University of Ohio Abandons Students Attacked by RIAA

newtley writes "The University of Ohio was putting a brave face on being #1 on the RIAA hit list, but it now appears they have caved in to RIAA intimidation. Now, 'It appears that many institutions are simply prepared to wash their hands, refusing even to question the tactics of the industry,' let alone giving students meaningful legal assistance, says Ohio lawyer Joe Hazelbaker. He's written to OU associate director of legal affairs Barbara Nalazek saying, 'Ohio University has an obligation to protect the privacy of its students and their records, which includes directory information.' The Recording Industry vs. The People blog is hosting a letter universities whose students being attacked might want to consider."

Comments

How It Went Down

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw them take the virgin filesharers to the middle point of the campus. The school administraters tied them down to a large stake. Then they hit a large gong and a terrible rumbling was heard from within the Law School building ...

Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[morari]

The RIAA only cares about popular "artists", after all...

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Skeetskeetskeet]

Good Artists? Now there's an oxymoron for the 21st century...right up there with Army Intelligence.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[shmlco]

And if you have to have it, a used cd is often only $4 or so on half.com.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Odiumjunkie]

I have a friend who doesn't approve of illegaly downloading music. He occasionally buys a second hand CD for a couple of bucks, then immediately downloads high-bitrate rips of the same album from bittorrent, because more often than not the disks are scratched and he can't be bothered spending hours trying to make a decent rip of his own. I always wonder, what exactly is he giving back to the artist? Aside from a few fairly abstract arguments to do with the price point being higher if consumers know they can sell CDs they buy second hand, in what way does buying second hand CDs benefit the artists/RIAA more than just downloading the damn thing?

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[2nd Post!]

The money gets passed on. Think of it like momentum.
I buy a CD, artist gets their $0.50. I sell the CD to a friend, artist doesn't get a cut but now I have another $9 to spend on another CD.

Compare this to only downloading.
I buy a CD, artist gets their $0.50. I upload the music and half a million people get the song; artist gets nothing, I never get an additional cent to buy another CD.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[dgatwood]

It reduces the number of secondhand copies by one, thus meaning that the next guy might not find one for sale and would end up buying a new copy. Legally, the number of copies floating around on the market is constant or decreasing (ass copies are destroyed) except when they do a pressing.

Using P2P for avoiding trying to rip a scratched CD does not change the number of copies floating around. It merely delays the amount of time before the number of copies decreases. Using P2P to download it outright effectively increases the number of copies floating around by one.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Maybe your friend goes to concerts? Maybe by buying a used cd from some guy, that guy has the money now to buy a new cd? If your friend is listening to a band, it's benefiting that band from word of mouth and mindshare. Sure, those are the abstract arguments you refer to, but does it matter if he's not directly putting a buck into the band's pocket? If I sell a painting for a couple of hundred bucks and someone sells the painting for a thousand - should I be getting a share because I'm the original painter? Should I get a share of what that painting goes for at every sale? "Intellectual property" the way the media companies want you to believe it to be is that the artist should be benefiting from every use of their intellectual property for the life of the artist. That's not the case for any other facet of our lives - why is it so for IP? You do the work once, you sell it, and it's no longer yours. That's how it works. I would prefer it that the artist didn't benefit from second hand cd sales directly because they already benefited from the original sale.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[JesseMcDonald]

The money gets passed on. Think of it like momentum. I buy a CD, artist gets their $0.50. I sell the CD to a friend, artist doesn't get a cut but now I have another $9 to spend on another CD.

Actually, the existence of a second-hand market is part of what allows them to sell the CD for $9 (or whatever) in the first place -- people will spend more up front if they believe they can get some of it back later. The value of the used CD is factored in to the price of the new ones.

Compare this to only downloading. I buy a CD, artist gets their $0.50. I upload the music and half a million people get the song; artist gets nothing, I never get an additional cent to buy another CD.

Going by your original logic, half a million people now have an extra $9+ to buy another CD. This would seem to be an improvement from the "available money" point-of-view.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[BakaHoushi]

Wait, so, this guy's plan gets EVERYBODY $9+?! SOLD!

And, hmmm, when you buy a CD used, no one but the store gets money. Clearly, these used record stores aren't supporting the artists. Do I smell money in the air?

In fact, new idea. When you play a CD more than once, you're diminishing the amount the artist makes per performance. If you play 10 songs 10 times, for a $15 CD, that means the band played 100 songs for .15 EACH, or $1.50 for the album! You, awful, horrible slavedriver! Obviously, a band should be paid at LEAST $15 per performance, so from now on, all CDs are a 1-time use item. After you play it, it self-destructs. Everyone wins!

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from a few fairly abstract arguments to do with the price point being higher if consumers know they can sell CDs they buy second hand, in what way does buying second hand CDs benefit the artists/RIAA more than just downloading the damn thing?

This is kind of a stupid thing to say. You basically say, "Aside from the real answer to my question, what is the answer?"

The real answer is that it is an abstract argument about the secondhand market increasing the value of the disc and therefore the price which people will pay for it. It's also an abstract argument about increasing the price and decreasing the supply of secondhand discs which makes it more likely that other people will buy new instead.

You might not like those answers because they're "abstract", but economics is very abstract in a lot of situations and that's how it is.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[maxume]

Stores don't come by used cds by magic; it is safe to assume that they usually pay someone or another for them.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Chris Daniel]

I have a friend who doesn't approve of illegaly downloading music ... in what way does buying second hand CDs benefit the artists/RIAA more than just downloading the damn thing?

Perhaps it's more about legally purchasing the right to own the music than benefiting the creators.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[BakaHoushi]

Yes, but my insinuation was that they're not paying the RIAA/artists for those CDs. Hence, I buy a new CD for $15. I sell it to a store for $5. Store sells that used CD for $10. Even though it's been sold twice, only once has the artist been reimbursed for the CD. Otherwise the money just goes between consumers/the stores.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[zippthorne]

He is propping up the original sale price. By having a secondary market for the used CDs, people who buy new CDs and then resell them when they're tired of them are able to free up money to buy additional new CDs.

The downloading part is sketchy, but there is an effect from the secondary purchase. I would submit, however, that the value of the used CD is partly based on how beat up it is, so your friend should be purchasing CDs that are at least of sufficient quality to actually read, otherwise he's really just pretending.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[BakaHoushi]

Or, you can try to understand my point was that the RIAA is not paid per resale, which was my whole point. I was saying that how is buying a used CD any different from downloading if in both cases the RIAA isn't getting paid? (Well, ignoring the profits of the resale store. I'm not saying they are bad, but rather that from the RIAA's perspective, they are the same)

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[bigdavesmith]

While I am not a lawyer, I am a trouble maker, and you should probably let your friend know that just because they've bought a CD does not give them the right to download the song from bittorrent. It gives them the right to play the CD they bought, with a bunch of other goofy restrictions. The illegal downloading that they don't approve of...yeah...they're doing it.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[bigdavesmith]

I don't fully understand the economics of this yet. How badly does a CD have to be damaged to be considered an ass copy?

Sorry :)

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Thing 1]

[...] so from now on, all CDs are a 1-time use item.

Good luck with that, Circuit City...

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[maxume]

Well, in what appears to be a case of unfortunate, your insinuation comes off as not actually being there, and slightly deranged to boot; the people who bring the stores the discs, as you acknowledge, get some of the money.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[shark72]

"Or, you can try to understand my point was that the RIAA is not paid per resale, which was my whole point. I was saying that how is buying a used CD any different from downloading if in both cases the RIAA isn't getting paid? (Well, ignoring the profits of the resale store. I'm not saying they are bad, but rather that from the RIAA's perspective, they are the same)"

You're absolutely correct. Record labels (occasionally through their mouthpieces, like Garth Brooks) have waged campaigns against the trade of used CDs. There is nothing they can do about it legally (although they've probably tried; right of first sale and all that), but they've occasionally tried to protect their interests. They've also done it in more positive ways, like remastered releases, new formats like SACD and DualDisc, and so on -- making the new product as attractive as possible vs. the used product.

You put it very well when you pointed out ignoring the profits of the record store. Here on Slashdot, we tend to think of just two people who get the money when you buy a CD:

1. The artist, who gets 5%.
2. The RIAA (or the record company), which gets gets 95% (and presumably locks it in a bank vault somewhere, to be seen only when coke-addicted record executives roll around in it naked).

But as you've alluded to, when you buy vs. pirate, lots of other people see a piece of the pie. In the case of a used CD, it's just the record store. If it's new, then the money goes to lots of people who were somehow involved in getting the music from the state of "lyrics and chords written on a piece of paper" to the finished product in your hand.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Sj0]

It probably has nothing to do with the RIAA or the artist. It's an internal thing: It's ethical to download something you already own, so he'll do just that.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Alter_Fritz]

"it's more about legally purchasing the right to own the music"

thats exactly what it isn't!
while we "normal guys" feel that it is about that, technicly do you NOT own any music. you purchase a license to use it in certain ways

You own a physical object and the right to use this object accordingly to the license you aquire with that (physical) object that embodies the musical performance. In case of a CD the rights you have include that you can resale it as a used CD. If you "buy" music via DRMed download, that right of resale is not included for example

You do not own ANY rights to the music itself. Those rights remain in the hand of those that created the music.
A guy from the international branch of the RIAA, IFPI in germany explained that legalese fact a few years ago in a press release where he compared bying a CD with the renting of a car or an appartment.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[dgatwood]

I think you should get yourself some coarse grit sandpaper and see for yourself. :-)

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

abslolutely nothing. The artist does not see royalties on that resale.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[BlueEyesDY]

I sell a painting for a couple of hundred bucks and someone sells the painting for a thousand - should I be getting a share because I'm the original painter? Should I get a share of what that painting goes for at every sale? "Intellectual property" the way the media companies want you to believe it to be is that the artist should be benefiting from every use of their intellectual property for the life of the artist. I think you fail to see the difference between the physical object and the intellectual property. They are in fact separate. Transfer of the physical painting does not automatically transfer the rights to the intellectual property (the image). Sure, they are free to sell the physical painting for what ever value they can get someone to pay for it (I will kick myself for not selling it for more in the first place, but there is nothing I can do about that).

However, if the buyer were to scan the painting and distribute copies (physical or digital, for money or not, does not matter), you can bet I as the artist would have something to say about it and would have legal recourse. If for whatever reason I had transferred the rights to the image to someone else they would be perfectly in their rights to go after the person.

Re:Stop Downloading Crap Music?

[Chris Daniel]

I understand that one does not own the right to the music, only the license to have a copy. That's what I meant, and it should have been pretty obvious given the context. You missed the point of my post. The parent of my post didn't see any reason for actually buying music other than benefiting its creator; the other reason is to have some semblance of legitimacy ("right to own a copy" transferred from creator -> original buyer -> secondhand buyer). Presumably one is justified in downloading a lower-quality copy of the same music one has already paid for, yes? Many music stores are now throwing off the DRM or allowing multiple downloads of the same song for just this reason.

Another one bites the dust

[ajanp]

I guess they decided to not to take the advice from our favorite anti-RIAA Harvard professor http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/05/04 13249

I'm going to go ahead and take a wild guess that a couple hundred University of Ohio students will be receiving some pre-litigation notices in the mail sometime next week.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[shmlco]

Actually, I'm not sure what legal assistance they're supposed to be giving. I mean, what brain-dead college student doesn't know that downloading copywritten music and movies is legally wrong? Who hasn't been told? Who didn't get the memo?

Or is using the school's network the determinant factor? If I commit a crime on the school's streets or property, can I assume that I automatically should get "legal assistance" too?

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Firehed]

If students get sued into oblivion, they can't pay tuition. And if the college does something meaningful and beneficial for their students, they're a lot more likely to actually see donations later on.

I'm by no means suggesting that the college has any obligation to provide any assistance, but it's certainly to their benefit in the long term.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[NDPTAL85]

1. Most schools have way more applicants than they accept. If one drops out cause they can't afford it anymore than they have hundreds waiting in line to replace that student.

2. If the person is too cheap to buy a $99 iTunes download then what makes you think they're going to make an alumni contribution later on?

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Achromatic1978]

Yeah, what a joke. "Let alone provide meaningful legal advice" - that's your counsel's job, not your damn schools. Some of the points made in the article are somewhat valid, but definitely not anything down this track. "Whine, poor students doing something illegal, and their school isn't shielding them from it!"

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the person is too cheap to buy a $99 iTunes download then what makes you think they're going to make an alumni contribution later on?

How about because many students worry week-to-week about money for food, let alone for luxuries like DRMed 128kbps iTunes tracks?

And I know, I know, if music is a luxury, why don't students just do without? Well, my first year at University, I didn't live in halls and I couldn't afford DSL, so no high-speed downloading for me. And guess what? I didn't spend a dime on music the entire year. This year, I'm in University halls and enjoy free high-speed net access, so download tons of music for free. How, exactly, is anyone any worse off? Come up with something that can't be reproduced infinitely at effectively zero cost, then you can start bitching about people stealing it.

Most students are poor. When they're a couple of years out of University and are making comfortable salaries, then you can start calling them cheap for not paying for digital content.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[hxnwix]

There's a reason that Harvard has a better rep than the University of Ohio.

And it's not just that Ohio sucks. Aye, the home of Blackwell, the black heart of voting fraud, poll taxes and electorate purges... If you live in Ohio, particularly on a state campus,

GET OUT

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Evilest Doer]

Yeah, what a joke. "Let alone provide meaningful legal advice" - that's your counsel's job, not your damn schools.

