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."

Comments

Way to GO NC STATE!

[macpulse]

STICK IT TO THE RIAA!!

We need more groups officially banding together like this - the RIAA's bully tactic days are numbered!

Re:Way to GO NC STATE!

[daeg]

Unfortunately, those days are probably numbered higher than you or I would like.

People are finally starting to get it

[280Z28]

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...

Re:People are finally starting to get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the little fish should stop stealing music.

Re:People are finally starting to get it

[JFitzsimmons]

Maybe the big fish can provide it in a way where I get to listen to it the way I want.

Re:People are finally starting to get it

[frdmfghtr]

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...

Now, if only the general public realized they bring this on themselves by continuing to violate copyright (remember all you GPL fans, these are the same copyright laws that give the GPL substance*), maybe it'd actually make a difference...

You want to make a difference? Simply voting with your wallet by not purchasing tracks isn't enough. That's only part one.

Part two is STOP VIOLATING COPYRIGHT by downloading the tracks. The RIAA and record labels are after your money. First they try to get your money via sales of tracks (physical CDs or downloads from online resellers). If you don't buy the tracks but download from p2p networks, they will try to get your money via lawsuit. Either way, they get your money.

Once sales drop AND p2p downloads ALSO drop, the labels will get the idea that the product they push is crap and need to change in order to make it worthwhile. They would have to, since both revenue streams (via sales and litigation) would dry up.

* I'm not implying that GPL fans are also p2p downloaders; I'm pointing out that laws that protect your rights are the same laws that protect others' rights, and cannot be applied selectively.

Re:People are finally starting to get it

[castoridae]

Once sales drop AND p2p downloads ALSO drop, the labels will get the idea that the product they push is crap and need to change in order to make it worthwhile.

Problem is, most people disagree with your assertion that it's crap. Whether through critical thinking about the music/video or just because they've been indundated with commercial pop culture & ads, this stuff is top shelf by virtue of being what everyone wants.

Your solution means people have to dig up their own (indie) music; they can't just buy the catchy song they heard on the radio, and they can't grab a copy of that movie that had such an exciting preview. And truth be told, most people aren't really equipped to select the good music from the bad, except with the simple gut reaction that they already have to hearing a song on the radio and deciding to buy this mainstream album instead of that one.

I guess my point is that mainstream music is mainstream for a reason, and saying "just don't buy it" is not realistic. It's like asking millions of Bud Light drinkers to start selecting small-batch German microbrews instead. Good luck.

Re:People are finally starting to get it

[twistedsymphony]

You bring up another part of the problem... the fact that the RIAA controls so much of the industry that it becomes next to impossible for indy bands and labels to find their way into the ears of the average music consumer. With the RIAA paying radio stations across the country to play their music and only their music, paying the MPAA studios to feature RIAA artists in their movies, MTV only playing music backed with millions of dollars worth of video behind it, etc.

I'm not saying that RIAA music is crap and indy is good, but without access to indy music most people don't even have the opportunity to make the comparison.

Rather then trying to beat down the RIAA through boycots and banners. Why not work to help promote indy music. Why doesn't iTunes have an RIAA free section where people can demo songs and download them DRM free? Why isn't there a fund setup to help get indy bands on the radio along side the RIAA stuff?

I think we'd do better to help get people off the RIAA koolade more by promoting the alternative rather then trying to tarnish what they're used to today.

Get some sense?

[Aladrin]

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.

Re:Get some sense?

[durin]

Because it IS against the law to download Intellectual Property you don't have rights to.

Really? I thought that it was only against the law to distribute IP you don't hold the rights to. I don't have much knowledge about laws in the USA (which I assume is what you mean) OTOH, so I may be wrong.

Re:Get some sense?

[morgan_greywolf]

I thought that it was only against the law to distribute IP you don't hold the rights to

No. And most laws in European and other countries that have signed onto WIPO are basically uniform. A copyright holder has exclusive rights. These include:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In other words, if we look at (1), then it becomes obvious: to download is to make a 'reproduce the copyrighted work in copies'. Literally, it seems, copyright is the 'right to copy'. Downloading a copyrighted work is against the law.

