Slashdot Mirror
University of Washington Will Aid RIAA
Several readers let us know that the University of Washington has announced that it will pass on RIAA settlement offer letters to students identified, presumably by IP address, as suspected file sharers. "The notices say offending students have 20 days to settle with the association by paying it about $3,000 to $5,000 or be taken to court without possibility of a settlement." The Vice Provost for Student Life sent an email to all students saying, "The University has been notified by the RIAA that we will be receiving a number of these early settlement letters. After careful consideration, we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged copyright violators."
Most universities will do this sort of thing, forwarding along the letters so that the students have an inkling of what's going on if/when they get their subpoena.
Those of you calling colleges "spineless", would you rather the kids were blindsided by the legal system instead?
--saint
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Actually the students are the ones paying for it with their insanely high tuition rates. They pay more for that access than John Q Public pays for their broadband.
No students = No Money = No School = No Bandwidth.
Schools should have a backbone and tell the RIAA to fuck off. After all the RIAA wont sue something that has money and resources to dedicate to a fight like a school or big company (like schools or the RIAA)
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
So its pretty clear that going after individual copyright violaters is looked down upon on slashdot. I also remember back when napster was big everyone on here was upset that they were getting sued because they werent actually breaking the law, it was just the individual users.
So is it just one group who thinks that indivuals shouldnt be sued and a different group who thinks that the companies should be immune? How should the RIAA protect its intellectual property rights? Is it just a fundamental belief on here that copyright holders should have no recourse against violaters?
I don't think anyone on Slashdot is against the RIAA going after copyright violators it's just how they are going about doing it that bothers people. The RIAA is exploiting the ignorance of the justice system in order to get what it wants. Also, they seem to mostly go after those who lack the ability to adequately defend themselves. Then when someone does try to defend themselves the RIAA tries to have the case dismissed.
The RIAA has shown time and time again that their methodology to figure out who is infringing on copyright is flawed at best. I would have no problem with them going after someone if they brought more to the table than just a screenshot with an IP address or at least were held more accountable for when they are wrong. Their so called expert was anything but and they have sued dead people, minors, and those who have never even owned a computer.
Going after college students is just another extension of this. Lets say the RIAA sends some random IP addresses that they know are in use to a university. These are college students, relatively up on todays technology, what do you think is the probability that they will have one or more songs that the RIAA says they have allegedly downloaded? Pretty darn high you think? And if they don't have all of the songs they just say that they deleted them. Just because they have the songs doesn't mean they downloaded/uploaded them from/to a P2P network. Maybe they made a digital copy of a CD they own. So while you ask how can the RIAA protect its property rights I ask how do I protect my rights?
by Microsoft. Of course they'll play along. Otherwise it's biting the hand that feeds them.
Perhaps this is a good lesson about the perils of privatized funding?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
You are kidding right.
The University of Washington is heavily subsidized by the government. The students aren't paying for bandwidth, taxpayers are paying for bandwidth, and I can guarantee you that they aren't paying for the bandwidth so that college students can distribute the latest pop albums.
Besides, why precisely should the schools get tangled up with the RIAA. The University of Washington has copyrighted material that it wants protected, why should it aid students in distributing someone else's copyrighted materials illegally? I can't believe that *all* Universities, or at least all public Universities, don't do the same thing. When you consider the wasted bandwidth, and the increased likelihood of viruses and other malware that invariably follow online filesharing it is a wonder that this isn't the status quo.
I don't like the RIAA either, but I protest by not listening to its copyrighted material, not by trying to make their material even more popular by distributing its wares.
Given that a typical college student has zero cash to spare for a settlement, let alone to fight back and proclaim their innocence if they do get accidentally snagged? It's a disaster waiting to happen, and woe betide any Uni who not only finds that an innocent student was hit, but that said student fights back... because now (IIRC) the RIAA and UW may wind up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. (Unless the Uni would be willing to help defend any provable innocent students who accidentally get targeted).
* yes, I said notoriously insecure. When one can literally sit across the street from a major university in Utah (I won't mention which) with a Pringles Can rig and get full Internet access in no time flat, it can't be secure... and odds are VERY good that they aren't alone in having such gaping holes in their network.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Your right they should not be pirating but do they deserve to get what the RIAA is going to do? Do we as a society chose to chop off a hand of a thief? No way. Do we as a society want to punish extremely harshly for what is a small crime? No way.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
> I simply would not be on the campus network unless the school provided privacy
... well, that'd be problematic, to say the least.
> to its users.