Actually, there are a lot of universities that provide legal counsel for free to their students (unless, of course, you are suing the univerisity). At my undergraduate school, the attorneys would even represent you in court if you needed it. At my graduate school, even though the attorney would not represent the student officially, you could still get tons of free helpful legal advice to use. It came in handy for me during a landlord/lesee dispute (there are tons of dishonest/shady landlords at my old school).

Re:Another one bites the dust

[westlake]

If students get sued into oblivion, they can't pay tuition.

The student isn't sued into oblivion. He gets an opportunity to settle out-of-court. To structure his payments.

OSU can't be expected to provide its students blanket protection against civil liability. It can't be expected to carve out an exception for the file sharer.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[compro01]

I mean, what brain-dead college student doesn't know that downloading copywritten music and movies is legally wrong?

yes, as the RIAA would never make blatantly false blanket accusations.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

But now Ohio University is refusing to give legal counsel to students caught in RIAA filesharing cases--except for "surrender!"

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Evilest Doer]

But now Ohio University is refusing to give legal counsel to students caught in RIAA filesharing cases--except for "surrender!"

Well, that's exactly my point. Ohio University probably does have student legal counsel (I think another poster pointed that out exactly), so they should be giving them proper legal advice instead of throwing them to the wolves.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[bigdavesmith]

While I'm going to be bad and not cite specific examples, the RIAA doesn't really want to get paid for the value of the specific songs infringed upon by the specific student. The point of their campaign is to make examples of people. If the RIAA takes me to court and wants the $14 or so I might owe them for my illegally downloaded Three 6 Mafia album, they can have it. But that's not going to be very effective for them. Heck, it's going to cost them at least ten times that to even prepare something basic to send to me requesting that I pay up and stop infringing.

Now, on the other hand, you go into a school like OU and completely bankrupt a few students, set them up working at the local McDonalds, people might think twice about file sharing.

As much as we like to pretend the RIAA is a friendly little group, yes, the student IS sued into oblivion.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Actually, let's be careful here.

Ohio University's office of Student Legal Services has done an excellent job -- far better than the SLS at many other schools -- of advising the students. In fact they affirmatively went out of the way to help them find counsel and to make them aware of their legal rights, and of resources upon which they could draw.

The problem is that under their charter, they're not authorized to litigate in federal court, and have to refer the students to outside counsel.

Now the university's counsel's office should be taking a more activist role than it has, as Mr. Hazelbaker eloquently pointed out in his letter (pdf).

Re:Another one bites the dust

[jimicus]

I mean, what brain-dead college student doesn't know that downloading copywritten music and movies is legally wrong? Who hasn't been told? Who didn't get the memo?

This is the RIAA we're talking about.

This is a group which not only seems to believe a printout of a screenshot, ostensibly showing software which identifies which IP address is sharing which file is adequate evidence of infringement (never mind that you or I could knock out a convincing mock-up in 30 minutes with either Photoshop or, if you're feeling clever, the visual IDE of your choice), they've convinced courts of this.

There is a reason why the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt" exists, and AIUI your argument essentially states that someone who hasn't even had a chance to state their case, let alone establish reasonable doubt, has no right to meaningful legal assistance.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[crawling_chaos]

Ah, but there is also another place to hit the university in pocketbook: the Alumni. If you are an alumnus of the University of Ohio and feel they are taking the wrong stand, be sure to let them know the next time they want a few bucks for the school. Enough of that, and the private universities and colleges will tell the RIAA to stick it.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[westlake]

If the RIAA takes me to court and wants the $14 or so I might owe them for my illegally downloaded Three 6 Mafia album, they can have it. But that's not going to be very effective for them. Heck, it's going to cost them at least ten times that to even prepare something basic to send to me requesting that I pay up and stop infringing.

The RIAA's primary target is the uploader. Free distribution to ten million of your closest friends on the P2P nets.

But in sharing files you become an uploader.

Imagine that each download could be traced back to its source. Meaning you.

Imagine further that the RIAA offered you a choice: Settle for an arbitrary amount, say $3,000, and swear off P2P. Or be sued for the wholesale value of the distribution using numbers that would be persuasive to a judge and jury: 10,000 copies at $7 a copy.

Taking you out of the game begins to look worthwhile.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[graceless24]

It's actually Ohio University. I went there. And now I work for a company that is part of the RIAA. An interesting turn of events in my life, I say. :-) But it's rubbing me the wrong way when I see people call it University of Ohio. There is no such place. Ohio University.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yeah imagine if the RIAA had evidence that any of these people were in fact "distributors" within the meaning of the Copyright Act.

Unfortunately, they don't.

In other news...

[no_pets]

In other news... enrollment drops at the University of Ohio.

Re:In other news...

[bladesjester]

In other news, it's not the Univeristy of Ohio. It's Ohio University.

Re:In other news...

[no_pets]

Blame the editors. I cut and pasted. And no, I didn't RTFA.

Re:In other news...

[bladesjester]

I know you only cut and pasted. The editors are indeed to blame, but so is the submitter. One of the sites linked in the article appears to be his and it makes the same bloody error, so in effect, the person who submitted the story didn't read any of the freaking real news stories either.

In a greatly ironic and humorous twist of fate, apparently either the editors knew what he was talking about and didn't do any actual editing or slashcode automates a whole lot (and does it well) because all of the related stories are about Ohio University :P

Victims?

[DoofusOfDeath]

It sounds to me like we're making a classic stupid military mistake: we keep on defending ourselves, at our homes, schools, and workplaces.

So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority?

Re:Victims?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, campaign contributions to the best opponent of the Senators Disney. Make it perfectly clear that you're contributing against Senator Disney. If you've got some extra time in the summer, volunteer for one of their campaigns.

Re:Victims?

[Opportunist]

Good idea, but how? I mean, planes get old after a while...

Re:Victims?

[gsn]

Everybody who downloads music or movies via p2p/IRC, or rips next-gen formats or captures internet radio streams despite knowing that they *might* get sued is fighting them. They may all be pirates and are breaking laws but that is nevertheless how they are fighting them. Death by a thousand cuts just takes a while.

Re:Victims?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority?

You bring the torches, I'll bring the pitchforks?

Re:Victims?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds to me like we're making a classic stupid military mistake: we keep on defending ourselves, at our homes, schools, and workplaces.

So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority?

Well, don't lump every Slashdot reader in with "we", as a lot of us don't download music and find the whole issue a big murky grey area best avoided..

But the way to fight back is to, well, fight back. The university has a law school, put it to use. Every single case should be disputed (as long as the student is willing) in a protracted legal battle. Send in the would-be lawyers to do the grunt work. Make every case a long painful debacle with endless deliberation before it even gets to court. And try to get them to try them in Ohio, because those big-city RIAA lawyers are not going to want to camp in the Midwest for a long trial (or pre-trial process.)

If their students are being singled out the University may have a case, too. Targeting a particular institution with endless lawsuits could possibly be considered some sort of harassment, as it certainly will turn away potential students who don't want to be randomly and possibly mistakenly targeted by a RIAA lawsuit (I certainly would take that into account if I was choosing a college, or my child was.)

Bascially, generate a lot of negative press for the RIAA by causing them to drop or lose a lot of lawsuits. Because that's what all of this is, a massive PR campaign on their part to stigmatize downloading music. The RIAA is not doing this for the money; they do not care about the college student's $5000. That's petty cash, one of their typical A&R guys or lawyers blows that in a weekend. Even lawsuit played out to the end against a college student with $60-100k in damages will most likely be defaulted on. They are losing money by suing random downloaders... But they are generating a lot of news, and a lot of fear.

What needs to be done, in my opinion at least, is make the lawsuits no longer worth the effort. They've been successful as a PR campaign-- casual downloaders now think twice, parents and institutions are now keeping an eye on what their children/students/employees are doing. I don't think further lawsuits are going to change anything (but remind people that yes, it can happen, which I suppose is the point) as the kind of people who think "it won't happen to me" are going to keep doing it.

Re:Victims?

[megaditto]

That's not really fighting them, that's helping them.

I suspect "the People" would grow very tired of DRM, insane media prices, and ridiculous advertizing if not for the pirates making these things just tolerable enough.

Same with Microsoft piracy; I bet Bill loves the fact that most of Third World countries' student and engineers are exposed to Windows because once they get hired for a decent wage, Windows/Net++ is the only thing they will demand.

Re:Victims?

[aztektum]

Keep your filthy, beige PC fingers to yourself.

Someone's memory only goes back about ~10 years, and completely ignores another 20.

I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.

Re:Victims?

[servognome]

Everybody who downloads music or movies via p2p/IRC, or rips next-gen formats or captures internet radio streams despite knowing that they *might* get sued is fighting them. They may all be pirates and are breaking laws but that is nevertheless how they are fighting them. Death by a thousand cuts just takes a while.

I disagree. Everybody who downloads is giving them ammunition to continue. A download to the RIAA equals an uncompensated demand, so they will push for more invasive and unfair laws. Hell if things get bad enough they'll just switch to the SCO model and secretly encourage illegal downloading so they can make their money suing people.
The best way IMHO to really beat the RIAA is to not consume their products in any form. If DRM prevents you from making a backup copy, don't buy the CD, don't download, listen to something else. Then if their revenues drop, the execs can't point to the evil pirates as scapegoats to appease the shareholders.
To take a page from Oscar Wilde, "The only thing worse than being pirated, is not being pirated"

Re:Victims?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you weren't such a brickheadedly literal-minded PC user, you'd realize beige is not just a color, but also a state of mind.

Re:Victims?

[Evilest Doer]

You bring the torches, I'll bring the pitchforks?

Yes, I can just see thousands upon thousands of bespeckled geeks with plastic, red pitchforks and toy lightsabers descending upon RIAA headquarters thirsting for blood. Gottfrid Svartholm can lead the troops shouting "Downloaders! Tonight we Bittorent in Hell!"

Re:Victims?

[Torvaun]

Ah yes, lets all redefine words so that we can accuse people of not using them our way. Dictionary.com talks about a color and a fabric.

Here, I'm going to use the word 'economics.' What I mean when I use this word is Mac doesn't have enough market share to turn away users. Feel free to dis my non-iPod mp3 player, there you've got enough. Elitism only works when you have to turn people away, like MIT, or nobility. You've taken a company that makes a decent product, I'll admit, but made poor decisions early on, economically. Now you've decided that the fact that they had market share and lost it, and are only recently creeping back, means that you're better than the rest of us because we had successful marketing back in the day.

Keep your minority-based prejudice to yourself, you give the rest of the Mac users a bad name.

Re:Victims?

[Anonymous Coward]

A) Civil Disobedience

Write 09 F9 ... on money. For bonus points, put it on a campaign contribution to some politician against their encroachment. I believe that Rep. Boucher is probably one of the most aware of copyright law's unreasonableness.

B) Help defeat DRM

Stay educated about the newest forms of DRM. When people need help, teach them about all the ways they're being screwed over and show them how to defeat the DRM.

C) Make your own works available on reasonable terms.

Whether CC licenses or the GPL, make sure that people know that art won't just up and vanish without unreasonable copyright laws by making your own works available on reasonable terms.

Maybe it's not quite what you wanted, but things banding together to null route the RIAA, MPAA & co.'s internet traffic would probably be useless, illegal and counter-productive, as much as I like contemplating being able to permanently banish them from the internet.

Re:Victims?

[westlake]

So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority?

If you don't want to pay for their product, don't download their product. Don't serve their product illegally to others. It is as simple as that.

Re:Victims?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then if their revenues drop, the execs can't point to the evil pirates as scapegoats to appease the shareholders."

Yes, they can. They've been doing it since the dawn of the mp3 format.

Re:Victims?

[turing_m]

"It sounds to me like we're making a classic stupid military mistake: we keep on defending ourselves, at our homes, schools, and workplaces".

I don't think there's that much to worry about. RIAA/MPAA are fighting a battle that is very difficult to win in the face of rapidly reducing costs of information storage and dispersal and no means to prevent it.

It's not that much unlike Viet Nam or Iraq. Robert S McNamara's book "In Retrospect" talks about how much redundancy the North Vietnamese supply chain had, and how small the quantities of supplies were that they needed to carry on resisting. Carpet bombing had not a hope of working, despite more bombs being dropped on Viet Nam than in all of WWII.

The only way the fight could be taken to the enemy's home turf was the occasional image or story of what it took to wage the war. This has similar effect to the stories of grandmothers and children being taken to court for file sharing. It may have helped stop the war, but even in the absence of this it did not make the war able to be won.
http://servumpecus.canalblog.com/images/Vietnam_na palm_19721.jpg

And a lot of the effects of the MAFIAA's war waging efforts is just natural selection - prosecute enough people and the remnant will find a way to share files without an IP address being easily traced, without servers, etc.

Copyright prior to the early nineties was much more effective because it was much more expensive to be a pirate. The only way it could be done effectively was to run it as a business, and as a result it had to be done very furtively. The average person could not transmit an exact copy of a given piece of media to a friend, whereas they can today.

Of course, the fight against file sharing can go on as long as the MPAA/RIAA has money coming in from their monopoly, just like the War on Terror could conceivably go on for as long the US cares to throw billions at it. It doesn't mean that it can be won, any more than Iraq or Viet Nam could be won. (Well technically I suppose the MAFIAA could convince someone to turn the world into a glass parking lot, and it might make them happy but then they would not have funds to continue their fight.)

Re:Victims?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It sounds to me like we're making a classic stupid military mistake: we keep on defending ourselves, at our homes, schools, and workplaces. So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How about a counterclaim for copyright misuse, demanding forfeiture of their copyrights?

Re:Victims?

[Chemicalscum]

The best way IMHO to really beat the RIAA is to not consume their products in any form. If DRM prevents you from making a backup copy, don't buy the CD, don't download, listen to something else.

