what you think is fair?

      However, we control our own computers. Therefore, if we fight a war of software, the advantage goes to us. That's why they fight with more assheaded draconian laws whereas we fight with more robust and untrackable P2P apps. Sure, they sometimes try to write P2P tracking applications to find filesharers, and we sometimes write letters to our congresscowards. Neither one makes any appreciable dent. Each of us, therefore, tries to pull the battlefield closer to our respective power bases--we try to ensure they can't find filesharers to prosecute by making sure it's as big of a pain in the ass as possible, whereas they try to ensure they can find them by pushing laws that ensure they can demand any info they want out of ISPs at the drop of a hat.

      What it comes down to is the same thing you've heard a million times before. Many people do not consider copyright infringement to be wrong. I know I don't. I think the whole concept is assheaded and there's abundant proof that every statement they make in defense of it is wrong at this point, ESPECIALLY in the entertainment industry. Likewise, there's people like you who swear up and down that it's theft. And since we cannot agree to disagree and just ignore each other, we fight.

    50. Re:This time they've gone too far. by zoomba · · Score: 1

      If you're not willing to pay for something, you shouldn't have it. By your reasoning any theft (copyright infringement or real theft) is justified because the person taking wouldn't have bought the item any way.

      If you have something that you were supposed to pay for, but did not. The owner of that item is OWED one sale. There is a value attached to a song or to a piece of software that you are depriving the owner of, regardless of whether or not you intended to buy it. You have it, you owe them that value.

      Taking a LOT of stuff doesn't clear you of responsibility. There isn't some magic number that once you pass it, you should be in the clear.

    51. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote for rifle time. Kill a few RIAA monkeys and they will think twice before using mafia tactics against a professor again.

    52. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theft: Theft is a crime because it deprives someone of something. You are claiming that the simple act of owning something is a crime. You are also using a flawed definition of theft to prove a point and then claiming anyone who argues is using a semantic argument. You should really consider just what the word 'crime' means.

      Copyright: Copyright law is intented to prevent people from from passing off someone elses work as their own. The fact that people with lots of money have been able to change this does not make it right.

      The law: We must obey the law even if criminals control it == We must follow orders even if they're morally wrong. doubleplusgood!

    53. Re:This time they've gone too far. by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      but you can't really use it as a justification for theft.

      Use whatever harsh language you want to try to inflame things.

      His entire point was that this is legal in his jurisdiction.

      If it is legal, then it is not legally a "theft". Only in your trollish mind.

      If the RIAA/MPAA/etc. don't like this, then they should purchase new laws as is their habit in the US. But in other parts of the world, laws may not be for sale. Or the purchase price may be considerably higher than the *AA's are willing to pay.


      BTW, the term "harsh language" which I used above, was used by a federal court of appeals judge late last year in solding an MPAA lawyer (vs. Grokster) not to use "harsh language" such as "theft" rather than "copyright infringement".

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    54. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sigh ... no it's not theft, at worst it's copyright infringement

      secondly, if the laws hadn't been perverted, much more would be in the public domain

      derived works, ie. rips, are new works, therefore, public

      you sir, have simply bought the company line, hook and sinker

      sad really

    55. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      It's only "largely the same result" if you ignore that in one case the original holder or owner is being deprived of the item in question, and in the other case he is not.

      Regarding the "you have no need and therefore no right to it" you have advocated in this thread:

      While I see where you are coming from, it's IMO not that easy.
      You must have a right to understand the, and therefore a need to partake in, the culture of your country, popular and not. Even if you can't agree to the terms, esp. if they are as obviously disputable.

      A "right to partake" could be derived from many poverty definitions that are used in Europe, because there the poverty threshold is often defined as being excluded from "taking part in activities which are an accepted part of daily life in that society". The US does not seem to recognize such a right as their poverty definition is "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.".

      Ironically, the media industry, along with the other parts of the ruling system, would benefit most from such a right. This is because they want and need their culture to be total.
      As far as I am concerned, the media industry could be relegated to niche products for people who can afford to spend a few hundred dollars per month on DRM'ed media if they want to stay current on developments in even only one art. The art produced in these niches sucks anyway, and the people can get back to making their own thing, out of necessity and free from interference.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    56. Re:This time they've gone too far. by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I should not have said "trollish", and I apologize. The word "theft" set me off and I had not quite settled down before clicking Submit.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    57. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Jearil · · Score: 1

      Copyright law was established in the US Constitution. How again was the law bought and paid for?

      Alright.. just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, I actually took a quick glance once again out the Constitution to make sure I wasn't missing anything from when I last read it.

      Where the HELL is copyright law established in the US Constitution? I see things about creating branches, dealing with slavery, voting, power distributed through states... even right to free speech and the press.. but not a single thing that gives you intellectual property rights to restrict information due to creation of content. It's just not in there!

      Please.. maybe I'm mistaken and didn't read it carefully enough.. but please.. point to me the exact Article and/or amendment that makes copyright a part of the CONSTITUTION. Otherwise, I call bullshit.

    58. Re:This time they've gone too far. by swv3752 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I take it you are not an American Zoomba. Boston Tea Party. Sometimes the only way to effectively protest is to deny someone else something, whether it is profit via copyright infringement, theft, or vandalism. You need to read the writing of Henry David Thoreau. Sometimes violating laws is the only moral action to do.

      Copyright infringement is not theft. They are legally two different things. One is copying an abstract idea while the other involves taking physical property. Copyright infringement is a civil action in most jurisdictions and most circumstances. Theft is a criminal action.

      There is some definate problems with how Copyright is being handled lately. This going to be an even bigger problem in the future. For one example of the problems we will be facing, check out Kim Stanley Robinson's "Elephant's Memory". To summarise the issue- there is a finite number of combinations that make up a particular art form. With the never ending copyright durations, there is a dwindling supply of new combinations to create new works of art. How do you create a new song when every five note chord you might come up with is already copyrighted?

      By ignoring copyright now, we force things to be changed. Look how Napster has given rise to various legal and semilegal digital music distribution services. Do you really think there would have been an iTunes or iPods if there was no Napster?

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    59. Re:This time they've gone too far. by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      True, I accept your statement as true or at least fair (This coming from someone who would practically put out his eye to spite the RIAA or MPAA!) And I have no problem with paying the creator for how his work has in some way benifited society but I have two problems with IP.

      First, IP can not be stolen in the same way as physical property, if I steal your IP then you are at no lose as you still have it yourself. I know this does not justify the breaking of IP law, but this is the kernel of doubt that makes me unwilling to accept the current system of IP. Not unwilling to accept any system of IP which benifits the creator, simply the current system.

      Secondly, IP currently horded by large corporations and not actually owned buy the 'Man who created the world's best computer game'. I don't like the idea of a non-entity owning ideas. Corporations and Organizations can not create IP and therefore I don't think they should be able to own it. Part of my problem with this is the basic properties of a corporation.

      I'm sure some of the people who work for the corporation (even the RIAA!) are good and decent people but the corporation as a whole is just a massive very powerful and infinitely greeding organization with no morals to speak of. The corporation is legally bounded to turn a profit and the worst people who work there take this as licence to ignore basic human morals in the name of corporate profit. The best people simply keep their heads down and swallow their morals or quit.

      This is why I see the exploitation of this structure for organizing money and power as a horrible thing to do. When the guy who originally created the game owns all the rights to the IP I can at least talk to him human to human and say, 'Hey man, isn't this fee a little steep?' or somehow plea to him as a person. And under sane copywrite limitations I could just wait till his ownership wears out and not have to pay him.

      Unfortunately Mickey Mouse will never hit the public domain and I think that is flagrent abuse of corporate power. Does anybody think that it is in the best interest of we the people that IP ownership lasts indefinitely? Wouldn't 5 or 6 years be enough for a video game or a movie, 8 to 10 years for software and such sane limitations be enough for the original IP creator to make back his input and a little profit?

      Sadly the law can be corrupted and todays IP law is a maddening example of this. Modern IP law does not reflect what is best for the people but instead what is best for IP owning corporations. True we are breaking a law if we download movies and tv and games and the like, but it is an unjust law. I agree again that this does not justify IP 'theft' and we should work to change these laws if we do not like them, but that power has been nearly striped from us and handed to the corporations. This makes changing a law that normal people don't like far more difficult than changing a law a large corporation or organization does not like.

      I don't think I should end this without providing at least a hint of a solution, although previous Slashdot mods have shown me its alright to simply provide the gloomy outlook and that reality is not even a necessity, but I choose to present the seed of a solution.

      The industries have learned to organize, even the labor has organized in certain industries. Organization seems to lead to an amalgamation of power benifiting the members of the organization. For this reason I belive there should be some form of consumer union. Today, if Wal-mart commits some atrocity few are going to know about it and fewer are going to respond to it. With a consumer union decent sized boycotts could be organized, consumer knowledge would be increased (union newsletter can inform many of atrocites, etc) and our voice can be heard. Instead of one person sending an angry letter to a corporation, thousands of angry letters can be sent, boycotts can be enforced and we could even lobby the government (what's good for the goose is good for the gander!) so our interests are heard. People may call such a union a special interest group, but we are all consumers so is it really a special interest?

      I'd appreciate any input please.

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    60. Re:This time they've gone too far. by KnightTristan · · Score: 1

      I think the University in this case is a lot more at fault, because the industry could try and pressure or threaten audits or whatever, but they should have stood up to it. If I was in the administration I would have recorded every bit of communication with the industry groups and would have said "You even TRY to nail us for exercising our academic freedoms, this will go out all over every major media outlet and we'll make sure to take you to court over it"

      But then they would have discorved the dean's illegal file sharing activities(as in sharing files that are illegal to share, not as in sharing open source stuff)

    61. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then we're screwed, democracy is lost and we should all just give up and go home.

      I've been saying this for years.
    62. Re:This time they've gone too far. by GoodbyeBlueSky1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's the cynic in me, but "changing laws" is an imaginary concept, at least as far as you or I are concerned.

      When's the last time you had ANY significant say in your government? Lawmakers influence the laws, and they are usually self-serving (looking after the constituency, my ass). But like I said, I'm quite cynical and the past six years watching the American gov't in action haven't exactly improved this stance.

      --
      why? forty-two.
    63. Re:This time they've gone too far. by lundbergaj · · Score: 1

      I think you missed another choice. Instead keeping quiet and obeying the law vs violating the law, you can complain and boycott. After all, this is the music and entertainment industry. You can simply avoid their products. There's free music available from musicians not part of these groups. There's storage media not supporting even this well connected Spanish group. We can certainly learn to not be their customers.

      Keep in mind, everything they're selling, everything they own and don't want you to copy, you don't need. Once enough of their former customers no longer want their product, they might learn to be a little nicer to the ones they have left.

    64. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      No, we are *not* screwed, democracy is *not* lost, and who said anything about giving up?

      For example, a wonderfully entertaining idea for an act of civil disobedience: Take a wireless laptop, PA speakers, and a DLP projector, and set it up next to the Washington Monument or something. Establish a wi-fi link to some government building (bonus points if it's the Pentagon!) and fire up Kazaa. (or p2p app of your preference; but Kazaa is easily recognizable by the unwashed masses)

      Download Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" and play it right there.

      Answer questions, pass out leaflets, post one up on the monument. Pack up, go home, and if the PTB have anything to say about it, defend with 'it's political speech.'

    65. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).

      You've confused the words "theft" and "misappropriation". Disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft, but it does justify misappropriation.

      The reason is that, in the case where you aren't going to buy the product anyway (due to disagreeing with their corporate practices), it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever if you obtain it or not. There really is no harm in that particular instance.

      Theft, on the other hand, is where you take property that belongs to others. That does cause harm, so it's less justifiable.

      Consider an example: you dislike the music industry's practices, so you don't buy music. Now, you might download music illegally (misappropriation), or you might walk out of a shop with CDs that you didn't pay for (misappropriation and theft).

      The former causes no harm, since they weren't going to get your money anyway. The latter causes harm because they have lost property.

    66. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Burdell · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken.

      US Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
      The Congress shall have Power ...
      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
      limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
      respective Writings and Discoveries;

      That is the basis for patent and copyright law.

    67. Re:This time they've gone too far. by kinri · · Score: 1

      Article I. Section 8. Clause 8.

      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

      (Copyrights and patents)

    68. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I provided my definition of theft for the purposes of the discussion.

      Well, see, here's your problem:
      For the purposes of this discussion,
      anyone named Zoomba is likely to be a
      child-molesting serial killer.
      Is there any reason your inaccurate definition should carry any more weight than mine?

    69. Re:This time they've gone too far. by adiposity · · Score: 1

      > Then we're screwed, democracy is lost and we
      > should all just give up and go home.

      We're screwed as long as we play their game, and we should go play another game, like not following stupid laws until enforcing them doesn't make sense anymore.

      Democracy is good, but not perfect. Sometimes the only way for the weak to change the law is to use unsanctioned tactics. Riots, rebellion, and revolution are all options. In this case some advocate a slightly less dramatic option, like p2p file sharing that says "fuck you" to ridiculous copyright laws.

      -Dan

    70. Re:This time they've gone too far. by crabpeople · · Score: 1
      "1. Viewing at a friend's house.
      Fair use. A copy was purchased, the purchaser can view it as much as he likes, let friends view it, lend it (the one copy) to another friend, make as many personal copies as he likes so long as they are not sold or distributed."


      what if my friend lives 3000km away or in another country? what you are talking about is a physical copy, i am talking about information. its cute to think of watching a dvd or lending a dvd to a friend is any different than copying it for a friend. in both cases the mpaa sees no profit. in both cases i have viewed something without paying. now what if im a friendly guy and have 10000 friends i want to share it with. i believe in sharing, not a gimme gimme consumer society. you are preaching of the olde guard which is crashing down as we speak.


      "2. Percieved Loss
      If you have something you did not pay for, which you should have if determined by the owner of the work, then there is a loss. You owe the owner the cost of the item as you would have paid for it normally. The claim of percieved loss is a weak one for people who want to justify not paying for software, movies or music."


      whats that saying? to assume - makes an ass out of u and me. theres NOTHING that says i would watch the movie otherwise. nothing at all. nothign worth paying for is worth watching. if people want me to watch their shit they should present it to me. See I think I am more important that the content creators. They are creating content FOR ME. Take star wars as an example. I didnt see number 2 and dont really care to. I am planning on watching the DVD rip of number 3 that i am downloading currently as it got really good reviews. would i go out and watch star wars in the theater? HELL NO. under no circumstance will i watch movies in the theater. its a waste of money time and energy for basically crap. just because i have a small interest in watching a movie doesn't nessecarily mean its more than the interest I have in keeping my 11.50. In this case i would wait till it was on DVD and watch it at a friends house.


      "3. Violate the law, it's the RIGHT THING TO DO!
      Oh dear, we can't change the law, we just can't... the bad guys own the system. Well, with that attitude, yes they do. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."


      Want to give me 100million USD to mount a lobying group? whats that? you dont have enough money to _buy_ laws? well then i guess its TS for you. America and the west is a corporate plutocracy. corporations are people. more powerful than you or I or even 50 000 of us. Much like the terrorists, when you arent given a level playing field to play on, you level the playing feild.


      "4. Definitions definitions definitions. *SIC*"

      The 3 previous comments by AC's have dealt with that argument. you are trying to redefine what powers these companies have. I am not breaking any laws except ones that have been installed by control freak media empires. The same as I have no problem breaking drug laws, I have no problem copyright infringing laws for my own personal use. See thats the deal, what copyright was made for was so that you dont pass off shit as your own to others, or profit from others work. what you, the RIAA and the MPAA fail to realize, is that most people make 0$ sharing files. GO after the street vendors and the people trying to make a buck. DO NOT go after the people that you are marketing at and those who are activily seeking to enjoy your products. Or alternatively, dont market all this shit to me. If I dont know its there I will not copy it. guaranteed.

      I have a right because its information that someone wanted people to see. If you didnt want me to see it, make your film, stuff it in a bunker in nevada and sit over it with a gun. Then you will have really beat me.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    71. Re:This time they've gone too far. by MightyYar · · Score: 1
      I agree with you that there are no natural rights in either direction when it comes to intellectual property. The whole concept is a completely artificial construct. We put up with it because we all recognize that it benefits society to have a class of artists that are encouraged to create as a way to make a living.

      I think what people are seeing is the whole system has been detached from the original purpose. People equate IP with physical property, which is in my opinion silly, but at least technically wrong. Copyrights far outlast the working lifetime of any artist. Huge corporations collude with one another to make sure that prices and laws maximize profits. It's no wonder that people have become tired of this particular artificial construct and have chosen to ignore it. A social contract only works if at least most people buy into it.

      My personal pet peeve is copyright extensions. You cannot convince me that Lucas would not have made Star Wars if copyrights were only 30, or even 15, years. All he and his investors care about are the opening weekend and the DVD sales. After that, the non-creators are the prime beneficiary of the IP - and that destroys the whole point of IP. I think that it is safe to say that not a single creator of IP in this country today looks at the investment over 90+ years. It's probably more like 5 in most cost-benefit analysis.

      As a digression, I cannot believe that big media is surprised at people's behavior. They spend billions so that they can control all major media outlets, and then they spend billions more on advertising and promotions - using the latest scientific findings about human behavior to try and convince people that they MUST have their product. Well, guess what? It worked! Some people now MUST have the product, even if that means stealing it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    72. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft.

      But, one can break the law to register protest.

      There may to laws to support slavery but you can help to free slaves on the sly.

      Just depends on how strongly you believe in the cause.

    73. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatever, but you can't really use it as a justification for theft.

      We have a MORAL obligation to oppose injustice by BREAKING laws that we disagree with.

      If theft is the only way to fight, then theft is not only acceptable but OBLIGATORY to those with a social conscience.

      To the parent poster, I say... You are a worthless sheep or a shill.

    74. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Jearil · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thank you for that.

    75. Re:This time they've gone too far. by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      "the law is written and paid for BY the companies that benefit from those laws."

      Then the best choice is to boycott the companies and vote against the politician that enacted thoes laws. Now most importantly, to ensure the first two actions (boycott and voting) have the desired effect let others know and let the company/politician know. Something to the effect of:

      Hello, untill (date) I was a customer of yours. (action) led me to terminate my business relationship with you because of (these reasons). I will instead (not use this service or product at all/ obtain it from some other legal source/competitor).

      For your political representative you would just inform them that their action(s) has been contrary to the general interest of the public he or she was supposed to represent and as such you cannot vote for them again.

      Personally I would start writing your favorite artists letting them know that because of the actions of the RIAA you can no longer support their work and you encourage them to seek other distribution methods outside the RIAA member companies to benefit them with higher profits and stop an affiliation with an all around evil company. Remind the artists what the RIAA is doing on their behalf.

      Lastly, hit companies where it hurts em (the wallet), let them and others know, and remember that slowly but surely they will starve out and cease to exist.

      Remeber, as citizens we vote every 2-4 years, but as consumers we vote every day with every dollar.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    76. Re:This time they've gone too far. by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      define "something" and where do you draw the line as to what constitutes "something"

    77. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I agree with you up to a point.

      The difference is if they legally own the content or morally own the content.

      If they extend the LEGAL copyright law to "forever" then I believe they have lost the moral right to own copyright.

      If they refuse to publish the content in and sell it at a reasonable price then I believe they have lost the moral right to own copyright.

      If they publish the content and sell it at a reasonable price, then I think they have a moral right to sell and control access to that content for a reasonable period.

      I do not think 20 dollars for an object that costs under 1 dollar is a reasonable price.

      I do not think extending copyright from 28 years to 75 years past the death of the creator is reasonable.

      I do not think refusing to publish content (supressing it) is reasonable.

      I have and will continue to support music and other content distribution channels that are not ripping off me and/or the artists.

      Copyright law has gone from "encouraging creation of new content" to "massive monopolies for a tiny subset of the population."

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    78. Re:This time they've gone too far. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      So when I go across to Spain from the UK and I happen to download a tonne of music and burn it off on CDs that I bought there... and then I bring it home - I think you can see where I'm going with this. Anyone got a view on this? I'm an EU citizen and I've broken no laws in Spain or the UK that I see.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    79. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might be true in the USA, but the spanish IP laws specifically allow you to make copies for private use of audiovisual material (software cannot be copied without author's permission) as long as you don't make a profit. So if I buy a music CD, burn a copy and give it you as a gift, that's okay. Whether you think it's morally right or not is an entirely different issue. Our laws allow us to do it. I can legally download a song or a movie from a P2P network and watch it at home. I cannot sell it, though. What SGAE wants people to believe is that they don't have that right, and are lobbying hard to get the law changed. Until then I'll keep downloading music and movies if I want to.

    80. Re:This time they've gone too far. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      I've just put you on my friends list so that I can notice future posts by you. People who apologise and admit their wrong tend to learn at a greatly increased speed and thus are more likely to post something worth hearing.

      That said, lovely username you have there.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    81. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secondly, IP currently horded by large corporations and not actually owned buy the 'Man who created the world's best computer game'. I don't like the idea of a non-entity owning ideas.

      Like, say, id owns quake. Oh, yeah, thats right id wrote quake. Not just Carmack, but the whole id team. What happens when ownership is spread over several authors? If comanies don't own products, why should they spend money on R&D to develop new ones? That is afterall the real reason copyright exsists, to furture "science and the useful arts."

      Corporations and Organizations can not create IP

      Corporations DO create IP. Without the corproations R&D budget and without the team they put together, the products they develop wouldn't exsist in the form that they are. Moreover, we come back to the several people working for a company owning a shared copyright, and who really has the rights to it.

      and therefore I don't think they should be able to own it. Part of my problem with this is the basic properties of a corporation.

      The same properties your unions have, no? A group of people with shared intrest, orginizing for mututal gain?

      I'm sure some of the people who work for the corporation (even the RIAA!) are good and decent people

      Ditto above with substitutions:
      Unions for corporation and Teamsters for RIAA.

      but the corporation as a whole is just a massive very powerful and infinitely greeding organization with no morals to speak of.

      Ditto above with same substitutions.

      The corporation is legally bounded to turn a profit and the worst people who work there take this as licence to ignore basic human morals in the name of corporate profit.
      This is true of any large entity.

      The best people simply keep their heads down and swallow their morals or quit.

      Why do you think so?

      This is why I see the exploitation of this structure for organizing money and power as a horrible thing to do. When the guy who originally created the game owns all the rights to the IP I can at least talk to him human to human and say, 'Hey man, isn't this fee a little steep?' or somehow plea to him as a person.

      And he can still say no, and you'll still pick it up off of a P2P network.

      And under sane copywrite limitations I could just wait till his ownership wears out and not have to pay him.

      sane limits... You didn't argue about the need for sane limits. The system that you suggest above would let me own whatever I create, that doesn't say that I can't pass my rights to my children when I die, and them to thiers, and so on.

      Unfortunately Mickey Mouse will never hit the public domain and I think that is flagrent abuse of corporate power.

      I don't think so. Mickey Mouse was Walt Disney's idea, what happens to him is Walt's choice, or whoever he leaves the ownership to. I in the case of the silly mouse, I don't think that is unfortuante at all.

      Does anybody think that it is in the best interest of we the people that IP ownership lasts indefinitely?

      Oh, now here's your argument for "sane limits".

      Wouldn't 5 or 6 years be enough for a video game or a movie, 8 to 10 years for software and such sane limitations be enough for the original IP creator to make back his input and a little profit?
      Why make different limits for different works? A video game is software (or hardware in rare cases), BTW. I think that the length at which I hold on to my work should be my choice. Who better than the creator to know what he put into a creation and what should be given back to him.

      The industries have learned to organ

    82. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I vote in every presidential election, and every time the presidential candidate whom I voted for ends up with 0 votes *total*.

      I don't understand. Are you voting for "asdfjlasjf" or something?

    83. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a right to keep your work secret. Once you've published it, you've "made it public". At that point, I do indeed have a natural right to look at whatever you've put out there, or to listen to whatever sounds you're making, just as you had the natural right to create those sights or sounds in the first place.

      That we as a society (more or less) agreed to allow you some control back over your creation even after you've relinquished control by making it public doesn't change the situation. It was done for a specific purpose, to encourage creators to make their work public without giving up all control. However, I can certainly argue that, if I would not have bought a copy of your music at the price you're asking, it doesn't hurt you in any way that I have a copy of it. I believe that "natural rights" includes doing anything that doesn't harm someone else.

      The "monopoly rents" that are imposed on us to protect copyright are high. Complicated rights management on computer software (to make sure only the right number of people are using software at a particular time, or that only the correct number of processors are in the computer) (and this costs both to create and use the rights management, and the cost to the user when the mechanism fails), DVD encryption, BSA audits, inhibiting inexpensive distribution methods, RIAA lawsuits, iTunes songs that can only be played on an iPod.

    84. Re:This time they've gone too far. by chochos · · Score: 1

      pee wee herman can beat tyson in a barehanded fight.

      All he has to do is tell tyson he was just at a dirty movie theater... the "ew" reaction from tyson will give pee pwee the victory.

    85. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      What about
      4) Share music only with friends that you trust.

      While technically unlawful, if you chip in with 20 or 30 other people to buy copyrighted material and make copies for each person in the group, your chances of ever getting caught are zero (unless you really piss off a member of the group). And you wind up getting CDs/DVDs for about $1 (cost of media plus share of original) instead of $18.99 or whatever they are charging these days.

      Don't like that? There is always:
      5) Only listen/watch copyrighted material that is available on loan for free from your local library... at least until the **AA make that illegal too!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    86. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You're from Utah? You have my profound sympathy. I'm told they don't look kindly on people that don't go along with the groupthink out there...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    87. Re:This time they've gone too far. by MorePower · · Score: 1
      You are obtaining something without paying for it.

      This is a big part of the problem. "Obtaining something without paying for it" is not wrong. Theft is wrong because the other person lost something. The fact that the thief gained something is in no way morally wrong, only the fact that they caused loss to someone else.

      If I could make the world understand one thing, this would be it. I HATE the puritanical ethic that suggests you should have to lose something for everything you gain. That is a necessary evil when goods are scarce, but it should not be applied as a universal moral truth.

    88. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Ownership is a right which can only
      exist when people give that right to each other.

      When the greedy asses take this (copy)right we
      have given them, and twist it so that we (the
      potential customers) are no longer given the
      right to own that which we have paid for,

      ... then we lose ALL INCENTIVE to
      continue granting the wonderful benefits
      of copyright.

      It takes 2 to tango!

    89. Re:This time they've gone too far. by mysticalreaper · · Score: 1

      If 2- doesn't happen, then it's not theft.
      If, for example, I go to your house and break all your windows, then, 1- follows, you lost your property (the windows), but 2- doesn't, because I gained nothing. Then I would not be a thieve, I would be a mad man that breaks windows, a window destroyer, an aggresor, or I don't know what.


      A vandal, i believe. Destruction of property is known as vandalism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism

      (BTW, great post. To talk about theft, we must define what it is, and what it is not. Just thought i'd fill in the part you were not sure of. :)

    90. Re:This time they've gone too far. by HopeOS · · Score: 1

      Then we're screwed, democracy is lost and we should all just give up and go home.

      1. The situation has been screwed for some time.
      2. This is not a democracy.
      3. Giving up is not an option.

      The options in order of escalation are:

      1. quiet civil disobedience
      2. public civil disobedience
      3. blatant civil disobedience
      4. violent civil revolt, ie. civil war

      We are currently between 1 and 2. And no, we're not just talking about music here.

      -Hope

    91. Re:This time they've gone too far. by stubear · · Score: 1

      I apoligize fo rsounding so mean before, this topic really gets my blood boiling, mostly because everyone seems to be so misinformed and/or blissfully ignorant. Article 1, Section 8, as others have pointed out, is the basis for Copyright Law in the US. it was a right specifically granted by our founding fathers for good reason. Note it was granted before the right of free speech.

    92. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Atomic+Playboy · · Score: 1

      *sigh* 'Theft' requires two distinct actions: 1) I aquire your property. 2) I deprive you of your property. If I broke into you house (causing no damage) opened up your TV and drew up some schematics of what was inside it, then at home constructed a perfect copy would i have stolen your TV? I would have violated your privacy (which is rightly an offence), but no theft would have happened. Calling copyright infringment theft is newspeak of the worst kind.

      --
      Evil Clowns with frowns, pushing buttons; controlling towns. Profound? It's just what's going down.
    93. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand. Are you voting for "asdfjlasjf" or something?