This is hard to do. I used to work for a university - they didn't habitually identify users, but for various purposes (hacked computers, viruses, people running misconfigured DHCP servers, finding stolen computers, broken equipment), we needed to be able to identify, at least, where a computer is physically on campus.
In order to do this, we used a number of techniques. If a computer is plugged in to the LAN, then we could see its MAC address. There was a database of which switchport goes to which wall jack and where that jack is. Many times, this is a dorm room - and at that point, it's pretty easy to ID the user, if necessary. Most of the time we didn't - we'd instead filter their MAC so that when they tried to use the internet they'd get a notice (i.e., 'You have a virus. Please reformat your computer.').
But for those times when it was necessary, if we couldn't pin it down by room, we also had a tool which would keep records of where people logged in to common campus servers from. If you're claiming that that MAC isn't yours and we could see that you'd logged into the mail server daily from there
I'm all for universities protecting their students privacy - but in order to keep everything running, certain measures need to be in place. Sorry.
Let's say Focus on the Family writes a series of letters to the University accusing a "John Doe" embryonic stem cell researcher at the university of violating federal restrictions on the creation of new lines. Mind you, they've shown no real material information that any individual has violated the law, just blanket accusations with flimsy identifying information.
They say to the University "give us personal information on every human embryonic stem cell researcher at the University or we'll subpoena that information."
The University replies: "Well, we can't roll over that easily. Send us letters demanding that the recipient contact you or suffer severe legal concequences, and we'll forward them to everyone working on human embryonic stem cells here. Then you'll get your identifying information, and we'll be off the hook."
Let's be clear about what's being done here. From the original e-mail:
Whether the University is directly identifying students to the RIAA or indirectly does so by sending the students a letter directing them to contact the RIAA, the net result is the same.
Do people not understand why academic institutions MUST behave differently than this?
What if the coal industry threw letters at climatologists?
What if the junk food industry thew letters at obesity researchers?
The University has access to a massive collection of very personal information, including detailed financial, academic and medical records. It is essential for the primary mission of the University to protect its members against angered outside forces. Without this commitment to protect academics, we'll never be able to get honest answers to questions.
The proper course was to:
1. Not save identifying information in the first place
2. Tell the RIAA to come back with their own damn identifying information.
3. Send letters instructing students to not self-incriminate themselves
4. Provide proper legal services than (borderline negligent) legal advice to settle to any and all demands.
In a world where the ability to eat, get basic health care and work (since the before 2 are not rights, this logically should be....) aren't rights, I fail to see why an artificial monopoly on distribution of ideas should be one.
It's clear to anyone with half a brain copyright doesn't exist to "support art and sciences." Why does it exist? It generates profit. Artificial profit, that is. There are not really good being transfered, just money shuffled around and "rights" to use information granted.
The reason this exists? Taxes and control. Moving money = taxes = guns = power = moving money. It's the system modern society is built around. The more null-goods a state can provide, the more power it gets. If governments realize this or not is not clear, but I would be willing to bet some people in the US government get it.
Call me a tin-foil-hat, but this isn't much more a conspiracy theory than "the government is full of *IAA bribed politicians!" and I'd bet a lot more accurate...
Great Intellect...
Obviously, I can't speak for everyone here -- but my own belief is that government went wrong when they first started treating these infringement cases as *criminal* vs. *civil* matters.
.... not relatively "fluffy and intangible" losses due to intellectual property "violations"!
There's NO reason an association the size of the RIAA really needs the government's assistance to get "justice" against infringements on the musical works they hold rights to. The people sharing these songs via p2p, web pages, ftp, or any other electronic method are doing so without any financial compensation whatsoever.
Every time they pursue one of these cases in criminal courts of law, they cost the American taxpayer large amounts of money, using the time of prosecutors, appointed judges, etc. They *could*, of course, opt to "do the right thing" and go after these individuals in strictly civil cases. But that would put the effort squarely on them to build their cases - rather than relying on "boilerplate" complaints and standardized tables of penalties/punishments for criminal copyright infringement that federal courts already devised.
Criminal prosecution should really be reserved for tangible crimes against persons and property
My belief is, if businesses and individuals had to resort to civil remedies for these violations, we'd see much more reasonable and logical outcomes. (EG. A starving college student sharing copies of his/her purchased collection of CDs wouldn't be pressured to "pay back" tens of THOUSANDS of dollars for doing so. Instead, you might see the punishment actually fit the "crime". They might be charged a few hundred bucks, making them rethink how wise it was to offer copyrighted musical works to any and all takers, free of charge. People wouldn't be rushing to condemn the RIAA like they do now, if THIS was the norm.)