Don't buy any CD's at all from RIAA member labels. I buy CD's but only from independent non RIAA labels

Re:Victims?

[SeaFox]

So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority?

Just get them declared terrorists somehow by the White House, we'll be invading their corporate headquarters by next Tuesday.

Re:Victims?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority? "

You guys are already pirating their product like there's no tomorrow. Isn't that enough?
And where the hell do you guys get off thinking that universities should spend *any* of their time protecting students that pirate? I saw the same idiocy posted to the Stanford thread a couple weeks ago. Stanford, U of Ohio, and other universities should not spend their time defending piracy, or the rights of pirates.

Re:Victims?

[thoughtlover]

"So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority?"

I've often asked or been asked the same question. We have been a culture obsessed with instant-gratification. These companies, mostly entertainment-based, know that Americans need to be entertained while performing the most mundane details. Therefore, if you really want to fsck-over these companies, you simply have to stop using their product. It's as simple and as difficult as that --More difficult than quitting smoking tobacco, I'm sure.

Don't buy their products. Plain and simple. The administrative/distribution source for the majority of media is corrupt and even affects the highest echelon of government in the form of equally, slanted, corrupt legislation aimed at their very customer. DMCA? Doesn't CSS technically violate the fair-use provision of United States copyright law?

Once, I asked a friend, "How could you boycott a TV network, such as FOX?"

His reply probably shocked him with its simplicity (and I'm not sure why he hasn't done it, to this day.) He said, the best way would probably be to boycott the products being advertised by FOX. A simple website with a nationwide crew of volunteers could easily make a list of companies, local and national, that advertise on FOX channels and affiliates and update boycottfoxadvertising.org, for example. People would know which companies' products contribute the most to FOX's bottom-line and simply choose to purchase a competing brand that isn't advertised by FOX. Lists of product alternatives would be compiled by volunteers for easy transitions, especially when there's little choice in smaller communities. Or, you may simply choose to phase use of that product from your life.

Companies seeking to advertise with FOX may think twice if the idea ever built up momentum. This has happened before. Consumers complained to companies for supporting media outlets that have offended the public in some way. Imus, Ann Coulter, O'Reilly, Howard Stern, and an assortment of shock-jocks have all cost their employers money from lost advertising.

How, you ask, could I ever 'boycott' all these products from my life?

There is no one-fits-all answer, but I ride my bike more, reading actual books more, drinking more water/tea and eating less junk food, and filling my time with activities that I were more likely to do as a child. You say you don't like Apple now, for whatever reason? Try Linux... There are many more ways for us all to spend our dollar with more responsibility than even 10 years ago. I don't shop at Wal-Mart anymore... I don't eat fast food (when I can help it) and I don't purchase frivolous 'urge' items anymore.

My sociology prof once said, "The greatest political power we wield is where we decide to spend our dollar."

Lobbyists have known this for as long as political systems have been corrupt enough to favor money over principals.

As someone who works on the inside

[Anonymous Coward]

All I'm going to say is that MAC addresses are easy to spoof, so if your school uses those for computer authentication (especially using wireless)...

Re:As someone who works on the inside

[nurb432]

Unless they lock the MAC down to a specific port on the switches. Sure it doesnt prove it was "you", but using your MAC in your room is sort of hard to deny.

A more viable defence is that you were hacked/virus/trojaned. Since this happens every day it makes sense..

Re:As someone who works on the inside

[Anonymous Coward]

But who would have more access to your computer in your room than your roommate?

Re:As someone who works on the inside

[stuff and such]

As far as Ohio University goes, no, they don't use MAC authentication.

Punishment doesn't fit

[zymano]

Downloading music = photocopying a page in a book.

Corrupt Congress works for the Riaa ( China by the way.)

Re:Punishment doesn't fit

[contrapunctus]

Yes but sharing music = ?

I'm not disputing your point but your analogy.

Re:Punishment doesn't fit

[Peppersnail]

Downloading music = photocopying a page in a book.
Yes, if that one page encapsulates at least one entirely complete piece of work. Otherwise, photocopying a page in a book would be likened to perhaps downloading a snippet of a song. Depending on how you use that snippet, it may be covered by fair use. Get your analogies straight. Oh, wait...this is Slashdot. Nevermind...let fly with the inane analogies!

Re:Punishment doesn't fit

[zymano]

your awesomely bad at this.

It's still copying.

Do you think the Riaa cares if you copy a 1/4 of the song?

Thanks for your contribution , dumbass!

Re:Punishment doesn't fit

[zoogies]

That's why 30-second clips are freely available almost everywhere? For instance, Amazon soundtracks? Photocopying a chapter in a large book for a class and for educational purposes is not really the same thing as downloading a song to listen to that could have been purchased.

Re:Punishment doesn't fit

[Odiumjunkie]

> Yes, if that one page encapsulates at least one entirely complete piece of work. Otherwise, photocopying a page in a book would be
> likened to perhaps downloading a snippet of a song. Depending on how you use that snippet, it may be covered by fair use. Get your analogies straight.
> Oh, wait...this is Slashdot. Nevermind...let fly with the inane analogies!

Actually, IIRC, for things like anthologies of poems and short stories, you are permitted to copy one complete story or poem, at least in under UK law. So, photocopying a page in a book might not be a terrible analogy for downloading one song from an album.

Re:Punishment doesn't fit

[zymano]

books are free?

Re:Punishment doesn't fit

[Peppersnail]

your awesomely bad at this.
Oh, the irony.

Class Action...

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I don't think a class-action lawsuit against them for extortion would work; you'd need to sue congress for being complicit, and since they're complicit, they've made it legal.

What is the RIAA accomplishing?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're suing undermatured people who are paying for

1. School
2. Dorms
3. Alcohol

If they're trying to have schools clamp on filesharing, the pirates will just move on to other networks. Kids who are trying hard to accomplish things are just going to stagger at a fine early in their adult development.

I fucking hate this stupid company.

Re:What is the RIAA accomplishing?

[Overly Critical Guy]

If they're trying to have schools clamp on filesharing, the pirates will just move on to other networks.

That's the point. At the least, they can make it more difficult for pirates to rip artists off.

I fucking hate this stupid company.

Why do you "fucking hate" a company legally protecting the rights of its represented artists? We go after stolen GPL code violations all the time here on Slashdot. But piracy of music artists, game developers (like John Carmack at id), movie studios, and so on is okey-dokey?

Re:What is the RIAA accomplishing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We"? You're certainly not one of 'us'. A simple read-through of your posts shows where your real allegiance lies, and it's certainly not with Slashdot.

Re:What is the RIAA accomplishing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I frequent slashdot for tech news and hold no other allegiance to the site. I'm not even aware of legal GPL issues.

That said, I disagree with the RIAA. Not their stance, their existence. Their goals were always for themselves and not the artist union they claim to represent. Music can exist without them, it can be created without them. On the opposite end of the frivolous lawsuit I see RIAA.

I cannot stand them.

Re:What is the RIAA accomplishing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice that you keep referring to piracy and file sharing as the same thing. they are not. piracy, which is illegal, involves the reproduction of Intellectual Property with the intent to cut in on the profits of legitimate copies. it violates copyright, which give the holder a monopoly on the profits for the life of the author plus 70 years. File Sharing, however, IS NOT illegal. rather it is the legality of certain files that are disputed. this is why the FBI does not go after file sharers, but rather the RIAA and MPAA. both organizations are attempting to get laws passed that make even duplication without profit illegal, but at this point there is not law specifically forbidding it.

read this article by award winning Scifi author Orson Scott Card
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html

he sites various sources, and make many good points about the state of the RIAA war against file sharers. also, you should not the he is personal against file sharing, but still sympathizes with those who do.

No such thing as "University of Ohio"

[Anonymous Coward]

Later on in the blurb you see they're really talking about Ohio University (OU). Talk about confusing! Why the hell would somebody just make up a name for a college?

dom

file Wipe

[Ep0xi]

It seems that the file wipe is a software tool used by VIP people, and not by insurgents...

Go get em...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Organizations are made up of people.
2. Find out exactly who those people are.
3. Then legally go after them.

How about personal responsibility

[Yath]

University students are adults. Why should Ohio University - or any other nearby entity with deep pockets - step in to help them?

Re:How about personal responsibility

[Thexare Blademoon]

Reason 1: Because if the students end up losing all their money, they can't pay more tuition.

Reason 2: Because sometimes when hatred for the RIAA and reason get into a fight, reason gets its ass kicked.

Pick one, or both. Personally, I'm going with the second one.

Re:How about personal responsibility

[mschuyler]

I agree--unless legal help is part of the tuition. To say it's because if the students get sued they won't have money to pay tuition? Mommy and Daddy do that a lot of the time, and if not, there're always more students who will fill an empty spot.

Re:How about personal responsibility

[hxnwix]

Professor Charles Nelson, Harvard School of Law:

One can easily understand why the RIAA wants help from universities in facilitating its enforcement actions against students who download copyrighted music without paying for it. It is easier to litigate against change than to change with it. If the RIAA saw a better way to protect its existing business, it would not be threatening our students, forcing our librarians and administrators to be copyright police, and flooding our courts with lawsuits against relatively defenseless families without lawyers or ready means to pay. We can even understand the attraction of using lawsuits to shore up an aging business model rather than engaging with disruptive technologies and the risks that new business models entail.

But mere understanding is no reason for a university to voluntarily assist the RIAA with its threatening and abusive tactics. Instead, we should be assisting our students both by explaining the law and by resisting the subpoenas that the RIAA serves upon us. We should be deploying our clinical legal student training programs to defend our targeted students. We should be lobbying Congress for a roll back of the draconian copyright law that the copyright industry has forced upon us. Intellectual property can be efficient when its boundaries are relatively self-evident. Perhaps Ohio doesn't have a law school that would enable students to defend other students. Perhaps Ohio just doesn't give a shit. Perhaps Ohio is complicit. Take your pick.

Re:How about personal responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Because universities are constantly trying to raise new generations of liberals who believe in a nanny government always stepping in to "fix" things. They don't want to believe in personality responsibility because that's too darned hard. Instead, they want to drunkenly lounge around in dorm rooms thinking they're god's gift to Chomsky while pirating everything under the sun, and if the copyright owner steps in to protect himself, it's an "attack" or an "intimidation" (according to the goofy Slashdot summary).

Re:How about personal responsibility

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Ohio University does have a law school.
They have recently changed their policy about how to deal with student downloading. So "complicit" is more likely than "apathetic."

Re:How about personal responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

University students are adults. Why should Ohio University - or any other nearby entity with deep pockets - step in to help them?

Why? Universities are at the forefront of the nanny state. Students should be coddled, sheltered, not exposed to anything they disagree with, and only allowed to think the politically correct status quo.

After the Virginia Tech shooting, a student at Hamline was suspended & sent for psych counseling for suggesting concealed-carry was a better choice than gun-free zones (Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone under Virginia Law).

Re:How about personal responsibility

[tkrotchko]

I think you're right.

But at the same time, I can't help but feel that the RIAA is just as bad. They're the ones pushing for help from the government to ensure profit rather than spend their own time and money to defend their product.

So everybody is looking for the nanny state to help them. The RIAA just has better lobbyists than the rest of us.

Re:How about personal responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Because RIAA targets at random with their lawsuits, and have a very real history of being completely mistaken. Not that 9 out of 10, or 19 out of 20, aren't filed against people who actually have used P2P, but a very real and sizable percent of the defendants are truly innocent. Ohio University should be making damn sure the RIAA has the right target before handing over a student's information... If a school hands over a student to the RIAA who is in fact innocent, then that school should be sued by the student or their parents.

Additionally, since the chance of a random lawsuit against an innocent party is real, Ohio should be protecting their interests as a business to keep their tuition money coming in. If they put up a fight the RIAA would move on to another school that didn't, or change tactics altogether. No parent should consider for a moment sending a child to a school where they have a very real chance of being bankrupted at 19 by a random lawsuit.

Re:How about personal responsibility

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Ohio University is being asked to turn over confidential information that it is legally forbidden to turn over except pursuant to a (a) court order, (b) based on evidence that would be admissible at trial, (c) sufficient to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement against each person whose information is being sought.

Ohio University owes a duty to its students to force the RIAA to make such a showing before it releases any information.

In 2004 the RIAA was forbidden by a federal court to join different John Does in a single lawsuit. The RIAA has been regularly ignoring that order.

The university has a duty to make sure that that order has not been violated.

The RIAA has a legal obligation to bring proceedings on prior notice, rather than ex parte, whenever it is possible to do so.

The university has an obligation to request of the Court that it make sure the students receive prior notice of the RIAA's motion, rather than find out about an order that's already been entered, with no meaningful opportunity to challenge it.

The reason it's the University's responsibility?

Because it has a legal obligation to do so and because it is the the university that is breaking the law when it fails to do so.

See generally my Open Letter to Colleges and Universities.

I'm not asking the university to defend someone sued in a copyright infringement case.

I'm asking it to protect its students' due process rights, rather than give them away.

Re:How about personal responsibility

[focitrixilous P]

It seems like what really got him suspended was the racist undertones in the letter he wrote. Such gems as "I myself am tired of having to pay my own extremely overpriced tuition to make up for minorities not paying theirs." and "In fact, 3 out of 3 students just in my class that are "minorities" are planning on returning to Africa and all 3 are getting a free education ON MY DOLLAR. I bet the staff here is wondering how a swastika ended up in a bathroom." My gut tells me that combined with wanting to carry a hand gun led to just to the concern of the administration.

Re:How about personal responsibility

[KlomDark]

Perhaps their law students are so without talent that they wouldn't have a hope in hell of defending another student against the RIAA?