      No, he just doesn't vote for either of the republicrat candidates. Under the US system any third party candidate is esentially enforced to get zero votes in the electorial college. Under the US system those are the only votes that count.

    94. Re:This time they've gone too far. by redog · · Score: 1

      I question the ownership.

      Not legaly of course! But by which something can be owned. Owning implies that the matter owned is one. If in fact there is only one then there can be an owner. If such matter is not one then the idea of ownership is defeated.

      They don't own shit, except the dollars we put in their hands. And they use that money to sue people who have no clue about the legalities of licensing and ownership. In fact no justification is needed. It isn't theft because the alleged owner has not lost the purported matter.

      Legaly, I am certian I am all wrong but murders are often freed on technicalities. So fuck the legal system, fuck the RIAA, fuck the MPAA, and Fuck boycott-protest-or-whatever. Damn right I'm angry! Fuck insurance! Fuck censorship! FUCK!

    95. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Wile_E_Peyote · · Score: 1

      Why not? Free exchange of information is just as important -- or even more so -- than freedom from discrimination.

      I specifically said P2P. You can exchange information with out P2P. We are doing it right now. There is no comparison between people being able to share data in a specific way and people being denied basic human rights. I also think human rights is a much more important issue than whether a company (it wasn't the goverment) can abuse it's influence.

      I think it's despicable as well, but it is in no way as serious as a goverment not recognizing the rights of a portion of the citizenry.

      Note that this isn't just about copyright infringment anymore -- this guy got censored for talking about a technology, not advocating violating the law. It really has become about Free Speech.

      This was in reply to specific comments which I quoted in my reply. I never said the teacher's situation was about copyright infringement.

      It's also not about free speech exactly. He was allowed to say what he wanted. The government didn't stop him, he has even posted it on the internet. I don't know anything about Spanish courts but he may even be able to take the school and/or the SPIA and MPAA to court and I hope he wins if he does.

    96. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excellent post. The cartel are working hard to obscure this distinction in the minds of the public.

      I personally think it is immoral to buy cds, and to not use file sharing. Sounds like I'm being contrarian, but it is genuinely how I feel.

      It has nothing to do with wanting to get something for nothing. Before the napster shutdown, I had downloaded 0 songs. I'd never been very interested in pop music, having bought 50 cds in my lifetime, mostly 2nd hand, and of the new ones 90% were classical music. I'd never (and have never) owned a tv. I didn't listen to music that often.

      After the napster shutdown, I thought and researched a lot about the underlying issues, and decided I would not give this cartel any more of my money, and that in fact it would be immoral and irresponsible of me to do so. Since then I have made a point of downloading music and have become much more interested in music as a result.

      I have not in the last five years, and will not for the rest of my life so long as the cartel pursue their course of repression and aggression against technology, bought a single cd or dvd. I would happily use iTunes -- it would be far more convenient than filesharing and the money is not an issue for me -- but refuse to so long as it will be funneling money into the pockets of this cartel. I still go to see movies ( a weakness) but rather less than half as often as I used to before the napster debacle, and I'm trying to convince myself to stop altogether. When bandwidth has increased enough, I likely will stop, even though I really enjoy movies. But it just feels wrong to be giving these evil people my money.

      They are wrong. They are intellectually wrong. They are morally wrong. Any laws supporting them are morally wrong. Based on history, I suspect that it is inevitable the issue will eventually come to violence. They are as wrong as the people who wanted to prevent airplanes from flying over private property, as wrong as the people who wanted to prevent photographs from being taken of public places or of people. And the largest of them all built their entire empire, their entire wealth, on borrowed ideas, themes, and stories that would have been completely denied them under the laws they wish to establish. For this massive hypocrisy, they deserve to be ignored. They deserve to be flouted. They deserve to be despised. They deserve to be attacked by every technological means possible. They do not deserve their wealth. They have not earned it. They have gained it by cheating and leeching off the sweat and inspiration of others, and seek to preserve it by attempting to repress, control and subvert the technological advances that are the lifeblood of modern society.

      There is nothing at all immoral about file-sharing in the context of the ongoing struggle. It is the people who buy cds and other media, thus funneling more money and more power to this despicable group of people, who are morally deficient.

    97. Re:This time they've gone too far. by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft

      It's not theft at all. You've been brainwashed into thinking that. Theft requires that you take someone's possession away and deny them access to that. It's not piracy either. That requires theft, rape and pillage on the high seas.

      What copying music does is increase its availability without compensating the record industry. They lose revenue. Never mind that you weren't going to buy it in the first place, you've devalued its worth to the record company by making it available without having to go through them.

      Should it be illegal? Well I personally think that's arguable since I don't believe that restricting access to information or art is good for society in the long run. Should the penalties be large sums of money and years in jail? Hell no! That should be reserved for rapists and murders. Making the penalty for copying songs the same as for drug trafficing devalues prison as a form of punishment and crowds jails with people who shouldn't be there (which the tax payer then foots the bill for).

      I have no love of or sympathy for record companies. They're leeches whose time is gone but who don't want to let go...and as for the artists yes they should be compensated but not with inordinate amounts of cash, and at the expense of people being fined into the stone age and jailed.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    98. Re:This time they've gone too far. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "However, we control our own computers. Therefore, if we fight a war of software, the advantage goes to us."

      This also they would like to do away with. Through proposed changes to a "thin-client" type software and entertainment content "subscriber" model to things like NGSCB/Trusted Computing.

      Not trying to sound tin-hattish, just pointing out that this idea of removing or limiting general-purpose computers as a consumer item has not been overlooked by those in power.

      Cheers

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    99. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so give me money or I will kill you.

      If you are not willing to pay for my respect of your right to life, why should you have it? But no, your right to life and liberty is inalienable. You don't have to pay for it, and in fact, you cannot sell it.

      How would the proponents of copyright react if we made copyright inalienable, like liberty? They'd all freak. Why? Because none -- NONE -- of them are creators or makers or doers. If copyright were inalienable, they'd have nothing. None of them would have any copyrights to enforce or make money from. Because none of these people have ever created anything themselves. Their wealth and power comes solely from having contrived to own the rights to things other people created. Because of this they deserve nothing. The rights they claim never belonged to them in the first place.

      In the old world, they had a place. Their services as middlemen were a necessary evil. That evil is no longer necessary. They no longer have a place. They continue to exist only to the extent that they are able to contrive laws to preserve themselves and to convince people like you that you are somehow morally obliged to obey these laws regardless of the fact that the only reason they exist is that corrupt politicians and lawmakers were bribed to put them on the books.

      Because doing this necessitates that they suppress and retard the progress and advance of technology, it is they who are immoral.

    100. Re:This time they've gone too far. by atomico · · Score: 1

      We all think that, once you have paid the levy on blank media (thus being considered 'a criminal unless proved otherwise'), and this levy being equivalent to the IP cut the author/their representative gets from the CD price, then you are entitled to copy whatever you feel like.

      Anyway, I have never heard reasoning like this before a judge...

      [Writing from Spain, and feeling very sorry for this country...]

    101. Re:This time they've gone too far. by redog · · Score: 1

      "Here we're talking about movies and music... items that you have no right to"

      They are not items. These are re-creations of items.

      "Just because someone else has something you really like doesn't mean you have a right to it as well."

      Like freedom? I think that is exactly what the king tells his subjects.

      "Rights can only be claimed when it's over something you need. We need to live free, we need to not have the government control our thoughts and our speech. We need to be able to move about freely and explore opportunities without unfair discrimination."

      WHAT! You may have become comfortable with your freedoms but you contradict yourself with that because you don't need freedom to survive! You dont need free speech to survive. You don't need anything listed in the US Declaration to survive.
      I agree we like to have them but our lives are very much limited with out them. Just like we are limited if we don't get a free copy of a BS CD or DVD.

    102. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      However, we control our own computers.

      You'd like to think that. If you run Windows, MS owns your computer. Just read the EULA. Not to mention the legislation they're trying to pass that would give them a lot of control over "your" computer.
    103. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Inebrius · · Score: 1

      The same thing could easily be said about the inverse... What natural right does a content creator or copyright owner have to control what I can see, what I can hear, what I can transform, and what I can copy. It seems much more natural for people to be able to freely copy what they see than put restrictions on it. I may not be able to invade someones home as that would be violating a "natural property right". However, if someone releases their work to the public, it is less natural for there to be artificial restrictions on what I do with said content - particularly after I have paid for it. At one time, I might have cared about the artists, the producers, and all the people in the production chain, and maybe even the corporation which is part of the structure (investment). But given that the RIAA/MPAA basically control what physical media is the defacto standard, they engage in price fixing, they buy laws which the general public does not want, they support media consolidation, they abuse artists, they want to lock up content (and eliminate the possibility of exercising our fair use rights), they try (and sometimes succeed) at changing laws that restrict innovation, research, development, and consumer choice, and the fines for infringement are absolutely ridiculous compared to any crime or loss the content owners incur. I could go on and on.

    104. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big difference between "real theft" and "copyright infringement", in that copyright infringement isn't taking the original, it is making a copy of it.

      Why is the "owner" of that item OWED a sale? The only value it had to the owner was how much I would pay him. That I have a copy does not, in any way, hurt him directly, so why should he be "compensated" for that copy? Compensation for what? He still has what he created.

      Now, if it has SOME value to me, then an argument can be made that I should pay that value (and no more). An argument can also be made that there's no reason to do so for something that has already been created, but only to encourage more creation from the same person. An argument can also be made that the ""value to me" is irrelevant, that all that should be paid is whatever it takes to get that person to create more, as long as that price is less than the net increase in worth to society by having that person create more.

    105. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Maggott · · Score: 1

      I will explain. What it comes down to is the popular vote does not determine who is president--the Electoral vote does. They say electoral votes are determined by the popular vote, but that's a very dodgy assertion to make--technically they are, but not in any sort of reflective way.

      In the last two elections, I voted for the Libertarian candidate (Brown and Badnarik, respectively). In both of those elections, they ended up with 0 electoral votes total, meaning they recieved 0 votes in the real vote for president. The electors for my state did not represent my vote at all; therefore, my vote did not count.

    106. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is listening to free music "civil disobedience" and not just "I'm a cheapskate who wants to listen to free music?"

      That's my exact point. You're not going to convince people that something needs to change by simply fulfilling your every whim and operating as if the law simply didn't exist. You know, other people who had important issues found sensible non-violent ways of bringing them to attention, and they changed the world!

      Martin Luthor King Jr, and Mohatma Ghandi would protest this issue by organizing boycotts of RIAA bands, by starting up letter-writing campaigns, by organizing debates. Not by just CD after CD with free music because "hey, civil disobedience, man!"

      Sure, there are SOME people on Slashdot who don't agree with the copyright laws and are willing to DO SOMETHING to fight them. But the vast majority, I think, are simply freeloading the free music and movies and don't give a crap about artist's rights.

      (For the record, I personally think that current copyright laws are very sensible, I'm just commenting on this "movement" from an outsider's perspective.)

    107. Re:This time they've gone too far. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the piece that your are referring to is Spider Robinson's Melancholy Elephants".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    108. Re:This time they've gone too far. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Personally, I have stopped buying music CDs and stopped going to the movies. But I consider those who "pirate" the media to be less socially harmful than I do the corporations who have systematically corrupted the legislature.

      If the "pirates" did the corporations actual harm, then I would consider them social benefactors. Unfortunately, their actions are to the net benefit of the corporations...so I don't. Now if they were to burn down the corporate headquarters and lynch the management and the boards of directors...

      Well, possibly that a bit extreme. But I'm not at all certain, I'm merely certain that it's:
      a) quite unlikely to happen
      b) extremely difficult
      and
      c) dangerous even to plan

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    109. Re:This time they've gone too far. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I go to see movies extremely rarely, but whenever I do (or when my wife does, which is much more frequently) I donate an estimated twice the ticket price to the EFF (or an allied charity).

      I recommend this to anyone who feels that they "simply MUST see xxx".

      I suppose that I could adopt the same approach for CDs, but I honestly haven't wanted to buy a CD from the RIAA since I noticed what they were up to.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    110. Re:This time they've gone too far. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      IP rights are an artificial construct. They were created to serve a specific purpose and be a benefit to society. When they are abused and twisted to harm the people instead, it is people's full moral right to discard them, regardless of whether it is legal or not.

    111. Re:This time they've gone too far. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with your assessment of the morality of illegal file sharing. But I have a higher regard for its effectiveness. Even if our politicians are bought and paid for by corporations and their lobbyists, they still get a little nervous about passing laws prohibiting an activity that millions of people are doing every day. It's quite often that social norms end up getting codified into law.

      But if we want to make real change, it's far better to support independent artists, create GPL'ed software and Creative Commons media, and write those silly congresscritters and explain how draconian copyright law stifles creativity.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    112. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what if my friend lives 3000km away or in another country?

      Well if they are going to call intangible stuff "intellectual property", I think that it's only fair him downloading a copy should be termed "intellectual lending".

    113. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguing that copyright isn't a natural right doesn't really matter a whole lot since there are no "rights" that it really runs contrary to.

      Copyright is not the "default". The state of nature is the default. All laws should be measured against this state, since all laws necessarily take away freedom in some respect.

      In the state of nature, I have the freedom to attack you. We enacted laws against violence that restrict this freedom for quite obvious reasons.

      In the state of nature, I have the freedom to copy stuff. We enacted laws against copying stuff to promote the progress of science and the arts. Not so scientists, artists, and their descendants could become millionaires.

      Even so, millionaires were created. And we passed more laws taking away more freedom. And the millionaires got richer. And we passed more laws taking away more freedom. And the millionaires got richer. And we keep passing more and more laws that are bought and paid for by the millionaires that make them richer and richer.

      At what point did we stop needing a good reason to take away freedom? At what point did you decide that we need a reason not to have a law?

    114. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      "but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft "

      Ever heard of civic disobedience? It's what you do when the unjust has become law...

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    115. Re:This time they've gone too far. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Here we're talking about movies and music... items that you have no right to, that you do not need to survive.

      Without some form of entertainment, many of us would develop mental disorders. Too many people with mental disorders in a community makes the community less safe for them and others.

      We don't need to have the latest Britney Spears CD, or the latest DVD release.

      So how can I avoid having it? One indirectly related problem is that once I hear a song even once on the radio, even if I haven't bought a phonorecord of it, I'm still prohibited from subconsciously copying it into songs that I myself write. What can I do to avoid subconsciously copying a copyrighted work when writing music?

    116. Re:This time they've gone too far. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Martin [Luther] King Jr, and [Mahatma Gandhi] would protest this issue by organizing boycotts of RIAA bands

      Except that in the case of music, a boycott is ineffective. If I write a song and publish it on the Internet, then any music publisher could sue me claiming that I subconsciously copied something that I had heard on the radio when I was nine years old. What's the appropriate course of action in this case?

    117. Re:This time they've gone too far. by lithiumfrost · · Score: 1

      The last recourse? What on earth are you talking about? I agree that civil disobedience can be an interesting way of introducing reform, but that is not achieved through quietly downloading in silence. In this case, you have to be public about what you are doing and allow the industry to take legal action against you, and then you may fight in in the courts.

      Downloading "free" content in your parent's basement and then calling it "civil disobedience" is bullshit.

      --
      Que tout ce qui est vrai.
    118. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Xcott+Craver · · Score: 1
      They don't have to convince anyone of anything, because they are the legal owners of the content

      Remember the Napster trial? Twenty bucks says they don't own jack. The industry is apparently convinced that they hold the copyrights which properly belong to musicians.

      If these people are the legal owners of anytyhing, I'd like to see some proof.

      X

    119. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguments from authority like these are fallacious.

    120. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, because he name-dropped HDT his whole argument is moot? I think not.

    121. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The law won't be changed by any means that is within the reasonable capacities of the average Slashdotter. The majority of us have no political authority or influence. At all. I write letters to Orin Hatch every year, and sure enough, every year he turns around and tells everyone that my state is very supportive of putting a death penalty on owning an mp3 player.

      How much money did you give him?
      How many people did you convince to give him money?
      How many people did you canvas outside Tower Records in Salt Lake (assuming there is one) with a sign saying "Donate $10 to the Campaign to Reduce CD Prices" or some such?
      If you could convince everyone who bought music in Utah to contribute the cost of one more CD to Sen. Hatch's campaign, would he not roll over and be your bitch?

      You, and many other Slashdotters, seem to forget that the multibilliondollar media industry that funds the **AA gets its multple billions of dollars from the citizens of the USA, who could just as easily buy the Congressional votes of their elected representatives. So often we hear that the 535 people on Capitol Hill are whores - well, as was mentioned elsewhere, prostitutes surrender their independence - they have to go to bed with whoever pays them.

      It is apparent that merely electing someone to office in the US does not indebt them to the electorate, but rather to those whose contributions allowed the campaign that influenced that electorate. Accept the plutocratic nature of your system and use it to your advantage. The RIAA has shareholders, artists, and employees to pay, as well as purchasing the loyalty of the legislature. They cannot match the contributions of individuals in numbers.

    122. Re:This time they've gone too far. by marcansoft · · Score: 1
      Technically, AFAIK, the levy is separate from the law that allows you to make a "private copy" of something (movies, music, etc except software (which works a different way)). The levy is paid as a "compensation" for the private copies, but AFAIK that does not mean that you neccessarily have to pay it to be able to make copies.

      On the subject of the law that allows this,

      Article 270 from the spanish "Codigo Penal":

      1. Será castigado con la pena de prisión de seis meses a dos años y de multa de doce a veinticuatro meses quien, con ánimo de lucro y en perjuicio de tercero, reproduzca, plagie, distribuya o comunique públicamente, en todo o en parte, una obra literaria, artística o científica, o su transformación, interpretación o ejecución artística fijada en cualquier tipo de soporte o comunicada a través de cualquier medio, sin la autorización de los titulares de los correspondientes derechos de propiedad intelectual o de sus cesionarios.


      At least from what I've heard, leagally "ánimo de lucro" means getting a benefit from the copy, not including the "benefit" that you get from not having to buy the CD, but a direct benefit (selling), as much as the SGAE guys would want us to believe otherwise. So, the way I understand it, that law does not apply for copies that are not sold, and thus does not apply to P2P or to copying a CD for someone I know.

      Anyway, IANAL, so I may be totally wrong.
    123. Re:This time they've gone too far. by greggman · · Score: 1

      > Copyright infringement is not theft

      So, if I hire you to mow my lawn for $20 and then don't pay you I am not a thief? I committed no theft?

    124. Re:This time they've gone too far. by Maggott · · Score: 1

      I do not wish to endorse their prostitution by contributing to it. I refuse to play by their stilted rules. And in a way, that illustrates my point.

      They say "If you don't like it, change it by doing A, B, or C." Which are all options that are loaded because they know they have a huge advantage in those arenas. So we can either dedicate our lives to A, B, or C, and make questionable headway, or we can choose F.

      Rather than trying to win by their rules, we do the truly mutual thing and make them try to win by ours. They say "Why not just blow 14 hours out of every one of your days for six months trying to organize a campaign to undo the damage we've got sixty people working full time to perpetuate?" To which we say "Why not just sell songs for a nickel apiece online so we don't have any incentive to pirate them?"

      Honestly, the situation as I see it has hit an equilibrium. Piracy and capitalistic abuse deserve each other; they are, in essence, reflections of one another. After all, all it comes down to is too much money vs. too little money. When you average out the effects of too much and too little, you tend to get around the right amount.

      The problem is that there is always confict because the "too much" crowd doesn't want it to be balanced, so they are constantly upping the pitch of the battle--and if we fought their way, they'd win. The whole problem is we won't.

      It would be hard to convince me that trying to match the RIAA dollar for dollar is more effective than just downloading Azureus.

      (The irony is I don't typically pirate music OR buy it, which is why I can openly support the pirates without worrying about getting sued. I also work in the entertainment field, so I know the arguments and think most of them are complete bullshit.)

    125. Re:This time they've gone too far. by handslikesnakes · · Score: 1

      No - we're being screwed, we never had democracy in the first place and we should all take up arms and free ourselves.

    126. Re:This time they've gone too far. by gusilu · · Score: 1

      But it is true, in Spain. At least with current laws; just as long as you are not obtaining profits from those downloads, P2P is absolutely legal at the moment.

      --
      Don't try to fix me. I'm not broken.
    127. Re:This time they've gone too far. by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Correct. You have violated a contract.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    128. Re:This time they've gone too far. by juhaz · · Score: 1

      we have the right to anything beyond life, liberty and the persuit of happiness (i.e. the right to lead a life without oppression...

      There are no great document granting you any of that either. Nature couldn't care less about your liberty and pursuit of happiness, or even life, as long as you breed before you die.

      THERE ARE NO NATURAL RIGHTS

  9. Harumph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd have fired him for specifying an unreadably small font size on his blog.

  10. Resigned != Fired by licamell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Director called me and first asked me to remove any link to the university from my website, and also to "hide" the fact that I was teaching there. Then he told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them). Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did.

    I'm not trying to say what happened was at all right, but it does not help the argument to start stories with the claim that he was fired. Fudging the little facts to get attention always in the long run will be held against you, and your side will not be taken as seriously.

    Also, one should remember that this teacher was not approved to give the lecture and decided to go without permission and give it in the cafeteria. This would be grounds for inspecting someones future at most companies/universities.

    Once again, I think what happened was a shame, but I also think that ignoring these facts is just unacceptable.

    1. Re:Resigned != Fired by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Surely, if the Director is worried that an audit of his department will uncover unlicensed software, it's the Director and/or the IT guys who should be worrying about their jobs.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Resigned != Fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not trying to say what happened was at all right, but it does not help the argument to start stories with the claim that he was fired. Fudging the little facts to get attention always in the long run will be held against you, and your side will not be taken as seriously.

      Oh come on. It is well understood by the media and the public that being forced to resign is the same as being fired. There seems from the description to be little doubt that he was "asked" to resign by the Dean, and that if he had refused they would have fired him anyway and left a black mark on his record.

    3. Re:Resigned != Fired by pilgrim23 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Recently I was attempting to deliver a lecture on "The 50s housewife as a High Watermark in Female Accomplishment" and my follow-on lecture "Feminists: why each man should own at least one" to the Womyn's (Stud)ies program at UCLA.
      I could see no possible adverse repercussions from this.
      I very clearly expressed the need for this lecture to the director of the department but she seemed hesitant. Specifically I said: "There there li'le Missy. No need to worry your pretty little head about this".
      Strangely she became somewhat distressed. I proceeded with the lecture in spite of the department's misgivings. 150 women attended the lectures. I very carefully determined that their fathers or husbands had allowed them to attend. Towards the end of the second lecture, the attendees, and many others who had wandered in, became very aggitated. I was forced, yes FORCED to quit the stage!

      Right now I am updating my blog wirelessly from inside a barricaded "powder room" with thousands of enraged feminists outside. This is blatant disrespect for Academic Freedom of Speech and I except the world to rally to my defense! CRASH! -ARGGHH!

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    4. Re:Resigned != Fired by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not sure how much difference there is between being forced to resign and being fired. Technically yes, but practically there's not much. You're right though, the headline still should have been "forced to resign".

      Also, one should remember that this teacher was not approved to give the lecture and decided to go without permission and give it in the cafeteria.

      No, he wasn't approved to use the two venues. This is largely a matter of resource scheduling at most Universities. It's not an attempt from on-high at silencing people. He was invited by two student groups to give a lecture (so a lot of people wanted to hear him talk). Generally professors or instructors don't need "permission" to lecture.

      This would be grounds for inspecting someones future at most companies/universities.

      Maybe at most ueber-controlled companies, but giving a lecture on something is strangely enough.. encouraged at universities. Something about academic freedom encouraging learning.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Resigned != Fired by menkhaura · · Score: 0, Troll

      I find it really sad in this day and age, and in a supposedly civilized country as Spain, that freedom of speech is so mistreated.

      It wouldn't surprise me if this happened in the United States, where RIAA, MPAA, and $GENERIC_MEGACORP actually rule, but in a modern first-world country in Europe?

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    6. Re:Resigned != Fired by LionMage · · Score: 1

      This is certainly humorous, but not at all analogous to the situation.

      IMHO, any so-called "university" that silences a professor because he gave a lecture that made some corporate interests uncomfortable needs to have its academic credentials revoked. Doing so would cause such situations to correct themselves very quickly.

      To amplify what another poster has said, in academia, a professor (especially a tenured professor) is "fired" by being pressured into resigning. This sort of thing also happens in the higher echelons of government, e.g., "I expect to see your resignation on my desk in the morning."

    7. Re:Resigned != Fired by snortCrush69 · · Score: 1

      Wow.. First off, this little parody you've brainstormed (debatable due to lack of proper equipment) isn't even relevant to the conversation. P2P isn't a topic that would degrade or offend anyone in a humanist sense. Universities and colleges are places to share academic ideas professionally. P2P Networking has become synonomous with pirating and stealing, and as a result has been looked over as a useful technology to bring people and ideas together in an unregulated environment.

    8. Re:Resigned != Fired by LionMage · · Score: 1

      Spain doesn't exactly have a stellar record for respecting freedom of speech. After all, Spain was complicit with Nazi Germany (Franco used German-designed weaponry in his little revolution, and the Germans used Spain as a test-bed). Franco was a fascist, and didn't tolerate dissent very well. Yes, yes, things are different now, but c'mon, they had a democracy and it was subverted; they're only now starting to recover, despite Franco's attempt to re-establish a monarchy.

      Also, there are many within the EU who would privately question whether Spain and Portugal can truly be considered first-world countries, considering how far they lag behind the rest of Europe economically and socially. Many basic services don't reach everyone on the Iberian Peninsula, even now. Of course, I'm sure an apologist will shout me down, but it's hard to argue with the latest poverty statistics for Spain. (Google for them yourself, don't take my word for it.)

    9. Re:Resigned != Fired by DeanFox · · Score: 1



      I'm curious. If someone is "pressured" into the trunk of his car and then taken to some obscure spot, does it mean he was not kidnapped because he got into the trunk voluntarily?

    10. Re:Resigned != Fired by MynockGuano · · Score: 1

      Yea, but you do have to admit that "Feminists: why each man should own at least one" is pretty funny. >8D

    11. Re:Resigned != Fired by adapt · · Score: 1

      That was true in 1974, but nowadays Spain is one of the most dynamic countries in the EU. Valencia and explicitely the UPV should have behaved better and defend transparency, instead of chosing to bow to commercial interests - that might not affect a University. I guess most Unis are still very much state funded and depend very little on private sponsorship... It was a case of respect for the hierarchy - that problem we still have and is very hard to solve.

    12. Re:Resigned != Fired by MynockGuano · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that we should expect the Spanish Inquisition?

    13. Re:Resigned != Fired by Viper_KillerGuy · · Score: 1

      They didn't not approve him giving the lecture, They ofcourse can't do that. They did what they could to stop him, they didn't give him access to any of the universities auditoriums(sp), thinking that would stop him. And the "resigned vs. fired in acedemia" was mentioned in another post.

    14. Re:Resigned != Fired by allgood2 · · Score: 1
      Also, one should remember that this teacher was not approved to give the lecture and decided to go without permission and give it in the cafeteria.


      Actually that's not true, the lecture was priorly scheduled, it was the room that they kept canceling. In his statement he clearly states that he was invited to give the presentation by a student group, and then the room the event was scheduled for was cancelled. After this had happen twice he then used the cafeteria to give his lecture. The cafeteria typically being public space, not requiring reservation.

      Additionally, he seems to indicate that he was never directly contacted with the request to NOT give the scheduled lecture by the university; it would seem the room cancellations were the subtle indicator for "please do not discuss these issues.

      Not that this type of behaviour doesn't happen at various universities across the U.S. on a number of issues, but I find it even more distressing that the university didn't even try to take the direct approach of asking, "please do not give this lecture" or "please do not give this lecture on campus". Obviously, censorship still applicable, but at least the guy would have had fair warning that his job maybe in jeopardy if he proceeded.
    15. Re:Resigned != Fired by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      *snort*

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    16. Re:Resigned != Fired by discogravy · · Score: 1

      no, audits are a PITA and everyone would like to avoid them. additionally, tehy're a stigma that gets dropped on the person being audited. just like no one ever remembers who lost old elections, no one remembers what the outcome of an audit or investigation is -- afterwards, even if found innocent, you still have to deal with "so why were you audited? what did you do wrong?" questions.

