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."
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 ...
The RIAA only cares about popular "artists", after all...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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.
File Deletion is Murder.
In other news... enrollment drops at the University of Ohio.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
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?
University students are adults. Why should Ohio University - or any other nearby entity with deep pockets - step in to help them?
I always mod up spelling trolls.
Correction: The school referred to in the story is called "Ohio University," not "University of Ohio."
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.
Don't buy new albums, and don't download their albums. Try it for a year. You should be able to survive that long.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Almost as if the university is responsible for the students behaviour. Aren't people responsible for their own actions these days?
Deleted
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).
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.
That's the point. At the least, they can make it more difficult for pirates to rip artists off.
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?
"Sufferin' succotash."
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?
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.
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?
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.
Le français vous intéresse?
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.
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?
"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.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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.
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).
"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!
(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
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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?
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
FYI to everyone in this thread, do at least 30 seconds of research before spouting off about something you are not an expert in.
u sc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html
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/
"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