It's Ohio University

[Eldred]

Correction: The school referred to in the story is called "Ohio University," not "University of Ohio."

Re:It's Ohio University

[bladesjester]

I don't know how they get Univeristy of Ohio out of this. I've never heard *anyone* call it "Univeristy of Ohio" before (I went there and grew up in the general area).

The funny thing is that we can blame this one not only on the editors but also on the story submitter who apparently didn't read the actual news stories himself (and calls it "Univerity of Ohio" in his own site which, by the way, he uses as one of the links in his story). :P

Re:It's Ohio University

[MadJo]

I was thinking the same thing.
Because there is also Ohio State University. (but then again that one wasn't #1 on RIAA's top 100 hits chart)

Re:It's Ohio University

[dangitman]

Well, my penis is named "Charles," but people keep calling it "Charlie." Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about it.

Re:It's Ohio University

[Anonymous Coward]

friends don't let friends become Bobcats.

From your local Miami U. Alum.

It may sound quaint...

[mattgreen]

But whatever happened to taking responsibility for what you do? Why would the university expose itself to lawsuits unnecessarily?

Yes, the lawsuits are a bunch of bull, and yes, the RIAA is a bunch of thugs. But I have no doubt that the university told people that file sharing is a good way to get sued, and they went ahead and did it anyway. I have no sympathy for these people. As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that file sharing can make you the target of a lawsuit, but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it isn't considered illegal. And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the students did it because they wanted free music, not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

If you want to change the situation, downloading files and trying to get sued isn't going to fix anything. Donate to EFF, move near the RIAA headquarters and intimidate them directly, or some other more direct means would be more effective.

Re:It may sound quaint...

[geoskd]

But whatever happened to taking responsibility for what you do? Why would the university expose itself to lawsuits unnecessarily?
Because the university put themselves directly in the middle of the situation by agreeing to act as *the* ISP for their students. They include the cost in tuition and provide the service for "free". The result is that the students have no choice but to pay the university for Internet service. Consequently, the university has a responsibility to protect those same students from the dangers of the net.

Additionally, most college students are *not* adults when they start at a university, which is when most of them will run afoul of the RIAA / MPAA / Drinking laws. The university has agreed to act as the reponsible party for those students who are still minors, but instead of acting responsibly and defending the students from harm, they are actively handing over the students and the parents' to the Mafiaa. You tell me how many parents are going to let their kids attend a university that is abdicating the responsibility they agreed to take on, and leaving the kids and parents exposed to this kind of trouble.

-=Geoskd

Re:It may sound quaint...

[Odiumjunkie]

> As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that file sharing can make you the target of a lawsuit,
> but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it isn't considered illegal.

As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that [practising homosexuality] can make you the target of [the death penalty in Iran], but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it isn't considered illegal. And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the [homosexuals] did it because they wanted [to have homosexual sex], not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that [taking drugs] can make you the target of [the death penalty in Thailand], but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it isn't considered illegal. And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the [drug users] did it because they wanted [to take drugs], not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that [not wearing religiously sanctioned clothing] can make you the target of a [being raped with no legal recourse in more than one Middle Eastern country], but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it [won't result in you being raped with no legal recourse]. And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the [women] did it because they wanted [to wear clothing that was not religiously sanctioned], not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

Re:It may sound quaint...

[mschuyler]

Oh, Okay. I get it. Since Qwest is my DSL provider and since they take my money for it, and since I don't really have a choice, then Qwest is responsible for defending me when I use their services to commit a crime. makes sense to me.

The cut-off date for kindergarten in most places is October 1st. Some places it is November 1st. You must be five by those dates to enroll that year. The definition of adult is 18 and over. Most students are 18 by the time they enroll in college, or within a month or so. So, yes, most students ARE adults when they enroll, and that means taking legal responsibility for yourself.

Re:It may sound quaint...

[servognome]

The result is that the students have no choice but to pay the university for Internet service. Consequently, the university has a responsibility to protect those same students from the dangers of the net.

The university shouldn't protect anybody from the "dangers of the net," otherwise that would give them license to censor which is not conducive to the open learning environment they try to promote. Should the university ban P2P services to "protect" the students? No, the students are given all the tools, it's up to them to decide whether to use it responsibly or not.

Additionally, most college students are *not* adults when they start at a university, which is when most of them will run afoul of the RIAA / MPAA / Drinking laws.

College is not another level of the K-12 babysitting service. Most students are adults, and the sooner they learn to take responsibility for themselves the better off they will be.

Re:It may sound quaint...

[jimicus]

Bear in mind that in most cases, all the evidence that a university has is log files.

Now, it is fantastically difficult to get log files to a point whereby they're being recorded to a forensic standard. You don't automatically get it for free when you configure a box - particularly if that box later gets compromised - you've got to jump through all sorts of hoops involving remote logging servers and everything.

Now, toss in the fact that with DHCP there's nothing to stop me noting the IP address of a given box, physically unplugging that box from the network, assigning its IP to my own PC as a static IP address then plugging my PC into the network. Unless explicit steps have been taken to stop this kind of thing, the records anyone would instinctively go to - the DHCP server's logs - will be incorrect.

Re:It may sound quaint...

[esrobinson]

And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the [homosexuals] did it because they wanted [to have homosexual sex], not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

I didn't realize there was a difference... >.>

Re:It may sound quaint...

[Anonymous Coward]

The definition of adult is 18 and over.

So these "adults" aren't allowed to drink or gamble? What about the restrictions the University places on them? They certainly aren't treated like adults by either the school or the government.

Re:It may sound quaint...

[westlake]

Because the university put themselves directly in the middle of the situation by agreeing to act as *the* ISP for their students. They include the cost in tuition and provide the service for "free". The result is that the students have no choice but to pay the university for Internet service. Consequently, the university has a responsibility to protect those same students from the dangers of the net.

The service is provided to support the educational purposes of the university not to provide free entertainment for students who for generations had to make do with nothing more than campus radio. There is no danger if you download from iTunes or a subscription service like Rhapsody - paying a monthly fee equivalent to the price of a six-pack and a pizza.

Re:It may sound quaint...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Because the university put themselves directly in the middle of the situation by agreeing to act as *the* ISP for their students. They include the cost in tuition and provide the service for "free". The result is that the students have no choice but to pay the university for Internet service. Consequently, the university has a responsibility to protect those same students from the dangers of the net. The service is provided to support the educational purposes of the university not to provide free entertainment for students who for generations had to make do with nothing more than campus radio. There is no danger if you download from iTunes or a subscription service like Rhapsody - paying a monthly fee equivalent to the price of a six-pack and a pizza. westlake, with all due respect your response is not responsive.
1. The parent post was mentioning why the university has a duty to protect the student's due process rights, and not just hand over confidential information to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who slaps together a sham, ex parte, proceeding. It has nothing to do with defending a student on the substantive issue of copyright infringement.

2. Your reference to downloading from iTunes or Rhapsody is likewise off-topic. The RIAA has no knowledge of any downloading, and would be bringing the case even if every song in the folder had been lawfully purchased from iTunes and Rhapsody. It is suing because it believes files were "made available" for sharing.

Re:It may sound quaint...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No one is saying that the ISP or university is responsible for defending you from a claim of copyright infringement.

We are saying that they have a duty not to turn over confidential information, and throw away the students' due process rights, in response to sham ex parte proceedings. They should make sure that the subscribers or students get prior notice so they have an opportunity to seek legal counsel and defend themselves. and that the proceeding is otherwise in compliance with law.

true if..

[wizardforce]

But whatever happened to taking responsibility for what you do? Why would the university expose itself to lawsuits unnecessarily? that would be true if the RIAA did good research on who it goes after but it doesnt. the RIAA goes afgter people to scare any real pirates into not stealing music. if the university just sits back and watches people [many times innocent no less] they run the risk of losing students and that of course is much worse for them than fighting with the students. they have a lot more power to step in and stop the RIAA's somewhat illegal tyranny.

Joe Hazelbaker is wrong

[dharbee]

Or that summary is. If he said that the school is required to protect directory information, he needs to check the law.

FERPA is quite clear on this.

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index .html

"Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them."

It's possible that he means something else, or that I misunderstood, but in my time at student affairs, this came up a few times, and "directory information" was exactly what the link I posted says. Does he maybe mean something else?

If he doesn't, then the law disagrees with him.

Re:Joe Hazelbaker is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

To be even more specific the Ohio U Policy states:

VII. Release of Student Records
D. The following information will be considered public, and may be published in a University publication: the student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student, and other similar information. Relative to such public or directory information, the University shall give public notice of the categories of information which shall be considered public information, and shall allow a reasonable period of time after such notice has been given for a student to inform the University that all of the information designated should not be released without the student's prior consent.

Re:Joe Hazelbaker is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

VII. Release of Student Records
D. The following information will be considered public, and may be published in a University publication: the student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student, and other similar information. Relative to such public or directory information, the University shall give public notice of the categories of information which shall be considered public information, and shall allow a reasonable period of time after such notice has been given for a student to inform the University that all of the information designated should not be released without the student's prior consent. Groovy, dude. I've read it several times, and I don't see where a confirmation/statement of student's use of the University computer network falls under any of these categories.

Re:Joe Hazelbaker is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've read it several times, and I don't see where a confirmation/statement of student's use of the University computer network falls under any of these categories."

Which has noting to do with anything. You're a fucking retard. But because I want to verbally smack your moron ass

"and other similar information"

There you go cunt. Suck my dick now idiot.

Summary isn't completely accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

The University of Ohio was putting a brave face on being #1 on the RIAA hit list, but it now appears they have caved in to RIAA intimidation.

While it's true that the RIAA/MPAA organizations are ultimately responsible for universities caving in to their legal intimidation tactics, the TFA forgets to mention the ultimate enforcer of their bullying ways: the whores in Congress. Remember the letterssent out at the beginning of this month by lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee to a list of universities that received the highest number of copyright infringement notices?

The letter is the latest sign that members of Congress have locked arms with the entertainment industries to endorse a crackdown on student downloading of copyrighted material, which they argue is rife on campus networks. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing in March at which lawmakers promised greater scrutiny if they did not see colleges get tougher on illegal downloaders. College officials sought both to show that they took the fight against copyright infringement seriously and to suggest that excessive intrusion could hamper the open dissemination of information that characterizes higher education.

Well, this the result of kowtowing to the ultimate RIAA bullyboy: Congress

Don't give them your money then

[pembo13]

Don't buy new albums, and don't download their albums. Try it for a year. You should be able to survive that long.

Interesting - "abandons"

[Colin Smith]

Almost as if the university is responsible for the students behaviour. Aren't people responsible for their own actions these days?

Re:Interesting - "abandons"

[Icarus1919]

And here I thought institutions of higher learning were responsible for standing up against unjust practices by the government and corporations. The punishments for this crime (I will admit, downloading music is stealing, for what it's worth) are unjust, I think we can all agree. They get this responsibility because when your university teaches subjects such as Ethics, you don't simply teach them in the classroom, you teach them through the actions of the institution. This is why I got in trouble with the university when I was caught drinking under age. While what the students were/are doing is wrong, and yes they are responsibile for that, it is the RESPONSIBILITY and DUTY of the universities in question to stand up on behalf of the students and defend said students against the grossly unjust punishments being meted out against them. Thus, what the universities are doing are a) cowardly and b) negligent in their duties. This is the reason for the outrage many of us feel when we find that universities with the ability (they have reams of law students) and the money (tuition is really high damn it) to defend students have backed down from doing so.

Re:Interesting - "abandons"

[mschuyler]

Typical of the entitlement generation. Unless part of your tuition goes to legal help, the university is not responsible for defending you for stealing music, regardless of the penalty. You're the one who says the penalty is "unjust," but you are also the thief. Last I heard a criminal doesn't get to set his own penalty. You're opinion doesn't much matter here. The University is responsible? You could say the same for Mommy and Daddy. They are in the same position, trying to teach you ethical ways of living. Does that mean they have to bail you every time you screw up? They may have to deal with it before you are 18, but after? Nope, you're a legal adult. Adults have full legal responsibility for themselves. If you don't, no one else is responsible for you. It's called "tough love." You do the crime, you do the time. Tough.

Re:Interesting - "abandons"

[Colin Smith]

And here I thought institutions of higher learning were responsible for standing up against unjust practices by the government and corporations. Don't you think that is the individual's responsibility? I seem to remember students in the US protesting against the Vietnam war, in China students protesting against government oppression.

Now... We have US students whining about being caught drinking under age and infringing someone's (thousands of people's) copyright.

You see, there's a vital fact that seems to escape many people these days...

Freedom is responsibility. Freedom and responsibility are the same thing. For every responsibility you give to someone else, you are also giving them your freedom.

Re:Interesting - "abandons"

[Ryokos_boytoy]

Aren't people responsible for their own actions these days? Oh shit, I wet myself laughing so hard. "Responsible"? WTF does that even mean? The point isn't what the students have done, it's that the RIAA is ignoring legal procedure and rules of evidence to unfairly bully these people. It doesn't matter if they are guilty or not, they deserve a fair hearing. Not the perversion of justice that the RIAA dollars have wrought.

I honestly hope I get caught. I would love to let my lawyer get medieval on those scumbags

Re:here's a tip

[solevita]

You can steal CDs, you can't steal music. Just to prove the point, I'm going to go download the Metalica discography again (straight to /dev/null of course).

Uhh... its OHIO UNIVERSITY

[Black-Man]

Sheesh...

Not entirely true...

[volvo64]

While OU isn't helping these guys out, a local lawyer is. http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/articles/2007/05/25/n ews/20293.html Hopefully he gets somewhere and sets precedent.
And yes, it is Ohio University, not 'The University of Ohio.'

