Slashdot Mirror
NC State Stands Up to RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Technician Online at North Carolina State University reports that its Director of Student Legal Services, Pam Gerace, has advised students to remain anonymous, and has indicated her office's willingness to challenge the RIAA's subpoenas. What's more, the newspaper urges students to take Ms. Gerace up on her offer. The fighting spirit of Jimmy Valvano lives on."
I think the tag you're looking for is: 'haha' :)
The site works for me... maybe it's because I'm an NCSU grad.
appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
We need more groups officially banding together like this - the RIAA's bully tactic days are numbered!
I feel more like I do right now than I did a while ago.
It looks like people are finally starting to get it. Big fish can't be allowed to attack the little fish without facing risk.
Now, if only the general public realized they bring this on themselves by continuing to fund the **AAs with their purchases, maybe it'd actually make a difference...
Turning coffee into code.
I wonder if the RIAA will ever stop and realize that if they'd just fought this war fairly, most people would have been understanding with them. That if they'd did all the legal work they should have, and caught people with fair tactics, that jurors and the general public would be on their side. Because it IS against the law to download Intellectual Property you don't have rights to.
But instead, they decide the law doesn't apply to them anymore and use as many underhanded and illegal tactics as they can. Now it doesn't matter if the RIAA is right, nobody in their right mind could possibly side with them.
This is completely disregarding the entire concept of following the advances in technology instead of trying to fight them. If they'd simply tried to embrace technology and make it easy and quick to buy music, instead of doing everything they can to make it painful and slow... Maybe they'd actually be making more money than ever.
Instead, they've now got entire countries talking about legislature to make the copying of intellectual property legal.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
it's just very slow for me. slashdot loads very quickly though ! It is also possible that the subpoenas are invalid the FA is not clear on why they might be invalid - any insights ?
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
I love NC State's policy toward the RIAA's stalin like tactics. While they do punish students on their own accord the entire legal department is against the RIAA's method of approaching students. I am very proud to work for a university that values copyrights while at the same time education it's students about their rights and current law.
On top of that then steps up and practices what it preaches.
Article title is wrong. Someone fix that please.
I'm surprised students are not rallying to deal with the RIAA. Traditionally, college students have been one of the largest markets for recorded music. And the RIAA is directly attacking their traditional best customer with law suits. I would have expected campus rallys to fight the RIAA. Students obtaining pledges to boycott RIAA labels and distribution of lists of labels to boycott. Just surprised that theres no organized effort on the part of students to counter this.
[Insert pithy quote here]
NCSU has a chancellor that writes open letters to the students telling them to "respect the DMCA" and NCSU's stance on student's intellectual property is to take it away from them and claim it belongs to the university. This one instance does not make NCSU grand or great and I will not applaud them until they do the right thing elsewhere within the University as well. Before anyone responds with "That's how it is in real life" or some other bullshit answer I encourage you to go look around at both employers and other universities practices in regards to employee/student developed IP. Most universities have started giving that IP to the students and do not keep it for themselves as NCSU does.
Unfortunately, if the university's adminsitration isn't behind her (and they might well be, viz acedemic freedom), she could get reversed and reprimanded. Worse since the Regents ulimately report to the NC Legislature. Still, acedemics _can_ be cantankerous. And are expected to be or tenure would not be granted.
GP must be a Carolina grad... ;)
I used to live both on and off the campus, connected to the university's blindingly fast network. The wholesale violations of copyright law that I committed, that my dorm mates and fraternity brothers committed, that everyone within my entire social sphere committed were about on par with what you would suspect from a major state university. I could snag most full-length films in 20 minutes or less, and most full mp3 albums in a few minutes tops. Stealing went on then, and it probably goes on even now.
It might be useful to prattle on about how draconian and unjust copyright laws may be--to decry business models as antiquated and unrealistic and so on. But it would be a jury argument, not a legal one. The fact remains that these students probably *DID* do what they were accused of doing. And they probably *DID* know they weren't supposed to, and did it anyway. To couch wanton lawbreaking as political speech, as many of the more articulate "fuck the RIAA" folks tend to do, is just intellectually dishonest.
