Slashdot Mirror
University of Wisconsin-Madison Bucks RIAA
stephencrane informs us of an interesting development at UW Madison. The school, along with many others, has been sent "settlement letters" by the RIAA with instructions to forward them to particular students (or other university community members) that the RIAA believes guilty of illegal filesharing. The letters order the assumed filesharers to identify themselves and to pay for the content they are supposed to have "pirated." The university has sent a blanket letter to all students, reiterating the school's acceptable use policies, but has refused to forward individual letters without a valid subpoena. This lawyer's blog reproduces the letter. The campus newspaper has some coverage on the university's stance.
In Wisconson, "UW" refers to Madison. "UW-M" usually refers to Milwaukee.
--Gus
I didn't RTFA, but I did get a chance to RTF email!
Subject: UW-Madison copyright compliance notice
Date: 03/16/2007
The recording industry is threatening lawsuits against those who may have engaged in illegal file sharing. They are currently targeting students who live in university residence halls. Recently, UW-Madison and other universities have been notified that they will receive settlement letters that are to be passed on to the individuals whom the senders believe to be guilty of copyright infringement. Consistent with current network management procedures and our understanding of federal law, UW-Madison does not plan to forward these letters directly to campus network users. We will, of course, comply with a valid subpoena.
However, if the UW-Madison is given cause to believe that a student, faculty or staff network user may have infringed on copyrights, it will take action. University network policies empower the CIO to terminate that person's network access until the matter is resolved. The Dean of Students office (for students) or supervisors (for employees) will be notified and other disciplinary action may be taken, as appropriate.
Unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted works is illegal in many circumstances, and a violation of the university's Appropriate Use Policy. Please be advised of your rights and responsibilities under these rules. For more information, see: http://www.doit.wisc.edu/security/policies/appropr iate_use.asp
Fun stuff--Pretty glad I'm out of the dorms. Maybe I'll get one of these from Charter...
I love reading the funny comments many users place on slashdot. However, I prefer that Facts are available to those that want the truth.
1) The RIAA has jurisdiction over RECORDINGS as given to them by their members. Nothing else. The have jusrisdiction over Britney Spears' recording of "Baby...one more time", but they cannot prevent you from singing it yourself.2) Thus, Given singing in the shower, or any other acapella public performance, is not a recording, RIAA has no Jurisdiction. The rights infringed on in this circumstance belong to the Songwriter or Publisher. Their rights are protected by BMI, ASCAP, or other similar organization. However, the difference between these rights is that you inherently have the right to perform and record these songs yourself, all that is required is that you pay performance fees to the publisher for it's use. They cannot deny that use.
3) If I sell albums of my favorite Bon Jovi songs, that I recorded myself singing and instrumentally performed myself, I can do that. No matter if it sounds almost identical to Bon Jovi's recordings, the RIAA cannot prevent me from distributing those albums. However, Bon Jovi (who writes most, if not all of their own songs) has the right to sue me for their due right to use roalties.
I hope that clears a few things up..... Thanks for your intelectual understanding of the issue.
PS. I only referenced Britney Spears as she was one of the only artist that I could think of that everyone knows, but doesn't write her own music (I could have used any of the the teeny bopper artists of the late 90's, but chose the beautiful, bald one)