Yes they would, strictly speaking. The RIAA has apparently very little concern for whether or not it hits actual copyright infringers, and everyone it hits still has to show up in court and in the press, or settle out of court for an amount of money they very probably don't have to spare.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Its a trap. Don't fall for it. The RIAA has no legal recourse since they don't actually own the rights to the intellectual property. By deciding to comply and pay the RIAA, you do NOT receive protection from being sued by the actual intellectual property owner. Ergo, if you pay, the RIAA will turnover any relevant information to the appropriate owners who may then file suit against you. This is all a ploy to get you to confess that you've done something wrong and provide them with the information they need to ensure that you lose any subsequent cases.
OK, those are fair questions. Note that I am only responding to the points you phrased as questions, I am not trying to dodge the other ones.
"- Even in the worst case scenario - that the downloader and everyone they uploaded to are truly stealing the content (morally wrong), the suits they are bringing are orders of magnitude greater than the theft committed. $3k-$5k out-of-court settlements are nearly universal; tet most people will not upload much more than the amount they downloaded, and even in extreme cases not more than several times what they downloaded. So, if they downloaded a music CD worth $15, they have (assuming all parties are stealing) stolen (or willingly facilitated stealing) 2x-5x that (5x is a bit arbitrary), or $30-$75. Even at the high end of theft ($75) and low end of damages ($3k), that is *40 times* the value of that which was stolen; the other way around ($30 and $5k), it's almost 200 times the value. Can you honestly tell me that you support that? "
I think its reasonable because 75 dollars is not an effective deterrent. If you shoplift a purse from a department store and the penalty is you have to pay whatever the purse is worth it seems kind of pointless doesnt it? Damages should be high enough to deter people from committing the crime, this is a principle that is often espoused by members of our legal system.
"- The RIAA has been using legal but immoral tactics to bring these cases. Most commonly, the RIAA picks people who they believe do not have the resources to defend against the suit, making the outcome the same, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent (and short-circuiting the justice system entirely): they have to settle, because they can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves (and if they do hire a lawyer, the RIAA lets them accumulate a sizable bill, then drops the case, so the people will usually have to pay more than the settlement would have been). This is done to build fear by maintaining a perfect prosecution record, to discourage others from sharing files or hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. I know of not a single case the RIAA has won - that is, the case has gone to verdict and the verdict was in their favor; if you know of a single case, click "reply" and link to it, right now. And because they drop cases once it becomes obvious they cannot win them, they have just the same never suffered a loss (though that tide appears to be slowly turning). They care so much about their perfect record that they will continue suits against people who they either knew from the beginning or learned during the trial are innocent, because dropping the case would show that they don't have absolute power, and diminish the fear they seek to create. Do you support each and every one of these methods? "
You claim that they go after people who cant afford to defend themselves, but I think it has been well established that they have no idea who they are going after when they first send out their letters. I am not entirely certain that your claim that they continue to pursue cases they know are erroneous is correct. If it is, then no of course I do not support that. But I do believe they have every right to pursue the basic idea of sueing people who unlawfully distribute their music.
All this being said, I am not a huge fan of the RIAA in general. I think it is regrettable that the success of an artist is primarily determined by getting 'signed' by a label. But copyrights are basically a good thing, and is your copyright is being violated then I do believe you should have legal recourse. And that should not be revoked just because it is happening on a large scale or because your company is less popular. And frankly, everyone who makes their living by producing copyrighted material (Like me, I am a software engineer) is benefiting from the RIAA's actions, whether they want to recognize it or not.
"I have the right to find out who you are and confront you about it."
No, you do not. You have to right to say whatever you want in response. Just because I say something does not give you the right to determine who I am through any means that would otherwise be unlawful.
The "easy way out" remark was made because the UW is giving into the RIAA which is using questionably unlawful means to obtain information about UW's students. It is not unreasonable to expect the college to protect your rights when someone is trying to violate them through the college itself.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Actually, they have the most to lose, because they will almost certainly lose the little they have.
Middle class people have something to lose, but most live little better than paycheck-2-paycheck. Very few have savings. Most are already heavily in debt.Another few thousand of debt could easily be enough to relegate them to lower class status.
The upper class have much to lose, but have no real reason to fight. Better to write a check and do away with the whole mess than to pay a lawyer.They have the least to lose, so they eat the loss and go on their merry way.
Those who have little, treasure what little they have more than any other.