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.
...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.
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.
$>eval("Forced to resign" != "fired");
=0
$>
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
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?
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.
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.
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
Welcome to Academia. That's how you fire people here.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
Copyright Infringement is to stealing as Forced to resign is to fired.
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 ----
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."
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"
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."
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
(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.
they normally get two choices: be fired or resign.
Now which would sound better to future prospective employers?.
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".
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.
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
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.
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!
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
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.
*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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think this will spread the story much quicker than his lecture 150 attendants.
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!
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?
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.
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.
I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
"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.
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.