    17. Re:Resigned != Fired by gusilu · · Score: 1

      No, he wasn't approved to use the two venues. This is largely a matter of resource scheduling at most Universities. It's not an attempt from on-high at silencing people. He was invited by two student groups to give a lecture (so a lot of people wanted to hear him talk). Generally professors or instructors don't need "permission" to lecture.

      You're wrong there. From what I've read from his blog; he booked a first venue for the talk and it was approved, but the day before he was told that it suddenly wasn't available, and there was no other place he could book, so a student booked another venue in the Student Hall (and there were no problems when booking it, since it was a student who booked it), only to be told on the actual day of the talk that he couldn't give it there. As for the third venue he mentions....I can't remember right now, and I really don't feel like rereading his blog :)

      --
      Don't try to fix me. I'm not broken.
    18. Re:Resigned != Fired by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      You're wrong there.

      I'm confused. Isn't what I said a summary of exactly what you just said? In the end, he wasn't approved to use the venues. The post I was replying to was the poster who said the lecture itself wasn't approved, which is wrong. That was the point I was trying to refute, nothing else.

      --
      AccountKiller
  11. Both sides? by Agelmar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You really only get one side from this story. I'm no fan at censorships at University, but the guy was really asking for it. After being told repeatedly by his administration that this was a no-go (and we don't have the full story on why this was a no-go) he did it anyways. It's insubordination, more than anything else. If he had worked in less confrontational manner, who knows what he might have been able to acheive.

    1. Re:Both sides? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      You really only get one side from this story. I'm no fan at censorships at University, but the guy was really asking for it. After being told repeatedly by his administration that this was a no-go (and we don't have the full story on why this was a no-go) he did it anyways. It's insubordination, more than anything else. If he had worked in less confrontational manner, who knows what he might have been able to acheive.

      There were a lot of companies telling him no, but not because it wasn't academic.

      Quite frankly, we need more people like this guy to do what he did. He likely knew he'd be in a shit load of trouble, but he also knew that it was the right thing to do.

      Helps that it got the media's attention on the problem, not that they'll understand it.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:Both sides? by derEikopf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      MODS: Just because you disagree with something does NOT mean you mod it down! The parent is NOT trolling, he is expressing his opinion. Just because somene disagrees with the story does not mean his is trolling.

    3. Re:Both sides? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that a university would try to stop such a lecture is beyond the pale. These are supposed to be institutions of academic freedom, not shills for the recording industry. It's a dark day for academia when cowardly administrators pull stunts like this.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Both sides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my country, we have a respect for free thinking. Our ancestors fought to give us intellectual freedom and guaranteed as the first section of something called the Bill of Rights. Where are you from, Texas?

    5. Re:Both sides? by raddan · · Score: 1

      Right, because Truth should always take the bureaucratic route. Tell that to this guy.

    6. Re:Both sides? by punchdrunk · · Score: 1

      The article (or at least the blog entry) never says that he was told by administration that it was a no-go. His venue was repeatedly cancelled or denied. At no time does he say that anyone told him not to give the lecture.

    7. Re:Both sides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In my country, we have a respect for free thinking. Our ancestors fought to give us intellectual freedom and guaranteed as the first section of something called the Bill of Rights.

      "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists".

      "That's unpatrotic"

      "That's unAmerican".

      Yay, free thinking!!!

    8. Re:Both sides? by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      The fact that a university would try to stop such a lecture is beyond the pale. These are supposed to be institutions of academic freedom, not shills for the recording industry. It's a dark day for academia when cowardly administrators pull stunts like this.

      This happens all the time. It's not always under pressure from corporate cartels but usually other staff members backstabbing and hamstringing each other over access to funding and resources. If you think colleges and universities are bastions of anything but political infighting, you're kidding yourself. A university, from the faculty point of view, looks alarmingly like upper corporate management. It's a bunch of dishonest, unethical people making it difficult for somebody else to do anything good for the organization, and anybody with a spark of principle is horrified at the spectacle and gets out.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    9. Re:Both sides? by MynockGuano · · Score: 1

      Just because someone expresses their dislike for your words doesn't mean they believe that you should not be allowed to say them. It's all free thinking. The above-quoted have the right to say those things, as much as you have the right to mock them for doing so. They then, of course, have the right to think you're a stupid nitwit, after which you might exercise your right to doubt the integrity of their bloodlines. Naturally, they can then declare YOU unpatriotic, if they so please, and you can call them stinking doody-heads, if YOU so please! In a free society, neither they nor you will be persecuted for this.

    10. Re:Both sides? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and I'm not saying that universities always uphold the principles on which they are supposed to base themselves (what person or organization does), but this is such an obvious example of a dean becoming a corporate mouthpiece that it demands a response. RIAA, MPAA and their counterparts (largely made up of the same members) have been legislators, and now are turning to trying to censor whole areas of intellectual property discussion from a university. Who the hell gave them the power to do that? Why, some cowardly dean, who not only does what they want, but then turns around and tries to deny (or at least heavily minimize) that the fellow had been teaching there, even though he had been doing so for five years. What needs to happen now, if the university is at all interested in preserving even the appearance of academic freedom, is the dismissal of the dean.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Both sides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me. "Insubordination"? What do you think this is?
      Knowledge and personal opinion are incompatible with any notions of insubordination. You must be living in another planet. Tell us what planet that is, so that we can send there all morons like you.

    12. Re:Both sides? by stephencrane · · Score: 1

      Academic freedom is a platonic ideal discussed a lot at universities, but it would not be accurate to say it's central. 'Freedom' seems to become whatever you want it to mean today. In that way, universities are no different from the rest of life. Corporate politics have nothing on academic politics. Politics are always more extreme when a small group of people have too much power or control. If you're not tenured, then you don't really matter and it's not surprising the generally poor leadership skills extant in departments would result in such a clumsily-handled farce. If you are tenured, you (and other tenured people) make clear you matter far more than is necessarily true. Working in a major university, the expectation management needed to bring faculty back into tune with reality is breathtaking. Senior heads of departments are famous for their inability to discern legal danger from legal bluster, and infamous for their ability to overreact. I'm still trying to figure out if it's more that large universities tend to attract fragile people or if it's more that their sense of context corrodes once here. I'm hoping for the former.

  12. Re:from the faux-news dept. by h00pla · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Your comment is pointless. When high officials in most governments (cabinet members of the US administration, for example) are fired, they always legally 'resign'. The whole point of his blog posting, if you had bothered to read it, is that he was pressured to the point where he had to 'resign' - ie. he was fired.

    --
    I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
  13. Um by mcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to Academia. That's how you fire people here.

    1. Re:Um by gowen · · Score: 1

      I'm in Academia.

      There are lots of ways to fire people. Quite often, if people commit misconduct great enough to constitute a firing offence (shagging a student, for example), they get fired.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Um by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if they do something that is not leagally wrong, but pisses off any possible source of funding for the university, then what?

      They get pulled into a quiet room and told all would be best if they left the university.

      Then they "resign", but it's tenamount to firing.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Um by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I'd guess someone who can't spell "tantamount" doesn't have a lot of experience of working in a university.

      Yeah, cause we all know there is a spelling test to get a position at a university.. idiot. English isn't everyone's first language, you know.

    4. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if people commit misconduct great enough to constitute a firing offence (shagging a student, for example), they get fired

      Yes, and we all know that discussing legitimate uses of technology is just like having sex with a student, right? Since when was giving a lecture on technology a firing offense?

    5. Re:Um by arkanes · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And yet, in this very thread you've proven that your spelling ability is even worse than the GPs. So by your own standard, you must have even less experience working at a university than you do. Which is good, because he's right and you're wrong anyway.

    6. Re:Um by shawb · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine that would really hold true for a Spanish university. Maybe that's just me.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    7. Re:Um by gowen · · Score: 1
      you must have even less experience working at a university than you do
      Ahhh... But I can prove I work at a University.

      All I asked him to do was prove that he has, or that he has first hand knowledge of how they're run. Which he hasn't. And I'll wager that that is because he can't.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    8. Re:Um by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dunno, but I'd guess someone who can't spell "tantamount" doesn't have a lot of experience of working in a university.

      An inability to spell some words correctly, or being dyslexic, does not indicate that someone is incapable of having a good argument. Nor does it indicate that he's making things up.

      Even if it did, you should make allowance for the fact that in an international forum the poster could be working in his second language.

      And as I seem to be the only poster here that has actually read the article, I'll quote the relevant passage:
      The Director called me and first asked me to remove any link to the university from my website, and also to "hide" the fact that I was teaching there. Then he told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them). Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did.


      He says that this is why he resigned, which I would say is tantamount to being fired.
      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    9. Re:Um by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      My spelling ability (or lack thereof) really is a non sequitur to this argument. If I claimed to be a member of the english department, then you may be able to make some tenuous connection.

      This is not specific to a university, it is common to all externally funded orgs. If you do something that risks pissing off whomever pays the bills (or specifically in this case whomever can force you to spend tons of extra cash), then you will be tightly restricted until you quit.

      In this case it was made clear to him that if he remained the powers that be would put his department under a microscope, costing tons of money.

      So, out of curosity, what are your qualifications to comment? Likely no better or worse than mine.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    10. Re:Um by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Of course my ability to reply to the correct post may have some bearing :oops:
      -nB

      Add to that a stinking 2 minuite timeout...
      bugger.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    11. Re:Um by gowen · · Score: 0
      He says that this is why he resigned
      Key phrase : "He says..."

      Sheesh.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    12. Re:Um by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Funny

      "great enough to constitute a firing offence (shagging a student, for example)"

      There wouldn't be any staff left if that rule were enforced.

    13. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As what? A janitor?

    14. Re:Um by gowen · · Score: 1

      Even if it were, it would still constitute relevant experience from which I could make relatively informed judgements about this case.

      But no, thanks for asking, it's as a PostDoc researcher and a Teaching Fellow.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    15. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was fired from acedemia by having my position eliminated due to lack of funding. Maybe that's not really being "fired."

      A year later, I was fired from acedemia by simply not having my contract renewed. When I asked why, I was told, "You can't make us tell you why." So, when applying for other jobs I was often asked why I left my previous job. There was no answer that sounded good (that was honest).

    16. Re:Um by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, what are we supposed to infer from your postings in this thread?

      That you believe the researcher in question actually was formally fired, but is not telling the truth about it?

      Or that he was either fired or pressured to resign, but may be misrepresenting the reason?

      Or that you are so affronted by the original poster's misspellings that you are going to take issue with anything he says or anyone else says in response to him?

      By the way, I concur with others that it is poor form to mock others for their misspellings on Slashdot, but I won't take you to task for it. I'd just like to remind you that you don't necessarily know why the person happened to misspell something. You might have inadvertently done the equivalent of making fun of somebody for having a stutter, or speaking with a foreign accent. Even if it was mere carelessness, it's not so terribly unforgiveable is it? After all these are Slashdot postings, not dissertations.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Um by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "great enough to constitute a firing offence (shagging a student, for example)"

      brought forth this fabulous little ditty ...

      There wouldn't be any staff left if that rule were enforced.

      Wowser! Maybe the reason for not shagging students is to have staff left, eh? Filthy students, never know what they are carrying around.

    18. Re:Um by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1
      He wasn't fired. He (claims he) was pressurised into resigning. I ain't making any judgement or saying anything else until I've heard an account of events from someone less close to the controversy.
      I dunno, but I'd guess anyone who can't spell pressured doesn't have much experience working in a university either, and seeing as you claim to be a PostDoc teaching fellow later on in this thread, I'm gonna throw the BS flag at you too.

      Ultimately, the college had no grounds to fire him; instead they promised to make his life a living hell if he didn't. It's not the first time in the history of the world it's happened, and I highly doubt that it will be the last. I've seen this sort of thing happen to professors of mine; I know others who have talked about the same thing happening. It's not as unrealistic as you make it out to be.

      Oh, by the way, before you go taking people apart for simple misspellings, I'd suggest making sure that you yourself are as perfect as you expect from others. Otherwise, realize that, as others have mentioned, this is an international forum, not everyone here speaks english as a primary language. Don't forget that there isn't a spellcheck in the slashcode, and that sometimes you make a spelling error and don't pick it up, even if you proofread all your posts before submitting them.

      Cheers.
      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    19. Re:Um by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Key phrase : "He says..."

      Sheesh.


      So I take it that as you only addressed the last line of my post, the previous three paragraphs stand?

      You seem to be arguing for the sake of it rather because every time someone counters something you've written, you move on to a different point.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    20. Re:Um by edremy · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if they do something that is not leagally wrong, but pisses off any possible source of funding for the university, then what? They get pulled into a quiet room and told all would be best if they left the university. Then they "resign", but it's tenamount to firing.

      Umm, no. At least here in the US, if the professor has tenure they say "Fuck you" and go directly to the faculty senate to stir up some shit. If the university tries to actually get rid of them chances are the faculty will call a no confidence vote that will probably cost the president her job.

      If they don't have tenure they may have some more problems, but they'll still be going to the faculty senate. You've never seen a bunch of academics get in a snit I bet- it's an ugly sight. We've had major arguments in faculty meetings here because faculty were told to lock their campus mailboxes- I don't even want to think what it would be like to fire someone over an issue of "allowed" research.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    21. Re:Um by Optali · · Score: 3, Informative

      This University, as most of the Spanish universities, is *Public*... We, the taxpayers pay the roles.

      And those taxpayers are not specially fond of the SGAE / Promiscae, as they fees us for buying bunrable CD's for storing our pictures and also fees bars and the like for having a TV set, radio or HiFi equipment. Even when the spanish TV stations are either public or earns their income from publicity We are paying IP for TV Commarcials!

      And the funniest of all this is that it's not the
      TV stations which receive the money, nor the publicists, it's SGAE themselves.

      The University we are talking about is also famouse for it's 'infamous' Dean, because of his engagement in nationalistic-linguistical discussions (Valencià vs. Català) and because of serving as a base for a particular nationalist group related to left-wing activities. So, it's not a very popular guy among he's colleagues.
      So it's easy to understand that Cortell is now being invited to dozens of conferences in universities such as the UPM, one of Spains top-notch unis. Some of those conferences with RMS and Marcelo D'Elia Branco.

      The Important Fact(TM): Spanish public opinion, even at a very basic non-geek level is clearly against SGAE and it's clones, it's the guy-from-the-street and the teenage school girl which are afected by the taxes and the bullying against P2P (a legal act, as far as we pay taxes for this). They perhaps don't know about the details, but they know for sure they are being robbed. JC could become a real media-star if things develop further in the direction of SGAE doing stupid moves.

      One Thing I Forgot: The people at the SGAE are not specially smart, the are real *assholes* who could let Dubya seem intelligent. So people are much more upset as it would have been if they behaved like real loobyist instead of playing Bozo the clown.

      Stay tuned, the war has just begun.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    22. Re:Um by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Actually, even shagging a student won't always get you fired, as long as the university authorities know about it and you aren't responsible for directly marking their work. (If you are, they just give their work to some one else to mark).

      It might be different in other universities/countries, but when I was at university (UK) a couple of years ago one or two of the lecturers there were proverbial for fucking their way through as much of the female undergrad population as possible.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    23. Re:Um by yppiz · · Score: 4, Informative

      It depends. First, not all US universities are on a tenure system (and never mind that the university in the article is in Spain).

      Second, most new professors are years away from tenure.

      Now, even for tenured professors at US schools, tenure isn't quite the shield you describe. For instance, if the professor is in a profit-center department (otherwise known as biology, computer science, or one of the other funded areas), if the professor isn't pulling in sufficient grants, the university can put them in a broom-closet like space where it's unlikely that they'll have the lab facilities to put together successful proposals (in biology, for instance, you usually need to have done most of the research before putting in funding -- grants are that competitive and agencies that risk averse).

      Now, let's say that being put in a broom closet isn't bad enough. The university can get rid of tenured professors by eliminating the department.

      Here's an example (not of retribution against tenured professsors, but simply of how a department closing can lead to selective firing of tenured professors). In 1990, Brandeis University had a linguistics department with 6 faculty, and I believe all six had tenure. The university decided to close the department to save money (at the time, the school was eating its endowment, not just interest on the money).

      The university then made offers to 3 of the 6 professors (including Ray Jackendoff) to join other departments.

      Effectively, 3 tenured professors were fired.

      --Pat

    24. Re:Um by edremy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You're quite right that tenure is not a perfect shield, but faculty members tend to get very, very ornery when it's threatened.

      I was just reading an old Chronicle article yesterday about a similar case. (Threw it away afterwards, so I can't give you details since I've forgotten.) The university decided to get rid of two tenured professors by doing pretty much what you said- remove all their classes, get rid of their office, etc, even if they weren't fired.

      The end result after a settlement- the professors won't be there anymore, but they're going to get paid for the rest of the time to their retirement. The faculty senate had a unanimous no confidence vote for the president and administration over the issue, followed by an overwhelming no confidence vote from the full faculty. The president is very unlikely to be there next year.

      Tenure's not a perfect shield, but administrators mess with it at their own risk.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    25. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they "resign," but it's the equivalent to firing.

      Or you could say tantamount.

    26. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder academics are so out of touch with real-life. Everyone knows that the right term for firing isn't "pressuring to resign", it's "leveringing synergies with international partners".

    27. Re:Um by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ". . .fees bars and the like for having a TV set, radio or HiFi equipment. Even when the spanish TV stations are either public or earns their income from publicity We are paying IP for TV Commarcials!

      And the funniest of all this is that it's not the
      TV stations which receive the money, nor the publicists, it's SGAE themselves."

      Who are, in turn, the agents of the people who write and record the songs. It's how songwriters and composers get paid for the use of their works and is the same the world over. Yeah, there's a bit of "double dipping" going on, because the radio stations are also paying to broadcast the music in the first place.

      "The people at the SGAE are not specially smart, the are real *assholes* who could let Dubya seem intelligent. So people are much more upset as it would have been if they behaved like real loobyist instead of playing Bozo the clown."

      Yeah, this is the same the world over as well. Resista los parásitos, amigo.

      KFG

    28. Re:Um by orderb13 · · Score: 1

      One Thing I Forgot: The people at the SGAE are not specially smart, the are real *assholes* who could let Dubya seem intelligent.

      How do they even manage to breathe if this is the case?

    29. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those admins cave in to those kinds of threats! Surely they could just fire them all and hire a bunch of guys with degrees from some other country's PhD-diploma-printing-farm like the rest of US industry.

    30. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. A professor at my Uni in Tx "resigned" right after being indicted by the feds for manufacture of methamphetamines and illegal weapons charges.

      2. A well known Chemisty professor at my Uni in TX was busted by computer support when he brought up kiddie porn in front of an employee. Several months later he "resigned".

      Parent is correct about academia handling crap this way.

    31. Re:Um by scotch · · Score: 1
      Why don't you just admit you were an asshole and move on?

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    32. Re:Um by Optali · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it isn't.

      In the rest of the world the authors are not forced to be member of an organization to be able to get paid.

      In the rest of the world authors and music industry are not members of the same institution

      In the rest of the world such a private company would not be albe to tax consumers, neither they would be legally considered a non-profit organization.

      Think about the MPAA doing all it's lobbying and bullying, plus having the status of an obligatory trade union for musicians, plus being vice-presided by the CEO of AOL/Time-Warner, plus getting money as a governmental institution, appart from it's IP-holding business. This is the crazy part about it: It's a all-in-one !

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    33. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the University of Southern Mississippi. Coincedentally, the president tendered his resignation yesterday.

      See here
      and here

      An article on the attempted termination is here

    34. Re:Um by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      I don't see anyone else freaking out about the specific kind of pressure they were using on this guy.

      The Director called me and first asked me to remove any link to the university from my website, and also to "hide" the fact that I was teaching there. Then he told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them). Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did.

      That fact should be trumped up a little bit more. That sounds like the typical kind of harassment they'd say is common with corrupt governments. We've got the BSA doing it here Stateside. These things need to change.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    35. Re:Um by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "(including Ray Jackendoff)"

      Poor Ray, I can only imagine what his childhood was like in the schoolyard...

    36. Re:Um by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      In most places that's how you get rid of employees.

      It's easier to ask them to resign and give them a glowing reference than fire them and face potential legal battles later

    37. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coincedentally, the president tendered his resignation yesterday.

      So, given that he was under pressure from the entire faculty board, was the president "fired" or did he resign of his own free will?

    38. Re:Um by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Heh - when I was at university, we had this loony UNIX sysadmin looking after the servers for the Comp Sci department. One day he pulled a gun on a couple of students who had come into the server room to ask some questions.

      Needless to say, he very soon thereafter "resigned".

      I still saw him on campus though once or twice after that, and found out later that the department still sometimes had him come in and do work for them, 'on the quiet', as an outside contractor .. I guess they still valued his skills.

    39. Re:Um by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Except of course if you teach IT or physics...in which case you'd hardly get the opportunity :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    40. Re:Um by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Quite often that's how it happens out here in the corporate world, too. My company has never fired anyone, even when it was apparent that they were up to no good (including stealing stuff). It has, however, encouraged a few people to resign. It's better for them (no stain on their record) and for us (less paper work, no potential claim for unfair dismissal, etc).

  14. unlawful firing? by deft · · Score: 1

    No, he -resigned- to "save jobs?". NONE was fired.

    I dont get that... resigned to protect the boss that bent to the movie guys wishes, and the 'other masters program guys'. What danger were they in???

    hmm... of course we're in america, i wonder if he still has a alwsuit over there, since we have 50 for that sort of case.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:unlawful firing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont get that... resigned to protect the boss that bent to the movie guys wishes, and the 'other masters program guys'. What danger were they in???

      "We have decided to cut funding for your project. Please empty out your cubbie holes. Have a good day.

      Love,

      The Administration"

    2. Re:unlawful firing? by C0deM0nkey · · Score: 1
      resigned to protect the boss that bent to the movie guys wishes, and the 'other masters program guys'.

      You've got it half right. He resigned to protect the "Master's Program" and his colleagues in that program i.e. the Director of the Master's program. He did not resign to protect the job of the Dean who denied his venues nor the Vice-Dean who claimed he only "taught a few classes".

    3. Re:unlawful firing? by C0deM0nkey · · Score: 1
      What danger were they in???

      The Director of the Master's Program was in danger of losing his job: 'the Dean had called and had asked him to "make sure I did not teach there again", and on a second call saying "it's your choice, but also your responsibility"'.

      That second call is a veiled threat.

    4. Re:unlawful firing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What danger were they in?

      Being audited. It's right there in the blog. Even if the school paid for all it's software it can still be hard and expensive to prove that every single installed copy is legal.

    5. Re:unlawful firing? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > hmm... of course we're in america, i wonder if
      > he still has a alwsuit over there, since we have
      > 50 for that sort of case.

      Nothing gets the faculty senate at a major US university fired up like an attack on academic freedom, even that of an adjunct faculty member. In the US the dean would have known that caving in to the MPAA in this way might very well cost him his job. Pressure of some sort might have been applied, of course, but something this crude would be improbable.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  15. Jorge's Diary: Note to Self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Leave contraversial lectures to professors with TENURE.

  16. Re:from the faux-news dept. by gowen · · Score: 1
    he was pressured to the point where he had to 'resign' - ie. he was fired.
    I don't necessarily disbelieve him, but a critical, intelligent mind requires a little further evidence than his own testimony before bitch-slapping anyone else's opinion.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  17. Re:Resigned = Fired (analogy) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Copyright Infringement is to stealing as Forced to resign is to fired.

  18. Censorship by derEikopf · · Score: 1
    What I regret the most is to have suffered CENSORSHIP inside my own university (in a European Union member state, of all places on earth), and as a result of pressures and threats coming from Collecting Societies and Recording and Movie Industries (on my website you have proof of all that).

    What's so surprising about an EU state being pressured? That's how the EU was formed.
    1. Re:Censorship by Danuvius · · Score: 2
      What I regret the most is to have suffered CENSORSHIP inside my own university (in a European Union member state, of all places on earth), and as a result of pressures and threats coming from Collecting Societies and Recording and Movie Industries (on my website you have proof of all that).

      What's so surprising about an EU state being pressured? That's how the EU was formed.
      Do you struggle with a reading disability?

      Nowhere in the article or in the quote was there a single word about an EU state being pressured.

      He expressed surprise that he should suffer censorship in an EU state. Not everyone thinks the American game of "Yes, Mr. President!" is the only way to live life.
      --
      Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
    2. Re:Censorship by MynockGuano · · Score: 1

      Not everyone thinks the American game of "Yes, Mr. President!" is the only way to live life.

      Yes, I was just noticing how you never hear any anti-Bush statements at all these days...

      Where the heck did you pull that one out of?

    3. Re:Censorship by databyss · · Score: 1

      "He expressed surprise that he should suffer censorship in an EU state. Not everyone thinks the American game of "Yes, Mr. President!" is the only way to live life."

      I really need to brush up on my geography... I thought there were more countries than those in the EU and the USA...

      "Nowhere in the article or in the quote was there a single word about an EU state being pressured."

      FROM BLOG: [CENSORSHIP inside my own university (in a European Union member state, of all places on earth)]

      The GP's point was the the teacher was shocked at being censored in the EU, yet the EU was partly formed through subversive tactics.

      I don't know if that's true, but that's obviously what (s)he's implying.

      "Do you struggle with a reading disability?"

      Obviously not. Sometimes things require thought.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    4. Re:Censorship by mahmud · · Score: 1
      The GP's point was the the teacher was shocked at being censored in the EU, yet the EU was partly formed through subversive tactics.

      There is a group of people here in Europe that think that countries were bullied into starting/joining the EU by big corporations and governments acting as their puppets. (other similar theories also exist)

      The truth is, that EU was formed by popular vote, however, many people still feel nostalgia for independent nation states.

      As for benefits and drawbacks, according to my subjective view, there were more good things coming out of European integration than bad ones, while of course, no complex process (especially if carried through for the first time) can go without a glitch, hence the shortcomings like suboptimal agricultural policies in EU.

    5. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which popular vote? I *live* in the EU: it was started by France, Germany and Italy, with *no* popular vote at all. The rest of them had and still have two choices: join and submit to EU law or have their economy destroyed by import/export fees. You will notice *all* of the new (Eastern Europe) EU contries joines NATO first and most of them backed the US in the Iraq war.

      As for popular vote, the EU has a *long* history of ignoring them when they don't go as planned.

      And regarding censorship, look in any library and find me *any* book criticizing the EU. You won't find many, if any at all. They do exist anyway, one was Ida Magli's "Against Europe", which disappeared pretty fast. I bet it hasn't been reprinted since.

      Americans always whine about some imaginary Orwellian police state which they expect to come down on them any time - wake up guys. We can out-Orwell you any time, any place.

    6. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First the US sucks because our President is a wanna-be fascist and now he's not fascist enough! Are we not good at anything anymore? Mr. Bush needs to get off the ranch and kick it up a notch!

  19. Those damn fascit Americans!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There they go again with their police state manu- oh, wait a minute...

  20. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Liselle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, while it's true the end result is the same (he loses his job), the distinction is still important. Being fired and being "forced" to resign (tangent: forced how?) are not the same thing. If he refused to resign, for instance, and THEN was fired, that would be something else entirely, no?

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  21. Which just goes to show that... by nurhussein · · Score: 5, Funny

    nobody expects the Spanish (Recording Industry Association) inquisition!

    1. Re:Which just goes to show that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Better yet...

      so I scheduled a second one, and that was denied again. And a third time.

      ...that one burnt down, fell over, then sank into the swamp...But the fourth one stayed up, and that's what your gonna get lad.

      --AC

    2. Re:Which just goes to show that... by ninji · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod poitns to +Humor mod this :D

    3. Re:Which just goes to show that... by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Err.... I dunno about you, dude, but to me this looks like Standard Operating Procedure for the RIA of any country with copyrights. Give a lecture for on how to use software that shares data of any kind? Get a pile of bricks dropped on your professional head. Wouldn't happen this way in the States, because we're more liberal than Spain, but I don't see it being done here either, possibly due to stricter bureaucratic controls on professors or our academic system weeding out actual intelligence. Call me a flamer all you like, but getting a PhD is a career track for pathetically ignorant yuppie scum a lot of the time.

      As a REALLY off topic, I'm grumpy this morning because RotS wasn't anywhere NEAR the movie everyone said it was.

    4. Re:Which just goes to show that... by killmenow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, certainly their most potent weapon is an almost fanatical devotion to the pop.

