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."
do they really expect says to go up.
Or is the lawsuit tactic the new sales method.
And I thought the University of Washington had a pair. :(
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
Would that mean most if any students that are allegedly copying music will have to pay $150K for each infringement? Looks like there will be some students that will have to pay for the rest of their lives over copying music.
<sarcasm> Isn't it wonderful our courts are trying the real criminals instead of the murderers?</sarcasm>
...free speech, protect our rights and the war protests at the UW. Ii sort of saddens me to see the management, who must have been in those protests, now lookig for the easy way out. How times have changed.
that they identified the correct students? If I were a student who is struggling just to pay tuition and rent, I'd panic. And if the University misidentifies a wrong student, then is it liable for harm done to the student? This seem highly irresponsible to me.
[Would that mean any students that are allegedly copying music will have to pay $150K for each infringement?]
*note to self, don't talk on the phone while posting on Slashdot*
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
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?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I've noticed that articles in the YRO category lately aren't what articles in this category used to mean. ... I think many articles in YRO are misplaced.
"Your right to due process when sued over allegations of illegal online activity" doesn't qualify?
Maybe you need to adjust your filters.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Or perhaps the folks at the University of Washington simply don't feel comfortable using their network as a haven for illegal filesharing. Seriously, if it was my network I would do the same thing. I'd send out a flier to all of the students telling them that the University would cooperate with the RIAA and then I'd watch network utilization drop. There will be some students that are so ridiculously retarded that they continue to use the university network to distribute files on unencrypted networks, but they aren't likely to be the sort of folks that you want graduating from your institution anyhow. No screening process is perfect, and this simply adds one more failsafe in the UW's screen processing. Think of it as one of those signs keeping small children off of rides ad Disneyland.
You must be at least this smart to graduate from the U of W.
I can sort of understand why it is that the ISPs shield their customers. After all, downloading illegal content is one of the primary draws of broadband connections. To a certain extent ISPs profit off of illegal filesharing. Universities, on the other hand, aren't selling bandwidth, but are instead paying for it.
Don't get me wrong, I personally think the RIAA is evil. However, I don't think that distributing the RIAA's copyrighted material illegally is the best use of the University of Washington's resources, or even the best way to bring down the RIAA.
Why can't you share like crazy, take out student loans, get sued, and then declare bankruptcy to clean the slate?
Leaving school, having a student loan expempt from bankruptcy, having a bankrubtcy on the books, and looking for employment is hardly having a clean slate.
Leaving school and going underground with a stolen identity is more likely. It's no way to live life. Either way, they win. They destroyed your future.
The chilling effects is if I were attending school, I simply would not be on the campus network unless the school provided privacy to its users. Positive ID logging of all users is a privacy issue.
Many places I can get internet without a login. I would use them instead.
The truth shall set you free!
This is possibly one of those cases where "funding" from Microsoft becomes a two-edged sword. Don't bite the hand that feeds. (Assuming for a moment that they do get some MS dollars...)
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This is getting to be a good number of institutions. Anybody know of a list of the good and the bad universities, as a cheat sheet of where to send our business/employment applications?
.. transfer while you still can.
_Vishal www.squad9.com
With the advent of Tanya Anderson counter-sueing the RIAA and Safenet, couldn't this just result in n more counter-sueings?
what would happen if half or more of the university students suddenly decided to withhold from paying their tuition? I mean, if there is 1% withholding, they university kicks them out. But half or more? It would kill them. It is certainly a lot better than burning down a building like was done in the 'nam days.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean the RIAA needs to force the kids to pay thousands of dollars (nowhere near the value of the music) ...
Back in the print days the chance of catching any particular copyright violator were pretty slim (much like today). In compensation, congress set the penalties at draconian levels, so they would serve as a deterrent despite the low chance of getting caught.
The issue with the RIAA is not that they're playing whack-a-mole with a big hammer. The issue is that their aim is bad and when they've stunned an innocent rabbit or squirrel they keep on hitting until it's a road-waffle.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
an IP address does not identify a person.
They need to have evidences of a specific person committing a crime.
Sadly, there due diligences has been somewhat...lacking.