They made their bed so they should lay in it.

[Anonymous Coward]

They infringed on someone elses copyrights so they should pay the price. If that means losing out on their education so fucking what, they should have thought of that before uploading music they have no rights to. Truthfully the RIAA should make examples out of everyone that infringes on someone elses copyright and sue them for hundreds of thousands if not millions. If that means they lose out on life so fucking what, they made their fucking bed now they should lie in it.

no sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

The students are breaking the law and everyone knows it. Its not the universities job to protect the students from being caught. If they dont want to get caught, they can use itunes. Im sick of people blindly defending filesharers. If you want music, buy it. Even students cn afford to buy a few albums.

Re:no sympathy

[NormalVisual]

Its not the universities job to protect the students from being caught.

It's also not the university's job to save the RIAA thousands of dollars by handing over students' personal information that the RIAA has not followed proper legal process to obtain. When the RIAA can provide evidence that can actually survive scrutiny in court, and goes through the correct and accepted procedures to serve a correct and proper subpoena, then I'll change my mind.

It's not about the kids copying music - it's about the fact that the colleges are giving out private information that they shouldn't be under the flimsiest of justifications.

Mod Parent Up, more

[Anonymous Coward]

If students get sued into oblivion, they can't pay tuition. And if the college does something meaningful and beneficial for their students, they're a lot more likely to actually see donations later on.

I'm by no means suggesting that the college has any obligation to provide any assistance, but it's certainly to their benefit in the long term.

Parent makes good points.

Maybe it is time to inform your alma maters people. Send along Mr. Beckerman's letter and whatever else you may deem appropriate. If you are a regular contributor to your alma mater and they have cooperated with the *AA's then you should consider whether or not you should not send them the next donation while telling them why you are not going to give them money. Speaking of donations maybe some alumni associations should consider setting up legal funds specifically for this type of student protection. Alumni should look into whether or not the *AA or their members have made university contributions too.

Lawyers around the universities should look into this and consider the public good it could do if they volunteer to help the affected students, I am not sure if such Pro Bono work would bar them from collecting legal fees from the *AA or not. Of course there are probably some legal dodges for this such as "if we lose, I will forego my fees" which they might add if they study this well "but I doubt we will lose".

University students and alumni, congratulations, you are now probably of voting age or beyond, study how this can be used to your advantage. How many votes could universities account for to take down the "Senator Disney"s of the country?

This issue probably isn't so clear to the universities, perhaps the way to get things started is to have an open and evolving symposium series on the subjects. Of course this would burn a lot of time, but it could be a good tool to develope better raport with the students as well as generating a lot of tools for the defense of the students and the university. When things start to clarify, invite some congressmen.

Next song on the affected students download list Welcome to the Real World

"But they're just kids!"

[mattgreen]

Did you even read my post?

First, you argue that the university is supposed to "protect their students from the dangers of the net." How much protection do they have to offer? If a student gets phished, should they refund their money? Should the university police networked computers and remove malware for them? Can you show me where in the Ohio University's computer policy they promise to do this? And since when does "protecting" students involve spending thousands of dollars in legal fees for something that the student is directly responsible for?

But then you try to argue that college students should be able to do all the things that adults do, but still be treated like minors. And THAT is the sort of harmful thinking I was advocating against in my original post. If we want to advance as a society we need to realize that everything we do has consequences. I'm sick of people assigning blame to everyone and everything but themselves. Yes, the lawsuits are a bunch of crap, and the amount of damages the RIAA seeks are asinine. The whole point of them seeking absurd damages is to scare off people! If the student is unlucky enough to be the target of this, they knew it was possible. It was entirely preventable - they are not 'victims.' We don't want the kids to think, "oh, poor me! All I was doing was breaking the law, and the evil RIAA actually sued me like a bunch of other people! It just isn't fair!"

If you play with fire, don't complain when you get burned.

Re:"But they're just kids!"

[geoskd]

First, you argue that the university is supposed to "protect their students from the dangers of the net." How much protection do they have to offer?
The specific protection that I suggest is the same portection that all ISP's should provide: Basic protection of private information unless a *proper* and *legal* subpoena for information is presented to them in keeping with the laws of the various governments involved. Anything else is abdication of their responsibilities as surrogate gaurdians for children. The other kind of protection they should provide is for their own good, and that is simple firewall services. Blocking incoming rerquests is something that even the local DSL provider does by default, because it saves them a number of headaches that they don't need. Some ISP's abdicate this responsibility, as do most major universities, which is one reason that there are so many bot-nets running rampant. These firewall services should be turned on unless a customer specifically requests otherwise. If the customer knows enough to ask for their firewall services to be turned off, then they are probably able enough to cope with an unfiltered access, and can at lest take responsibility for the consequences.

But then you try to argue that college students should be able to do all the things that adults do, but still be treated like minors. And THAT is the sort of harmful thinking I was advocating against in my original post. I whole heartedly agree with you, which is why I beleive that the university should terminate access privilidges for those who are identified as infringing on copyright interests. That way the children can learn consequences without having to have a *judgement* show up on their credit record. Even assuming that the Mafiaa does not report the judgement to the credit agencies, a couple of thousand dollars is a lot of money to many college kids. The school I went to was a relatively expensive private school, and despite that, I found that many students (myself included) would have had a hell of a time paying a judgement on the order of a few thousand dollars. That sort of thing can make getting student loans very difficult, and schools are not prone to letting students continue who are not paying the tuition bills. How serious should the consequences be for copyright infringement be? I'm not even sure that copyright is a morally just law. It strikes me as an overly complicated solution to a problem that didn't ever actually exist. The laws should protect society, and I suspect that copyright law does more harm to society than good.

The best course of action for the university to take would be the one that many others universities have done: Automatically subscribe their students in an unlimited music service, and the legal question becomes moot... Ohio University had an easy way out and they were too cheap to take it. Now their students, and their students' parents are paying the price...

College is supposed to be about making the transition from childhood to adulthood. Now the schools want to abdicate this responsibility, but charge even more money.

-=Geoskd

$ wins every time

[nurb432]

Why be suprised? THe RIAA was going to cost them money and colleges today are not the same as they were decades ago.

There are plenty of other students in line to get in.

Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Overly Critical Guy]

Let's examine the headline and summary for key words intended to scapegoat the RIAA to make pirates feel less guilty about what they do:

"Attacked"
"hit list"
"intimidation"
"tactics of the industry"
"attacked"

Now, what's funny is that all those emotional buzzwords ignore that these students were caught illegally ripping artists off. It's not intimidation or attacking if you defend your own intellectual property--WHICH SLASHDOTTERS SAID THEY SHOULD DO BACK IN 2000! Guess what, kiddies. If you don't want to be "attacked" for violating someone else's rights, don't break the law in the first place. You don't have my sympathy just because your university gave you a broadband connection and you made sure System of a Down didn't get paid today.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks generated, Troll. No matter what was done though, you are an ignorant fool. Contracts, etc. leave majors with little from sales, most goes to record companies working by models that are outdated. Give artists money? Go to their concerts and buy all the junk there.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[BakaHoushi]

Practice what you preach. They "broke the law?" No, they did no such thing. They allegedly "infringed on a copyright." They are two separate things for a reason. copyright infringement != theft. That's why people aren't locked up for it. They're sued.

And mind you, many of these words may be buzzwords, but at their heart, can you honestly say this is not intimidation? How many people who have NOT downloaded anything illegally have been sued? How many laws (note, LAWS) has the RIAA tried to bend/break in order to GET information on people?

And one last bit that gets said over and over again:
When you pay for that System of a Down CD, 95% of that money (number made up off top of my head, point is, vast majority) goes to... the RIAA/its affiliates. Bands make money off of tours, merchandise, etc.

And for the record, no, I don't pirate music. Or anything, really. I simply don't really care for most music, and my last album (Weird Al's Straight Outta Lynwood) I did get in physical form.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Overly Critical Guy]

Yet another pro-piracy argument intended to make pirates feel better about what they do: "Artists don't make any money from record sales anyway."

Pirating an artist's music because you don't think they make enough money makes as much sense as fucking for virginity.

You're just making sure they get NO money at all. You also want to ignore that they willingly signed their contract, and that they will have reduced sales figures which means they risk getting dropped from the label due to lack of sales and inability to recoup the recording and marketing costs that were agreed upon in the contract.

Give artists money? Go to their concerts and buy all the junk there.

Ah, the ol' classic "someone else will pay them for their work" canard.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless sales numbers are taken in some sort of draconian manner then there are statistical errors anyway that account for more than trading outside of crime syndicates.

Not outers giving them money, that each person doing that is obligated to do that more so than paying for record producers. The artists that signed were not capable of other choices, I do not dispute that they are still foolish from the current perspective though. All need to be dropped and those producers bankrupt, the others will succeed independently with concerts.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[zhrike]

Now, what's funny is that all those emotional buzzwords ignore that these students were caught illegally ripping artists off.

Ok, the use of buzzwords is one thing, but your ignorance is entirely another. You are making a leap in logic, and against the
presumption of innocence. The RIAA has a history ... a documented history, mind you, of making blanket accusations, and many of
those accusations have been shown to be wholly erroneous ... as in they accused individuals who were proven to be innocent (which
is not the burden, of course). The RIAA has lost cases where this has occurred, and has had to remunerate their intended victims.
Perhaps you are just as biased as those you claim use emotionally-laden language, hmm?

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[koreaman]

What the fuck are you talking about?

You are right. They did not steal. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing.

However, they did break the law. Copyright infringement is against the law.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[BakaHoushi]

Wow. You're not only a troll, but a pretty lousy one at that. (And please, for the love of God, don't play the persecuted minority card.) But let me give you a simple link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_efforts_against_ file_sharing#Criticism
A list of people who have been sued for downloading songs when they didn't own a computer, know how to use one, weren't even 13, and had no clue as to either how to use a computer or the consequences of downloading. Hey, they've even tried to sue dead people!

And this list is obviously incomplete. And let me ask you: How did the RIAA find out about who took what? It obviously isn't very effective. And considering that they've gone to courts to ask for permission to lie to customers to snoop for information, they've threatened ISPs into handing over data, etc.

Honestly, if a company wanted to read your mail and check your packages for stolen goods without any warrant, would you be fine with that? I fucking wouldn't, that's for sure. So why should we put up with it in our digital mail?

And hey, here's ANOTHER question. How do you know these threatened students are guilty? You seem to have a pretty clear attitude of "guilty until proven innocent."

I mean, suppose for a second that ALL these kids are innocent. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. We don't know. But for the sake of argument, let's say they are. How, exactly, are they going to get out of this? Hire a good lawyer? Yeah, because a bunch of college students can hire a great lawyer to match wits with the RIAA's team of lawyers. Their choices include settle for thousands of dollars or... well, that's it, really.

It'd be one thing if they WERE just protecting their "rights." But they're doing so by taking wild shots in the dark, forcing people into expensive settlements, and trying to bend or break the law into their own will. That's a FUCK ton worse than downloading Paris Hilton or whoever the fuck is out there's latest overpriced shit.

And yeah, copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's why it's CALLED infringement, NOT THEFT. Theft involves taking something. I take the money from your wallet. That's stealing. I hijack your car. That's stealing. I COPY your book. That's infringement. (Notice how in all but one example you lose the ability to use the object? That is a key point)

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[BakaHoushi]

I will admit my original wording was, at best, poor, but what I was attempting to say was that the legality of such things is questions. A police officer will not raid your house for downloading an advanced screening of a movie. Especially given the further confusion of fair use. (What if you already own a movie/CD and download it?) These matters are very rarely, if ever, resolved by the government. They are almost always a matter of private lawsuits.

For another example, fan fiction and fan art, except where explicitly approved by the creators, are in fact acts of copyright infringement. You're using established and copyrighted characters and stories for your own use. However, companies find this to be free advertising in many cases, or too trivial to worry about. Yet we don't have police attempting to shut down fan-fiction.net. Why isn't DeviantART being pulled down for numerous charges?

This is why I said, though poorly, it was not illegal. Personal use, as opposed to ripping DVDs/CDs and selling them on a market somewhere, is often a very disputable act.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[shark72]

"copyright infringement != theft. That's why people aren't locked up for it. They're sued."

Serious question here: why do you say this? People do go to jail for copyright infringement; it's usually reported here on Slashdot with the expected response. It looks like you've been around on Slashdot to see this covered. If you can honestly tell me that you've never heard of somebody being locked up for copyright infringement, I'll beelieve you -- I'll just be very surprised!

I'm certain it's fairly common knowledge that "crimes which involve theft" and "crimes for which you can go to jail" are distinct sets. There's a union between the two, to be sure, but unless I've misread you, you're stating that the latter is a subset of the former. To use a touchy example, the crime of rape. Yes, yes, one could say that a rapist "steals the victim's innocence," but it's not theft. Yet -- just as if you pirate enough software or music -- you can go to jail for it.

"When you pay for that System of a Down CD, 95% of that money (number made up off top of my head, point is, vast majority) goes to... the RIAA/its affiliates. Bands make money off of tours, merchandise, etc."

Very true. Another example: I'm director level at a computer peripheral company. I'm responsible for some $40MM worth of business, yet my salary is (sound familiar?) less than 10% of gross sales. My company, like record companies, uses the rest to pay everybody else who was involved in creating, shipping, and selling my products.

This is, sadly, how it works with most industries. I'll grant that this is a surprise to most people and it really is via the record industry that many Slashdotters have learned this unfortunate fact about the business world -- but two wrongs still do not make a right.