Not to rain on the submitters parade but Jimmy Valvano was fighting for his life from cancer these guys are only fighting suspected copyright infringement.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
When you do the downloading, the server copies the bits and sends it over to the internet. When it has arrived on your system then you are simply saving it into a file. If you went into the ridiculous definition of ram copies, then you could not even play your Media on a computer. Those are just incidental copies.
So rule (1) does not apply on the downloader. Yes, RIAA could still make it stick, if they found a judge who doesn't know computers (the vast majority out there and so a near certainty).
And the first ad right below the summary is...
Report Software Piracy
Earn up to $200,000 for Reporting Pirated Software - All Confidential
bsa.org/reportpiracy
Just don't buy RIAA music. It's not that hard. I'd put my usual links to a dozen sites where you can find great independent/free music, but you guys can probably find them yourselves.
'Course I can never resist linking RIAA radar:
http://www.riaaradar.com/
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
(she was a girl am i right ?)
/. to support this stand.
/., even through their friends, if not directly. heck, many non-techie people follow /. from what i understand even.
well. in any case i wonder what we can do as
our support and even interest in the matter might encourage college administration to back her decision, given that many youngsters who interested in technology and going to get enrolled in colleges will be following
this can be a major chance for that university for going into spotlight in a most positive manner, and attracting quality technology students, which is something universities are working their arses over to achieve.
Read radical news here
Because if the university hides info that RIAA subpeonas, NC state can get mixed up in it.
If the students are downloading music they don't have a license to have, WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS ILLEGAL. Why can't the retards get that point.
Breaking the law and then not taking responsibiliy for your actions isn't civil disobedience as Thoreau envisioned it.
Considering the number of people who fled speakeasies when they were raided in the '20s, I'm not sure how you can call that civil disobedience either.
I keep waiting to see in the news "RIAA files lawsuit against deaf, disabled veteran for stealing music."
DVRs/VCRs are illegal because you are copying data from somewhere onto media?
At first I thought downloading would cut and dry be against copyright law, but now I'm not so sure. I don't think the obligation to determine if the source is a legitimate distribution system should fall upon the user. By 'common sense', currently most P2P networks today with obviously copyrighted materials is a legally questionably thing to do (since you are definitely becoming the source), but what happens when a source with an air of legitimacy starts up a P2P based service that turns out to be illegal? Should users be penalized just because they were frauded and allowed their upstream bandwidth to be use by the company to commit copyright violation without their knowledge?
From a legal perspective, I'm actually finding myself thinking the only sane entity to chase would be the one who initially injects the content into the P2P network (i.e., the person who posts a torrent to a tracker). The second logical place would be the tracker itself if they have a demonstrated history of ignoring copyright notices, but the users, it's hard to say. Forget the technicality of whether the protocol borrows some of their upload, their action isn't really as different from using a DVR as one might think.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You had better also read the agreement carefully. When DirectTV was pulling this stunt, they were including a blurb where you admitted to having committed copyright violation. Given that there are now criminal penalties on the books for copyright violation, you could very well be paying $3000 for a nice vacation to 'pound you in the ass prison'.
TechnicianOnline.com is not hosted on campus. It's hosted by CollegePublisher.com so that they can host advertising.
I actually work for NCSU and would be the admin for the Technician server if we hosted it. I'm pretty thankful right now that we don't.
We slashdotted RedHat a few weeks ago. Their headquarters is on Centennial Campus, and can't have a better connection than the .edu sites. Of course, it was the Technician that got hit this time, and they suck anyways.
Anyways, I think it is crazy that they are issuing John Doe lawsuits against a University. In the end, several of the claims will boil down to suits against the workstations in a computer lab. They won't be able to connect all of these suits to students.
I'm pretty sure that you can successfully prosecute a copyright violation without demonstrating intent. Maybe someone else can comment. My understanding that the only time intent is important is in determination of authorship.
If more organizations would stand up to these thugs they would eventually stop. We need more people willing to tell these guys to screw themselves. Please excuse the course language but the MAFIAAs just tick me off. To charge these kids 750 a song or 3000 is ridiculous. When I was in college I was lucky if I could scrape together enough cash for dinner much less to pay some over inflated lawsuit that shouldn't exist in the first place. Hopefully someday they will learn to simply change their business model instead of holding fast to a failing one.