    5. Re:Which just goes to show that... by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Spanish Reincarnated Inquisitors Association

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    6. Re:Which just goes to show that... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1
      nobody expects the Spanish (Recording Industry Association) inquisition!

      Our chief weapon is fear, fear and uncertainty. I mean our two waepons and fear and uncertainty, fear, uncertainty and doubt.

      Argghhh!! Amongst our weapons we have fear, uncertainty and doubt...and lots of lawyers!

    7. Re:Which just goes to show that... by cabazorro · · Score: 1

      Nobody Expects the Spanish RIAA!
      Their chief weapon is fear, fear and surprise...
      Two weapons! Fear, Surprise, and a ruthless efficiency.
      Aggg!
      No no! Three weapons..
      Among their weapons are such diverse elements as fear, surprise ruthless efficiency and almost fanatical devotion to ownership of private intellectual property.
      Aggg im posting again

      --
      - these are not the droids you are looking for -
    8. Re:Which just goes to show that... by sYn+pHrEAk · · Score: 1

      But she's got huuuuuuuge ... trackers of warez

  22. And yet some big corporations are working with P2P by PhillC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What I find unbelievable is this whole "P2P is illegal" thing.

    Certain uses of P2P technology, which involves sharing of copywrited material is indeed illegal. However, there is nothing illegal about P2P technology in and of itself.

    There are large corporations out there that are working to build legitimate P2P applications for the benefit of the general public.

    Where's the disconnect?

    --
    Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
  23. Probably should have fought a little more by hellfire · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apparently he didn't care much about his job, because according to his post when he was asked to resign he did. However, I do feel if it was that important to him, he should have refused to resign and put up a fight in order to make a stink about it. This would have done exactly what the director did not want, cast a huge light on the situation.

    Because now he has no leverage. This sucks, and I sympathize but what can be done? If he still had his job, for example it would be a man standing up for his principles and at the same time a man who has a right to his job. That's the kind of thing you can try to milk.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Probably should have fought a little more by Rahga · · Score: 1

      I agree... If the univeristy cared so much about what recording industry thinks, it should be worth it to the university to get raked over the coals with a wrongful termination lawsuit.

    2. Re:Probably should have fought a little more by object88 · · Score: 1

      If he still had his job, for example it would be a man standing up for his principles and at the same time a man who has a right to his job.

      If he still had his job, his entire department, who had nothing to do with his lecture, would be audited for the slightest software or hardware licencing infraction (and who needs that?), and he still wouldn't be able to teach (as promised by the Dean). So, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    3. Re:Probably should have fought a little more by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that he will have enough publicity to secure another position. It's likely he knew this and that is why he did not fight too much.

  24. If he'd been a tenured professor by davidwr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If he'd been a tenured professor, he wouldn't have been under as much personal pressure to resign but that wouldn't have stopped his department from being "audited" to death by the industry, and he might still have chosen to resign to "take one for the team."

    I hope there's an investigation into the outside pressure:
    Either there is reason for department to be audited or it shouldn't be, but the topics of discussion in the lectures should NOT be a determining factor, and his resignation should NOT change whether or not any audits proceed. The fact that his resignation changed that outcome means it's political, and as such there needs to be an investigation, so this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:If he'd been a tenured professor by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but switching to open source software sure would prevent his department from being audited to death.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
  25. Re:from the faux-news dept. by kat11v · · Score: 1, Troll
    "... he was pressured to the point where he had to 'resign'"

    Exactly. What else would *YOU* do if they told you that unless you leave, they will fire the whole department along with you? If not loyalty to your department then at least loyalty and respect for your colleagues should make you give in and quit. There are other ways to fight this kind of battle.

  26. Moneyed interests by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Informative

    What happens to a society when the moneyed interests have a controling influence in everything? The Government. The Media. The Schools. NPR had an exellent segment yesterday on Peru's National Intelligence leader durring the Fujimori regime. The jist of it was that he was able to run a de-facto authoritarian country, not through physical coersion, but through bribing everyone. Even if the RIAA and MPAA has no army, their wealthy legal department and overall financial influence could be enough to silence just about anyone important the world over.

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    1. Re:Moneyed interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA as it is now hapens, thats what . The founding fathers are rolling in their graves as we speak

    2. Re:Moneyed interests by jadavis · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's much evidence of that. I'd much rather my enemies had money than government powers.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    3. Re:Moneyed interests by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 1

      You "don't think there's much evidence" of what? I'd PERSONALLY rather be bribed (a couple of clean young attractive bisexual girls willing to do anything, a few million in cash, and maybe some land out west.........please) then be put in a concentration camp. However, massive corruption can be as bad for the economy and society as a whole as a military dictatorship.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    4. Re:Moneyed interests by killmenow · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather my enemies had money than government powers.

      Money = government powers. If your enemies have one, they have both.

    5. Re:Moneyed interests by brkello · · Score: 1

      What happens to a society when the moneyed interests have a controling influence in everything?

      I think the more interesting question is what happens when they don't have a controlling influence. I don't think there is any time in history that financial powers have not had influence. Get used to it.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  27. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

    I don't necessarily disbelieve him, but a critical, intelligent mind requires a little further evidence than his own testimony before bitch-slapping anyone else's opinion.

    That would be cross-verifying his statements about the vice-Dean publicly saying that he never taught at that University. If those are true, then he was actually repudiated.

  28. Two points: by Jonboy+X · · Score: 0

    First, the dude resigned. Sure, maybe he was "pressured" into it, but if you intend to make a big fscking deal about it, you might as well make sure the other side flinches first.

    Second, the administration had every right to fire him anyway. He made unauthorized use of their facilities by holding what amounted to a rally in their cafeteria, after he was denied use of the proper venues. The University was simply protecting its interests, and this guy was intent on raising a stink. Heck, he even "contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it."

    Yes, some laws are ridiculous, but don't expect your employer to pay you to rail against those laws on their property.

    --

    "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    1. Re:Two points: by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A university isn't the same as a business. The notion of academic freedom is central to a university, and the fact that a group of record companies could pressure a dean in this way shows that these guys have taken upon themselves far too much power. It was wrong, it was a violation of the notions of academic freedom, and I think the time is coming when we better sit down and figure out just how much power we want RIAA and its clones elsewhere in the world to have.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Two points: by Blindman · · Score: 1

      The administration was not right to fire him. Presumably, the use of the cafeteria is open to everyone for any purpose. I think you are assuming that his use was unauthorized. Afterall, he could have used one of the facilities that he was explicitly denied. I also assume that he was not asked to stop during his talk due to disruption in cafeteria functioning. As for his contacting the organizations listed, it was probably for clearance and not for raising a stink. Afterall, if he wanted a stink he would contacted the media first and foremost.

      Lastly, I agree that if raising a stink was his purpose, then he wouldn't have resigned.

      --
      I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
    3. Re:Two points: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about your country, but in Spain there is something call FREEDOM (yes, capital letters) in University. it is the very first law.
      Everyone teaching there can say WHATEVER he/she wants. WHEREVER he/she wants to say it.
      Nice place.

    4. Re:Two points: by langarto · · Score: 1
      He didn't break any law.

      And the conference was not actually forbidden, nobody conacted him officially to tell him that he wasn't allowed to give that conference (which, by the way, was organized by the students). But, misteriously, every time he booked a room to give the conference, the reservation was cancelled shortly thereafter.

      He only learned about the pressure by PROMUSICAE by unofficial channels. After the fact, the dean recognized those presures.

    5. Re:Two points: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, he wasn't talking about ridiculous laws being bad. He was talking about what was ALREADY LEGAL.

      It's hardly a rally to inform people of their legal rights. We don't fire police officers (or ask them to resign) for reading suspects their rights. And if we did, there'd be hell to pay.

    6. Re:Two points: by anonicon · · Score: 1

      "First, the dude resigned. Sure, maybe he was "pressured" into it,"

      You're new to academia, aren't you? Resigning IS the same as being fired, and as for pressured, there's no maybe about it when the music interests threaten your department with a tedious, full-scale audit for every PC in the department.

      "Second, the administration had every right to fire him anyway. He made unauthorized use of their facilities by holding what amounted to a rally in their cafeteria, after he was denied use of the proper venues."

      Having a lecture on the legal aspects of P2P systems falls under the rights of academic freedom, especially when the professor in charge has been teaching IP Law at the university for 5+ years. As for the word "rally," that's cute, but flat wrong. Here's a link, now why not learn what it means, as opposed to the use of the term "lecture."

      "The University was simply protecting its interests,"

      No, the University was caving in to commercial lobbying groups' extortion efforts. Maybe that flies at the 2-bit Finishing School you attend, but Universities, above all else, need to defend the rights of their faculty to hold lectures or seminars on intellectually boring OR controversial topics.

      "and this guy was intent on raising a stink."

      Keep spinning, Corporate Spokesperson. He was intent on holding a publicly-available lecture concerning P2P IP issues, and even went so far as to invite parties who have an interest in this topic (quote: "I even contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it.").

      "don't expect your employer to pay you to rail against those laws on their property."

      Yes, because you'd appreciate seeing Universities become nothing more than teat-suckling, blindly-abide-the-Party-Line Institutions of Stooging, eh? It's what you're arguing for.

      Chuck

    7. Re:Two points: by dslbrian · · Score: 1

      Second, the administration had every right to fire him anyway. He made unauthorized use of their facilities by holding what amounted to a rally in their cafeteria, after he was denied use of the proper venues. The University was simply protecting its interests, and this guy was intent on raising a stink. Heck, he even "contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it."

      Fire him for what? Holding an academic talk? Its a university, thats what they do there. This guy wasn't giving a talk about how to build nuclear weapons, its a talk about P2P software.

      The most suprising and shameful thing about it is the fact that they have a completely spineless Dean who caves at the slightest industry pressure. The dean shut this guy down because he was threatened with what? a -software- audit, ~ooooo~, how terrible and scary. Give me a fucking break, you don't demand someones resignation just because the BSA threatens you with a software audit. What a spineless fool.

      And as far as contacting those groups, well its a academic presentation on P2P, mabye he wanted to see if they wanted to -attend-. You know, to learn about P2P!?! Obviously nobody except the professor actually knows what it is and the fact that it is used all the time for legit software exchange (linux ISOs anyone???).

    8. Re:Two points: by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      The notion of academic freedom is central to a university

      Sure, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on university grounds, and when it comes time to face consequences you get off scot-free by claiming a defense of "academic freedom".

    9. Re:Two points: by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And just what about what this guy was giving the seminar on was an abuse of the notion of academic freedom? Please be as specific as possible.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Two points: by snortCrush69 · · Score: 1

      He didn't make "unauthorized use" of their facilities, because no one came out and said "Hey you're not allowed to give this lecutre in any of our facilities." His request for space was denied, and that was because they couldn't blatantly say no.

      It wouldn't have mattered if the guy had given the lecture outside on the lawn. They were going to come down on him for his content, not for his choice of venue.

      Being a student at a liberal arts college, this entire situation is absolutely outrageous. There are lectures here on campus that are aimed specifically at issues like P2P, and even more politically charged conversations about homosexual rights.

      Imagine if every professor that ever gave a lecture on unpopular subjects were fired. There would be a ton less professors, and even less intelletucal diversity.

    11. Re:Two points: by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      He dissented from the opinion of someone powerful enough to force him out of business. That's the political equivalent of walking up to some gorilla of a thug and telling him that his momma dress 'im funny.

      In an ideal world he would be able to do so while he doesn't break some law, but unfortunately we're living in a world where you can do pretty much everything you feel like as long as you have enough money. And the record industry certainly has.
      He has abused the notion of academic freedom by picking a fight with people bigger than him, which is a certain way of getting punished, hippie ideals like freedom of speech be damned.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:Two points: by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

      Wow, gotta love them finicky mods. How many other comments have been to both +5 *and* -1 in the space of 8 hours? America, vhaat a caantry!

      Back on topic, the dean was probably just trying to avoid a hassle by denying the prof use of their lecture halls. Most likely, he, personally, didn't feel like dealing with the publicity. The dumbass professor went behind the dean's back and held the lecture anyway, bringing exactly the publicity the dean was trying to avoid. This was a real two-fer: pissing off the dean *and* insubordination. The prof effectively got himself fired, and I'm sure he wasn't surprised in the least.

      The prof was making himself into a martyr, which is the last thing any cause needs. It's also the last thing the world needs.

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
  29. Pressured? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, the teacher was pressured by the director, and the director was pressured by the Dean.

    Who was applying pressure to the Dean, and how? And why does giving a talk to 150 people justify this level of pressure?

    It sounds more like a tinfoil hat conspiracy where the Dean had his own reasons for doing what he did, but I'm not convinced the media cartels had anything to do with it.

    1. Re:Pressured? by object88 · · Score: 1

      Who was applying pressure to the Dean...

      From the article:

      the Dean (pressured by the Spanish Recording Industry Association "Promusicae" as I found out later, and he recognized himself in a quote to the national newspaper El Pais, and even the Motion Picture Association of America, as another newspaper quotes) tried to stop it.

      and how?

      Also from the article:

      The Director ... told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them).

      Reading, who knew you could learn so much? ;)

    2. Re:Pressured? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA moron.

    3. Re:Pressured? by Jisakiel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The hand of theirs is clearly behind. As an example, the teacher had a conference room booked like a week before, just to be said that it was suddenly "not available", although it was empty. Also, some of their listeners did book another room by theirselves, without mentioning at all that conference, and had their reservation cancelled right before the conference without any reasons given at all.

      I think you don't really know how much power the SGAE has here (RIAA equivalent). They, a private organization, with no publical accouting at all, got the right to collect a tax on every CD and DVD media which increased their price around 40%. I thought before that taxes could only be collected by the state, but it seems I was wrong, not to mention something called "presunción de inocencia", that's "you're innocent until proven guilty". Or you used to, at least.

      That's their main way of funding, but they use many other extortion tecniques. As an example, if a band wants to play anywhere (whether it is a town's local celebrations, a bar, a local radio, even playing the damn hymn of a football club in the stadium) they force the owners of the place to pay them, EVEN when the band plays their own music - in fact, almost every free concert has to give free tickets for them to be able to know how many people did attend. Of course, there is no transparence at all on how the funds get distributed between their artists.

      And, again, they're arrogant to unbelievable extremes. Always whining about the "death" of the culture, when asked about the CC licences applied to music, one of their representors did laugh at the interviewer, answering that "you'd be fool to not register your song, because I could do it and collect the money in your place".

      Of course, noone does anything between the political parties. With the PP (conservative party) that canon on CD's was imposed, and PSOE got a lot of their election campaign funds from them... So the problem does not exist at all.

      F***ng thieves. This country sucks a lot, really. If that was the major problem...

    4. Re:Pressured? by cnelzie · · Score: 1, Funny

      Reading, who knew you could learn so much? ;)

      Don't let that out! You don't want the Religious Right in the US to get wind of Reading teaching people to think and understand things!

      If they get wind of that, they will start a national campaign to start teaching "Inteligent Learning" via osmosis and straight preaching, cause student's minds are far to precious to over-tax with the burden of learning how to read...

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    5. Re:Pressured? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the other fucking comments, idiot.

  30. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if he wouldn't have resigned otherpeople would have been fired if i am reading correctly

  31. How about worldwide video lecture by olivierva · · Score: 1

    Could someone host his p2p lecture as worldwide video conferencing thing? I quite interested in what it all was about

    1. Re:How about worldwide video lecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You can get it as Ogg file from here. Spanish audio only.

      Summary: It's lawful for users to share music one to one (P2P) because it's "copia privada" (roughly equivalent to 'fair use').

  32. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great now your going to confuse the hell out of people who don't understand "eval". Still, I'd hate when people treat these things as integers or strings or whatever. They are sets. "Forced to resign" is a subset of "fired". To me they are not equal, since some people are truly fired.

  33. No FS Here by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obviously no Free Speech rights in Spain -- even in the university system.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:No FS Here by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1, Troll
      Obviously no Free Speech rights in Spain -- even in the university system.

      Nobody stopped him from saying what he wanted to say. They stopped him from organizing an audience for it on their facilities. Don't confuse the right to speak your mind with the right to be heard. Nobody has a right to an audience of 500 kids on a college campus to hear their views.

      And, freedom of speech is not synonymous with "freedom from consequences." You have the right to say whatever you want and, with some exceptions ("fire" in a theatre), not be jailed for it. That doesn't mean that there are no consequences. Just look at the Harvard professor who expressed that perhaps men are genetically predisposed towards math and science and women are not. The guy caught unreal heat for it and has all but taken back the suggestion that we look into it. Was his freedom of speech denied? Absolutely not. He said it, didn't he? Nobody stopped him. He hasn't been arrested for it or stopped from saying it again.

      But there are consequences. When people say "free of speech" they confuse it with "freedom from consequences." The issue is muddled here because it's a university, an arm of the government, so by enacting penalties, isn't the "government" effectively limiting free speech? Hard to say, that's a grey area. My opinion is no, the guy is an employee and his employer has ever right to control what he says, especially when he says it on his employee's dime and on his employee's property.

      The fact that this impetus against the professor was fomented by corporate lobbyists is more worrisome, but I don't know anything about Spanish law on such matters.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    2. Re:No FS Here by MynockGuano · · Score: 1
      Nobody stopped him from saying what he wanted to say. They stopped him from organizing an audience for it on their facilities. Don't confuse the right to speak your mind with the right to be heard. Nobody has a right to an audience of 500 kids on a college campus to hear their views.


      According to TFA, it was the students that ASKED him to give the lecture. He already had his audience.

    3. Re:No FS Here by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      And had he have taken them all to a public park, or rented out an auditorium, or whatever, I'm sure it would have been fine.

      But when his bosses told him he couldn't use their facilities for this, and he chose to anyway, well, that's a problem.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:No FS Here by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      The guy is an employee and his employer has ever right to control what he says, especially when he says it on his employee's dime and on his employee's property.

      His employer is the student body, the administration is just a proxy for them. Since he was able to attract an audience of 150 students, by definition he was doing exactly what his employer wished.

      The problem here is that the administration, like yourself, have forgotten that they are just a proxy for the student body and have started to think they are the actual employer.

    5. Re:No FS Here by argent · · Score: 1

      And, freedom of speech is not synonymous with "freedom from consequences."

      Well, um, actually, it is. It is a very specific subset of the possible consequences that the US "Freedom of Speech" guarantees, but it does guarantee that. The whole point to "civil disobedience" is that one is free to engage in a variety of actions for which one consequence IS arrest, if one is willing to accept that consequence. The people who wrote the First Amendment had engaged in civil disobedience, and some had died for it, for as little as speaking out, accepting the consequences of their actions.

      So don't for one minute think that they imagined that Freedom of Speech meant anything less than the freedom to speak out without the risk of consequences... because they absolutely knew that they already had the freedom to speak if they were willing to accept those consequences.

      That's why the term "chilling effect" is used. Laws that not only prohibit speech but that might have the effect of discouraging speech are not permitted by the first amendment, and using non-judicial punishment and non-governmental organizations as a cutout shoudn't be considered any less an egregious violation of the constitution than directly passing a law banning speech.

  34. No courage, No freedom by Penguinoflight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wafflers. The university should know better than to fear a entertainment industry. This teacher should know better as well. Lecturing at the cafeteria? Who cares... its a quasi public place and they were obviously conspiring against him. The facts could b e more clear, I'd just like to see a little more strength that's probably the mean american in me though.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  35. Two sides to this? by phoebe · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The teacher gives a talk about not being a MPAA sheep yet has this statement in his blog:

    "Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did."

    Something doesn't add up here, but that depends on the alternative of not resigning. There was no real foundation for a dismissal, so he would have been shifted to a quieter role until he made a simple mistake.
  36. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (tangent: forced how?)

    Forced to resign under threat of being Fired.

    Duh.

    You see, in non-McDonald level jobs, being fired is a serious impediment to getting hired elsewhere. However, if you "resign", you can BS your next employer as to the reason.

  37. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they normally get two choices: be fired or resign.

    Now which would sound better to future prospective employers?.

  38. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using the term "forced to resign" for fired is like calling problems "challenges".

    forced how?

    By pretty much holding a gun to his colleagues' heads.

    FTFA:

    Obviously I had to resign to save his (The Director) job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did.

  39. Re:This guy = chump by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Sounds more like the guy was constructively dismissed.

  40. Re:from the faux-news dept. by part_of_you · · Score: 0
    The Director called me and first asked me to remove any link to the university from my website, and also to "hide" the fact that I was teaching there. Then he told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them). Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did.

    Doesn't look to me like he HAD to resign.

  41. Re:from the faux-news dept. by raeljds · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, while it's true the end result is the same (he loses his job), the distinction is still important.

    but the end result is NOT the same (at least in the business world). severance packages are often very different (nonexistent in firing). being allowed to resign is much better...

  42. All this talk about not being fired... by smcd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL, but in most countries if you are forced into a position where you feel incorrectly pressured to resign, and you do resign, that is still grounds for an unfair dismissal case. He was effectively fired by the comments that were presented to him.

    However, I do agree with some people that it would have been a clearer argument if he waited longer for the situation to develop more and made proper recordings of phone calls "discussing his problematic situation".

    1. Re:All this talk about not being fired... by glens · · Score: 1

      I recall a time sitting at my desk in the site office, when one of the laborers came in, quit, and stormed out. About ten minutes later he came back in and said it wasn't fair that he'd been working there longer than another guy who was making a higher wage, and he wanted a raise. The superintendent said something like "You did that backwards. You should have asked for a raise and then quit if you didn't get it. I can't give you a raise. You don't work here anymore."

      I realize that and this subject aren't exactly parallel situations, but they somehow have a little something in common in the way they were handled...

      (why can't I post here while using tor?)

  43. Something I don't get... by dominion · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doesn't he have a union or something? I mean, this is Spain, I didn't think things like this could happen there without some kind of repurcussions for the entity doing the firing.

  44. Mods: "he resigned, not fired" == troll by guitaristx · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can't believe how quickly these creatures have crawled from beneath the bridges and translated their near-unintelligble grunts to paper.
    Mods, please mark "Troll" to anyone who posts anything like:
    "He's a wuss, he backed down and quit."
    or
    "He resigned, he didn't get fired. TFA != Story Title"

    Half-truth: He resigned.
    Complete truth: He was forced to resign, and denounced by the university. The university said, "he only taught a few classes," when he'd been teaching full-time for 5 years!

    This is BS, and censorship at its worst. I'm working on becoming a Computer Science professor, and this article makes me glad I don't live in Spain. Does anyone remember this from a few weeks ago? The RIAA wants just as much control over U.S. universities as the Spanish equivalent already has over theirs.

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    1. Re:Mods: "he resigned, not fired" == troll by gowen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Complete truth : And how many people's opinions have you canvassed before deciding what the "Complete truth" is?

      One.

      And he's not exactly the most impartial source from which to infer the "Complete Truth" is he?

      Christ, with people this willing to accept any information without considering how unbiased or reputable the source, no wonder Fox News is so popular in the USA.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Mods: "he resigned, not fired" == troll by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      If you are reading about it from the side of the 'opressee', this is not even close to "censorship at its worst".

    3. Re:Mods: "he resigned, not fired" == troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half-truth: He resigned.
      Complete truth: He was forced to resign, and denounced by the university. The university said, "he only taught a few classes," when he'd been teaching full-time for 5 years!


      Funny, when I RTFA nowhere does it say he was a full time teacher at any point in his career at this university, let alone a full time teacher for 5 years.

      I believe your Complete truth should read, "the guy taught several classes over the past 5 years" which is what he said he taught.

      I love how you come out pounding with the accusation of trolls everywhere, then turn around and put a Fox News spin on the actual story.

      So, lets see the facts that ACTUALLY exist.

      The guy had a teaching position at a Univeristy.
      The guy was not a professor.
      The guy taught several classes.
      The guy taught at the univeristy for 5 years.
      The guy was asked to give lecture, he agreed to do so.
      The Dean (ie: his BOSS) says NO, three times.
      The guy does it regardless.
      The guy was asked to quit, and he did.

      Was he full time? Unclear, as nowhere does it state what his actual work load was. Is F/T considered 2 classes a year? 3? 7? You don't know.

      Did the guy roll over and quit? Yes, he did. His blog says he did.

      Was he fired, no he wasn't. He says he wasn't.

      BS? Maybe. Censorship, maybe. Real life, certainly. It is a sad truth, that if I make certain statements while at work, it is seen to be endorsed by my employer, as I am acting as an agent for my employer.

      I am very glad that I have already completed my CS education. I would hate to think that a spin doctor such as yourself will ever be educating fertile minds.

    4. Re:Mods: "he resigned, not fired" == troll by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Was he fired, no he wasn't. He says he wasn't.

      Being asked to resign is being fired. It is a minor PR issue, not a semantics issue. When your employer demands you leave, you are fired. That they let you claim "resignation" because it helps you find another job is a concession. But, it doesn't change the fact that the boss walks into the office and demands you be gone by then end of the day (you know, being fired).

    5. Re:Mods: "he resigned, not fired" == troll by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Being asked to resign is being fired. It is a minor PR issue, not a semantics issue. When your employer demands you leave, you are fired. That they let you claim "resignation" because it helps you find another job is a concession. But, it doesn't change the fact that the boss walks into the office and demands you be gone by then end of the day (you know, being fired)."

      Is that how it goes in Spain?

      In my country, if I quit, I get no severance pay, I get no unemployment benefits, and my story of being censored will probably lose much of its sting (quiting is admitting guilt).

      Whereas if I get fired, I get to fight my case in court, may get awarded a huge bonus by the judge, and will impress everyone as an honest guy when I plead my case of censorship.

    6. Re:Mods: "he resigned, not fired" == troll by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Is that how it goes in Spain?

      I know that is how it goes in the US.

      In my country, if I quit, I get no severance pay, I get no unemployment benefits, and my story of being censored will probably lose much of its sting (quiting is admitting guilt).
      Whereas if I get fired, I get to fight my case in court, may get awarded a huge bonus by the judge, and will impress everyone as an honest guy when I plead my case of censorship.


      In my country, "forced resignation" is the same as fired. You can quit then turn around and successfully sue the company you quit for wrongful termination. It happens all the time. I would feel sorry for you if what you say were actually true. They could demote you to minimum wage, change your job description to whatever they want, move your hours so that you have shifts begining and ending at random times, but as long as they don't outright fire you, you have absolutely no recourse.

    7. Re:Mods: "he resigned, not fired" == troll by bbc · · Score: 1

      [If what I said is true]

      "They could demote you to minimum wage,"

      Only if minimum wage were appropriate for the sort of work I do and for a person who has worked for the company as long as I have. They would have to demote me first. I even know of a case where somebody was demoted, but got to keep the same pay.

      "change your job description to whatever they want,"

      There are undoubtedly cases in which this is possible, but generally a party in a contract cannot unilaterly change the agreement. (It is not really an agreement, is it, if one side can change it.)

      "move your hours so that you have shifts begining and ending at random times, but as long as they don't outright fire you, you have absolutely no recourse."

      They can move my hours, but I can do the same thing. I could for instance request that I only work part-time during the day because I have got to take care of a child, and they would have difficulty trying to deny me.

      You know the ways of PHB, but I know the ways of Wally. :-)

  45. I love this part: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...the Vice-Dean of communications had the nerve to say that "I was never a teacher in that University, and I only taught a few classes".


    So, he was never a teacher, and he only taught a few classes.

    Never teacher... taught classes.

    Hmm.
    1. Re:I love this part: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Never teacher... taught classes.

      Well, I expect it varies with the university (and faculty union), but where I work at least, folks classified as "instructors" teach classes, but aren't tenure track. I could see a frustrated administrator saying such an individual taught classes, but was not a teacher with the university.

      Beyond instructors, there's also the poor adjunct faculty. They're considered non-persons at the university in so many ways, I once again could see an administrator denying an adjunct was ever really with the university.

      I'm not saying either of these cover this particular situation, but I can certainly see how an administrator could make such a statement.

    2. Re:I love this part: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had teachers like that.

  46. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you confused the hell out of me when you used "your" instead of "you're", programmer-boi.

  47. I will go to patent it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Conferences with people taking café in coffeeterias?

    WOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!

    Why not conferences with people taking beer in beer_terias?

    HAHAHAHA!!!

    open4free ©

    1. Re:I will go to patent it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 10 minutes minus to the end, xDDDD, it's 10 minutes more of quiet talks, xDDDD, it's 10 minutes more of don't lose time walking to the cafeteria, xDDDD.