What somebody needs to do is come up with a business model for a record company where the record company funds all the costs of production, promotion, distribution, and so on, yet does not attempt to recoup those costs before paying the artists. The first Slashdotter to do this will be very popular indeed.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Paradise Pete]

just like stolen GPL code is always called "stolen"

That's not at all the same thing. The code is put forth as a new work. Just like if you invent something and I claim to invent it then I stole your idea. In other words, I am representing your work as my own, which is completely different from what is done by unauthorized downloading.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Sigma 7]

I COPY your book. That's infringement. (Notice how in all but one example you lose the ability to use the object? That is a key point) Let's expand this a little - I copy your video game, with it's CD-key. In this example, you partially lose the ability to do online play.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[gsslay]

I'll grant that this is a surprise to most people and it really is via the record industry that many Slashdotters have learned this unfortunate fact about the business world

The unfortunate fact is that most Slashdotters have zero business knowledge, except how to use the phrase "change your business model". What they do know about is software, specifically free software. Since this also fits on a CD, they have difficulty understanding why the music business can't work like open-source. Nor do they see any double standard in demanding that copyright defends the rights of open-source developers and their licences, but leaves the holders of music's copyrights with no recourse to law.

What somebody needs to do is come up with a business model for a record company where the record company funds all the costs of production, promotion, distribution, and so on, yet does not attempt to recoup those costs before paying the artists. The first Slashdotter to do this will be very popular indeed.

I'm afraid you're assuming that the average Slashdotter is looking for solutions. What they're really looking for are excuses, and will continue to find them no matter what.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[BakaHoushi]

Okay, in this case, you could make a case for theft. You have taken from me something I paid money for, and I lose the ability to use it. And IIRC, when Valve was about to release Half-Life 2 and code was "stolen," well, it was copied, but also deleted, that could be called theft, too.

But we do need to differentiate, because putting a piece of paper through a copier does not disable the owner from using the data on that sheet. Taking a photo of something does not steal it (well, unless it was a light particle, but good luck copyrighting THAT.). Taking virtual data from someone, though, and then deleting their version, can be considered theft.

However, downloading Teeny Bopper Lip-synchs Vol. 40 does not disable one who owns said CD from using it (though, IMHO, if there were justice in the world, it would =p).

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Alter_Fritz]

"Copyright infringement is against the law."

freeing slaves was once also against the laws of your country!

hiding jews from evil nazis was once also against the law in my country (germany)!

point is, just because something is "against the law" does not make it automaticly morally wrong.

and as long as the labels do not offer the product for sale themself that got infringed by those millions of people then there is not even a single cent monitary damage!

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Xenographic]

> Let's expand this a little - I copy your video game, with it's CD-key. In this example, you partially lose the ability to do online play.

Then you stole the USE of the CD key (because he can't use it) from the person, while infringing upon the copyright of whoever made the video game for a total of two separate offenses.

Also, plagiarism might be called stealing CREDIT for a work (because the original author no longer gets credit due to your lack of attribution), but it might also be copyright infringement. Again, there are two separate problems there and you do well not to confuse them.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[jmac1492]

They "broke the law?" No, they did no such thing. They allegedly "infringed on a copyright." They are two separate things for a reason. copyright infringement != theft. That's why people aren't locked up for it. They're sued.

Copyright infringement is illegal. It's a civil offense, which is why the RIAA investigates it and you can be sued for it. If it was a criminal offense, the police would investigate and the possibility of jail time would exist. Both civil offenses and criminal offenses are against the law.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[BakaHoushi]

In this regard, you are right, and I was wrong, and I apologize. I got my concept of legality mixed up there. I should have said they committed no CRIMINAL offense, but a civil offense. I do think that there is a significant difference between the two, and is often where the line is drawn between "stealing" and "infringement."

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[BakaHoushi]

As I have said in other posts here, I was mistaken. What I was trying to say, or rather, should have been trying to say, was that copyright infringement is not a CRIMINAL offense, but a civil one. I believe there is an important distinction between the two. The difference between stealing and infringement. The difference between stealing credit and copying designs.

And with the division of the profits on a CD, I know that many, many people are involved in the creation of the CD, and it must be broken down, but at the same time, I think the way it is broken down is disproportionate to the work involved.

Again, I apologize for my ignorance on the subject, but in my defense, at least it's through making an ass of myself that I learn these things and... hey, at least I'm not a senator proposing legislation to change these things without research!

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Kjella]

But for the sake of argument, let's say they are. How, exactly, are they going to get out of this? Hire a good lawyer? Yeah, because a bunch of college students can hire a great lawyer to match wits with the RIAA's team of lawyers.

You make it sound like something from the dark ages. I choose a champion, you choose a champion, whoever has got the strongest champion wins. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I hope the merits of the case still have an influence. That if your opponents case is crap, you don't need a star lawyer, just a competent one. A court case is a lot like a human body - almost anyone can beat it up, but it takes highly trained medical personnel to heal it. If you can point out flaws, it's they who need to come up with the creative explainations, not you.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[BakaHoushi]

Well, I would like to agree with you, but, well, if you're an optimist, it's highly unlikely. I'm a very cynical. In an ordinary case, I'd imagine that this is true. But this is not an ordinary case. This isn't student vs. the guy down the street. This is student vs. All-Encompassing Corporate Powerhouse. And I hate to say it, but with a legal team that only a corporation can afford, you're pretty much boned.

Let's say they don't hire an amazing lawyer, but an average one. That's STILL a major expenditure. And how long can they afford that? The RIAA is quite good at stalling the courts.

IMHO, the reason a few dozen of these cases have failed is because the defendants were so obviously innocent that no trial was needed (I.E. suing a dead person, someone with no computer, etc.). But sadly, many of these cases are not so easily decided from any standpoint (especially taking complex issues as fair use and privacy into effect). In the long run, a settlement becomes the only viable solution.

Your champion vs. champion example suits the modern American legal system well. The truth has become merely a minor detail. Like the old saying, "the winners write the history books." The truth becomes whatever the team with the better legal squad wants it to be. Any actual truth is of little consequence.

And yes, I *AM* quite the smash at parties. I've been told my smile brightens up the room like nothing else.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[jamar0303]

"Ah, the ol' classic "someone else will pay them for their work" canard."
Unless, of course, you are the "practice what you preach" type of person, wherein you actually DO go to their concerts and buy their stuff.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[jamar0303]

"Taking a photo of something does not steal it" Unless you're Amish.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Theft involves taking something. I take the money from your wallet. That's stealing. I hijack your car. That's stealing. I COPY your book. That's infringement. (Notice how in all but one example you lose the ability to use the object? That is a key point)

So, if I break into a company's database and download proprietary information on a revolutionary new engine design while leaving the original database intact, I'm just committing copyright infringement and I can only be sued?

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Euler]

FYI to everyone in this thread, do at least 30 seconds of research before spouting off about something you are not an expert in.

Google "US Code copyright" (United States Code)

This will settle the argument that copyright infringment is, in fact, a crimal offense that can result in jail time.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u sc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a plate of BakaHoushi last night with some white wine--delicious! ;)

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[BakaHoushi]

No, you can be charged with plenty of other laws, I'm sure. I'd like to be more specific, but I'm fairly certain hacking into another person's database in itself is a crime. Unless you meant physically break into their database, wherein you're charge with unlawful entry. So, yeah, you can get busted for a lot of other things. (Especially if you claim it as your own. Plagarism.)

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[westlake]

A list of people who have been sued for downloading songs when they didn't own a computer, know how to use one, weren't even 13, and had no clue as to either how to use a computer or the consequences of downloading. Hey, they've even tried to sue dead people!

Fair enough, I suppose.

But where on Wikipedia do I find the list of geeks who got caught with their pants down, knew damn well they didn't have a defense, and settled out of court without a whimper? Which list do you think would be the longer?

And yeah, copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's why it's CALLED infringement, NOT THEFT

The idea that copyright infringement is theft became entrenched in the popular mind while the Black Flag still flew over the Caribbean.

Your mates at Club Fed aren't going to give a damn whether your sentence on the felony charge was for blue-collar theft or white-collar copyright infringement.

I hijack your car. That's stealing. I COPY your book. That's infringement. (Notice how in all but one example you lose the ability to use the object? That is a key point)

Theft of intangible property is still theft.

You want to use my creation, you pay for the use of my creation, or go elsewhere. There is no free lunch.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[koreaman]

I never said it was wrong, I said it was against the law. I agree with you that these are not the same thing.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[TehZorroness]

Now, even though slashdot is definately a biased site, artists generally make under 15% of the money from record sales. When you go into the music store and buy a $20 dollar album, the artist will be lucky if they are making $2 for each sale; after trading away any copyright interest in the material (George Harrison was sued for sounding too much like himself!). I consider it a great justice to pirate music as much as possible. Hopefully sometime soon the non-commercial music scene will outgrow today's commercial music market.

I soundly doubt that musicians have any positive feeling for the actions of the RIAA. The RIAA is just a collaboration of entities of the corrupt commercial music market to spread fear about the subversion of their evil ways.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Paris Hilton has copyrights over her porn video?

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

artists generally make under 15% of the money from record sales You're right.

As a practical matter, they actually usually make 0% of the money from record sales.

The way it works is this: the performer gets an "advance". Usually that's the only money the artist gets for his or her performance on the recording.

As records are sold, the record company deducts all of its expenses in making the album, and lots of other "expenses", some real, some not, before paying any royalties to the artist.

Only when the record company has "recouped" its so-called "expenses" does it start to pay anything to the artist.

The record companies have it figured out so that they usually never "recoup", so the performing artist never receives any royalties for his or her performance.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I'm going to pop back up with this link again. The first 6-12 months of this case had nothing to do with the truth and mostly revolved around the plaintiff trying to bamboozle the defendant into slipping up with some paperwork so they could apply for summary judgement on a technicality (even going as far as to apply for summary judgement because, although the defendant had replied to and opposed various plaintiff motions, had not replied to the original complaint within 6 weeks or whatever) and getting injunctions, without the defendant knowing about them, (which had no relation to the actual case other than to try and strangle the defendant's trying to get support from the world at large) and which came into force so soon that the defendant (living a few 1000 miles away) hadn't actually received the documents by the day that the injunction was to come into force.
You want to try and fight a case against those kinds of tactics?

Courts have as much to do with the truth as pheasant hunting has with protecting worms from pheasants.

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[DjRenigade]

I totaly agree with you on that point. I wish that when Napster was first on the market and we could get whatever we wanted for free, if they would have just said pay $10-15 a month and still get whatever you want, people would have had no problem with doing that if the supply of music stayed the same. So that would have been a solution to this monsterous proble that we now face with the RIAA wanting to sue the whole world. IMO, IF the level of music would stay the same and you could find "out-of-print" stuff, it would be worth $10-15 a month, but until then, people will continue to download away...

Re:Slashdot's hugely biased reporting

[vuffi_raa]

yes and no- it requires more than user generated uploads and has speed considerations- if there was a service that hosted catalog and consistent speeds (bt seeds) AND user generated content (with no drm/timeouts on media) that had a subscription that would take off. the only problem is that there are a lot of things that I would like to get that are not **AA affiliated- in fact the majority of what I want isn't. If I were to go on the site and have only the majors it would suck- they would need to sell their licensing to a 3rd party vendor that would be able to get licensing from indies as well since a lot of independent record companies and film companies would not want to join the **AA but would sign distro deals with a 3rd party that hosts both.

Nice try.

[mattgreen]

Nobody is dying or being raped. They are downloading music for free. The two are very different things. Nobody is being oppressed here. They're merely suffering consequences for breaking [mostly unfair] laws.

Re:Nice try.

[Odiumjunkie]

> Nobody is dying or being raped. They are downloading music for free. The two are very different things. Nobody is being oppressed here. They're merely suffering consequences
> for breaking [mostly unfair] laws.

You're quite right! My analogy is flawed because it isn't exactly the same situation as the situation it attempts to describe.

To be serious, if you hold "People who suffer consequence Y deserve no pity because they performed action X while knowing about consequence Y" to be true, it doesn't matter if consequence Y is being slapped on the wrist or being taken out and shot. If the degree to which you hold that argument to be true varies based on your distaste for consequence Y, then you're basing your statement on something other than logic.

Re:Nice try.

[$uperjay]

I think that the laws are unfair is exactly his point, mattgreen.

The students may not be surprised that they're getting sued, but it's still unjust. The law is wrong.

Re:Nice try.

[dangitman]

They're merely suffering consequences for breaking [mostly unfair] laws.

How did you know they broke any laws? if you look at the actual story, it seems that the RIAA is still trying to determine who to sue. This doesn't give a lot of conifdence in the idea that they know exactly who is guilty.

What this story is actually about, is the University giving out private information that they should not be giving out. The people that the RIAA accuses may be completely innocent. Why should innocent students have their private information given out by the University?

tough love =/= over the top punishment

[Icarus1919]

http://www.studentlegalrights.org/
Ohio University Center for Student Legal services. Their tuition pays for it. My university has one too. Most do.

Let's take your logic to the next level, shall? Hypothetical (ok, not hypothetical. It's like this some places) situation: When you steal a piece of bread your hand is cut off, as are the hands of all theives. Of course, you knew the law ahead of time but you did it anyway, fine. Unjust law? How about if the law is that everyone who steals something is killed. Unjust law? I don't know, I'm just a thief, my opinion on that law doesn't matter. How about if you steal something, your family is killed. Unjust law?

My opinion matters on laws that I am subject to. Whether someone (ie: you) believes my opinion matters or not is irrelevant. Frankly, I'm love to ad hominem attack your generation as you have mine, but I don't know which one you belong to. But if they all think like you (which they must, since apparently my generation all thinks the same) I'm glad I'm not a part of it.