You ahve evidence os a spicific person ciolating copyright, by all means have law enforcement serve a warrent...oh wait, they don't do that? hmm wonder why? COuld it be that law enforcement might need..say evidence? Evidences the RIAA can not provide? why I believe it is!
So the extort people for 3-5Gs with the threat of 'it will be worse for you if you don't.'
and THAT my friend is what is pissing off a lot of people on Slashdot.
They should also only go after distributors, because it is not reasonable for the consumer to know the details of the person distributing.
Example: Lets say it is found out the Sony broke he law when the made the PS2. They get convicted, do they go after the people who bought PS2s? no.
Before someone replies with the same Jackassary comparison that gets used in these discussions, NO it's not the same as drugs because they are illegal to have, where as music isn't.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Given that buying knives is illegal[1], I'd rather the colleges assisted law enforcement in catching the assmunches pushing up prices for all legitimate customers who actually pay for their kitchen utensils. But that's just me, and I know no one on Slashdot will agree. [1] Please, no one be an ass and point out legal knife uses. You know that's a fraction of knife usage and not what I'm referring to.
http://students.washington.edu/tor528/full_letter. html
If I think something is funny, I will probably mod it +1 Insightful. "It's funny because it's true."
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.
They are not giving the students names to the RIAA, just letting them know the RIAA intends to file suit if they dont settle now. They are actually giving those receiving these notices time to find representation and legal help.
Not true.
They are aiding the RIAA in their extortion scheme by forwarding the extortion letters, when they do not need to do so.
As with any other ISP, if they don't forward the letters when asked, the RIAA's next step is to file the John Doe suit, subpoena the records, and obtain the names. The step following that on the RIAA's playbill is to DROP THE JOHN DOE SUIT AND SEND THE LETTER.
The RIAA doesn't want to sue unless they must. Especially in the case of college students, many of which are bankrolled by a deep-pockets family with connections and access to high-powered attorneys. Instead they want to try intimidation first, collect their N grand, and move on.
The UW is not heading off surprise suits of the students. It's just accelerating the timetable on the RIAA's extortion scheme.
If anything it's increasing the risk of a surprise suit. If a student doesn't get the letter or loses it without responding, the RIAA now has reason to believe it was forwarded and deliberately ignored - but doesn't have the student's name. At that point they need to file the John Doe suit to get the name - after which it makes sense for them to immediately pursue the suit rather than dropping it and sending another letter directly to the student.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
They stole the music ? You mean the original copyright holders can't listen to their own songs anymore ? Man, that's just criminal. I guess the rest of us can't listen anymore either, if it's already been stolen. Damn. I'll miss Britney Spears.
For anyone who's interested, here is the e-mail the UW sent out: Dear Student: I am writing to inform you of a development that could become a serious issue for some of our students--the law governing downloading and sharing of music and video from the internet. Under copyright law, it is illegal to download or share copyrighted materials such as music or movies without the permission of the copyright owner. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in recent years has taken an aggressive approach to stopping this illegal downloading and file sharing. This has put many students at the nation's colleges and universities at some legal risk. I write first to caution you against illegally downloading or sharing files. Your actions when you do so are traceable and could result in a significant financial penalty to you. Second, I want to inform you about a new process the RIAA has initiated and the University's role in this process. The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from the internet and requesting the university to identify the individual student and forward the letter to him or her. The letter, called an "Early Settlement Letter" notifies the student that he or she has 20 days to settle with the RIAA by going to a designated website, entering identifying information, and paying a set amount, usually between $3,000 and $5,000, but sometimes considerably more. If the recipient chooses not to settle, the RIAA will file a lawsuit and the offer to settle for the amount stipulated is no longer an option. 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. We do so primarily because we believe students should have the opportunity to avail themselves of the settlement option if they so choose. Not forwarding the RIAA letter to students could result in their being served with a lawsuit, with no chance to settle it beforehand. The University is unable to provide legal services to students who have violated copyright law through illegal downloading or sharing. If you receive a letter from the RIAA, we encourage you to engage a personal attorney. If you have questions, please let us know. We know how tempting it is to download music or movies and share files with your friends. But you need to know that it is illegal to do so and that the consequences can be severe. Please inform yourself of the requirements of the law and please obey it. Otherwise, it may prove costly for you and your family.