  48. Re:from the faux-news dept. by NightSpots · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, common sense says that when your lecture is denied twice by the university, and you give it anyway, you're likely going to get fired.

    The firing is legit - he clearly disobeyed a very clear issue. Most would agree that denying the request was wrong (for some definition of wrong), but that doesn't mean he should ignore his employer.

    It doesn't matter WHY they say it, they pay his salary, he either listens or goes elsewhere.

  49. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    h00pla says: Who cares about being precise, especially when it's important? Close is good enough for me!
    h00pla dealt the killing blow to the English language.
    h00pla gains 15 experience points.
    h00pla gains a level! New title: Slashdot Editor.

    -Grandparent AC

  50. Packed House by http101 · · Score: 1
    So Jorge moved his talk to the cafeteria, and delivered a five hour session to a packed house.
    That's amazing... where is he lecturing again? I've seen 160 people squeeze into a phone booth. That really must have been a high-demand sectional. I mean, really, 150 people - that's far from a packed cafeteria, unless of course, it happens to be the kitchenette upstairs with the four tables and 16 chairs.

    Pardon me, José, could you stay out of the mini-fridge? Thanks. And Miguél, I know your Cheetos are stuck, but that's life...
    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
    1. Re:Packed House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be a really ugly place to be where you have to eat some snack and drink some coffee in a football field sized one room building. Pety you.

  51. Re:from the faux-news dept. by ninji · · Score: 2, Funny

    And if you commit a crime, and turn yourself in, you only surrendered and are not 'Arrested' right?

    Being forced to resign IS being fired.

    /backhandslap

  52. Money Talks! Nothing Else Matters! - my view. by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    Why else would the guy in the article be pressured into resigning? The content industries (principally RIAA/MPAA) see P2P as a threat to their business model. So rather than embrace and use P2P to their benefit. They treat it like some sort of pariah replete with cries of 'piracy' and not 'copyright infringement'. Added to that you have 'forever minus a day' style copyright terms (Mickey Mouse anyone?) and you have a potent recipie for hypocricy. Don't forget, the content industries are also pressuring computer hardware and software makers to adopt 'Trusted Computing' which will dictate how the people who use such DRM-crippeled computers copy and use information. Vote with your wallet and just say no to 'Trusted Computing'.

  53. iffy by cahiha · · Score: 0

    He proposed to demo what sort of legal uses one could make of copyrighted works from P2P networks, and informed the Spanish collecting society, the national police and the attorney general to let them know what he was up to.

    Well, he was kind of asking for it. If the download was legal, he didn't have to inform the "collecting society" or the police about it. But he put it as a challenge, to both the collecting society and the police, and they rose to the challenge. From their point of view, what he announced he was going to do was arguably illegal, and they stopped it.

    I'm not sure what he wanted to achieve, but whatever it was, this doesn't seem like this was the best way of going about it. At least, he could have forced the university to fire him, in which case he might as well have sued for wrongful termination, but he closed even that possibility.

    1. Re:iffy by langarto · · Score: 1
      No, what he did was perfectly legal and he wanted to prove it. He warned the SGAE (collecting society) and the police just to let them know what he was going to do, so that they could act *if* they thought they had legal grounds to act.

      Neither the police nor SGAE did anything. Why? Because it was legal.

    2. Re:iffy by cahiha · · Score: 1

      Neither the police nor SGAE did anything. Why? Because it was legal.

      Guess what, the SGAE didn't do anything illegal either, they just picked up the phone and asked his boss to get him to resign. So, both he and the SGAE each did something private and legal. What are you getting so upset about, then (rhetorical question)?

      I'm sympathetic to his cause, but he went about this in an ineffective and stupid way. If he wanted to be a martyr to the cause, at least he should have done it in a way that resulted in them doing something actionable (like a wrongful termination).

    3. Re:iffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>>I'm sympathetic to his cause, but he went about this in an ineffective and stupid way. If he wanted to be a martyr to the cause, at least he should have done it in a way that resulted in them doing something actionable (like a wrongful termination).

      Remember that this lecturer is not a lawyer --- so he is not even qualified to even talk about the "legality" of P2P networks in the first place.

      Pretending to be a lawyer and give legal advice is against the law in almost every country. Imagine the amount of legal explosure that the university faces if the lecture listeners follow this guy's advice and they get nailed for it.

      Doing the lecture on university property against university policy is bad enough to get him at least an administrative punishment in the first place.

      But to give some kind of "legal proof" when you are not even a licensed lawyer on university property against university policy --- the university has every right to fire this guy.

    4. Re:iffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretending to be a lawyer and give legal advice is against the law in almost every country. Imagine the amount of legal explosure that the university faces if the lecture listeners follow this guy's advice and they get nailed for it.

      That's utter nonsense. You don't have to be a lawyer to make statements about what is legal, and you're OK even if you are wrong. If you can't distinguish a lecture on the legality of something from legal advice, you don't belong in a university.

      But to give some kind of "legal proof" when you are not even a licensed lawyer on university property against university policy --- the university has every right to fire this guy.

      Well, that would have been an interesting question for the courts to decide. Unfortunately, this will never be tested in court because he foolishly resigned.

      Remember that this lecturer is not a lawyer

      That is evident; if he had been, he would have gotten a big lawsuit out of this.

    5. Re:iffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>That's utter nonsense. You don't have to be a lawyer to make statements about what is legal, and you're OK even if you are wrong.

      That's why he can't do it on university property --- he can say whatever he wants on his own time and on his own property.

      This is precisely the problem with slashdot fans and open source fans --- they think they know the law about copyright, patents and gpl.

      All these engineers deploying open source software on mission critical systems --- all without even talking to in-house counsel.

      You have the blind (this lecturer who is not qualified to give legal talks) leading the blind (linux fans in his university) --- and they all think they know the law.

  54. The Galactic Republic by Tilmitt · · Score: 1

    The shroud of the darkside has fallen!

    --
    This guy are sick.
    1. Re:The Galactic Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you even exist?

  55. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by Shabbs · · Score: 1

    I suspect the disconnect is that the politicians are only listening to the spin from the Recording and Movie industry execs who equate P2P with illegal downloading of copyrighted works. There needs to be more and more discussion and demonstration about the legal uses of P2P.

    It is sad that this teacher felt he was pressured to resign. IANAL but I think he should have consulted legal counsel and fought it. This would have made a terrific show case for legal P2P uses. But doing so would take a huge personal toll.

    Hopefully his blog will ignite a few fires.

    --
    Mark
  56. *AA philosophy by Phred+T.+Magnificent · · Score: 1

    This follows directly from the guiding principle of the *AA: It's not who's right that counts, it's who's left. If they can eliminate (through intimidation, lawsuits, harassment, censorship, ...) all opposition, then who's left?

    --
    Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
    Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
  57. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by Datasage · · Score: 1

    The disconnect comes with the unintentional branding that P2P is all about trading copyrighted work. But then its easier to blame P2P rather than the individuals participating in piracy.

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
  58. Not dead yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey! I'm not dead yet! You insensitive clod!
    I'm with my buddy Elvis right here in

  59. Better yet by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could someone host his p2p lecture as worldwide video conferencing thing? I quite interested in what it all was about

    Relase it via bittorrent. Nothing like using a P2P network to prove the point.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    1. Re:Better yet by Atsi+Otani · · Score: 1

      It appears as if the Stanford Center for Internet and Society has an audio lecture, which I'm listening to right now.

    2. Re:Better yet by Bongo+Bill · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think so.... Or at least make its distribution over a P2P network be as transparent as possible. Preaching to the choir has little effect in politics - the REAL ID act got passed, even though pretty much every Slashdotter yelled at each other about how bad it was.

      Don't extol the virtues of something in a place where the only only people who are likely to see it already believe that it's great.

      --
      ...but is it art?
  60. I teach my students to use P2P. by ahfoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I only teach part-time, but I definitely make use of class time to push P2P on the students and tell them that it is their responsibility to get out there and share as much as they can. I find the students are eager to discuss the issue.
    I see it as a personal obligation to get people to use P2P, especially the ones that are scared of it. Now, I don't publicly encourage them to violate copyright in the sense that I direct them to sites like eTree and Knoppix, but I do use class time to teach them how to set up BitTorrent to work with TOR and discuss the merits of clients like Mute and GNUnet.
    To me, this is just following the trend. The RIAA, MPAA and BSA are all into encouraging shools to spend more time on the topic of intellectual property so teachers should feel obliged to take them up on it and use class time to discuss these topics at length.
    I think schools should spend a whole day each week doing nothing but discussing P2P and exchanging examples of the right way to share. The more time devoted to the topic, the better.

    1. Re:I teach my students to use P2P. by glens · · Score: 1

      > I ... time to teach them how to set up BitTorrent to work with TOR

      Using BitTorrent over TOR is quite abusive of the system and should not be encouraged.

    2. Re:I teach my students to use P2P. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's frowned upon to use bittorrent over tor.

      http://azureus.sourceforge.net/doc/AnonBT/

      Please *DO NOT* use Tor for routing peer-to-peer data traffic, it can not handle the bandwidth. They have indicated that they will make efforts to ban such usage if it continues, which will likely affect both legitimate and unwanted use!

  61. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    He was resigned.

  62. The point here is that he was CENSORED by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whether he resigned or was fired, or was pressured to resign is another matter. He was censored in his own university, for God's sake!

  63. But he WAS fired, stop saying he "resigned" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In professional and university circles a "pressured resignation" is an option given to people they are about to FIRE to try to save them some dignity.

    The choice bears great similarity to the choices given to political targets in totalitarian regimes. "commit suicide by your choice or be tortured to death publically".

    It doesn't matter that he decided to resign under pressure, he would have been tossed out by security the day after had he refused.

  64. Re:from the faux-news dept. by MynockGuano · · Score: 1

    Not to pick nits, he makes it a point to be emphatically clear in the comments that the blog was NOT about him having to resign. What upset him was the censoring. I'm sure he will have no problems finding another job, especially after the publicity he will receive from this.

  65. Either you resign or we blow you up... by Pac · · Score: 1

    As they kept pressurising him, he realized he would soon explode if he didn't agree to resign. Spanish Universities may have inherited the Spanish Inquisition taste for exquisite ways of dealing with malcontents...

  66. Re:from the faux-news dept. by arkanes · · Score: 5, Informative

    His lecture wasn't denied twice, and if he was fired over it he'd have an open and shut wrongful termination suit, assuming that they have such a thing in Spain. His *request for a venue* was denied twice. So he gave the lecture in a place where he didn't have to ask for permission. As a trivial example, you get turned down twice trying to reserve a school field for your baseball game. So you have it at the next door park instead, where you don't have to ask.

  67. Jorge Cortell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition....

  68. Headline should read... by kulakovich · · Score: 1


    Slashdot actually credits BoingBoing as source!

    kulakovich

  69. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by Webmonger · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think it would be great if they made peer-to-peer illegal. Since IP is a peer-to-peer protocol, you'd be able to shut down the operations of Sprint, Qwest, AOL, Verisign, and millions more. One day of 'peer-to-peer is illegal' would be enough for proof by contradiction.

  70. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by anonicon · · Score: 1

    "There are large corporations out there that are working to build legitimate P2P applications for the benefit of the general public.

    Where's the disconnect?"


    In the brainstems of the MAFIA (Music and Film Industry of America). To them, P2P should be illegal regardless of its legal or infringing uses, reality notwithstanding.

  71. No, the firing is NOT legitimate by arete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because it is _predictable_ does not make it legitimate. If he worked for Transglobal Conglomerates, the firing would be perfectly legit.

    The proud history of universities is that they are supposed to be places for the sharing of information, not places for censorship. A university is generally considered to be part of a public trust of information, unlike a privately held for profit corporation. The charter of a university is usually not-for-profit and to spread and increase knowledge.

    Good universities have professors who say scandalous things and - if they are well thought out - keep their jobs (usually unless they are personally attacking more senior faculty). By going ahead and getting forced to resign, I believe he did exactly what he intended - proved his university isn't interested in education and doesn't deserve to exist. (Unless of course they come back and remedy it)

    Furthermore it is part of the mandate of a professor to do things like this - they are supposed to be making the world a better place, and they have a burden to that - the same way a doctor is supposed to help people even if they work for a corporation. They have BOTH responsibilities.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    1. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by stlhawkeye · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The proud history of universities is that they are supposed to be places for the sharing of information, not places for censorship.

      Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. *wipes tear from eye* *snickler* Pmmffff. I can't help it. Bahahahahahahahahahah HA!

      Universities.... sharing information and ideas....no censorship....

      Bahahahahahahahaha!

      Oh man. Sorry. Eh heeee! Have you ever been to a university? And even more important, have you ever been part of the faculty at one? There is a conformity and monotony of thought presence that defies description. And if you dare to not subscribe to university groupthink, you may as well resign because you're never going to get anywhere. You hold your cards close to your chest at any American university unless you are willing to completely dedicate yourself to the accepted philosophy.

      It's not as bad for the students, there's a lot of heterogeneity in terms of ideas among students, but it's alarmingly absent in faculty, and those who express political, social, or philosophical ideas outside of the accepted thinking are run out of town. And god forbid you say anything publically, they'll be demanding your resignation for "embarassing" the university with your extremist views.

      Note: this is not a neocon rant about leftists in school. You can express leftist ideas that aren't the right leftist ideas and still get blasted. One of the great ironies of American academia is that the people running it are probably among the most markedly anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian as educated people can be, and yet they fiercely defend the power heirarchy in place. It's unreal.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    2. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      If you believe his post, the University also had a value call to make here. If they didn't pressure him to resign, they were under the threat of losing all the software licenses they use to keep things running.

      They made a judgement call: the flak we receive for pressuring this guy to quit will be less damaging than the punishment we receive from all the vendors we do business with. That judgement call may turn out to be wrong, and certainly isn't in the interests of free speech, but it was a judgement call nonetheless.

      If there's anything to be done here, it's to show UPV that they made the wrong choice.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    3. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by orderb13 · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiousity, *HOW* would you go about arresting a leader of a 1st world nation, esp. POTUS?

    4. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% pure troll. Here's a tip: don't be upset at the university because you can't afford to go to one, be upset at the men and women who work day and night to make it so that you cannot have the money to do so.

    5. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      If american universities are like that, don't think that every university on the world conforms to those places.

      Most people in Europe do not pay for example university studies directly, that's the government's job (except if you cannot meet the requirements of admission, then you can pay and still be there).

      All im saying is, that you're talking about apples when the topic is about oranges. The lecturer was fired from a Spanish university, which is in Europe, not from an american.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    6. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      One of the great ironies of Slashdot is that the people running it are probably among the most markedly anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian as educated people can be, and yet they fiercely defend the power heirarchy in place.

    7. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      At my school, there isn't. There are so many different types of people going to my school, and especially in my program, there's no real "groupthink." Maybe among the instructors, but I doubt it.

      Anyways, I go to Full Sail.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    8. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by Hays · · Score: 1

      I disagree with you. I think universities are a shelter for free speech.

      Just have a look at Dave Touretzky's Page
      http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/

      I don't see anyone outside of academia with the bravery to publish those things.

    9. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by trewornan · · Score: 1
      If they didn't pressure him to resign, they were under the threat of losing all the software licenses they use to keep things running

      Of course if they were using decent software in the first place . . .

    10. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by Xcott+Craver · · Score: 1
      Have you ever been to a university? And even more important, have you ever been part of the faculty at one?

      Yes, I am. Could you elaborate on this groupthink you describe? Could you for example provide some examples of things you yourself have experienced? Personally?

      I hear a lot about how PC we allegedly are, but it's mostly stories people have heard about some unnamed university somewhere. Not direct experience, but things people have heard or read. Seriously, I have encountered no "groupthink" or hegemony to which I am forced to subscribe to keep my job.

      No offense, but your post sounds like the standard vague rant I hear from people who learn about colleges by reading John Leo columns in US News. No, I don't have to dedicate myself to some accepted philosophy. Nor do my colleagues. From my limited experience, my colleagues are free to speak their mind and criticize the status quo, and they do.

      Perhaps some concrete examples would help me see your point of view,

      X

    11. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Don't you have to just get them impeached before you try them?

    12. Re:No, the firing is NOT legitimate by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      Yes, I am. Could you elaborate on this groupthink you describe?

      There's a subset of primarily socialist idealogy and political correctness that is mandated. You needed agree with it, just not articulate any criticms or opposition to it. Silence is as acceptable as consent in academia.

      Could you for example provide some examples of things you yourself have experienced? Personally?

      Yes. As a student I was forced to change class sessions due to my gender. I appealed this on the grounds that it violated the university's non-discrimination policy, but I was told, "that's to protect minorities." I complained about this was well and was eventually told to change schools or degrees if I didn't like it. As a tutor in the math department I was threatened with dismissal and possible expulsion from my degree program if I did not cease my criticism of department policy of gender-specific and race-specific classes on my web site (which wasn't even located at the school or on its computers). I'm happy to say that I experienced no monotony of thought when I was a lab monitor. I later worked at the university hospital on some software projects for the med students, and heard story after story after story of people being told what they can and cannot say, and most of it was ideological in nature. My boss disagreed with the hopsital's policy of distributing condoms (she was a liberal Catholic) and was threatened with dismissal if she didn't comply and stop articulating her disagreement. The manager of our project was a visiting professor told me once that if he could do it other again he'd have established himself in the private sector. He was actually mostly liberal and agreed with most of the university's standard line, but he was weary of the monotony of opinion that surrounded him. For an institution founded on the exchange of ideas, he thought that there was a remarkable lack of diversity among the faculty. That was until he discovered that a number of them held a variety of opinions and ideas on things but had been threatened with demotion, reduction in funding/resources, and in a few isolated cases, dismissal, if they articulated some of those opinions (mostly pseudoreligious in nature).

      I hear a lot about how PC we allegedly are, but it's mostly stories people have heard about some unnamed university somewhere.

      I'm talking about the University of Iowa, and the UI Hospitals and Clinics, as well as the Mathematics and Computer Science Department, and this would be 1996-1999. Despite my ranting, I loved my time there and would attend again in a heartbeat.

      Not direct experience, but things people have heard or read. Seriously, I have encountered no "groupthink" or hegemony to which I am forced to subscribe to keep my job.

      So your single anecdotal example of yourself should be acceptable to me as an effective counter to my argument? Whereas my anecdotal example of myself isn't enough? Ten four. I bet you only ever buy stuff you download too, therefore piracy isn't really a problem, right?

      No offense, but your post sounds like the standard vague rant I hear from people who learn about colleges by reading John Leo columns in US News.

      Never heard of John Leo, but your dismissive tone suggests that I'm not missing much.

      No, I don't have to dedicate myself to some accepted philosophy. Nor do my colleagues. From my limited experience, my colleagues are free to speak their mind and criticize the status quo, and they do.

      I agree with your first two sentences, but not your last. You don't have to agree. Just do not articulate your dissent.

      Perhaps some concrete examples would help me see your point of view

      Ask this guy. He also picked a bone with me on this opinion but agreed with my characterization of the pressure that faculty get to obediently recite the university's line.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  72. Re:from the faux-news dept. by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's safer for the company, too, because you can't come back with a wrongful termination suit if you weren't terminated. Being asked to resign is essentially the company paying you to leave.

  73. Re:Resigned = Fired (analogy) by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    Amen, mod insightful!

  74. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by XFilesFMDS1013 · · Score: 1

    Yes, but good news doesn't sell. Horrible tragedies on the other hand, do. Watch the previews for any upcoming story on Fox (at least where I am), every story is apparently about how teens are driving dangerously, parents are going to get arrested if their kid drinks, driving on the Mass. Pike is even more scary because people are installing monitors in the steering wheels and watching movies while driving, etc. etc. etc. The only time somebody wants to hear about a dog saving a man from a burning building is if 20 other people died.

  75. Modern Analog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is true it sounds like it's going to turn into the moden day equivalent of the Scope's Monkey Trial...

    _______________________________________________

    Quote from a 2200 history book...

    "And the resignation under pressure is claimed by many to be the galvanizing step for what would later be called, the 'IP Freedom Social Movement' - the results of which would end corporatist spread of corruption through the governments of planet Earth."

  76. Madrid by Reignking · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is that you can go to the center of Madrid (Sol) and buy whatever copy of any CD you want. The vendors just lay their blankets out and people buy them -- right in front of the giant department store (and music vendor) El Corte Ingles.

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  77. Spain != U.S. by Snap+E+Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *sigh*

    There's a lot of comments here about how he should have gotten tenure, spoke to a union, in the U.S pressured resignation == firing, in the U.S. pressured resignation != firing, etc. How about someone from Spain actually chiming in? Is there a tenure system in Spanish universities? Teacher's union?

    1. Re:Spain != U.S. by gggggggg · · Score: 1

      There is a tenure system, but not at every level. He was not in a tenure-abiding position, yet?. You have to earn/compete for one of those positions. You could say he was just a part-time worker in a way.

    2. Re:Spain != U.S. by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 0
      Being a spanish Ph.D. student in the US, I know something about the differences between the two systems, and I'm sad to have to say that the Spanish University is one of the biggest misconceptions of what academia should be:

      On one hand, no one wants to leave their town to go to college. There are the very popular Erasmus fellowships to go one year somewhere in Europe, but that's a lucky minority and it only happens during the last years of school. From the point of view of a grad student, the only way to get financial aid is to build a tight relationship with a current faculty. Of course, you can do the coursework on your own, but most people at that age have to make a living working, and their performance suffers a lot. Once you're finished with your degree, you have to wait several years of temporary employment till your advisor cooks up a position for you to join. Of course, this position is tailored to you and only you, so no real competition exists. And you stay in the same university for your life, because you have a government job and can't be fired, no matter how much you suck at either teaching or researching. Unless, this is, you do something stupid like criticising the dean or his friends, as Cortell did.

      On the other side, I must say there are positive sides to studying in Spain: The coursework is way harder than in the American undergrad system, and for that matter, than in all European universities I've notice of. This way, when you go abroad you're generally highly regarded as a good professional. Another good point is that University in Spain is virtually free: I used to pay around 600 euros a year for my fees, and obtaining "Matricula de Honor", the highest possible grade, in a course one year, automatically provides a proportional discount the following year. Still, I think the system could be improved by lowering general fees and increasing them to the very frequent course repeaters. This way those who actually want to study would work be rewarded.

      My $0.02 (damn, it feels cool saying that for the first time :).

  78. Freedom of speech in Spain by pubjames · · Score: 4, Informative

    I live in Spain. It's generally pretty cool, but one thing I really don't like about it is that there isn't the freedom of speech here that there is in the rest of Europe.

    Politicians here sometimes sue members of the public for slander or libel. The last president did it (aznar). I like the UK, where you can happily calll tony blair a liar and not worry he's going to try to sue you for it!

    1. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by thuh+Freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      its not slander or libel when its true.

      /me knows nothing of british politics or of blair's lying-ness.

      --
      I wish that I was a catfish.
    2. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      That doesn't seem to be a matter of freedom of speech. If you had someone slandering you in the public press, wouldn't you sue him? At least I would . Why shouldn't Aznar do the same thing? Even more, his "job" depended on public opinion and his image, which brings more weight to it's credibility.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    3. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by proinnsias · · Score: 3, Informative
      I like the UK, where you can happily calll tony blair a liar and not worry he's going to try to sue you for it!

      Um, actually, there are very few countries in the EU with any guaranteed freedom of expression. Certainly not the UK or Ireland anyway.
      The difference is usually that public figures can't be bothered taking libel suits against normal plebs, simply because a) it's so expensive, and b) the plebs don't have a whole lot of influence.

      It's quite amusing to hear local scumbags being arrested asking for their 'Miranda' rights (they've seen too many US TV shows !) - rights they don't have in this country !

      --
      -- If practice makes perfect, and nobody's perfect, why practice ?
    4. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by hey! · · Score: 1

      That's true in the US. Truth is an effective defence against slander or libel suits here. If I recall,however, this is not true in England, which has different standards.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to law students I used to live with, the truth is an absolute defence against libel under English law. Of course, that's "truth of the allegations themselves" - you can't just repeat someone else's false allegation and say "Well it's true that he claimed that".

    6. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by alexhs · · Score: 1
      /me knows nothing of british politics or of blair's lying-ness.

      Googling for 'liar' links to Tony Blair on the first page of results. Quite good :)

      But we French do better :) : Chirac is also known as SUPERliar. Of course, googling for superliar, you can feel lucky. (GW Bush being in 2nd place !)

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    7. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by stud9920 · · Score: 0
      It's quite amusing to hear local scumbags being arrested asking for their 'Miranda' rights (they've seen too many US TV shows !) - rights they don't have in this country !
      That, and morons calling the judge "your honor"
    8. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by 51mon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "According to law students I used to live with, the truth is an absolute defence against libel under English law."

      Of course calling Tony Blair a liar would be slander, libel applies to more permanent forms (/. comments are probably somewhere in between), but truth is a defence to all forms of defamation I would have thought, because you can't defame the guilty almost by definition.

      The reason Tony Blair probably doesn't sue is that "liar" is a broad term in English, you'd probably only need to prove he lied once on something. And much as I think he is a generally good chap he is still a politician with lips that move.

      I don't believe there is much difference between UK, Spanish or American law on these topics, but then IANAL.

    9. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and morons calling the judge "your honor"

      Which Blackies gives as the correct mode of address for a County Court Judge sitting on the bench. Except they spell it 'honour'.

    10. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by stud9920 · · Score: 0

      To elaborate, in Belgium and France only morons say "Votre honneur", normal people say "Mr/Mme le/la Juge".

      What are Blackies ?

    11. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted anonymously for obvious reasons...

      But even the British universities are free from this kind of crap. From first hand experience, I can truthfully say that it is possible to be disciplined and have punitive measures exacted upon oneself as a student at an internationally known British university for championing open source and alternative software.

      Many UK universities do receive substantial discounts and sponsorship from large commercial operating system and application software companies and would threaten audits upon universities which have students who are openly and publicly championing alternatives...

    12. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by vidarh · · Score: 2, Informative
      And additionally, public figures have much less protection than "normal people" at least here in the UK.

      You and I can call Blair a liar all we want and it won't do much to affect his reputation. Almost by definition, in order to defame someone what you say must have an effect, and British judges are quick to take the fact that there are differences in what effect different people and different forms of media will have when considering a defamantion lawsuit.

      Besides, if Tony Blair sued, there's always the possibility that the judge would write a very pointed judgement that would be extremely politically embarassing. I guess that, if anything, is what makes British politicans careful about suing - they know perfectly well that a significant faction in the judiciary here considers it their duty to kick politicans in the groin as hard as possible metaphorically speaking whenever politicians try to use lawsuits to do their dirty deeds. Vidar

    13. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by purple_cobra · · Score: 1

      ...a significant faction in the judiciary here considers it their duty to kick politicans in the groin as hard as possible...

      Heh, this conjured-up a wonderful mental picture: a judge in full court regalia saying "How's about this, Tony?" then kicking him square in the crotch.
      Any passing deity fancy making it a reality?

    14. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are Blackies ?

      Blacks publish what are generally considered to be the standard legal textbooks in the UK, hence the nickname "blackies" see: amazon for list of titles.

    15. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary difference between the UK and the US in this matter is that the burden of proof is reversed. In the US, the claimant has to prove that what's being said is damagin to their reputation, and untrue. In the UK, the defendant (the publisher) has to prove that it *is* true, or not damaging, to be let off. It's much tougher to win a libel case in the UK than in the US.

    16. Re:Freedom of speech in Spain by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Will you be amused when you're falsely arrested, don't know all your rights in the instance, and get pushed around by the cops treating you like a scumbag? Just because you haven't seen that on TV doesn't mean it won't happen to you, like it used to all around the US before we (mostly) fixed that.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  79. Academic freedom ? by natoochtoniket · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Firing, or even reprimanding, a university professor (at any rank) because of the contents of an academic lecture is just outrageous. In order for a university to function, the faculty must have significant freedom to research, publish, and teach on just about any topic within their respective subject areas.

    Physics professors routinely give lectures that are, essentially, instructions for making a nuclear weapon. Chemistry professors often teach how to create the energetic reactions that most people call explosions. Engineering professors teach the methods that can cause buildings to fall down. No one suggests that these topics must not be taught. Indeed, there is significant intellectual content in each of these topics. Nuclear power, how to avoid explosions, and how to avoid falling buildings, all require knowledge that might be misused.