Re:tough love =/= over the top punishment

[bladesjester]

As an alumni, I'm rather disgusted that my alma mater is rolling over on this. The students do indeed pay every quarter for legal services (and at $8 per quarter, it's well worth it) and the univeristy should be questioning the charges instead of giving them the student, no questions asked.

As for protecting the student directory information, they actually have all of that available online (which is nice if you're looking for someone that you used to go to school with because a lot of us keep at least our email contact info updated).

Re:tough love =/= over the top punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an alumnus. A former one at that.

Trent Reznor says it all

[lordvalrole]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,217 41980-5006024,00.html

Your money isn't going to the artists damn it. It never has and it never will. I think I have given up all hope for this damn country. Anyone know any islands up for sale?

Re:Trent Reznor says it all

[ErikZ]

Try Cuba

How backwards!

[mattgreen]

Programs like Exact Audio Copy are able to painstakingly rip even the most scratched CDs very well when in secure mode. A friend of mine left a CD behind his computer desk for several years. Over time, the wheels on the desk would run over the CD and grind parts of it away. He found the CD while cleaning one day, and decided to see whether EAC could recover it. The CD was badly scratched and had dust all over it. After cleaning the dust off, and leaving EAC to run overnight, he was able to extract all of the music! So give it a try.

I call it backwards because if your hard disk dies, you don't have a hard copy of the music. I insist on having a lossless copy of the music I buy so I can format shift it without degrading quality. I rip to 256kbps VBR MP3 - it works on everything, sounds great, but is a bit large. For right now, that means I continue to buy overpriced CDs.

Existing donation base issues.

[ushering05401]

One problem I see with your point: The existing donor base for a major uni like OU is gonna be massive because they have been feeding grads into it for about two centuries.

This link: http://www.ohio.edu/foundation/about.cfm

indicates a history of private sector donations going back to 1816. 2006 saw roughly 25 thousand people donate a total of $35 million USD. In 2004 the 'Bicentennial Campaign' concluded after bringing in 221 million USD.

How many successful alumni over the age of 50 are going to be clued into the details of current RIAA battles and tactics. How much do you think OU wants to avoid alienating the old school donors that, given the age of the campus and their long history of massive private sector fundraising, are probably a bit out of the demographic that cares enough to educate themselves on the RIAA related issues.

My grandma thinks downloading multimedia is stealing and would accuse you of trying to sell her snakeoil if you tried to convince her that absence of marginal costs for reproduction of the works changes the arguement. She is also very involved in alumni programs from another uni, including community charity and fund-raising activities. She has spent her retirement 'giving back' to the communities that had supported her throughout her life, and many of her friends did the same.

These people are *worth* more than a couple years of grads leaving with a bitter taste.

Regards.

Re:Existing donation base issues.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many successful alumni over the age of 50 are going to be clued into the details of current RIAA battles and tactics.

Over 50? That would be Vietnam veterans, Vietnam protestors, Civil Rights Movement, and some of those OU alumni might have transferred in from Kent State. Over 50 would also include a few that were in public schools at the time and watched all this as it happened with developing minds. Don't underestimate these people!

Re:here's a tip

[ImTheDarkcyde]

semantics se-shmantics, IP theft is still theft, satisfied?

Re:here's a tip

[Hobbs0]

No, it's not theft, it's infringement. Not the same. And as long as you plan to post on /. plan on dealing with the semantics.

Am I reading this right?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

You have a friend who disapproves of illegal downloads, but routinely bittorrents extra copies of the used CDs he buys?
Purchasing the used CD and bittorrenting a playable copy of the music are separate transactions. That bittorrent is still not strictly legal, even with the used CD in his possession. Of course, the record labels wish that used CDs weren't legal; they too realize that neither artists nor record labels get cash from those transactions. So (since I'm not against used CDs) oh well...
BTW, does your friend take the time to listen to the CD, to see if it works, before or after he does his bittorrent?

Re:here's a tip

[solevita]

Here we're dealing with neither theft nor semantics. Firstly, this isn't a case of theft, or stealing. Secondly, the correct use of words can hardly be considered semantics. Finally, no; I'm not satisfied.

I suggest you put the computer down for a while and go spend some quality time with a dictionary.

Counter-offense: disbarment?

[coats]

IANAL, but...

It seems to me that the RIAA's attorneys are guilty of many gross ethics violations. Why should concerned parties not go after the RIAA attorneys -- seeking their disbarment?

If there were a fund for financing such, I would contribute.

fwiw

Well why should they help either side?

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Are they really loosing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

The odds are 99.5% of the people who download music or what ever it may be arnt going to go out and buy it anyways.... so are the really loosing money?
I know personally i buy the odd cd but most of the time a cd will have 1 or 2 songs i like, im not going to buy a cd for a single song, waste of $!

Why use P2P programs then?

[Ninety-9 SE-L]

I'm not sure if I'm much safer, but I switched to IRC a long time ago. Is that any safer as far as filesharing goes?

Re:Why use P2P programs then?

[silgaun]

I remember reading an article a while ago (sorry, no link) where someone from the RIAA mentioned that they are aware of what happens on IRC. Of course, they said they are pursuing people, but I haven't heard anything about that. My guess is that people who use IRC for sharing music have a higher degree of computer knowledge than those that install kazza and will put up more of a fight resulting in the RIAA loosing a case.

Re:Counter-offense: disbarment?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

The concerned parties oftentimes can't even afford to fight the original lawsuit, which is why so many groundless RIAA suits get settled. How can they afford that sort of countersuit?

Good Move!

[EzInKy]

If there is any certain way to get Congress to forget about the moneyed interests and actually listen to the people they are supposed to represent having a bunch of pissed off students, and the parents of those students, pressuring them is it. Some things to remember for the protest signs and letters:

1) Congress does not have to grant copyright protection.

2) If they do grant protection, it has to be for a limited time.

3) One hour is a limited time.

4) Sharing knowledge and culture is an inalienable right.

Some compulsive thoughts...

[NRISecretAgent]

Personally when Ohio University went looking for donations later I'd tell them to go talk to the RIAA. Not like they'd get their money from them but after being backed out on I would certainly feel abandoned and unwilling to donate to a school who provided only as much as I paid for. Either I paid for my degree or I didn't have enough money to pay for it and we'd be square. I kn ow it's not the University's responsibility for backing up the student for something that is illegal but they should make a stand. Universities are where we look to for change. Maybe that's just one more thing that our educational system is losing?

2+2 = 5 ????

[Anonymous Coward]

"At the least, they can make it more difficult for pirates to rip artists off."

I've not gone to Ohio State; as it turns out, I went to a a university that doesn't cave in. Sort of how Ohio State caved in the Football finals, and how they caved in the Basketball finals.

Anyway, your logic is this:

1) Sue students for sharing music.
2) ??????
3) It's now harder for "priates to rip artists off".

Explain to all of slashdot, professor, what magic step 2 is.

You can do better than that...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you spell 'Mac' with a 'k' GTFO
If you use anything besides iWork as an Office suite GTFO
If you have an X-Box (360) or PS2/3 GTFO
If you don't have a picture of Steve Jobs in your wallet GTFO
If you refer to Apple as Apple Computers GTFO
If you have fewer than nine Macs in your house GTFO
If you eat any food besides blue apples GTFO

Just kidding, silly Macheads...

That's not the issue here

[Solandri]

University students are adults. Why should Ohio University - or any other nearby entity with deep pockets - step in to help them?

The issue isn't whether or not the RIAA's allegations of wrongdoing are true. That is, we're not expecting the school to defend the students in the RIAA's lawsuits. The issue is the tactic of filing mass lawsuits against people predominantly unable to pay to defend themselves in court, thus forcing them to settle regardless of their guilt or innocence. People wish the schools would use their legal resources to fight that tactic. Demand more than just a notice of infringement; demand some sort of proof, confront the student about it, and turn the student's information over only s/he can't refute the charges somehow. Initially everyone had hoped that ISPs would do this, but they rolled over and decided to play along with the RIAA to avoid any additional expense on their part. One would hope for a more moral stance from schools.

Now, it could be the school researched the allegations, and decided 98% of the students were guilty as charged. In that case they'd probably be justified in going along with the RIAA's tactic. In most of these cases however, it seems like the ISP or school is just rolling over and choosing the option that costs them the least amount of money, their customers or students be damned.

Intent is the key

[popo]

I could cut and paste a copyrighted paragraph into this post, and you'd be guilty of downloading copyrighted content right now. I'd be the uploader, you'd be the downloader. But of course, there was no "intent" to infringe copyright.

So what we need is a TiVO like system that just automatically downloads content -- some of which is pirated.

Then we'd all be able to claim lack of intent.

My two cents.

What artists?

[wytcld]

Why do you "fucking hate" a company legally protecting the rights of its represented artists?

The vast majority of signed artists make nothing from sales of recordings. It all gets eaten up by "fees" the recording companies charge them for the privilege of being recorded. The only exceptions to this are the "artists" with platinum records - who (1) still end up cheated out of much of what's due to them - note the number of lawsuits brought by name artists against their recording companies because of this, and (2) generally have so many millions due to their superstardom that royalties "lost" due to copyright infringement amount to nothing they'd ever notice missing from their accounts. The artists - all the artists - make all or at least most of their money from concerts and merchandise (e.g. t-shirts). And the more their work is heard, the greater the concert attendance and merchandise sales. So the companies are in this case protecting their artists from being heard. Yeah, that does the artists' bottom lines a huge favor!

Anything would have a better reputation

[drewness]

than the University of Ohio. It doesn't exist.

From what I can tell, the article is actually talking about Ohio University (If you look up University of Ohio on Wikipedia it redirects to Ohio University), which yes, has more of a reputation as a party school than anything, but is actually a pretty good school. Ohio State University also exists and has a similar name. I got a Bachelor's and a Master's degree there, and my department was one of the top ranked in the country in the field. (That being Linguistics, which depending on whose rankings you look at, OSU often beats MIT. Usually only Stanford or UMass is ahead.) OSU is ranked as the 19th best public university in the country, 57th best university in the country, and 66th worldwide.

I can't speak for Athens, but Columbus is a decent place to live, even in the campus area. Could be better. Could be much worse.

Also, I don't know if you noticed or not, but Blackwell got completely trounced in the last election. In fact, only one Republican won a statewide office last year in Ohio. They're fed up with the corruption.

so I went into the pawn shop

[Anonymous Coward]

(this is just some generalized ramblings, thought I would stick it here in this thread, it's ontopic but widely varied)

I wanted a used but serviceable electric drill, a simple plug in model, the old one I had had for years finally went TU. Picked one out, maybe half price of new, pay for it, go home, use it. Now, it's a black and decker, they got paid once for the drill, but nothing on the resale-should they be?

Anyway, the digital point is moot, the tech genie is out of the bottle now and in widespread use. It's our first replicator technology, folks thinking they can still charge a huge per unit markup for copies that quite literally at best only cost a few cents need to realise they have been put into the position of buggywhip makers and sellers. Sorry if that hurts their plans and all, but those are the facts. the future world is *not* going to be paying huge amounts of money for single copies of digital bits, no matter what those bits are. We still are some, but that is only from inertia. If that means 15/16th of digital bits creators go broke or have to switch to doing it for a hobby, that's life.

I'm a blue collar worker, as in hard labor worker for not a lot of money compared to the business and IT people here. I have already been told that my labor is now only worth a dollar an hour or something, because it can be reproduced in china for that sum, and society seems to think that is OK, that I have to "deal with it". It's rather an unpleasant FU from my fellow americans, but oh well, that's reality, I *have* to deal with it because there is no sympathy of note, nothing that is effective anyway, it's not really personal as another saying goes, it's just business. OK. I went from middle class to now pretty far down the pole, barely above poverty level. I get by, but that's it. Trying to do better, but working a few jobs doesn't leave a lot of time for much else.

So... you digital content creators.. you are no longer the elite either, you are at the tail end nadir of that point, and digital reproduction-replicator technology- makes your efforts quite a bit less valuable per unit then you think they should be. That's reality,. you'll have to adjust eventually. Single copies of your stuff are worth pennies, not dollars.

The handwriting, as they say, is on the wall. It won't happen overnight-cars didn't replace horses overnight either, chinese furniture didn't replace my furnbiture over night, but eventually it finally did, and with digital bits -it's happening. My only advice is adapt and change as fast as you can, prolonging it makes it worse. Jump at the high point, don't hang on except as a hobby. You may be making the big bucks now, and may for some more years, but eventually-you won't be, there's tens of millions more people a year entering the digital content "business", whether it is in the arts or sciences, and the ability to reproduce the work for pennies isn't going away. And you will NOT get much notice either, business and society doesn't work that way.

How many buggy whips have you bought lately? You have a much larger pool of workers every year all trying to sell stuff that is only worth pennies per unit, and it's beoming easier to make those copies, even cheaper than pennies, and the pool of creators is exploding. This is called a "bubble", a normal economic term.

The *only* reason you can still get dollars per unit now is inertia, but eventually that will go away, like alcohol prohibition. At first it was rigidly enforced, then eventually it was so universally ignored that they finally dropped the notion of trying to restrict technology, which after all is what booze making was, just simple chemistry. Simple chemistry and human nature doomed prohibition. Simple electronics and human nature will doom high dollars per unit digital copies of bits, laws or no laws.

You won't be able to restrict replicator technology, so the sooner you adapt to that reality and change course the faster you ca

Re:so I went into the pawn shop

[Professor_UNIX]

I have already been told that my labor is now only worth a dollar an hour or something, because it can be reproduced in china for that sum, and society seems to think that is OK, that I have to "deal with it".