Add the University of Arkansas to that list. They are doing it here as well.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
This surely will make the school's enrollment climb just like these lawsuits have helped the recording industry with their sales. I wish well the U of W with their newfounded strategy for prosperity and growth.
DEAD U WALKING.
So the parent is impassioned and hyperbolic. That doesn't make him a troll.
Not to mention that I'm pretty sure that all the people who donate money to the school for grants, etc., would prefer to see their money actually benefiting eductation rather than funding the university's pissing match with the RIAA. Is copyright violation theft in the same sense as stealing a tangible asset, not really, but should it be illegal, definately. I have no problem at all with U-Dub forwarding these letters to the offending student providing that appropriate processes are followed - the sooner that people learn that their actions have consequences, the better.
A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
> 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.
How the RIAA Alienates Customers
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
At my school, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, MAC spoofing was rather common. The reason for this was that university housing gave us 10mbps links, but only allowed us to transfer (up+down) 750MB per floating 24hr window without our bandwidth becoming significantly reduced (That's 10 to 15 minutes of full pipe transfer, FYI). Details here. Of course, this limiting was tied to MAC Address, as each room only had one port to the router. So to circumvent the limiting, people would look up MAC addresses and IPs on the network and spoof their network card to them. This caused weird things to happen when two computers with the same IP and MAC are on the same network, but in essence you could steal someone else's bandwidth. With such a practice in use, how can they possibly say that one person or another was the person that IP+MAC combo belonged to? They have records of what room the MAC was in use in when, but how can they be sure that it wasn't your roommate spoofing your MAC address?
Because declaring bankruptcy doesn't absolve you have federally subsidized student loans.
a page out of Duke University's book, "tell the students that they have the power to make change, but if it breaks then law, they you're F*&^$#". Diming out the students to serve "THE MAN"...and he is Billy Gates and his loyal minions of technocrats and byatches.
"PowerPoint Sucks!" Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
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.)
... the sooner that people learn that their actions have consequences, the better.
... that also applies to the RIAA.
Of course
Not that lawyers of that stripe qualify as "people", exactly.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
http://www.campchaos.com/blog-archives/2006/05/nap ster_bad_good_or_goblin.html
I guess it's time for someone to assembly a list of pro and anti-RIAA American Universities. In a few years, if not months, it's going to become a major factor for anyone selecting which University to attend.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Colleges are supposed to act in place of the parents. Parents do not turn their children over to ruthless commercial entities, but they do stop them from doing illegal and/or stupid things. Perhaps it is the queenie, individualist attitude of Americans that prevented colleges from stopping the student file-sharing epidemic, and resulted in these students now facing the consequences of their actions?
Either way, it's dumb as bricks.
Anti-Globalism
Bankruptcy doesn't clean the slate.
You'll be damn lucky if you can escape repayment of the student loan - damn lucky if you haven't exposed yourself to a criminal charge somewhere along the way.
But the civil judgment will stick to you forever. That much I guarantee.
That was hardly my point. It is not the university's responsibility to get involved in this, and those who are involved can't get angry at the university for forwarding the letters. Those who did the actions should take responsibility and blame themselves, not the university for being a pushover.
University of California campuses are subsidized by California. However, we still pay for our bandwidth with our HOUSING costs. I've actually read the budget, have you? I'm sure University of Washington is about the same. Maybe if they used their Computer Labs to download illegal content (which, btw, I think would be a minority) that's subsidized. But ten to one odds the majority of these letters will go to students living in Campus Housing where THEY pay the costs (or their parents, if you want to nitpick).
Even worse, someone stole Paris Hilton's get out of jail photos and now no-one else can view them...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Exactly what is "careful consideration"? -- CYA?
My wife had to declare bankruptcy after we got married - her ex couldn't file taxes or pay student loans to save his freaking life. When she has the case heard, her student loans were not part of the settlement, so she ended up paying them off after about five years of working with the holders of the loans. Student loans are like a bad cars of the clap - you don't get rid of it until you get it taken care of.