WTF?
Then in the 1970s the RIAA fought home recording onto tape. The RIAA have always been middlemen who use heavy-handed legalistic tactics to achieve their goals. "know your enemy" [Sun Tzu]
I'm tellin' you, I just loved that movie. A whole raft of city vs. country stereotypes, hot grits, and who could forget Alyssa Milano (note how I mentioned Milano and hot grits in the same sentence!)... ...oh, that was My Cousin Vinny? ... er... uh...
Well, then who the fsck is Jimmy Valvano? I mean, hooray for stickin' it to the RIAA, but was this Jimmy dude even a nerd? I've got this nagging dread that he's a jock. That's pretty much a given when someone is elevated to mythic status for getting sick. And what moron expects that 'fighting spirit of...' to be part of the canon of nerd knowledge?!
This morning I received an email from Ms. Gerace directly, and it appears that the Technician Online article is not 100% accurate. In fact, the Office of Legal Services is not able to represent students in federal court, and the students will need to use outside counsel for the actual litigation. See correction on my blog.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Considering the number of people who fled speakeasies when they were raided in the '20s, I'm not sure how you can call that civil disobedience either.
But I would submit that the vast number of people who fled speakeasies had a far greater influence on the eventual repeal of prohibition than those who willingly allowed themselves to be arrested.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
> Downloading a copyrighted work is against the law.
Not necessarily. (1) says downloading *without a copyright holder's permission* is against the law. There's a big difference, and one that plays right into the RIAA's hands. Many artists *want* there songs copied since they are free advertising for their live concerts (where they make the real money). Look at YouTube and examine the number of videos that have been put on by the original artists if you want evidence of how even mainstream non-indie artists recognize this fact.
Secondly, in countries such as Canada, downloading music is allowed by copyright law and sneakernet personal use copying is allowed but uploading is s definite no-no (NB: since Bittorrent does both, using it for P2P is unwise in Canada) and copying for profit (i.e. what used to be called piracy in the pre-internet days) is definitely illegal. I don't know how this meshes with WIPO but since Canada has a blank media tax that's in theory distributed to the artists and since most countries have taken a lenient attitude towards "for personal use copying of tapes" I'm guessing it works out.
As an NC State student, I'm glad to see that my university is coming around. :)
When I was 18ish - 25ish I made many errors, bad judgments ? Too Many!, in general I was young and learning how the wacky world we live in worked........to this day I'm still learning. Stealing of anything is wrong........no excuses.....Low on cash, a student on fixed income, burger flipper, High School student....it does not make any difference. If you can not afford to purchase an item...do without until you can. Yeah ! I feel the heat already from the many reading this...so hold on a sec before we start flame-throwing.
I wanted to clear up any legal / moral views I had or at least acknowledge I understand right from wrong.
RIAA / MPAA - I find it interesting that they would even consider going after Universities / Students, I'm looking at this from an odd point of view I suppose, but one " I " would research heavily before pursuing. " The Children are our Future ", future Judges, Lawyers, Police, and ' Criminals ' to name a few. I've expressed this view point in many forums before, I would not want to be the employee / ex-employee of the RIAA / MPAA or firm responsible for slapping " Little No Name Edu Student " now the Judge of my divorce hearing with an lawsuit or out of court monetary payment while the now " honorable Judge with a NAME " was struggling for a future at the time over some Snoop Dog tracks. I can only imagine that on top of the already expensive student loans, a useless lawsuit would leave a BAD taste in the mouth for many years to come. Its also worth noting that while students entering Universities do so on scholarships, a large majority come from families that pay the tuitions. A majority of these families have public and political influences or in other words, people that might fight back. Not a gamble I would be taking personally or as a business entity, without having some ironclad, red handed, no doubts about it proof. In order to provide this proof, I'm thinking court ordered wiretaps, physically confiscating equipment at the time of infringement " by legal LAW authorities - police " would be necessary to hold up in court. Loosely basing a case on IP address and from current RIAA / MPAA statements " You are responsible for the Internet Connection ' IP ", seems a little unrealistic in this day and age, of Malware, Botnets, unprotected and non-encrypted wifi network defaults, Windows OS being shipped with security holes out of the box, lack of end-user education............there are just too many factors involved that would even allow slightest justification to the " IP to User " argument.
