Slashdot Mirror
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."
The RIAA only cares about popular "artists", after all...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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?
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.
> 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.
Now, what's funny is that all those emotional buzzwords ignore that these students were caught illegally ripping artists off.
... a documented history, mind you, of making blanket accusations, and many of ... as in they accused individuals who were proven to be innocent (which
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
those accusations have been shown to be wholly erroneous
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?
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:_ file_sharing#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_efforts_against
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)
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.
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).
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"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?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you