"PowerPoint Sucks!" Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
1. What should Intellectual Property be?
2. How should IP be defended?
If you define IP to be the same as real property (permanent ownership, right of resale, "region free", etc), then it should be defended as such. Theft requires evidence of suspicion that the thief is in possession, which leads to a warrant from a judge, which the police then use to seize evidence used to arrest and convict the thief. Jail time with financial penalties in line with the property loss.
If you define IP to be something less than real property (temporary ownership, license to use, zero cost of duplication), then you can lower the standard (and penalty) for theft. Everyone is pretty much agreed that "property" in World of Warcraft has some value, but it is minimal. Theft of such property is unlikely to bring involvement by the police or legal system, the operators are free to police themselves.
Draw a line between these two and pick a point on it. The problem is the *IAA has been trying to define IP so they get all the benefits of real property, but give purchasers only the rights of virtual property. Yes there should be enforcement and penalties, but they should fit the crime. The *IAA needs to first define the crime in a manner which makes sense compared to completely real and completely virtual property. Not use a definition which cherry picks the best and worst aspects of both so that it favors them in all cases. When they do that, people will get upset no matter how they try to defend themselves -- because depending on which of their definitions of IP you use, you will always be justified in saying that their defense is unjustified.
I recall a story about a university not backing up the students, but backing up the economical system instead. It was the university depicted in the movie "Scent of a woman".
Here's a part of the speech that Lt. Col. Frank Slade gave to the audience at the end of the movie, and let's see if the words apply to universities today.
(Source: American Rhetoric)
Slade: Mr. Sims doesn't want it. He doesn't need to labeled: "Still worthy of being a 'Baird Man.'" What the hell is that? What is your motto here? "Boys, inform on your classmates, save your hide" -- anything short of that we're gonna burn you at the stake? Well, gentlemen, when the shit hits the fan some guys run and some guys stay. Here's Charlie facing the fire; and there's George hidin' in big Daddy's pocket. And what are you doin'? You're gonna reward George and destroy Charlie.
Trask: Are you finished, Mr. Slade?
Slade: No, I'm just gettin' warmed up. I don't know who went to this place, William Howard Taft, William Jennings Bryan, William Tell -- whoever. Their spirit is dead -- if they ever had one -- it's gone. You're building a rat ship here. A vessel for sea goin' snitches. And if you think your preparing these minnows for manhood you better think again. Because I say you are killing the very spirit this institution proclaims it instills! What a sham. What kind of a show are you guys puttin' on here today. I mean, the only class in this act is sittin' next to me. And I'm here to tell ya this boy's soul is intact. It's non-negotiable. You know how I know? Someone here -- and I'm not gonna say who -- offered to buy it. Only Charlie here wasn't sellin'.
Trask: Sir, you are out of order!
Slade: Outta order? I'll show you outta order! You don't know what outta order is, Mr. Trask! I'd show you but I'm too old; I'm too tired; I'm too fuckin' blind. If I were the man I was five years ago I'd take a FLAME-THROWER to this place! Outta order. Who the hell you think you're talkin' to? I've been around, you know? There was a time I could see. And I have seen boys like these, younger than these, their arms torn out, their legs ripped off. But there isn't nothin' like the sight of an amputated spirit; there is no prosthetic for that. You think you're merely sendin' this splendid foot-soldier back home to Oregon with his tail between his legs, but I say you are executin' his SOUL!! And why?! Because he's not a Baird man! Baird men, ya hurt this boy, you're going to be Baird Bums, the lot of ya. And Harry, Jimmy, Trent, wherever you are out there, FUCK YOU too!
Mr. Trask: Stand down, Mr. Slade!
Slade: I'm not finished! As I came in here, I heard those words, "cradle of leadership." Well, when the bow breaks, the cradle will fall. And it has fallen here; it has fallen. Makers of men; creators of leaders; be careful what kind of leaders you're producin' here. I don't know if Charlie's silence here today is right or wrong.