An extreme situation ? yes , but one worth throwing into the random, pointless, unprofessional and flawed forensic practices, and highly unorganized processes the RIAA and MPAA currently use. Basically these guys are just " shooting users in barrel ", and making some quick cash while they can........and I stress " while they can ", many Judges are now standing up for the " Defendants ", when the RIAA and MPAA come walking in to court with, well less than " positive " and " expert " backed findings. You ( slashdot ) guys and gals know all the rest and can fill in the blanks here.
The RIAA / MPAA wants to make a point also......by striking fear into the " little man ", thus the demand for pirated ( insert data here ) will go away. Isn't that what they are yelling while shouting from top of a soapbox, through a megaphone made of propaganda garbage ? Take Grandma and a few students to court, send out threats, and this will eventually stop the demand. That might have been the original goal, yet, I'll say it again " shooting users in barrel " -- its quick and up until now has been an easy way to make extra money.....whether RIAA / MPAA directly or the many " Blood " thirsty under worked, ambulance chasing law firms and/or the over night " Expert Data Forensic " Hunters that seem to be coming out of the wood work faster than an coach roach infestation at the local crack motel to aide the " Good Fight ".
My comments might appear to have a slight hatred towards these jerks....I mean out
Because I've had exactly the opposite experience here in the US. Most universities that I've been a part of (undergrad, masters, doctoral) do NOT require faculty or students to sign over their copyrights except in limited circumstances. Definitely the case for grad work. Look at the University of Texas, for example.
w howns.htm
http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/intellectualProperty/
# It permits faculty ownership of scholarly, artistic, literary, musical and educational materials within the author's field of expertise.
# If the University wants to use such a work, to recover expenses of its creation and/or share in royalties if the work is commercialized, it should establish standard University rights that apply to such works or negotiate its rights in a contract with the faculty author.
And UT does not require students to sign over their work- even as student employees creating scholarly materials. They might have them sign something like a nonexclusive license to continue to use the material, but I haven't run into anything particularly onerous.
t forms of civil disobedience, the people who violate the law in order to show how the law is wrong also accept the legal penalties for breaking the law until the law is changed.
Well that's all well and good when the law is reasonable and rational and hasn't been bought. When you start getting penalties like 5 years in prison for a first offence for copyright infringement - more than many violent crimes - it becomes difficult to find people willing to accept the legal penalties.
I mean what's next in this war? The death penalty for violating copyright? Download and die?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Thanks for your help, but there are 3 things about this whole area that I just don't understand at all:
1) How come that in such a hugely litigation-loving country, the hundreds of thousands of parents of RIAA victims are not banding together for high-profile counter-suits against RIAA methods, demanding investigation of the ridiculous claimed losses, and calling for wholesale examination of the very concept of non-commercial music sharing as theft.
2) How come that the US legal system itself isn't taking an interest in the RIAA's operating methods, which certainly verge incredibly close to racketerring and extortion, remaining within the letter of the law only by a technicality, and quite possibly involving both abuse of minors and entrapment. Have the Attorney Generals etc no sense of fairness at all, outside the letter of the law?
And 3) In a country so hell-bent on exorcising the anti-trust demon, how come that there is no top-level anti-competitive examination and oversight of the labels' grip on all the key channels of music promotion, without which the ridiculously high price of CDs would have plummeted by normal competitive pressures long ago. Without this very effective monopoly grip on the minds and ears of listeners, the labels would not be able to *afford* to annoy potential customers in the way that they are doing.
In summary, as an outsider, none of this makes any sense to me.
Copying from one tape to another is *not* copyright violation automatically. For one the tape itself may have never been broadcast, but the copyright holder grants the right to do whatever the hell you want (not going to say that home videos, for example, are illegal to copy and give away because they've never been broadcast?). For another, there is fair use, you can make a backup copy for yourself. The industry for modern media has managed to get that stupid DMCA in that makes it a crime to do what is necessary to get at your fair use rights, but for unprotected media, a copy of something you currently own is legal. You are legally obligated to destroy that copy should you resell or return/exchange the item for another, but the copies are legal.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.