Now, there is a difference between willful infringement and non-willful infringement. Willful infringement means that you know you're making a copy of a copyrighted work, and non-willful means that you don't know what you're copying is copyrighted or not. It could be argued that because downloads don't carry a notice, that the downloader has no idea whether or not what he's downloading is copyrighted and not licensed for download or if it is licensed for free download, or public domain or what.

It's somewhat of a specious argument -- you'd almost have to be half stupid to think that a song labeled, say, 'Smashing Pumpkins - 1979' (what I happen to be listening to ;) is not copyrighted or is licensed for free download, since Smashing Pumpkins CDs are sold in stores and carry a copyright notice and the RIAA has been reminding us all for sometime that downloading their studios' music is illegal.

But -- I've seen stranger things being believed by courts and juries.

IANALBIPOOGL

(I am not a lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw)

Re:then again....

[Anonymous Coward]

$3,000 == unlimited downloads.. hmm, not a bad deal... might be cheaper than 79 cents a track...

Maybe, until you realize that they could sue you for $3000 over and over again. Then it doesn't seem too good.

No Student Responses?

[rlp]

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.

Re:No Student Responses?

[CowTipperGore]

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. You're a generation late. Today's students are too caught up with Paris Hilton, American Idol, and beating Gears of War to protest anything of significance. They will riot (and burn couches in Morgantown, WV) over a football game but you can't get more than 20 or 30 to show up for a rally against an illegal war, grotesque violations of privacy, or any other more fundamental causes. Sadly, boycotting the major labels would require more sacrifice than these kids are willing to make.

Re:No Student Responses?

[CowTipperGore]

People unwilling to fight for freedom do not deserve it. And, we are losing it at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, that large segment of lazy/ignorant/apathetic Americans are contributing to the loss of freedom for those that do care.

Hypocritical to the extreme

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

NC State Graduate, class of 2001

[BeeBeard]

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.

Re:NC State Graduate, class of 2001

[wes33]

I can't believe that people here are actually condoning breaking the law

You mean, you *don't* condone breaking a bad law?

Your nation (assuming you are American) has many beautiful stories about this: Davy Crockett saying "make sure you're right, then go ahead", or Thoreau, imprisoned for breaking a bad law (as he saw it) who was visited by his friend Emerson who said: "Thoreau, what are you doing in jail??!". Thoreau replied: "Emerson, what are you doing out of jail?".

So do you really find it hard to condone breaking a law? Or are you a status quo copyright law defender? (out with it man! :) )

My own view (FWIW) is that it's ok to break a bad law, but you are going to have to face the consequences if caught. But I *don't* think you have to try and get caught unless you want to make a special civil disobedience point. And others do not have to help the defenders of a bad law catch those who break it either. So, it's ok to break copyright law if it's a bad law, and I happen to think current copyright law is bad.

Not to rain on the submitters parade but....

[Chineseyes]

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.

Re:In downloading the copy is made by the server

[radish]

The argument I've seen used (successfully) in the past against this kind of point is that whilst the remote server is physically making the copy, the downloader is the one who caused the copy to be made (by starting the download process). That makes the downloader the only human responsible, seeing as you can't sue or prosecute a server. An analogy would be that if I shot you, I could argue that I didn't kill you - the gun did. In reality though, I caused the gun to fire, so it's my responsibility.

Civil disobedience isn't just breaking the law...

[PracticalM]

Civil disobedience is not necessarily intellectual dishonesty. And one doesn't have to have the moral eloquence of Ghandi to participate in civil disobedience, nor for it to have its intended effect when large numbers engage in it. Witness the prohibition of alcohol consumption and distribution in the US in the '20s. In most 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.

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.

Re:Loved that movie

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Jimmy Valvano was a great coach and great person, who led an over-achieving NC State squad to an improbable, buzzer-beating victory in the NCAA men's basketball championship. His greater fight was his fight against cancer, which he lost in 1993 at the age of 47, but without ever losing his joy, his love of life, his love of, and respect for, people, and his boundless spirit.