I'm not a judge or jury. But I can tell you this: he won't sell anybody out to buy his future!! And that, my friends, is called integrity! That's called courage! Now that's the stuff leaders should be made of. Now I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard. Now here's Charlie. He's come to the crossroads. He has chosen a path. It's the right path. It's a path made of principle -- that leads to character. Let him continue on his journey.
You hold this boy's future in your hands, committee. It's a valuable future. Believe me. Don't destroy it! Protect it. Embrace it. It's gonna make ya proud one day -- I promise you.
Makes you think, doesn't it... Is the University of Washinton is just like "George hidin' in big Daddy's pocket"?
You decide.
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.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8870/U+of+Washington+ to+Help+the+RIAA+Sue+Students
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I hate to wake you up back into the real world, but a lawsuit is a civil rememdy, not a criminal proceeding.
The copyright cartels have purchased themselves a bunch of laws and the courts (civil and criminal) are forced to follow them.
No, the ultimate reason all this is a problem to begin with is that civil proceedings have a very different (much more lax) set of requirements than criminal proceedings do. As far as I'm concerned, if you file suit against someone else, you should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is guilty of what you charge them with just like you would if they were being charged with a crime. The reason, of course, is that in both cases (civil and criminal), government powers of coercion are being used against the target.
There also need to be serious penalties for abuse of the legal system, over and above much stricter proof requirements. Something like the initiator of a suit paying serious damages to the target if the initiator can't prove his case would work, so long as the damage was capped to something the initiator could reasonably afford to pay (and no, putting the initiator in debt for life doesn't count as "reasonable").
The U.S. is so far gone in so many ways that it hurts to think about it. :-(
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
As a student at the UW, this is very disturbing. Housing is tight and almost all rooms are doubles or triples. For sure they can identify which room an IP address is assigned to, but to identify which person in the room was using the connection... There's not a separate port by each bed/desk to identify each resident uniquely; and in some halls there is only one plug. There's pretty much no way without having physical access to the computers or making the students register their MAC address to know which person in the room was making the connection. The only way I can see the RIAA implementing this would be to either send notices to all residents in the room, or by picking randomly. Either case, this is bad for the university and I'm sure there will be some angry students next year.
Purdue did this last semester.
You hit the nail on the head when you said BANDWIDTH but everything else is irrelevant.
Likely, the school is pissed abotu how much of their bandwidth is being used for piracy and is stringing up a few students in order to curb the activity. I don't think they care the slightest for the students, it's just a matter of cutting costs.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
If a student had an once of sense he would want to be prosecuted under the standards that apply in criminal law.
Criminal prosecution should really be reserved for tangible crimes against persons and property .... not relatively "fluffy and intangible" losses due to intellectual property "violations"!
Intangible property rights are woven so deeply into the modern world - the world since 1492 - that it is difficult to know where to begin with an argument like this.
The short answer is that we all own intangibles, we all know these intangibles have value and that value must be protected against all comers. Your pension fund. Your health insurance. The corrupt Enron exec goes to jail. In China he would have been shot.
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
The starving college kid with his cell phone, Mac PowerBook and $400 iPod. The kid sharing his music with 10 million or so of his closest friends on the P2P nets.
You cannot be a player in this game without substantial disposable income or outside subsidies - your "free" connection to the university LAN.
The settlement is a debt. Debts can be structured. It's a lesson worth learning.
The U-dub news site, "www.uwnews.org", has been hacked and defaced.
I really am quite curious.
Ironically the rival school to University of Washington, Washington State University, has been receiving these sorts of letters from the RIAA for some time and does nearly the exact opposite. Whenever the IT department receives a letter, they call the student in to the IT department to have their computer 'scanned' which basically means they go through and delete any .mp3 .avi .mpg or otherwise(and I hear they go to great lengths to recover data that might have been deleted prior to the student taking it in), then tell the RIAA that the issue has been taken care of and if they wish to pursue the matter further to contact WSU's lawyers.
So the alternative would seem to have an evil side as well. Since the moment you plug your computer into the university network you have agreed to have not only your computer searched at the universities discretion but also to have your files deleted at the universities discretion.