    The idea of a p2p network is useful for many purposes other than distribution of copyrighted material. Distribution of public-domain materials, software upgrades and patches, government documents, and contributed materials are all legitimate. The protocols and technology that are used in current p2p implementations is a legitimate topic of study, so that researchers can design improved versions for future use. Methods to discover and disable the illegal copying of copyright material, without disabling the legal publishing of contributed public-domain material, is another legitimate area for research.

    Of course, it is possible that some of the people attending these lectures had the intention of using the material to violate the law. But, it is also possible that some of the students who take physics, chemistry, or engineering courses have the intention of using that material to violate other laws. If we suppress every topic that might be used to do harm, there will not be much left in our universities.

  80. Software license audits by augustz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Interesting how one of the pressure tactics were the license audits. Propriatary vendors obviously have the right to do this, but it appears to have been a source of great leverage in silencing critics.

    Also interesting, the teacher was only going to share his opinion on why using P2P may be legal. In America at least we are generally pretty protective of the right to debate ideas. The MPAA and its spanish counterparts though appear to be opposed to this concept.

    If you're going to be an academic institution it would seem prudent to move away from software and support of groups that are unwilling to even allow different opinions to be expressed on a college compus about a topic. We used to call that type of exchange education.

  81. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When high officials in most governments (cabinet members of the US administration, for example) are fired, they always legally 'resign'

    That would be a great point, if this guy had been a cabinet official rather than a part time teacher. The only similarity is that this guy was just as gutless as most of your high officials.

    Get a fucking spine. When your pointy haired boss asks you to quietly resign, politely tell him/her to go fuck themselves, and ensure that they face a very public, very ugly termination process. Either way you are screwed, its not like you will get a reference from them at your next job, so quit/fired, has the same impact on you. The difference is the impact on them.

    Trust me, if there were any actual grounds for dismissal, you would be escorted out. If they ask you, its because legally they can't get rid of you, or the optics are bad. Resigning is doing them a favour. Fuck them.

    Make them waste resources documenting every pee break you take. Make them waste HR time. Make them get legal advice. Force them to offer you a huge buyout to go away. Best of all, when they put the pressure on to "make your life miserable", document it, and get your doctor to put on stress leave for a year or two. File a grievance with HR. Make a harasment claim. In the end, you will still be gone, but if they are being dinks, enjoy causing them pain all the way through the process.

    Take the road you want to, but always remember, if they are asking, its because they CAN'T do it their way.

  82. Re:Nice Spin by FromWithin · · Score: 1

    The article implies that he did not go against their wishes at any time. He was never asked not to do the talk, only denied the use of the venue. Only after the talk was performed was he asked to resign.

  83. Re:from the faux-news dept. by gte910h · · Score: 1

    You resign from several sorts of positions, because its quite ugly the crap that will be pulled to fire you, and you still will be fired.

    He would have not been allowed to actually perform his job, and his collegues may have had to suffer as well.

    Its a common thing in acadamia and gov't because the alternative is much much uglier.

    --
    Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
  84. First Rule by hotbutteredhtml · · Score: 2, Funny

    The first rule about P2P, is you don't talk about P2P!

    --
    how 'bout I give you the finger....and you give me my phone call.
  85. Careful! It might turn into another katie.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah.. Just look at the power of slashdot. I'm referring to katie.com riot recently. This may turn into an e-bloodbath..

    But anyway, I would like to point out that Spain just emerged from dictatorship to constitutional monarchy/democracy when General Franco died in 1975. That's about 30 years ago. Not really that long ago IMO, and it's not really a wonder when strong-arm tactics can still get away with lotsa things. It's not like they have really embraced democracy totally. I mean, they still have separatists movement like ETA and the Basque.. It's a turbulent brutality where money and influence speaks... and goes...

    Case in point, Indonesia.. Suharto just resigned... But power structure of the ruling party's still there..

    Possible flashpoint, Myanmar/Burma. The military gonna turn over power to civillian democracy.. Hah!

    I have great respect for Germany and Japan. From Dictatorship to Democracy. Not perfect but I'm sure no one can say otherwise when compared to the others that I just pointed it out.


    Regards!

    deunan_k
    (Stupid when my ISP's proxy got banned, and I can't login and post! :-P Bah! Humbug!)

  86. Academia != Business by kurisuto · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Also, one should remember that this teacher was not approved to give the lecture and decided to go without permission and give it in the cafeteria. This would be grounds for inspecting someones future at most companies/universities.

    At companies, yes. At universities, no.

    In academia, knowledge moves forward as we argue for competing viewpoints. Universities can't function properly unless it's possible to argue for unpopular viewpoints without fear of reprisal. This is one of the major differences between academia and the business world.

    I'm a faculty member myself. If I choose to stand up in a cafeteria and speak my mind on any subject I please, that is my right. I'm not required or expected to obtain anybody's approval or permission. The rules are that I can't be fired for this. If you disagree with my viewpoint, then the correct response is to use your own freedom to state your dissent.

    Most folks in academia, both faculty and administration, understand this, agree with it strongly as a value, and go to considerable lengths to safeguard this ability. Those safeguards grossly broke down in this case.

    1. Re:Academia != Business by menkhaura · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's precisely the point, slashdotters seem to be more interested in the "he was fired/he was resigned" question than the crucial point of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which so many of our ancestors fought, suffered, and died for, being shamelessly raped.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    2. Re:Academia != Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which so many of our ancestors fought, suffered, and died for, being shamelessly raped.

      I just had to chuckle at the irony here. Yes, today Spain is a constitutional monarchy with laws that ensure freedom of speech. But I had an amusing moment of deja vu when you mentioned ancestors and hardship because at some point 500 years ago some of my Spanish ancestors did nasty things to my Mexican ancestors. Ah, the humanity...

    3. Re:Academia != Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happened in Spain, not the US. Unless your ancestors are spaniards, this commen doesn't apply.

    4. Re:Academia != Business by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      My own ancestors are Spaniards, Portuguese, Italian, African, and South American indians. Many of them suffered the wrongs of Inquisition, of slavery, of censorship, political murdery, torture (even well into XX century) in many places around the world, and many of them fought for their freedoms. You know, not all who fight for freedom are americans.

      BTW, I'm Brazilian.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    5. Re:Academia != Business by Platupous · · Score: 1

      This occured in Spain. . .

      Which leads me to ask. . .

      What does the Spanish Constitution say about freedom of speach?

    6. Re:Academia != Business by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      This isn't an issue of freedom of speech.

      His "speech" was held on private grounds (the cafeteria) and against the wishes of the university.

      Had he performed his speech in his driveway, your reference might work.

      --
      -David
    7. Re:Academia != Business by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      His "speech" was held on private grounds (the cafeteria) and against the wishes of the university.


      No, his lecture was held on the grounds of a public university, according to this page describing the university.

      Of course, I don't know what the conditions of free speech are in Spain, but the argument that it was on private grounds and therefore freedom of speech does not apply appears to be spurious.

  87. Re:from the faux-news dept. by gowen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >blockquote> What else would *YOU* do if they told you that unless you leave, they will fire the whole department along with you? Me?? Well, the first thing I'd do is obtain a formal statement from the university and a copy of my contract of employment.

    The next thing I'd do is consult with an employment lawyer. Then, if my lawyer advised to me resign, I probably would. However, if my lawyer pointed out that firing the entire department would
    a) leave the University short of crucial teaching staff during the exam period
    b) result in the biggest "unfair dismissal" employment tribunal in recent history...
    there's a fairly good chance I wouldn't resign.

    And if he resigned without having taken legal advice he's either very foolish, or knew he was in the wrong and isn't giving us the full story.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  88. Re:from the faux-news dept. by morcego · · Score: 1

    What else would *YOU* do if they told you that unless you leave, they will fire the whole department along with you?

    Call the press.

    Don't know about you, but I always carry the phone number of 2 or 3 reporters on my cell phone. Just in case.

    --
    morcego
  89. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Dean (pressured by the Spanish Recording Industry Association "Promusicae" as I found out later)

    This is a clear case of outside pressure trying to control the content of lectures at a university. He was previously scheduled to give the lecture, but after pressure from the recording industry, who didn't like the content of the speech (which was not in any way illegal), he was denied the opportunity. Instead, he gave a speech in a public area, and was forced out of his job, and the university denied connection to him.

    Not only is this *clearly* out of line if not illegal, it's also a blindingly stupid move on the part of the university *and* the recording industry. This is the kind of PR you don't want.

  90. It's not about free speech by swippy2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "So I scheduled a second one, and that was denied again. And a third time. Finally I gave the conference on the university cafeteria, for 5 hours, in front of 150 people." Rank Insubordination is a firing offense at most jobs.

    1. Re:It's not about free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      troll. This is a university. He did the right thing to try to teach something that he was within his rights to but was being pressured from outside the university not to. That's censorship, and it's just plain wrong in this case.

    2. Re:It's not about free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At most jobs" != "University teaching positions" The very idea that a university can or should wish to prevent a talk is abhorrent. And *especially* about a controversial, political, and currently debated topic. The very foundation of a university is discourse and debate. Otherwise it is just a technical school with a big ego.

    3. Re:It's not about free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise, at most jobs you can't be fired for engaging in legal activities outside of work hours. If his speech was not part of a class for which he was paid, it's not insubordination.

    4. Re:It's not about free speech by MorePower · · Score: 1

      What insubordination?

      They told him he couldn't use the first room, and he didn't.
      They told him he couldn't use the second room, and he didn't.
      They told him he couldn't use the third room, and he didn't.

      They never had the balls to come right out and say he couldn't give the lecture at all, so he just went into a public area of the university and started talking. Where's the insubordination?

    5. Re:It's not about free speech by Deternal · · Score: 1

      That would be true if it wasn't that this was not something he was payed to do - he was asked to do a lecture for an event by some groups and complied.

      It's like if you where invited to speak about the XBOX at the local gaming club, but the president could only accept a speech about PS3 because Sony sponsored their new building.

      Here it's actually worse, since the copyright industries threaten to do all they can to find something to litigate the university, in effect making blunt threats.

  91. Re:Nice Spin by KlomDark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Get in line, you sheep.

    Apparently you cannot see the bigger picture:

    The issue is:

    What motivation did the administration have to have "wishes" of that nature? Do you really think it was the administration alone? No, the administration was affected by an external force - the M.A.F.I.A. (See other posts in this topic for what that means).

    As the administrations true onus is to provide an environment for learning, and not just to learn those OfficiallyApproved(TM) topics, but anything that would advance human knowledge, then the administration was acting against it's own charter.

    Quit spouting the line of the true conformist.

    [If] You don't start fighting for your freedom, you're not going to have much left.

  92. What is the University hiding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Then he [the Director] told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them). Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did.

    It is not obvious why the threat of software license inspection would threaten jobs. Is the University in violation of licenses or copyright? Why are they afraid of this?

  93. Some Thoughts by Peturbed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a good example of where "suits" step in to try and stop something they dont really understand, and getting it completely wrong. Sure the guy technically resigned, I would too if someone else would get fired if I didnt. This is censorship at its worst. Academic institutions are meant to be places where reasoned debates can take place, not where sanitized views are forced upon people. I think it was Winston Churchhill who said: "I might not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to my death your right to make an idiot of yourself"(or something similar)

    1. Re:Some Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Voltaire said this.

  94. He's in the Slashdot's Front Page now by Pac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think this will spread the story much quicker than his lecture 150 attendants.

  95. Re:Either you resign or we blow you up... by morcego · · Score: 1

    As they kept pressurising him, he realized he would soon explode if he didn't agree to resign.

    I'm sure you mean he would implode. Unless you mean they were depressurising him. But that would smell bad.

    --
    morcego
  96. Constructive Dismissal by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    Counts as being fired in the UK.

    I expect that it's the same in Spain.

  97. So is this? by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Where freedom dies?

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  98. The spirit of the University by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

    [i]"Yes, some laws are ridiculous, but don't expect your employer to pay you to rail against those laws on their property."[/] [p]A university is an institute for higher learning. It is also a business. Since this business' service is high quality education it would be in its best interest to facilitate the exchange of ideas, especially ones that are controversial, because no one else is going to do it! So in the spirit of what a typical university stands for, I believe that whoever (the director?) was paid off has failed the university's credibility and reputation.[/p]

  99. It matters! by AB3A · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't matter WHY they say it, they pay his salary, he either listens or goes elsewhere.

    Actually, it does matter. Most western societies consider colleges and universities to be places where the exchange of ideas should be paramount. Any censorship in this regard should be cause for great concern.

    Many are pointing out that this guy was not a professor, so what's the big deal? The answer is that this was in connection to a discussion about IP law. If they can't discuss the specifics of the applications of technology, then what are they there for? Shall we wait for an exalted professor to get chastised for saying the same thing before we get worked up over this?

    No, this is not good news...

    --
    Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    1. Re:It matters! by dajak · · Score: 1

      Many are pointing out that this guy was not a professor, so what's the big deal? [..] Shall we wait for an exalted professor to get chastised [..]

      'Professor' means very different things in different countries. In some countries it is merely a tenured university teacher, and in others it is strictly the head of a department.

      Some countries explicitly give non-professors meeting certain criteria permission to let themselves be addressed as professor abroad. It is a completely meaningless distinction in this context. The guy is supposed to enjoy academic freedom.

  100. Re:Nice Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are people supposed to learn how P2P works? Why should a professor be censored for something so basic? Universities are places for learning, not places to brainwash consumers of tomorrow at the whim of a bunch of shitty media companies.

  101. Open Source full time! by ugmoe · · Score: 1
    Cool,

    Now he can work on open source full time!

    Also, where does it say he was a full-time teacher?

    This is the quote from his page: "Sure I was not a Professor (which I never said I was), but I taught several subjects there for over 5 years!"

    1. Re:Open Source full time! by guitaristx · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Also, where does it say he was a full-time teacher?

      This is the quote from his page: "Sure I was not a Professor (which I never said I was), but I taught several subjects there for over 5 years!"
      The university curriculums (curriculi?) you're thinking of must be significantly less taxing than any I've ever experienced or heard of - teaching "several subjects" usually amounts to a full-time job.
      --
      I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    2. Re:Open Source full time! by ugmoe · · Score: 1
      The university curriculums (curriculi?) you're thinking of must be significantly less taxing than any I've ever experienced or heard of - teaching "several subjects" usually amounts to a full-time job

      It doesn't say that he taught the several subjects simultaneously simultaneously.

      And it seems unlikely that he was teaching 4 or more classes simultaneously. [Although he may have been using a different definition of several: Being of a number more than two or three but not many]

    3. Re:Open Source full time! by guitaristx · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was simultaneously simultaneously simultaneously =)

      --
      I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
  102. Typical Slashdot line... by stlhawkeye · · Score: 0, Troll
    ...he wasn't technically "fired", he was forced to resign, and not for his lecture, but for insubordination.

    Them: Don't do that.

    Him: (does it)

    Them: I said, don't do that.

    Him: (does it)

    Them: WTF? We've told you NOT TO DO THAT twice. We're the boss. Stop it.

    Him: (does it)

    Them: *sigh* I want your resignation.

    Him: Damn!

    Slashdot: PROFESSOR FIRED FOR TALKING ABOUT P2P NETWORKS!

    Comments: OMG WTF CORPORATE GREED WTF OMG BULLSHIT HE WAS FIRED FOR P2P!!!!! TEH GHEY.

    Come on, guys. Just once can we have an honest lead?

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    1. Re:Typical Slashdot line... by rossifer · · Score: 1

      This is a University setting, not a bank. Academic administrations don't get to tell speakers, lecturers, or professors what to talk about or what not to talk about.

      At least that's how it's supposed to work in academic institutions.

      I'm very sad that you perceive that there is no difference between a university and a company. Not because you're wrong, but because you might be right.

      Regards,
      Ross

    2. Re:Typical Slashdot line... by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      I'm very sad that you perceive that there is no difference between a university and a company. Not because you're wrong, but because you might be right. Universities are companies. They are run like companies. They have budgets, they have employees, they pay taxes, they own land, they hire people, they fire people, and they are incorporating in increasing numbers.

      I'm not saying it's right. Only that it's reality. And yes, branches of government can incorporate. Ever heard of the FDIC or the PBGC? They're run differently from other branches of the government, but they're government offices nontheless.

      The line between public and private sector has long been blurring. The worrisome thing here, to me, is that a non-government corporation was able to so easily influence a government organization.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    3. Re:Typical Slashdot line... by rossifer · · Score: 1

      I agree that universities have a lot in common with corporations. They are both organizations of people, so there's no way to avoid broad similarities. But I would observe that most universities acknowledge that there are also substantial differences between the way educators and employees at traditional companies are governed.

      While that acknowledgement is being made in public, however, I suspect that there is less and less respect for academic freedom in private. My father is a tenured professor at a public university and even with tenure, he gets enormous pressure to stick to making statements that are in the interests of the school and the school's sponsors.

      This is a sad, sad development as the media long ago abandoned the pretense of being the conscience of government and corporations and there are very few institutions remaining that offer a venue to voice unpopular and socially heretical opinions.

      Regards,
      Ross

  103. In America by nuggz · · Score: 1

    In America at least we are generally pretty protective of the right to debate ideas

    Did you look outside during the beginning of the Iraq war?

    1. Re:In America by augustz · · Score: 1

      Hehe... Historically, the idea that a robust debate creates a healthy society has been a strengthening factor for the US. Fair enough, with the Iraq war there was a bit of the if you disagree with me you are a traitor and should be jailed mentality.

      I actually remember Hans Blix being hammered pretty good for saying that he couldn't show WMD in Iraq, despite Powell's big WMD presentation. At the time there was a fair bit of effort to move him out of the picture.

      Point well taken. I'm talking more broadly I guess then the current administration.

    2. Re:In America by John+Miles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fair enough, with the Iraq war there was a bit of the if you disagree with me you are a traitor and should be jailed mentality.

      That is a perfect example of the point being made. You can say just about anything here, no matter how loony or (in this case) unpatriotic. You might be called a traitor for speaking out against the war, but you will not be prosecuted as one.

      This is not an example of suppression of distasteful speech; it's an example of its exercise.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    3. Re:In America by nuggz · · Score: 1

      You might be called a traitor for speaking out against the war, but you will not be prosecuted as one.

      But if you speak out against the war, someone might call you a traitor and attack you.
      Then the police might choose to not notice you need assistance.

      I remember reports of some police attacking, and some of police not assisting victims of attack.
      I consider selective actions like this suppression.

    4. Re:In America by augustz · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that commenting against the war hasn't been entirely repercussion free for folks from goverment involvement, see http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/04/05/lost-washburn.ph p

      Still not convinced the MPAA / RIAA approach to trying to have folks fired who say things they don't like is compatible with the academic enviroment. Notice I'm specifically only addressing what folks say, arguements they make.

      Clearly, actually copyright infringment would be something they could go after.

      Ahh well, the RIAA used to have language around on mp3's being illegal.

    5. Re:In America by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might be called a traitor for speaking out against the war, but you will not be prosecuted as one.

      You might be fired from your job, denied permits and licenses, and be harassed short of prosecution, and otherwise persecuted for it. No, you can't be prosecuted, but so long as the non-judicial punishment is under the radar that's just fne.

    6. Re:In America by swb · · Score: 1

      Only in a big city can you reasonably expect to be able to speak our act out on a subject contrary to public opinion and have zero effects on your personal or professional life.

      Talk to people who grew up in small towns or very close knit communities -- sometimes wearing the wrong *clothes* was enough to subject you to non-judicial punishment. Certainly opinions diametrically opposed to whatever the popular opinion is will cause you to lose friends and get stares.

      Unjust and unfair? Probably, but that's what living with other carbon-based organisms is generally like.

    7. Re:In America by argent · · Score: 1

      Only in a big city can you reasonably expect to be able to speak our act out on a subject contrary to public opinion and have zero effects on your personal or professional life.

      But only in America, it seems, are people so completely willing to excuse those effects, even when they're clearly unreasonable and unfair, simply on the grounds that it's not the Government doing it. In fact, in America it seems that even the idea that other groups should be restricted in similar ways is considered a government invasion of the rights of those groups.

      But there's nothing in the constitution that says that any group has rights, except for one specific case. It says that people have the right to assembly, but it doesn't grant the assembly itself any rights at all. The only group the constitution grants any rights to are the states, and even there the individuals who make up those states are given primacy.

      And on top of that, the constitution is a set of restrictions on what the Government should do. It doesn't say "only the US Federal Government should be so restricted", and it's generally been assumed that these restrictions should apply to at least one level of proxy. It does restrict the power of the other powerful organizations of the time, Churches, by explicitly denying them the support of the state.

      But guilds and corporations? They existed at the time, yes, but the Constitution doesn't recognise them. Given the way the British had used their corporations as an arm of the state, I doubt very much they'd be happy with the legal fiction that a University had rights, separate from the rights of the faculty and students.

      And, look, who is it that's excersizing the rights that are being infringed upon in this case. Why, it's a member of the faculty, and his students! And is it other members of the faculty, or other students, who are objecting? Why, no, it's an external corporation that doesn't even have an interest in the university or the way it's run... even if it could be said to have rights at all.

      Talk to people who grew up in small towns or very close knit communities...

      Just about any government will work in a small town or very close knit community. The constitution, the organ that people who believe so strongly that only the government should be restricted in its sanctions so admire, is needed BECAUSE a nation is not a small town or a close knit community. And neither is a University. In fact not being a close knit community, being a place where students are exposed to a variety of opinions, is a large part of what a university is for.

  104. I'd like to hear it for myself by krough · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a torrent of his speech?

  105. I'm a bit befuddled. by DdJ · · Score: 1

    Is there really any question in anyone's mind whether or not the mere existence of P2P networks is legal? They clearly, clearly, are legal. There are clearly legal uses for them.

    People who need proof should buy and install "World of Warcraft". Blizzard uses torrents to distribute all live patches above a certain size. That's just a single modern example.

    1. Re:I'm a bit befuddled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no question on that. Neither are automobiles illegal, but using one to commit illegal acts IS. Same with P2P. PEOPLE drive cars, PEOPLE use P2P. PEOPLE are the problem, not cars, not P2P.

  106. Hmm. by Pac · · Score: 1

    I would think "pressurise" means "increase the pression". A body with an internal pressure greater than the outside medium tend to grow larger and eventually explode (when the containing material elastic threshold is surpassed). If they are pressurising him, I understand his internal pressure is growing.

    The other case, depressurizing, would make his pressure smaller than the outside medium, eventually leading to a crush, not to an explosion.

    1. Re:Hmm. by morcego · · Score: 1

      Lets consider they put him (poor guy) inside a barometric chamber, and kept increasing the pressure inside inside that chamber.

      Would they be pressurising or depressurising him ?
      Would he implode or explode ?

      It is all semantics, I know, but you did reply :)

      --
      morcego
  107. What do you mean by "right way to share"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " I think schools should spend a whole day each week doing nothing but discussing P2P and exchanging examples of the right way to share."

    you speak as if the morality boundaries regarding p2p have already been "decided" by society when that is not nearly the case.

    That would be like referring to discussions on abortion as
    "exchanging examples of the right way to avoid killing babies"

  108. lesson: proprietary SW subjects you to blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more interesting that the issue of academic freedom and the stand against censorship is the fact that the recording industry used the fact that his department used proprietary software as lever to suppress his lecture.

    The lesson here is that using proprietary SW leaves you open to blackmail. In this case it was the recording industry, but next time it could be anyone who does not like something you are doing.

  109. Behold!! by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Modern book burning has evolved into a more sophistcated system of thought policing. The schools have been reduced to prisons with faculty attempting to influcence students with their political idelogy. Rather then empowering students and faculty to make a fair fight of ideas in schools the administrations just tend to censor what ever they feel is contrary to their own personal beliefs.

    The world is going to hell on an express train and it's lawyers driving the train.

    THE LAW SERVES THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE DO NO SERVE THE LAW!

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  110. Re:Nice Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't know the country you live in, but here, the wishes of the administration of the university have no relevance, as long as the lecturer stays in his scientific field. This is the freedom of teaching and research. And he obviously did not cross the line. He was a lecturer of "Intellectual Property". His talk was about how P2P relates to this concept.

  111. Re:from the faux-news dept. by iamacat · · Score: 1

    I beseech you to move to a free country. Academic freedom is the last barrier to universal oppression. If professors are fired for expressing non-mainstream opinions on law, war or religion, young people will not even be aware that alternative opinions exist or that thinking for yourself is not/shouldn't be a crime. Read up on Tiananmen square and Vietnam anti-war protests and think of how different the world would be if outcomes of student protests were reversed.

  112. Well I can't speak for other countries by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    But in the US at a public instution, this sort of thing is protected, even encouraged. When the instution is paid for with public funds, it is available for public uses. Employees actually have a right to speak out again their employeer and not face retribution. Why? Well it's in the public intrest. It's your tax dollars paying for it, you have a right to know if there are any problems.

    Remember: There's a big difference between a public and private employeer. Yes, a private company has every right to fire you if you rail on them, or use their facilities to give a lecture they don't like, etc. That's not the case with public instutions, at least in the US.

    Also academic freedom is a pretty sacred concept. Professors should be free to express their views, even ones that are unpopular with the current administration. Public universities aren't supposed to be able to force their professors to take or not take a certian stance on an issue.

    Now of course this isn't the US, so the laws could be different, however that doesn't change the way I feel about it. I believe it should not only be sanctioned but encouraged for professors to give lectures on unpopular viewpoints. I believe industry should have NO say in the operations of a public instution. I believe the public has a right to have their tax dollars used towards academic freedom.

  113. Without permission? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1
    Also, one should remember that this teacher was not approved to give the lecture and decided to go without permission

    RTFA: "tried to stop it by denying permission to use the scheduled venue" (emphasis mine).

    So he was only denied the use of a particular location/facility, not denied to give his lecture. No rule broken there. And not strange either. It wouldn't be the first time that a teacher takes his/her class outside, to sit in a park on a sunny day. A university cafeteria would be unusual, nothing more.

    Heck, in my country being a student meant getting free public transport as well (some years ago, not these days). Some professor had the bright idea of giving his lecture inside a moving train once. And why not, if it's driving around empty otherwise. IIRC, everybody loved the idea at the time, the novelty just wore off.
  114. What's the solution to this issue? by seniorcoder · · Score: 1
    In other news, I see that the latest Star Wars movie has been found roaming around the P2P world on the Internet.

    So is the solution:

    1. Everyone should share/download copyrighted works.
    2. No-one should ever use P2P again, even if it can have useful and 100% legitimate applications.
    3. The RIAA/MPAA/etc should learn that this type of behavior is highly counterproductive to their goals.
    If (like me) you think the last choice is the best, what appropriate sanction can be put upon them that law-abiding netizens would agree with?

    Let's get something moving please. But what?

    1. Re:What's the solution to this issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why limit the choice to just 3 options? Sounds like an *AA shill, limit the options to support a desired outcome. How about this option:

      Don't download, or make available for download, copyrighted material?

      *GASP* What a concept!

      The only reason P2P has caught the suits attentions is because its primarily used for copyright infringement. You know it, I know it. All the legal arguing and gnashing of teeth is a waste of time. If you KNOW it in your heart its wrong, DON'T DO IT. Its not about P2P, or http, or any other protocols, its about PEOPLE BREAKING THE LAW.

      Western (read capitalist greed) society is in part to blame, but people still have individual choice to be moral or not.

      Do the right thing people.

  115. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, that's pretty much a one way "P2P" that the BBC is running. It's more of a client-server thing. There is no real disconnect. They're trying to stop real P2P publishing....amongst individuals. This is the real intention. The whole piracy thing is more of a distraction...like the way kiddie porn is used to villify freenet. The corps don't want to see widespread publication of anything without going through them first. Copyright is the tool used by gov't through the corps to censor.

    --
    What?
  116. Re:from the faux-news dept. by crashcodesdotcom · · Score: 1

    In other news, Spanish citizen pays terrorist, "100 million dollars" (in Dr. Evil voice) to keep his family from being fed to sharks with lasers mounted on their heads. Extortion perpetuates extortion. Isn't this why many countries do not negotiate with terrorist? (aren't suppose to at least) "Entire department staff dismissed for P2P lecture." May have made a better headline anyway. I'm not necessarily saying he did the wrong thing here. Just some things to consider.

