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.

50 of 749 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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
  2. 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 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.

  3. 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 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"

    2. 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

    3. 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).

    4. 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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.

    7. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Um by mcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to Academia. That's how you fire people here.

    1. 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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

    4. 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!"
  7. 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
  8. 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

  9. 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."
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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".

  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.

  18. 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!

  19. 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.

  20. 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
  21. 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?

  22. 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!

  23. 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.

  24. 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
  25. 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 .

  26. 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.

  27. 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 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.

  28. 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!
  29. It's true! by hawk · · Score: 4, Funny
    He didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

    :)

    hawk