I'm a UW student. I didn't see it, so here's the full text of the email the administration sent out: Dear Student: I am writing to inform you of a development that could become a serious issue for some of our students--the law governing downloading and sharing of music and video from the internet. Under copyright law, it is illegal to download or share copyrighted materials such as music or movies without the permission of the copyright owner. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in recent years has taken an aggressive approach to stopping this illegal downloading and file sharing. This has put many students at the nation's colleges and universities at some legal risk. I write first to caution you against illegally downloading or sharing files. Your actions when you do so are traceable and could result in a significant financial penalty to you. Second, I want to inform you about a new process the RIAA has initiated and the University's role in this process. The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from the internet and requesting the university to identify the individual student and forward the letter to him or her. The letter, called an "Early Settlement Letter" notifies the student that he or she has 20 days to settle with the RIAA by going to a designated website, entering identifying information, and paying a set amount, usually between $3,000 and $5,000, but sometimes considerably more. If the recipient chooses not to settle, the RIAA will file a lawsuit and the offer to settle for the amount stipulated is no longer an option. 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. We do so primarily because we believe students should have the opportunity to avail themselves of the settlement option if they so choose. Not forwarding the RIAA letter to students could result in their being served with a lawsuit, with no chance to settle it beforehand. The University is unable to provide legal services to students who have violated copyright law through illegal downloading or sharing. If you receive a letter from the RIAA, we encourage you to engage a personal attorney. If you have questions, please let us know. We know how tempting it is to download music or movies and share files with your friends. But you need to know that it is illegal to do so and that the consequences can be severe. Please inform yourself of the requirements of the law and please obey it. Otherwise, it may prove costly for you and your family. Sincerely yours, Vice Provost for Student Life
"Righteous speed demon and trust fund party darling of justice"
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 ... well, that'd be problematic, to say the least.
How far does dual boot and dual NIC go? Windows, wireless, e-mail and campus stuff. Ubuntu, wired, no login, web and bittorrent may help.
It's close to having 2 machines to the network, one annon.
The truth shall set you free!
All it seems the university is doing is delivering the students mail. It's not like they're, say, cutting off the students internet at the request of the RIAA. (This happened to a friend of mine, at the University of Utah, the RIAA had identified a whopping three songs on his computer, and he actually owned all of them (admittedly, he had many more that were pirated, and he was distributing those three, largely cause he wasn't bright enough to not let Kazaa distribute his entire hard drive).
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
How the RIAA Litigation Process Works
There's also an excellent overview of this here, entitled: The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits.
IMHO, these should be required reading for anyone who is hit by these lawsuits. If you want the real condensed version, it is this (from the second link):
"The best advice if you are sued by the RIAA is to quickly retain a lawyer who has some experience dealing with RIAA cases. Having knowledgeable council early on won't stop the process from being difficult, but can give you a better chance of protecting your rights."
Finally, here's another article that Ray has put together, on a Directory of Lawyers Defending Against RIAA Lawsuits
I got the latter from the second article. I have no idea if there are defensive legal strategies that any students can employ before they get a letter from the RIAA, but it would be interesting and useful if a skilled lawyer could make the University think twice before just bending over for the RIAA.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Or perhaps the folks at the University of Washington simply don't feel comfortable using their network as a haven for illegal filesharing.
Perhaps not, but they appear to have no problem doing the RIAA's legwork for them for free based on the flimsiest of flimsy evidence.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I can sort of understand why it is that the ISPs shield their customers.
You should not think of this as shielding because that would imply some kind of guilt. This is a refusal to pass on unreliable identification based on even less reliable hearsay evidence of a minor infraction to people who are using it as a shake down by abusing the leagal system. From start to finish this is an abusive scam by people who have robbed and cheated everyone, especially the artists they claim to represent. The RIAA and those who co-operate with them are the real criminals.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
any student who says "sue me" can claim "it wasn't me" and depose the university staff who identified them to pick apart their methodology. And if they find any flaw in the methodology, they can sue the University.