  117. The EU upholds higher standards by kt0157 · · Score: 1

    I think he mentions the EU because it has the highest of standards of standards (EU countries don't go around torturing people in orange jump suits, for example).

    1. Re:The EU upholds higher standards by lordholm · · Score: 1

      In some aspects, yes, in the matter of free speech, then no.

      From the ECHR:

      Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

      The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

      Protection of morals... WTF!

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  118. But they already do have that much control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The RIAA wants just as much control over U.S. universities as the Spanish equivalent already has over theirs."

    they DO have that much control.

    They just use it differently.

    They use it to force universities to censor their internet connections like communist china, blocking ALL p2p, legitimate or otherwise, regardless of the fact that the argument over p2p is close in nature to the argument over abortion in that not everyone agrees it's harmful to these industries.

    (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/gei st /index.html)

    They also use it to force universities to become sales and marketing agents cramming mandatory fees down students throats for DRM'ed music services which may not even work with their computers, effectively forcing them to pay kickbacks to the RIAA for the "right" to gain a college degree.

  119. 5 hours lecture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he should be fired for that alone.

  120. Ah, we are on the same page by Pac · · Score: 1

    I was thinking about it the same way one would think about pressurising a tire - or, more colorfully, about putting a hose in inside his mouth, closing all other body orifices and keep pumping air into him... :)

    1. Re:Ah, we are on the same page by morcego · · Score: 1

      Should we start feeling sorry for him yet ? :)

      --
      morcego
    2. Re:Ah, we are on the same page by modecx · · Score: 1

      Personally, I was invisioning some scholarly type kicking the poor guy in the nuts, and then threatening for every day that he hangs around they'll increment the number of kicks he's to receive... Surely, that's pressurising some of his internals!

      I know I'd be gone (or at least I'd stay up all night fashioning a spiked titanium/carbon fiber composite codpiece) :P

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  121. Re:from the faux-news dept. by lgw · · Score: 1

    These days it seems you'll be fired from an American University for expressing a *mainstream* position. The groupthink is so firmly enforced that publically saying something that the average man on the street wouldn't even raise an eyebrow at will cause hysterics and threats of dismissal if a retraction isn't immediate.

    Something's broken today, and I'm not sure how we could fix it.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  122. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else would *YOU* do if they told you that unless you leave, they will fire the whole department along with you?

    Tell them to suck it.

    They're facing Wrongful Termination suits up the yin-yang if they follow thru on that threat.

  123. Censorship XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Censorship is horrible, it's killing the backbone of all hacker communities (too much software is being considered "illeagle"). This is HORRIBLE, the dean should be fired or something!

  124. See it by yourself by AnonymousCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    The talk was outside the cafeteria and without microphones, so people were quite packed around Jorge, sitting on the floor, in order to hear what he was saying (cafeterias tend to be noisy places).

    You can see some photos of the people here .

  125. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

    Even the POTS is peer-to-peer at a certain level. It'd really fuck everyone in the ass if it was shut down, including the lawmaking bodies of the world as well as the *AA's and their ilk.

  126. What is tenure anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've heard it mentioned but don't understand what it is. Don't even know if we have it in the UK.

    1. Re:What is tenure anyway? by Snap+E+Tom · · Score: 1

      It's a status for professors at the university level that prevents them from getting fired. It's to protect the teaching of unpopular beliefs. They basically have to perform gross violations of ethics like plagarism or molesting little kids to get fired.

  127. Re:This guy = chump by part_of_you · · Score: 0
    When are we going to do something about it? We can't let them impose their failed, outdated, and inefficient business model through threats, pressures and silence. We must speak out. I am wiling to travel the world (as I am doing now in conferences all over Spain) to tell my story, and they will not silence me. The truth has to be known.

    ...But for now, I will resign to save the job of my boss, who is sucking the dick of the one I'm teaching about.

    Troll me all you want, this guy is a chump. You can't talk about something in such a way as to be a hero, just to quit. He wasn't fired, he resigned. I know about public officials "resigning", but that is just for the future of their careers. In this case, he quit, to save the job of his boss. It just doesn't make any sense.

    I still don't get this whole troll thing. If you ask me, slashdot is founded by trolling. Isn't that what "Zonk" does when he's looking for news??? Trolling through other sources of news, then misleading slashdotters into thinking one-way about the news he finds? I mean, read the fucking headlines... "Your Rights Online: Teacher Fired for P2P Lecture". Nobody was fired.

    Troll that mod overloards

  128. That's why I stopped buying a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and no, I don't do downloading either.

  129. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by Z-Knight · · Score: 1
    I'm probably point out the obvious here, but many times people don't see the forest past the damn trees:

    P2P is the INTERNET

    P2P is what your browser does to get information...I'm really scared that if the idiots in Washington get brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA/DumbassesOfAmerica/etc then they will effectively make the internet illegal. Peer-to-peer is the core of the internet and the programs out there (bittorrent apps,kazaa,etc) are simply a variation on what a browser does...they are essentially big Google-like displays and web-servers all built into one.

  130. Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'll say it again, and again, and again, and again...

    The way to beat the corporations that value greed over ethics and social responsibility is to boycott theirs, and their advertisers, your money. That also means don't download, or offer, material that you don't have express consent to distribute. Its that simple. Copyright infringement is illegal. Period.

    The sad part of this is Joe Average's (typically not a slashdot reader, or generally concerned with events outside their homes, social circle) behaviour regarding copyright infringement ends up giving cause to the *AA lobby groups to have legislatures around the world pass laws that further chip away at individual freedoms.

    This is evident in the US, Australia, Europe.

    People, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to consume the offerings of media conglomerates, pay. If you don't want to pay, don't break the law. Don't give the medias lobby groups more ammunition to whittle away yours and my personal freedoms. Don't make innocent people suffer because of your own inability to determine whats right and wrong.

    Unhappy with the media corporations? Deny them your dollars by not purchasing their content. But don't ruin your boycott by downloading copyrighted material you have no permission to get.

    Posted anonymously because too many of you kids aren't mature enough to see the long term effect of your actions, and how they'll affect others, and yourselves.

  131. For CS students by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Teach them how to write P2P systems.

    I know the class below me at Edinburgh Uni had a project which involved writing thier own P2P app.

    P2P Apps are a great learning experience in socket programming, distributed systems, threading and many other skills that do transfer into other areas.

    However if this stuff doesn't relate to your major then i fail to see why it should be taught. Regardless of how paradigm-shifting some people think p2p is - it's just a new way to use an old technology. And unless you study CS, Law, or some relevant social science then it's not what you (or your government) are paying for you to go to uni for.

    1. Re:For CS students by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Actually, I can think of one reason why P2P should be taught in ANY study, ANYWHERE: it's the perfect example of how collaboration works and is a good thing(tm)...and collaboration is essential in ANY field of study/work/life.

      Just a few studies teach propper collaboration, and even then only in a sideways kinda way. And that whilst collaboration is the one thing you can be sure you have to do at some point in life (unless you're a hermit...but even geeks need to hollar to their parents from the basement at certain points in life :)).

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  132. I tried a slightly different approach by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I gave an impromptu lecture last week--to a group of high school students--about the recording industry. It went something like this:

    "Mr. Highgate, is sharing music files on the Internet wrong?"

    "Well, students, it's illegal. And, according to the recording industry of America, it takes money away from recording artists."

    "Yes, but is it wrong?"

    "Let me tell you about the business practices of the recording industry . . ." Then I went into a good 40 minute description of the business practices of that industry. The exploitation, the loophole payola, the underhanded deals. I went to show them on the board how if a major record label signed their band, how they could sell a million records and still not make any money themselves. To be fair, I also pointed out that most bands don't sell many recordings, and how the industry loses money on them.

    "Is it wrong?" I concluded. "Well, student's, that's a moral decision you'll have to make on your own. This is a civics class. All I'm going to tell you is that it's not legal, and you'd be insanely stupid to do it using the school's computers."

    Though if anyone in the administration told me not to discuss this topic, I would probably comply. Just because I don't like the RIAA doesn't mean I'd be willing to martyr myself for it.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
    1. Re:I tried a slightly different approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mr. Highgate, is sharing music files on the Internet wrong?"

      "Well, students, it's illegal.

      No it isn't. Sharing music files on the Internet without permission from the copyright holder is illegal. Glossing over that fact merely supports the misconception that the only music available is through the RIAA.

    2. Re:I tried a slightly different approach by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      Tell me somthing how far are you willing to go to keep silent? Dont you understand that everyone who takes a stance like this plays right into the crowed mind set? Its like your a sheep being lead to the slaughter by a care taker that cares nothing for your rights or belifs.

      Somtimes I wish I lived in a country where the people had a true understanding of the future complications of there inactions...

    3. Re:I tried a slightly different approach by nsayer · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "Mr. Highgate, is sharing music files on the Internet wrong?"

      Certainly not, providing you have the permission of the copyright owner to do so.

      Only after their next question (presumed to be, "what if you don't have that permission?"), do you then get into the 40 minute talk on the state of the mainstream music industry. You could even point out to the musically inclined that it doesn't have to be that way - that they have the right and power to control their creations unless they sign them away to a delegatee of the Big 5.

      Structuring the topic that way changes the conversation quite a bit.

    4. Re:I tried a slightly different approach by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      No, they have a legally backed monopoly on duplication of the information. The unjust laws granting this allow them to violate your rights to modify and redistribute information by telling you what you can or can't do with it.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    5. Re:I tried a slightly different approach by tepples · · Score: 1

      You could even point out to the musically inclined that it doesn't have to be that way - that they have the right and power to control their creations unless they sign them away

      Do they? What if one of them publishes something independently, and then a music publisher allied with one of the major record labels sues the songwriter for infringement through subconscious copying?

      to a delegatee of the Big 5.

      "Big 5" is behind the times now that Sony has bought BMG.

    6. Re:I tried a slightly different approach by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention a few things :
      1) Bands often pay for their own publicity. They are required to take a loan out from the record company to do so. Often, bands will end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. Hence, once they buy into the system they're screwed more than half the time. Thus the industry doesn't really take as big a risk as you think on these things.
      2) Jobs in bureaucracies in Spain are harder to lose. I'm surprised, and I'm sure he was too.
      3) As a former English teacher, this sounds like a perfect time to assign a research paper. :>

  133. Organized Mafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to recognize what the RIAA and it's flunky's really are.
    Organized Corporate Mafias that use Intimidation and strong money tactics to get their way.

    Protecting your copyright is one thing.
    Using intimidation and fear of prosecution is the province of the Dark Side.

  134. Where is George Orwell now!? by My_$0.02 · · Score: 1

    "The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp." -1984

  135. Re:Money Talks! Nothing Else Matters! - my view. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calm down AC/DC... no need for the !

  136. Re:from the faux-news dept. by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Which would seemingly require an English transcript of his conference.

    Anyone know if one exists?

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  137. OT Re:All this talk about not being fired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of when I resigned from Adobe (in San Jose). I gave them a 2-week notice, my manager asked me to keep it quiet and I was stupid enough to comply. During the first weekend, I discovered that I'd been quietly barred from the premises. The next week, my manager told everybody that I'd been summarily fired. I found out afterwards that this is common practice within that department (or maybe the whole company). Moral of the story: if you resign, tell your side of story to everybody right-away.

  138. He's a liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's not even a real teacher, and he only made some conferences about graphic design. The fact is that he never really asked for permission to use a venue, and he also calumniated the Dean

  139. How about a good stoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the RIAA wants to talk about morality and ethics, I think they are the first ones up for a good old fashion stoning. That's what the old testament would suggest. So I say, Fuck the damn RIAA lawyers.

  140. Contract non renewal by nuggz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You say the contract was finished.

    A nice clean agreable break isn't a bad thing.

  141. he was fired for disobeying instructions by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    just don't get it. Why should talking about P2P networks be considered illegal, and why was he forbidden in the first place?

    He wasn't fired for the subject of the talk. He was fired for disobeying his employer's instructions.

    Academia has some of the most stifling environments around, coupled with heaps of politics and drama. A lot of very big egos, in a very small pond, and a lot of people who have tenure.

    1. Re:he was fired for disobeying instructions by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      He wasn't fired for the subject of the talk. He was fired for disobeying his employer's instructions.

      From TFA I didn't see that he received any specific instructions not to give the lecture. (Maybe he did?)

      In any event, an employer cannot tell you what you can or cannot talk about (unless there is an NDA-type arrangement). They can take away your university venue, but they cannot stop you from talking in public. (The cafeteria might be questionable.)

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    2. Re:he was fired for disobeying instructions by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      He was fired for disobeying his employer's instructions.

      No, that's not it. But it's not worth arguing over.

      What's really ironic about the whole thing is that the Dean would probably benefit the MOST (long term) from the professor telling the truth. After all, the Dean was completely pressured by the SGAE with a software license inspection. If they're anything like the BSA, who can fine you $150K or more when they find one unlicenced copy of Windows XP... the very financials of the whole university was at stake.

      And for what? Talking to students about the truth?

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  142. Re:from the faux-news dept. by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > because the alternative is much much uglier.

    What, you mean like honesty and treating people fairly?

  143. What did he say? by PMuse · · Score: 1

    He proposed to give a talk on the benefits of P2P and talk about the law relating to P2P and copyright in Spain. He proposed to demo what sort of legal uses one could make of copyrighted works from P2P networks, and informed the Spanish collecting society, the national police and the attorney general to let them know what he was up to.

    Does anyone know what he actually said?

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:What did he say? by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      Yes, the lecture is available for download (in Spanish).

  144. Hopefully by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Hopefully Spanish law provides for wrongful termination lawsuits.

    This is ridiculous. They're moving into persecutory mode now.

  145. Re:from the faux-news dept. by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Hear hear. I don't carry them on my cell phone, but I think I still have up-to-date phone and email contacts for:

    • A CNN VP
    • News Producers/Executive Producers at (at least) two of the major networks
    • Various well-known journalists at the national level
    • Various local well-known journalists (who I met years before I moved into this area)
    If some employer tried to screw me like that, you can bet the excrement would hit the oscillating unit, if you know what I mean. If you don't have at least phone numbers of two or three reporters somewhere at your disposal... well, you're probably normal.

    --

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

  146. What I don't understand is... by sunset · · Score: 1

    "I even contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it."

    Why did he do that? Perhaps this is the outcome he wanted?

  147. "Violence is the last defense of the incompetent" by Corson · · Score: 1

    "Violence is the last defense of the incompetent" -- Asimov wrote in one of his Foundation series books and, as we can see in this case, not only intelectual terrorism but also being mischievous are the ways of the Recording Industries. These people are playing with fire but they don't seem to realize it... All it takes the hacker community to achieve something on a grand scale is strong motivation focused on a common goal... And guess what? They are beeing pushed into that corner by the Recording Industry...

  148. Re:from the faux-news dept. by gte910h · · Score: 1

    A person who an academic institution/gov't will often resign because if they force the org to fire them it will get ugly.

    I'm saying the resignee will resign because otherwise things will have to get ugly to get rid of them.

    Sure, we'd like if they treeted fairly, but if they're not, they will resign because the alternaive is much uglier for them personally.

    --Michael

    --
    Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
  149. i.e. by Wah · · Score: 1
    Someone likely to bathe on a regular basis.

    /i keed^2

    --
    +&x
    1. Re:i.e. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spaniards are the greatest water wasters of the western world. They understand "at least 4-6 times a day" as "a regular basis".
      This may be the reason for them being so dumb, they take so many showers that they got their brains diluded.

  150. Exclusive Monopolies by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Well, at least the US doesn't have a monopoly on censoring academics debunking corporate government powergrabs. Or maybe that would be better?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  151. How does a software audit work by 314m678 · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain how a software audit works? Can software companies come to my home/biz/school and demand access to my PCs? Cant I just say no?

    1. Re:How does a software audit work by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      If you refuse they will usually seek a court order, at least in the US.

      Personally, if it were me, I would refuse because that would give me time to stall and make sure that everything was in order.

      Of course, if it were me, I would be sending them thousands of copies of the GPL, MIT, BSD, and IBM Public License.....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:How does a software audit work by bbc · · Score: 1

      "If you refuse they will usually seek a court order, at least in the US."

      And generally the courts won't hand these out as if they were M&Ms. The MPAA needs to present very real evidence that you have incriminating evidence, and it needs to show that there is a very real risk you will get rid of that evidence if given the chance.

      (IANAL, IANAA)

    3. Re:How does a software audit work by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      IANAL either, but given the EULA's they may just need to show that they are an authorized agent.

      In that case, it may be sufficient (stalling-tactic-wise) to simply respond by certified mail asking for evidence that they are duly appointed by the software vendor, and stating that you will *only* allow them to audit software for those vendors for whome they send you appropriate evidence that they are authorized by the vendor to audit their customers....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  152. Re:theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's odd, I thought theft meant depriving someone of their possesions. If I download a song off the internet the recording industry still has it. Downloading instead of buying is boycotting their products, if I don't buy it, I don't buy it.

  153. But I need your help.... by BlueTooth · · Score: 1

    "When are we going to do something about it? We can't let them impose their failed, outdated, and inefficient business model through threats, pressures and silence. We must speak out. I am wiling to travel the world (as I am doing now in conferences all over Spain) to tell my story, and they will not silence me. The truth has to be known. But I need your help."

    Please forward this message to ten of your friends and add your name to the list at the bottom of the message. If you are the 100th, 200th, 300th etc person please forward a copy of the message to jorge@cortell.net

    Thanks.

    --
    SPAM
    1. Re:But I need your help.... by void+dummy() · · Score: 0

      Hell no!

  154. Forget the law by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

    I agree with you that you can't really change the law. Of course, corporations can only buy laws because no one really cares about any of it. To change the law, a lot more people than just some guys on Slashdot would have to give a rat's ass one way or the other, and they JUST DON'T.

    How about just don't buy their particular brand of entertainment? If you disagree with their control over their own assets, why not listen to music that falls outside the boundaries of their empire? I see dozens of great bands every year that are not on major record labels, and I live in Lincoln, Nebraska of all places. If you're near Chicago, Lawrence, Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, Austin, or anywhere like that there are some really kick ass acts around ALL THE TIME, most of whom bear no affiliation to the RIAA whatsoever.

    If the RIAA/MPAA REALLY gets under your skin and the skins of about a thousand other Slashdot posters as much as you continue to claim, why do you want anything to do with their products in the first place?

    Alternatives do exist, and they don't suck just because they're not millionaires and they don't have platinum records or whatever. Hundreds of bands have garnered enough national attention to be able to live off of touring and small record sales simply because they are good enough that people want to hear them. The idea that you have to sign some soul crushing contract and join a major label to make a living is only for people with big gold dollar signs in their eyes. No one REALLY needs the RIAA to get their shit out there.

  155. Coming soon... by Aumaden · · Score: 1
    P2p is illegal because it can be used to violate copyrights.

    Yup, p2p is illegal, sure, right.

    As are cars (can be used when robbing banks) and pens (need to write that note with something). And those ski masks, yup, illegal.

    Hmm, maybe we should just make CD/DVDs illegal, and, and those broadcasts. Someone might record 'em! And, if we close all the theaters, no one can sneak in and record our movies! Brilliant!

    Hey, who turned off the music?

  156. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
    Where's the disconnect?
    It's called "NewSpeak." Look it up in 1984.
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  157. Re:from the faux-news dept. by dirk · · Score: 1

    He wasn't "forced" to resign, he chose to resign. The administration explained the pressure they were receiving, and when he heard about this, he CHOSE to resign to help the university avoid the possible consequences. They didn't threaten to fire him if he didn't resign, he chose to resign to help the university.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  158. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

    Which is not the case: he resigned and didn't got payed for that, simply he didn't see his collegues fired too...

  159. Civil Disobedience by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
    On the contrary, civil disobedience is often a morally defensible way to bring about change, especially when the deck is strongly stacked the way it arguably is here. In fact, that's often the only way to achieve the momentum necessary for real change.

    That said, though, I personally cannot condone the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works; the creators of those works have rights, too, which includes the "right" to assign them to someone else for money. But the RIAA and MPAA have an agenda that goes beyond just defending the copyrights of their members; they are actively trying to quash even legitimate uses of this distribution channel because it poses a potentially large threat to their own monopoly over distribution. They dread the prospect of artists en masse by-passing the middlemen that they represent even more than they dread the downloaders.

    1. Re:Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me this.

      In the last 5 years of the P2p boom how many times have you see P2P used for a legitimate purpose?

      It's nice that you can see there's a legitimate use for P2P. So can I. How many people actually do so though? I can think of once instance in 5 years and that was to find a rare movie trailer. Besides that it's always for obtaining copyrighted material.

      Stop the it's legitimate song n dance already.

    2. Re:Civil Disobedience by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      In the last 5 years of the P2p boom how many times have you see P2P used for a legitimate purpose?

      Doesn't matter. What you're suggesting is that the right of citizens to communicate information of any kind should be denied in order to make the enforcement of of a narrow property right more convenient. Currently, it's true that most big media files are copyrighted material, and consequently most of the traffic will be as well. The rights to almost all of this material is held by a handful of large corporations that exercise an effective cartel through their industry associations. Until very recently, it was nearly impossible for an artist to be heard (or seen) except through the distribution channels controlled by this cartel, and on its terms. That's now changing, as more and more artists are choosing to distribute their works directly, thus bypassing the cartel. This is why it's not enough just to stem the flow of copyrighted works being traded; it's also necessary to destroy the "rogue" distribution channels themselves. That prevents them from ever becoming conduits for legitimate material, even if they aren't primarily that already.

  160. hahahaha, you bastard idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eres un agente de la SGAE o qué? Claro que pidió permiso, incluso se publicó en la agenda oficial de la UPV. Y no insultó a nadie.
    Are you a SGAE agent or similar? He did ask permission, it was publissed in the oficial schedule of the UPV. And didnt calumniated anybody.
    SGAE == thieves

  161. Re:Either you resign or we blow you up... by Optali · · Score: 1

    And not only this:

    There are some of them which even use programming languages from that period, like Modula-2 (with an 8 bit MS-DOS compiler, I swear it!).

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  162. Universities are not as Open as we Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What most people here don't seem to realize, is that university is not the bastion of freedom that we think it is. I attend a Canadian university, and I am still disgusted at how sterile some of the policies here are.

    There is an event held every September at most Canadian schools called frosh week, which is supposed to be a bunch of fun events meant to ease new students into university life by giving them a change to meet and interact with both students in their upcoming classes, and with upper-year students (which I will refer to as frosh leaders). I myself was a frosh leader for two of these events, and here is a list of some things we were not supposed to talk about (due to the risk of offending some of the new students):

    sex, drugs, alcohol, profane language was also forbidden, religion, bashing of other faculties

    In fact, I was told by an organizer that it was inappropriate to tell a story that involved somebody puking in a toilet from shooting a container of garlic dipping sauce that came with a pizza (reason being, the shooting aspect supposedly connected it with alcohol, and it involved a toilet and puking).

    Here in the Western hemisphere, we like to talk as if our universities are intellectual institutions that promote debate and discussion, however, my experience is that this is not the case.

    1. Re:Universities are not as Open as we Think by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 0
      You are correct.

      So then why attend?

      With a bit of effort, you can educate yourself in any subject, find meaningful employment perfectly suited to your mind-set, great happiness and health, all while avoiding debt-slavery in the trap of formal education.

      Like television, while University does provide some fringe benefits, it is largely a scam designed to limit human potential.


      -FL

    2. Re:Universities are not as Open as we Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In fact, I was told by an organizer that it was inappropriate to tell a story that involved somebody puking in a toilet from shooting a container of garlic dipping sauce that came with a pizza (reason being, the shooting aspect supposedly connected it with alcohol, and it involved a toilet and puking).
      No, it's inappropriate to tell that story because it's fucking gross. I won't be able to eat pizza without that mental image for months.
  163. Interestingly. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    While 'Right and Wrong' often have very little to with the Law, I think your approach is generally worthy.

    The fact of the matter is that a great deal of popular media is just plain bad for you. Most of the popular music I've ever heard is loaded with messages which reinforce unhealthy behavior patterns, as does nearly all the television programs on the air. The same thing goes for video games and nearly all popular film. Media produced by big corporate money is, very simply, addictive and unhealthy for both the individual and large populations. They keep people locked in highly limiting belief systems regarding employment, relationships, education and health choices, all of which lead to misery and stunted spirits.

    Whether current copyright law is fair or not is entirely beside the point. It's like arguing about which side of the American political system is better. Neither is relevant within the big picture and the petty squabble merely serves to distract from the truth.

    Throw out your television set. --I did this some years ago, and my life immediately became much more rich than it had ever been. Every hour is golden, and I find it amazing that I wasted so many thousands of hours in front of a television for so many years. There are countless experiences to be explored in this world; I am constantly immersed in life and I wish I had more media to throw away so as to win more time for myself.

    "Judge the tree by the fruit it bears." --Or in this case, reverse it; A toxic tree can only produce toxic fruit. Stolen or 'legitimately' acquired, the fruit will still make you sick.

    Look around you: The healthiest people are not consumers of shit. Everybody I know who absorbs crap media is sick in both body and soul. There is a direct link. Addicts, naturally, will want to deny this.


    -FL

  164. Academia = Free Speech Free by bobbuck · · Score: 1

    There is not even a hint of free speech in academia! My aunt, who is liberal, put a copy of Bush's fairly non-partisan inauguration speech on her office door and was told to take it down immediately or she would be black-balled. Being a liberal, but showing one small sign of support for a Republican president was enough to warrant retribution. This is all but published policy for most universities. I don't know of any business where you get fired or lose promotions based on political activity. Can you imagine your boss coming to talk to you and saying, "Well Bob, you've been a good employee, but you had that Kerry bumper sticker on your car, so I'm going have to let you go." There may be some exceptions here and there, but nothing like academia where it's standard operating procedure. If you don't believe me, ask Larry Summers about freedom of speech.

    1. Re:Academia = Free Speech Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks. Most university faculty are liberal, but very few engage in the kind of nonsense you're describing. And some companies do fire people for being democrats (and some churches expell people for being democrats).

    2. Re:Academia = Free Speech Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm not aware of any decent study of this and using isolated examples to support a view without any other evidence is plain silly. It's like me saying that because a few decades ago at my university a math grad student killed a professor with a hammer all math grad students are psychopaths.

      I've only heard of one attempt to make such a study and its sample size was laughable at best. Needless to say, its "grandiose" conclusions and the evident pre-existing bias of the authors made me not take it very seriously.

    3. Re:Academia = Free Speech Free by bobbuck · · Score: 1
      Who in the private sector got fired for being a Democrat? How do those numbers compare with conservatives who get black-balled from universities? As for churches expelling people for being Democrats, which I think you really mean pro-abortion, why should they accept into their fold someone whose ideology is opposite the church? Wouldn't Greenpeace expel a member who vocally supports open air nuclear testing?

      It's great if your university supports free speech for everyone, including conservatives and doesn't weed out them out but it really would be an exception to the rule.

  165. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The disconnect comes from pondering the number of different hypothetical uses for p2p, instead of looking at their actual prevalence in the real world.

    Let's say I sell you a bag of 250 jellybeans. I claim that there are 15 different flavors, which is true. But what I don't tell you is that 236 of the jellybeans are black licorice. Would you not feel that I had misled you?

    I think it's similarly misleading to say that "certain uses of p2p [are] illegal," as it tends to understate the truth of the matter. It's a lie of omission if you fail to acknowledge that those "certain uses" happen to be the most popular ones, by far.

    In the future, you should replace these words with the legend "crunchy raw unboned real dead frog."

  166. Obligatory obscure humor by hey! · · Score: 1

    See above. The university administration, under coercion by the Spanish Recording Industry Association and the MPAA (I think-- I didn't quite understand that bit), didn't want the population at large to see that P2P is a valid and legal tool, as that would damage their fight against piracy.

    So, does this mean MOMA get's Guernica back?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  167. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the employers should own the employees and the employees should be a vassal and not exercise personal iniciative?

  168. Re:U lied to Children by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

    Inherent in the question of sharing music was that it was the popular, protected music the kids listened to, not public domain music. And yes, a distinction was made there too.

    So no, I was not lying to students.

    I should also note that I tell students that "U" is not an acceptable replacement for "you", unless you want to look like an idiot.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  169. Re:Oh yes you can... by symbolic · · Score: 1

    The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.

    Just stop playing. You'll win. You'll get to keep your money, you won't be funding an entertainment industry that has become a new form of quasi government, and they get to keep their slop. It's called empowerment. Having done this for more than 5 years now, I can say that it's a wonderful thing when you're the one in control.