But I think you'll get a fairly united response here from people that think the people working for $1/hr in Asia are being exploited by greedy corporations who continue to sell the items for the same price they did when they were paying factory workers $10 or $15 an hour. Asians are already seeing their standard of living rise up as a result of an influx in foreign capital so wages will eventually HAVE to rise unless their governments artificially keep prices low to force their society into a slave state. Eventually Asians will be making a modest fraction of what first world nations pay their employers and greedy companies will find it taking a significant portion out of their profits so they'll need to move their factories to somewhere even more impoverished... probably Africa.

Re:Intent is NOT the key

[Alter_Fritz]

of course i could be totally wrong as an alien to american law,but AFAIK from Mr. B's blog and all those pdf's and links to your copyrightlaw;

to be guilty of copyrightinfringement isn't a question of intent!

Judge can lower minimum statutory damage per infringed work to $200 instead of $750. if you had no intention, but if you infringe, you infringe no matter what state of mind you had in the act.

Counsel's Office, Not Student Legal Services

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I just want to be sure to clarify something.

The Student Legal Services office at OU, which acts as a legal adviser and representative for the students, has worked very hard to make the students aware of their rights and to help them find counsel. Unfortunately SLS's charter does not authorize it to represent the students in federal court, so it must try to obtain outside referrals for them.

It is the university's counsel's office to which Mr. Hazelbacker's letter is addressed.

Re:Counsel's Office, Not Student Legal Services

[BuhDuh]

And while we are clarifying...
One of the statements attributed to OU reads
Students who do want to use P2P for legal purposes have to call their IT department and "provide detailed information about the software you wish to use and your purposes for using it."
IANAL, but I have had occasion to research the subject for my role as Tech Support for an ISP, and
Nolo is of the opinion that
(page 2)
Under the DMCA, to avoid liability the ISP must:

* not obtain financial benefit from the infringement
* not have actual knowledge or awareness of facts indicating infringing transmissions
* upon learning of an infringing transmission, act quickly to remove or disable access to the
infringing transmission, and
* implement a policy of terminating the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers

If the above is true, OU seem to be running the risk of leaving themselves liable.

Re:Counsel's Office, Not Student Legal Services

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You're off topic. This story has nothing to do with compliance with DMCA take-down issues. Of course OU, if it's an ISP, has a duty to comply with lawful DMCA notices. The RIAA, though, usually sends defective DMCA notices.

This story is about identifying subscribers' confidential information.

Re:Intent is NOT the key

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You never heard that from me, Alter_Fritz, so please don't attribute it to my blog. The only person you've heard that from is Mr. Gabriel, the RIAA's lawyer.

Re:Intent is NOT the key

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm surprised at you, Alter_Fritz. Didn't you read the transcript of the January 26, 2007, oral argument in Elektra v. Barker, where Judge Karas lectured Mr. Gabriel on the absence of "volition".

What can constitute adequate evidence?

[rajkiran_g]

A screenshot of limewire running on the RIAA's computer showing some files being shared from some IP address? Can that be sufficient evidence? Cannot such a screenshot be artificially generated?

If I manage to capture a screenshot of the RIAA homepage containing false adverse remarks about me, can I sue them for defamation, given that it is trivial to produce such an image?

Suppose a student who is being subjected to this blackmail just reformats his hardisk, destroys any cd's he might be possessing containing any infringing material and claims he never had anything to do with any p2p downloads, what then? What evidence is there to incriminate the student?

You think that was rough

[PHAEDRU5]

Look what happened to those Duke students attacked by a ho.

Re:Intent is NOT the key

[Alter_Fritz]

yes Ray, I read the transcript back then (and also flew over it again right now) [you are talking about the transcript with the paperclip example by the judge, aren't you?].

Me not sure about your reference to absence of "volitation".
Could be a german/english syntax misunderstanding!

According to my favorite dictonary service some lawerese translation would be this
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/conditional+in tent.html
while "Intent", as I thought the parent poster was refering to it in his example, maybe translates in legalese more like
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/malice.html.

the parent posting by popo said that if he had no intent to download pirated content with his TiVO like system then he could use the defense of "be able to claim lack of intent."
And his headline claimed that intent is the key which logicly would mean if copyrightowner could not prove intent that would be popo's free ride ticket to pirated stuff.

I was refering to your blog 'cause thats where I found the links to all those PDFs and the mentioning of the titles of the laws (FRCP, FRE and Title 17 and all those stuff) It was not my http://www.dict.cc/?s=Absicht to say YOU personly told in your blog what I stated in my above comment to popo's posting. I'm sorry If we might missunderstood each other a bit here.

What I read in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html is that;
501 "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner[...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be."
No mentioning of "willfully violating" as a prerequisite to be an infringer.

And 504 (C)(2) says;
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."

Of course you as a lawyer know all that and definetly better then me.
But popo might not be aware of that, as it seems from his post that he was under the impression that he can comit copyrightinfringements "unintentionally" without being liable for statutory damages.

As I understand your law it is a "tort liability" issue which does not require intent to do something unlawful according to coyprightlaw.

If you can correct my understanding, I would be happy to learn from you.

So intent is an element of infringement?

[Xenographic]

> I'm surprised at you, Alter_Fritz. Didn't you read the transcript of the January 26, 2007, oral argument in Elektra v. Barker, where Judge Karas lectured Mr. Gabriel on the absence of "volition".

I can't seem to find that particular transcript, but my connection is a bit slow right now and my mind might be, too.

In the mean time, please educate me: I had thought that copyright law was some kind of strict liability. I.E. if you have the infringing files, you're guilty. Have I misunderstood copyright law, or mistaken one of the RIAA's suppositions for fact? I would greatly appreciate relevant guidance as to what elements are required for a finding of copyright infringement? Or is that too complex a subject? For simplicity, you can assume that we're talking about an ordinary file sharing case.

I've tried to educate myself by reading relevant legal filings, but I lack the legal training required to understand the fine nuances that make law difficult.

Re:So intent is an element of infringement?

[Alter_Fritz]

the transcript
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elek tra_barker_070126OralArgument
via
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#Ele ktra_v_Barker
or via
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007 /01/index-of-litigation-documents.html

Re:So intent is an element of infringement?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The statements of the law given by Mr. Gabriel via Alter_Fritz, and by you above, are not correct. Unfortunately, I cannot go into detail refuting them here on Slashdot, because the RIAA hasn't made such an argument, and I haven't had to refute one yet, in any court papers. Don't be surprised if it never does get briefed, and please don't repeat it to people as though it were the law unless you have actual legal authorities supporting it.

Re:So intent is an element of infringement?

[Xenographic]

Err, I didn't mean to make a statement so much as to ask a question, but I do thank you for your input. Are there any good, up-to-date resources I might use to understand this better?

I wish there were something simple that listed the elements required for a finding of copyright infringement. Or perhaps that law isn't well-settled? I mean, suing random individuals for copyright infringement is pretty novel, as, apparently, are most of the RIAA's claims.

Re:So intent is an element of infringement?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The best place to look for a debate over the substantive law issue is the case file of Elektra v. Barker. If you don't like reading legal documents, and want to read a general description of the issues, which I wrote for an entertainment lawyers' publication, check this article in Hollywood Reporter Esq.

Re:So intent is an element of infringement?

[Reziac]

[reads article] This concept of "intent to distribute" is more significant than the copyright fight. It could, by extension, become "you possess {x}, therefore you must have an intent to do {crime y normally committed using item x}.

It's rather like the argument that no one buys a handgun except to use it to kill people.

media monopolists get paid deystole from artists

[Anonymous Coward]

have to make creative titles, but these will probably get edited anyway. The idea that artists get really paid for what they do is a dangerous myth. Artists get screwed out of their rightful royalties all the time. They don't even get a chance to be published unless they sign over their rights to these monopolies. All the money that the RIAA is extorting out of kids and grandmothers supposedly for 'the artists' is really going to support extremely ostentatious lifestyles for the executives of these monopolies. Just ask any artist that will talk to you. Many will not if they want to continue to make a living as they have been routinely threatened by the 'men in black' of the industry. It's 'omerta', squeal and your career is rubbed out...capeach!

so what

[Anonymous Coward]

so what if the universities are turning their back on students who are stealing royalties from the artists by violating copyright laws. I look at it this way, since the universities will punished students out for plagiarism then it would be wrong if they did not let students get punished for illegally downloading music. I have no pity for those students - especially since they have been warned.

Dumb question...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but why should the university feel obligated to provide legal assistance to individual students when they break the law?

That's right - they shouldn't. If a student breaks the law, let them pay for a lawyer themselves. Can't afford one? Well, you shoulda thought about that before becoming a pirate. Retard.

Actually, they're right

[tkrotchko]

"they have difficulty understanding why the music business can't work like open-source."

No, there are actually several viable ways the music "industry" could prosper and artists thrive. Almost none of them involve the companies that make up the RIAA.

The irony of the push by the RIAA to get royalties every time a record is played is that it will accelerate their own demise. But they seem content to kill their own future, as long as they get more money this year. But the music business has always been that way: greedy men who can't see much past the profits from this month. It was true with player piano rolls, sheet music, vinyl, CD's, DAT, SCMS and of course with the internet and electronic download.

For them to try to build for the future would indicate a method of thinking that they haven't displayed in 150+ years. Why would this be any different?

Re:Actually, they're right

[gsslay]

No, there are actually several viable ways the music "industry" could prosper and artists thrive.

Of course there is. But they all rather rely on the entire music industry operating to a different economic model than any other industry in the capitalist society about it. And that includes radio stations. Too many people seem to think that access to music is a right, particularly other people's music, therefore the music industry has an obligation to maximize its output rather that maximize its profits, unlike any other industry. It simply won't work, the music companies not playing to the same rules get ripped off and squeezed out of existence by those around it.

But the music business has always been that way: greedy men who can't see much past the profits from this month.

I think you underestimate them. The music business is led by business people like any other. What they're doing is no different from what any other industry would do in the same position. They are trying to stake out their position in the market because if they don't, recent history would suggest that their business would be eroded away to nothing, by both legal and illegal means. This is why the gloves are off and the fighting has gotten dirty. Vigorous defence of copyright, and prosecution of those who infringe it, is the only recourse they have.

Besides, you don't honestly think that if the music industry totally changed its ways it would stop people attempting to obtain music without payment? No matter what, two things will never change. Firstly the people who produce the music have more right than anyone to exploit all potential profit from it. If that means still earning royalties from it through radio adverts 40 years on, then so be it. If you can produce music with that kind of lasting appeal then you deserve to be able to retire on it. Secondly, other people will always try to avoid being the ones to provide the payment, and will always have a good excuse to try to make it sound reasonable.

Re:Actually, they're right

[tkrotchko]

"Besides, you don't honestly think that if the music industry totally changed its ways it would stop people attempting to obtain music without payment?"

No, I don't, but they don't need to stop everybody. They only need to stop enough to make a profit (which, by the way, they already do). The crusade against copying music over the internet is not a moral crusade, it's a financial crusade. It's not like the head of Sony/BMG or EMI feels personally violated by people downloading music. It's just shrinkage losses, and one they're trying to control. I wish them well with that.

I personally don't care if they screw the radio stations out of royalty money (or vice-versa), but my point is that the record companies are raising the barrier to entry for themselves to reach listeners while making it financially more enticing for artists to avoid the RIAA backed companies and either do business on their own or via companies that don't demand as much. Yea, sure, they'll make a killing this year. But as you point out, nobody wants to pay for the music, including radio stations, so they'll make deals another way cutting the RIAA out of the loop next year. And radio is all the RIAA has left at this point, unless they're planning on making a living off of Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel rehashes for the next 40 years.

What the business is waiting for is for someone to show them the way, and perhaps it will take a little desperation for that to happen. Kinda like EMI is desperate enough to remove the DRM. I think that time is coming. And soon.

Or...

[thoughtlover]

the universities could all charge a new fee to pay for extended legal service.

I'm sure a majority of the students are sharing mostly copyrighted material, but the university shouldn't assume their students are guilty and just bend over to corporate thugs. After all, the RIAA has been extorting the public by keeping the price of CDs artificially high since their introduction in the mid-1980s. I remember way back in 1984 a salesman giving an in-store demo, stepping on a CD and rubbing it into the carpet, saying that they were near-indestructible and would cost a few dollars once they were as popular as cassette tapes. LIARS!

Well, I did take care of that first CD I bought and have it to this day (R.E.M. - Murmur), but new CDs still cost the same as they did then.

Ohio University, not University of Ohio

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "University of Ohio". No such entity exists. The university is called "Ohio University" and nothing else.

Thank you!

[Xenographic]

Thanks!

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to something like this buried under an old thread. There are so many cases now on your litigation page, though, I can barely keep any of them straight at this point. But that's a good thing, I suppose--it must mean that more people are choosing to litigate instead of entering into unfair settlements. Though I still wish the RIAA would just stop the campaign entirely.

Re:Thank you!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks! I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to something like this buried under an old thread. There are so many cases now on your litigation page, though, I can barely keep any of them straight at this point. But that's a good thing, I suppose--it must mean that more people are choosing to litigate instead of entering into unfair settlements. Though I still wish the RIAA would just stop the campaign entirely. Yes it is a good thing that there are more people fighting back, and more lawyers jumping into the fight.

And yes I too wish they'd stop this reign of terror. It's definitely work I wish I didn't have.

Article on Forensics

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I don't know where to contact you but you appear to read replies to your posts and this is the most recent one, so I'll put this here:

CIO Article on anti-forensic tools

I figure it may be of use if you need to further challenge the "expert" testimony of that one fellow. I'd have posted it on Blogspot, but you have anonymous comments disabled and I don't have a Blogspot account. Hope this helps!