  170. Re:from the faux-news dept. by hey! · · Score: 1

    When high officials in most governments (cabinet members of the US administration, for example) are fired, they always legally 'resign'.

    Which was a huge improvement over the old system, in which you were handed a revolver and told to "do the right thing."

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  171. I disagree. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    I think the poster did a good job. And remember, a highschool class is usually only about an hour long. --Certainly there are other bases which might have been covered with regard to the music industry, but frankly, he sounds like the kind of teacher I would have appreciated having as a kid.

    I sometimes wish I'd taken up teaching. I don't know how long I'd last in the system, though. I'd speak openly about the giant mind control game which is media, politics and religion, and urge kids to disbelieve most of what the curriculum tries to serve them while encouraging free thought and exploration. I'd teach about corporate practices, how the government secret services work, the roots and practices of Zionism, the mind-fuck which is Christianity and monotheism in general, the mind-fuck which is modern science, as well as a whole bunch of other subjects certain to make parents cry out for my public hanging.

    Education is not really about education, but robot manufacture. Any teacher brave enough to throw a spanner in the works is worthy of quiet praise.


    -FL

  172. Credentials... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not too hang up on educational credentials, but this dude has Bsc. Master, and PhD from non existent University?

    ESTUDIOS UNIVERSITARIOS

    Oxford University (Reino Unido):

    UD.- Computing.

    Kellogg C.College (EE.UU.):

    ASc.- CC. Económicas y Empresariales. Magna Cum Laude.

    Brantridge University (EE.UU.) -universidad difunta-:

    BSc.- Business Management. Magna Cum Laude.

    OTROS CURSOS Y POSTGRADOS UNIVERSITARIOS

    Harvard University (EE.UU.):

    Curso.- Tecnologías y políticas de control en Internet.

    Curso.- Teorías de Ciudadanía.

    Curso.- Introducción a la Metafísica.

    Curso Postgrado.- eCommerce.

    Curso Postgrado.- Propiedad Intelectual en la Era Digital.

    Oxford University (Reino Unido):

    Curso Postgrado.- Lógica Booleana y Herramientas de Investigación en Internet.

    Brantridge University (EE.UU.) -universidad difunta-:

    MBA.- Master in Marketing Management. Magna Cum Laude.

    PhD.- Business Communication. Magna Cum Laude.

    Universitat de Barcelona - Deusto Les Heures - (España):

    Curso Postgrado.- Dirección y Gestión de Entidades Financieras.

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid / Bolsa de Madrid (España):

    Curso Postgrado.- Curso de Bolsa y Mercados Financieros en Internet.

    Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (España):

    Curso Postgrado.- Creación de Modelos de Sistemas Informáticos.

    Universitat Politècnica de València - Campus TI (España):

    Curso Postgrado.- Seguridad Informática

    Curso Postgrado.- Comercio Electrónico.

    OTROS CURSOS

    IVAM (Instituto Valenciano de Arte Moderno) - (España):

    Curso.- Mecanismos de Funcionamiento del Mercado del Arte / Valoración de Obras de Arte del S. XX.

    PREMIOS, BECAS Y ASOCIACIONES

    Premio Wall Street Journal al Mejor Estudiante del Año (EE.UU.)

    Nominación a la National Dean's List (500 mejores estudiantes, EE.UU.)

    Miembro de la Oxford University Society (Reino Unido)

  173. "Driving License" by catman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not really. It's probably the Spanish version of the ECDL - like a driving license, it's a certificate showing that the bearer has passed exams regarding basic computer knowledge and skills.

    ( We seem to be getting somewhere, in Norway at least "Datakortet" - the "Computer Card" - can be obtained using Linux :-) )

    1. Re:"Driving License" by Optali · · Score: 1

      Nop. The ECDL has nothing to do in this case. ECDL is also available in Spain. What this guy means is a driving licence in the sense of a means of identification, something in the sense of the new US driving license with retina scan and ID number. Anything related to computer knowledges falls completly out of the scope of Mr. Farré's "internet driving licence". The absolute zenit of dumbness is that we Spaniards already have an ID card with fingerprints, an ID number which are held in our ISP's databases for billing porposes. The judges are perfectly capable of chasing a criminal down and taping phones. But this only applies to crimes as such, not to mere civil faults (this means enything below 400€). You have to know this guy, Farré, he's like one of the clasic slashdot-trolls but even dumber.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    2. Re:"Driving License" by catman · · Score: 1

      Good grief. Thanks for the information - forewarned is forearmed :-( The Dark side of the Force is strong up here in the north as well, Already anonymous cell phones are outlawed, private use of crypto is still allowed, probably because very few people use it ...

  174. for sale by jotux · · Score: 1

    for sale: one(1) university dean.

    Polytechnic University of Valencia Dean. Slightly used by record industry. Obedient, simple minded, easy to train/use. Free to recording industry or idiotic regulatory agency.

  175. Overreaction by nefarity · · Score: 0

    That's it? In my day we were taught how to do buffer overflows, decrypt dvds, break encryption, subvert content filters (and had to code a proxy) and we had to actually code a p2p application. What exactly did this guy do wrong? Just seems like another day in Computer Science.

  176. They can't be doing that bad... by vandezuma · · Score: 1

    MPAA and the like can't be hurting THAT much from P2P networks and other kinds of file sharing if they have enough money to throw around and influence university administrators.

    --
    "That is the saving grace of humor, if you fail no one is laughing at you." -A. Whitney Brown
  177. why did he need a location to lecture? by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    i mean, it was a lecture on p2p networks and their uses for information distribution ;P

    sum.zero

  178. Big Brother by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

    Yet another reason why the US is the greatest nation on gods green earth. (to borrow from Michael Medved). Many try to counter that freedom of speech only applies to speaking about the government. The problem with this is that under a capitalist society corporations and institutions can wield far more power over a person than government. In many places "Big Brother" came true, it just turned out to be corporations, not government.

    1. Re:Big Brother by AveryT · · Score: 1

      Many try to counter that freedom of speech only applies to speaking about the government.

      Whereas in the US, free speech no longer applies when you are speaking about the government -- unless you happen to agree with Bush...

      http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
      http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID =111986&SecID=2
      http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=1 3699&c=86

  179. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  180. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is stupid, it's like saying well she wasn't raped, but she was forced to have sex with him when he put the gun to her head.

    What's the difference, dude?

    When you are "forced to leave your job" you are fired. Stop arguing trivial semantical ideology and stick with the context of the situation. This is why most geeks should not be allowed to run $hit, as they tend to miss the forest from the trees.

    And please, senor geek, get up and say ... you mis-qouted that ... I know it's killing you not to.

    Now can we get back to the topic of how we are being pirated by the recording industry.

  181. _Public_ University by gggggggg · · Score: 1

    Much as I am in favor of Jorge's position and admire him, I must say, just for debating purposes, that this is a public university.
    That means it is goverment/state funded. Does anyone think it is correct for someone on the state's payroll to be lecturing to students in a biased illegal-tending way?
    I can clearly see the similarity to a corportate employer/employee situation.
    This discussion should not at all be about freedom of speech. Jorge is an employee, and his bosses make the laws. He is inciting against following them, and is pressured not to do that.

    Again, I want to stress that I support him completely, but in a way can't avoid understanding that educational context doesn't allow for these sort of lectures.

  182. It's true! by hawk · · Score: 4, Funny
    He didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

    :)

    hawk

    1. Re:It's true! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever does :)

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  183. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by dajak · · Score: 1

    I think it's similarly misleading to say that "certain uses of p2p [are] illegal," as it tends to understate the truth of the matter. It's a lie of omission if you fail to acknowledge that those "certain uses" happen to be the most popular ones, by far.

    This is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by criminalizing P2P you make decent people afraid of using P2P applications, and effectively shut it down as a distribution channel for legal purposes. When this is done it becomes easier to convince legislators that P2P should be illegal anyway, because it is exclusively used for illegal purposes.

    My last use (and one of the few uses) of Bittorrent was to download a FreeBSD CD image. I never download copyrighted music or movies, but I suspect the very fact that I used the technology is enough reason to put me on a list of people to watch somewhere.

    Why does the entertainment industry go directly after the technology instead of its use?

    Because it is easy to enforce, of course, and because they are the ones who will get to define what a P2P technology is. Don't be surprised if Internet becomes a kind of passive television where they own the servers and you are only allowed to be a client. That's the situation their 'business model' is based on, and they want to go back to it.

    Another piece of the strategy is to make expensive legal requirements on ISP's and content providers so that only big companies can afford to own servers and you, as an individual citizen, are on the receiving, consuming, end only.

    P2P is an interesting technology that never achieved its potential because it is being criminalized before reaching maturity. Think of it: torrent links are immune to the Slashdot effect. P2P should be integrated into every browser, and it should be supported as a matter of principle.

  184. Equivalent of SLAPP, but no lawsuit by ubernostrum · · Score: 1

    In a SLAPP suit, a large, wealthy entity files a frivolous lawsuit against a smaller entity, solely for the purpose of discouraging some course of action. The choice then is to spend exorbitant amounts of money (which the smaller entity typically does not possess) defending against the suit, or give up the course of action the larger entity dislikes. It is, in effect, a form of protection racket whereby a large company says "play by our rules and we'll leave you alone", and in many places it is illegal.

    What happened here was apparently the equivalent, just with slightly different methods -- if the professor doesn't resign, the full pressure of a large, wealthy organization will be brought to bear against the university (e.g., repeated audits and inspections of software licenses, copyright use, etc. and of course steep fines if/when any infringement is found), which can't afford to be targeted in such a way. Thus the university, for its own protection, is forced to apply pressure to the professor who, in turn, decides that it is better to resign and publicize the story than bring down his university while fighting the media cartel.

  185. we *are* at home by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    nt.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  186. I will buy a recording of his lecture! by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    for £10! [/irony] ;)

    Someone really should have used a dictaphone a sent a copy to a slashdotter

  187. Here's an even better approach. by argent · · Score: 1

    "Is it wrong?" I concluded. "Well, student's, that's a moral decision you'll have to make on your own..."

    Unless you have the artist's permission, I think it's clear that it's wrong. The fact that the music industry is engaged in a greater wrong is not even that much of a mitigating factor. It's up to the artist to choose to involve themselves in civil disobedience against the label system, to accept the consequences of sharing their songs on P2P, whether good or bad. It's not up to you to make that decision for them.

    It's like software piracy. There is no doubt that some companies have benefited tremendously from secondary effects of having their software widely pirated. Microsoft is a perfect example... piracy of Office has been a big part of what destroyed the market for office suites that might compete against Office on the basis of price. It's hard to even give them away now, and there's no doubt that without that piracy Office would have a lower market share. But that doesn't justify trading copies of Office, it would be Microsoft's responsibility to allow additional people to use your copy of Office. If anything, it makes pirating Office even more reprehensible, given what the long term results have been.

    Similarly, trading music that artists have chosen not to share has reduced the value of independant artists, to the point that it's hard for them to get attention even by giving their music (some of which is tremendously good) away. If you don't like the label system, it's far more moral and effective to promote sites like 3hive that hilight independant artists, many of whom are more than happy to let you download complete songs (not just 30 second samples) if there's a chance that'll convince you to buy their CDs. And, heck, it even works.

    It'd work better if epople would quit thinking they need the latest music by some label artist, and take a flyer on someone they've never heard of, and pass the samples around if they like them. They don't even need P2P to do it, they can just email a URL... and it's completely legal AND moral and does a MUCH better job of disempowering the RIAA and the label system.

    1. Re:Here's an even better approach. by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Unless you have the artist's permission, I think it's clear that it's wrong. The fact that the music industry is engaged in a greater wrong is not even that much of a mitigating factor. It's up to the artist to choose to involve themselves in civil disobedience against the label system, to accept the consequences of sharing their songs on P2P, whether good or bad. It's not up to you to make that decision for them."

      Very well put. To elaborate further, I think he was implicitly asking his students to look inward and ask themselves:

      1. Are there times when two wrongs do make a right?
      2. Is the golden rule (that is... treat others how you would like to be treated) subjective? If somebody that you don't know would rather that you not violate their rights, does it apply? Does what they do for a living, or how much money they make have an effect on your decision? In other words, was Orwell on to something when his characters in Animal Farm wrote "some are more equal than others?"
      3. If somebody makes what you perceive to be an incorrect choice (here, choosing to sign a recording contract rather than giving your work away for free) does this change the way you feel about respecting their rights?
      4. Can it be considered "greedy" to download music for free as an alternative to paying for it? Likewise, can it be considered "greedy" to choose to sign a record contract, rather than making your work available for free?
      5. The masses have the power and the leverage here. Ultimately there's nothing you can do if somebody wants to violate your rights, so ultimately, all musicians have to truly rely on is the honor system. Do you agree that "might makes right?" How would you answer if you were (a) a high school student who can't afford to buy all the music they want, (b) a musician who relies on royalty payments to pay the rent, (c) an American Indian living during the westward expansion of the 19th century?

      "If you don't like the label system, it's far more moral and effective to promote sites like 3hive that hilight independant artists, many of whom are more than happy to let you download complete songs (not just 30 second samples) if there's a chance that'll convince you to buy their CDs. And, heck, it even works."

      Agreed. There's also MP3Tunes (you have to pay, but it's high-quality, non-DRM stuff) and Magnatunes (which I believe is payment optional). Plenty of ways to get high quality, low-cost (or free) music from musicians who haven't gone the major label route.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Here's an even better approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you have the artist's permission, I think it's clear that it's wrong.

      Huh? Why? I agree with the basic concept of copyright, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's clearly wrong to infringe, and I certainly wouldn't teach it as unquestionable fact.

      Lots of people think we don't need copyright. Lots of people infringe upon copyright. Lots of people are willing to release their work into the public domain. There is lots of evidence that we don't need copyright, in which case it's an unjustified limit to our freedom.

  188. Another point... by argent · · Score: 1

    This is not an example of suppression of distasteful speech; it's an example of its exercise.

    So, to go back to the message you're replying to, where was the robust debate that resulted from this exercise of speech? Why, it was nowhere, because it was suppressed by all the mechanisms-short-of-prosecution they could come up with.

    One doesn't have to ban speech if one can suppress enough of it that your voice can drown out the opposition.

    The Spoilsmanship of the Jackson administration is no longer considered acceptable. It's long past time that abuse of the "Bully Pulpit" of the Presidency went the same way.

  189. US Centric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The situation is Spain is somewhat different as in the rest of the world:
    We have a monster called SGAE:


    So the rest of the world has SGAE? Or just the USA? Or is the USA the rest of the world?

  190. sorry got no food for ya, but want a new bridge? by n3k5 · · Score: 1
    What about
    4) Share music only with friends that you trust.

    While technically unlawful
    [...]
    in which country is it unlawful to share music with trusted friends? That's not quite a public performance, is it?
    [...] if you chip in with 20 or 30 other people to buy copyrighted material and make copies for each person in the group [...]
    Now that's a really good idea. Why aren't we doing this already? Considering how everyone around here has 20 to 30 trusted friends who all listen to exactly the same music ...
    --
    but what do i know, i'm just a model.
  191. He Shoulda by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    He shoulda used a proxy...

  192. Socrates should be rolling over in his grave by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    Socrates should be rolling over in his grave by now. The guy was just trying to give a lecture. If he can't give the lecture in the cafeteria, he might as well have just given it from a parking lot somewhere. Then that would be one step closer to the socratic method... well, maybe if he gave the lecture in the market and instead of lecturing asking people questions about P2P networks...

  193. Before you attack someone's reputation in the UK by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Get a UK lawyer to explain what the law is.

    What do you call someone who gets legal advice from Slashdot?

    "Inmate".

  194. Some comments from Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have now the time to check all the posts to see if somebody wrote the same, there are two facts that seem not clear:

    1.- Jorge was planing to talk about the P2P, yes, but he says that here it IS legal to get copyrighted material from the net, for a right called 'private copy', and is challenging the SGAE (local RIAA) and the police tech division to sue him for doing it. The respounse to the challenge was this one.

    2.- The SGAE don't have to audit nothing, they have real political power, no governement challenges them, they only have to call the apropiate person and the professor is fired. They have a lot of space in the media, and he use to do agressive political campaigns against who they dislike.

    Sorry for my unpracticed english.

  195. Spanish Constitution by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    Article 20

    1. The following rights are recognized and protected:

    a) the right to freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions by word, in writing or by any other means of communication;

    b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation;

    c) the right to academic freedom;

    d) the right to freely communicate or receive accurate information by any means of dissemination whatsoever. The law shall regulate the right to invoke personal conscience and professional secrecy in the exercise of these freedoms.

    2. The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship.

    3. The law shall regulate the organization and Parliamentary control of the social communications media under the control of the State or any public agency and shall guarantee access to such media to the main social and political groups, respecting the pluralism of society and of the various languages of Spain.

    4. These freedoms are limited by respect for the rights recognized in this Title, by the legal provisions implementing it, and especially by the right to honour, to privacy, to personal reputation and to the protection of youth and childhood.

    5. The confiscation of publications and recordings and other information media may only be carried out by means of a court order.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  196. He was NOT CENSORED and it's not his university by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only relation he has with the university is that he did a few conferences about graphic design. Also, he never officially asked for permission to use a venue; in fact he tried to take it at last minute

    Don't believe everything people say

  197. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Not to worry. They'll write the law in such a way that only the uses the DA deigns to notice will be affected.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  198. has anyone found the dean's email address yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the school is at www.upv.es, and there's a site map at www.upv.es/mapa/mapai.html - but i can't find the dean's name or email address. little help anyone?

  199. So this is officially by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

    a dictatorship? Some topics are forbidden in universities?

  200. Better Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they don't approve of P2P, and as TCP/IP is P2P... ...anyone controlling routers on the net, please route all P2P traffic to/from that University to /dev/null.

  201. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but I have to correct you: if the unit is merely oscilating, your unit is going up and down in a linear direction. I think the applicance you are cogitating on is of the rotary designation: that way you shall have a much more even application of shit to the surrounding environment (as opposed to just up and down).

    Sorry, this /is/ /., after all :)

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  202. Voter apathy by tepples · · Score: 1

    Oh dear, we can't change the law, we just can't... the bad guys own the system.

    It appears that you intended this remark with sarcasm, but in fact it is the case that the major movie studios control the U.S. government. Many American voters appear to act with apathy; they'll vote for whomever they see most on TV. The TV news networks choose which candidate gets the most airtime. All major commercial TV news networks are owned by a parent company that also owns a major motion picture studio (ABC News -> Walt Disney; NBC News -> Universal; CNN and Headline News -> Warner Bros.; Fox News -> Twentieth Century Fox; CBS News -> Paramount) and are likely to serve that studio's political interests in which candidates they select for TV. Therefore, both viable candidates in a given congressional election will support expansion of the privileges of movie studios.

    How can we fight voter apathy?

  203. Subconscious copying by tepples · · Score: 1

    There are ways to "not play the game" besides breaking the law. Just don't buy the music or give them any of your $$.

    This is ineffective. The record labels are affiliated with the music publishers who own copyright in the songs I hear on the radio or over the speaker system in a grocery store. Once I hear a song through such a public performance, I am forever barred from using that combination of notes in any of my own compositions, even if the copying is done subconsciously. So what should I do to write songs without subconsciously copying any of the songs that I have heard in my decades of having been alive?

  204. lol your a wuss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Join the winning team alraedy.....

  205. MOD PARENT UP! by RIAA+Bounty+Hunter · · Score: 0

    Informative: KlamDork is a douchebag

  206. Copyright vs. natural rights by tepples · · Score: 1

    If I create a wonderful painting, do you have a right to view it if I don't want you to?

    You have a natural right to keep it private, to exhibit it only in places where photography has been banned on the private property. You have an artificial right but not a natural right to "have your cake and eat it too" by distributing the work in copies to the public while retaining legal control over reproduction.

    The problem here is that there are no natural rights to view or consume intellectual property.

    Please do not use the confusing term "intellectual property" when discussing sensitive moral issues. Copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and rights of publicity are more different than they are alike, and they have different moral tradeoffs. For instance, the holder of a patent on a mathematical algorithm has an artificial right but not a natural right to prohibit other people from independently reinventing and reimplementing the invention, while the owner of copyright in a computer program does not.

  207. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by tepples · · Score: 1

    Think of it: torrent links are immune to the Slashdot effect.

    Trackers can still get overloaded, and the "trackerless" BT clients (BramTorrent and Azureus) aren't compatible with each other.

  208. Re:Either you resign or we blow you up... by Velk · · Score: 1

    That depends on whether they pressurize all of him, or only part of him.

  209. Auditing by tepples · · Score: 1

    afterwards, even if found innocent, you still have to deal with "so why were you audited? what did you do wrong?" questions.

    Answer: "It was a measure to maintain our accountability to the public." It's easier to get the press to bite this excuse if audits of various aspects of various departments are conducted annually.

  210. Consumers Union exists by tepples · · Score: 1

    For this reason I belive there should be some form of consumer union.

    There already is. It publishes a monthly magazine titled Consumer Reports, and it has spoken out against at least the FCC's (temporarily defunct) broadcast flag.

  211. P2P, the Internet, and free speech by tepples · · Score: 1

    You can exchange information with out P2P. We are doing it right now.

    The Internet itself is a peer-to-peer network.

    There is no comparison between people being able to share data in a specific way and people being denied basic human rights.

    Other than that strict client-server communication permits only those who can afford big servers to have any semblance of a voice?

    1. Re:P2P, the Internet, and free speech by Wile_E_Peyote · · Score: 1

      The Internet itself is a peer-to-peer network.

      Not exactly. I see why you say it, but it's not in the strictest sense. The Internet is just a bunch of cables, routers and servers. It doesn't even require clients to function. Peer-to-peer is a way to use the internet and not the most common. The most common is client-server.

      Other than that strict client-server communication permits only those who can afford big servers to have any semblance of a voice?

      As I said before, you don't need peer-to-peer networks to exchange information. We are doing it right now. There are plenty of places to put your ideas that a lot of people will see. This isn't the government trying to silence your voice (that's what the Patriot Act is for) it's companies using their influence (wrongly I might add) to get someone fired.

      I can build a website for nothing on a number of servers. I can get my own web site for $50 a year. If I have something interesting to say and some smarts I will eventually get an audience.

      It's not like getting dragged out into the streets by thugs because you wrote a negative article or voiced a negative opinion about the government or had the mendacity to actually vote.

  212. Pot's been banned; so can PCs. by tepples · · Score: 1

    Just stop playing. You'll win. You'll get to keep your money, you won't be funding an entertainment industry that has become a new form of quasi government

    So what happens when the entertainment industry manages to talk Congress into taking the right to purchase a general purpose computer away from the public? And what happens when you write a song, publish it on the Internet, and then get sued for "subconscious copying" of a copyrighted song?

  213. The apathetic voter bloc by tepples · · Score: 1

    Then the best choice is to boycott the companies

    If you boycott the RIAA and the NMPA/Harry Fox Agency, and you start writing your own songs instead and publishing them on the net, then you open yourself up to lawsuits alleging subconscious copying of some copyrighted work that you heard on the radio at age 11.

    and vote against the politician that enacted thoes laws.

    What is my political power compared to that of the Apathetic Voter Bloc which will vote for whichever candidate appears the most on movie-studio-owned TV news networks?

    Remeber, as citizens we vote every 2-4 years

    Twelve-year-olds can't vote, but they can still be sued for millions of dollars in statutory damages for copyright infringement.

  214. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PAID, DUMASS! NOT PAYED

  215. G. Patton said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    better than get fired for your way of think, make the enemy get fired for theirs..
    J.Cortell knew all that finally happened could happen, but he (unlike others) didnt go back.
    That movement showed out these people dirt methods, a 'knew' thing but not commonly seen.
    So, hes fired , and seems a lost battle.. (in a very dirt way must say * ) but has been so widely spread that probably the teacher will make lots more p2p lectures than if he hadnt been fired...

    * dirty easy steps:
    -The teacher announces he wants to talk about p2p (doing nothing illegal)
    -'Somebody' starts pressing the dean (and the teacher) trying to scr*w the talk.
    -The teacher finally talks but in a pub outside the university.
    -The university forces him to resign answering to pressures to put him as an example for others -> 'dont do things like that or will be fired'.
    -Some media spread the new and more and more ppl realizes the dangerous mafia-style powers are moving around patents & intelectual property.The dark forces start worrying..
    -As a counter strike the dark forces' media start screwing the reputation of the teacher using the tactic 'you are an ant under my shoe'.

  216. Not only that... by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    He can probably do whoever leaned on the Dean for Blackmail.

    I hope that he does.

  217. My useless Opinion on this by Elpacoloco · · Score: 1

    If I were the Spanish Authorities, I would cut all funding to this university. Clearly they have no spine, and they'll cave to whatever stupid interest comes knocking. It is not in the interests of a nation to have it's students bought like this.

  218. He could sue the SRIA by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    I send this email:
    Dear Jorge Cortell,

    After reading your blog, it occurred to me that Promusicae is probably
    breaking the law in committing extortion or blackmail. I think that for
    them to be accused essentially of racketeering would be extremely
    interesting indeed.

    Yours sincerely,
  219. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up!? This discussion is supposed to be about a Spanish teacher being fired for speaking about p2p, not prostitution. Really, if modded at all, the (grand)parent should be modded offtopic.

  220. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please let's not forget that in Spain we have the right to "private copy": we are legally entitled to copy copyrighted material for our personal use. Having said that, do note that IANAL

  221. Norwegian translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  222. Re:Um .. so it's Dylxeia, and not the Cellexia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> An inability to spell some words correctly, or being dyslexic, does not indicate that someone is incapable of having a good argument. Nor does it indicate that he's making things up.

    Aha! Now I know why I get so many Via8ra,
    Pron and sftoware messages in my inbox!

    By Jvoe! I think I may just reply to some of these intruiging offers!

  223. Applies to patents too? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Short form for "under Intelectual Property right", "Copyrighted","Patented"

    Specifically, I was wondering whether this immunity from liability for private copying under Spanish law extended only to copyrights, as in most nations' private copying statutes that I've reviewed, or whether it extended to patents as well.

    1. Re:Applies to patents too? by Optali · · Score: 1

      Only Copyright. First because patent royalties does not affect the final user (at last in a direct way) and second because there is nothing that can be put into a digital media and which is protected by patents. Under the current UE law software and algorithms are not patentable, and if things developes as we await, things will get even thougher for software and business-method patents.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  224. Re:from the faux-news dept. by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

    Dumbass, not dumass, dumbass...

  225. Brantridge University by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy is just a poser. His resume includes a BSc, a MBA and a PhD from a degree mill called Brantridge University that no longer exists. Check the newsgroups for old spam messages from Brantridge University trying to sell its fake degrees.

  226. Check his CV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is at this address. Anybody has shared with him a classroom at the Brantridge University? Or at Oxford, for that matter?

  227. When teachers don' have tenure, the terrorists win by tdaxp · · Score: 1

    I'm not joking.

    Remember how Macromedia patented anti-P2P technology? That was functionally the same as patenting anti-Terrorism in Iraq.

    Social P2P networks are everywhere. They are behind the rise of the Religious Right in America. They are behind the rise of 9/11-Style terrorism. Knowing how to work in P2P network is the key to winning the War in Iraq.

    When the recording industry makes a university fires teachers for talking about P2P, they are dismissing soldiers in the Global War on Terrorism.

    Fight terrorism. Protect tenure.

    This comment is not a joke. It is very serious.

  228. Diploma mill by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 0

    Apparently, nobody here RTFA, much less his resume, hence the reason why nobody noticed that this guy earned his bachelors, masters and Ph.D. from Brantridge University, a suspicious diploma mill. I think such blind support to this guy will undoubtedly harm the cause he's defending.

  229. Spanish teacher? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  230. Re:And yet some big corporations are working with by eporue · · Score: 1

    The disconnect exists in the fact that under Spanish law, downloading copyrighted material for personal use and without making any money doing so is totally legal. I can download Star Wars to my PC, and as far as I do not sell it, I am doing it legally (in Spain at least). So the thing is that different countries have different laws (this same kind of laws is common in most european countries, the US is one of the most restrictive in the use of copyrighted material). But the RIA and the rest of the gang use their lawyers to threaten people that, afraid of getting into legal battles, avoid the whole discussion. I am not buying more CDs myself ........