Class action anyone?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
I'm a Washington State taxpayer and I totally endorse this use of my tax funds. Let's see what your 'guarantee' is worth, Mr. Earl.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
What's to stop the RIAA from randomly picking a hundred IP addresses and then sending them the "pay up or else" letters, and then collecting a few thousand from some random people who thought they got caught?
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
The UW admins keep this information because otherwise it is hard to find the guy that trying to DOS your mail server into oblivion. Student networks are notorious for having internal attackers of all different kinds. If you were an admin you'd want to be able to put a finger on the students too.
That's crap from start to finish. Network administrators have these systems in place due to federal wiretapping laws and clueless pressure. All networks have a DoS problem and you won't get a finger on it with half ass tracking to catch supposed file traders. DoS and spam attacks come from widespread use of insecure client software like Windows. Finally, co-operating with this blatant shakedown is pathetic. The evidence is flimsy and the University should be giving their students sound legal advice and defense in what's really a civil dispute. Don't try to tell me that co-operating with this scam has anything to do with punishing criminals. It's about stripping people of their rights for money.
Take away the anonymity and people start to behave in a civilized manner. That's just how things work.
Do you think people in jail are civilized? They lack anonymity, privacy, speech, freedom of movement and association, yet they still do horrible things to themselves and their guards. Do you think treating innocent people like criminals will make them any nicer? There is no free speech without anonymity, do you mind giving up your whole society's right to peacefully protest that way? Do you think societies like that are safe places to live? They are not, neither for the oppressors or the oppressed because a society without rights is one without laws, much like the one that exists within prison. It is selfish and savage.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You mean the administration. They would care if the students themselves cared enough. It's way cheaper to fend off RIAA than to clean up after a riot. Of course they know it won't happen -- hell, most of the students don't even vote.
Look, I've long since started using Ruckus, but I still don't agree with the UoW is doing.
.. and meanwhile your new potential employer and landlord see during your background check and deny you both housing and a job.
Now what?
My fiance got into a bad deal with her exhusbands friend on an investment to help a friend out. The friend left and they were on their own to pay for his business.
4 years later she has been denied several jobs and can not buy a house unless its cash. Her credit rating is back up and it was her exhusbands fault but there are still records on defaulting that will scar her for years to come.
Also with services like Nexus your record could stay permanent because they are not a financial institution legally but will keep your record on file if its reported.
20 years for now your bankruptacy could still bite you in the ass.
http://saveie6.com/
... by making the link between IP address and student. I don't think all of these students have their own IP address on internet, do you? So what the university must be doing is something similar to the ISP's searching their logs and making a link between a student and an IP address used.
...
It doesn't sound like the RIAA has a name to start with. If they had, they could just send it by mail
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
They're already forwarding them! Here's a copy of the letter I received:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please contact us to verify that your PC/Mac/Linux/other computer has been used to illegally download copyrighted music. Be sure to include your full name, address, and a list of what you have downloaded, so that we can be sure we don't sue you for things you didn't download. If you don't reply with this information we'll double the amount we're suing for!!
Thanks,
MAFIAA
... by not wasting tens of millions of the tuition dollars paid by non-infringing students to dig in to fight a legal battle that they will lose, on behalf of a fraction of students who are Clearly In The Wrong.
What is the University supposed to do, tell the RIAA "Stuff your letters. We don't want to talk to you"? The RIAA will get their legal department working on a very short, to the point letter to University counsel. Counsel, if they have the sense God gave a retarded squirrel, will comply with the RIAA's quite reasonable requests. If they don't, the RIAA will sue the students as John Does 1 through X, add the University to the suit for contributory infringement, and use the discovery process to compel the University to disclose the identities of their co-defendents. The University will fight it, and they will lose, because the RIAA is in the right. (They may well prevail on their defenses against the claim of contributory infringement. Oh well, the RIAA gets the scalps that they wanted either way.) Their works are copyrighted, they are being pirated, they have evidence, and they are within their legal rights to file suits and use the legal process to compel production of material facts from parties with access to them. If you try to obstruct their suit, you'll be added to it.
Also, is it really just to give college students an out that the rest of the world doesn't have? Why does the fact that you (or your parents, or someone who you managed to convince to bankroll your eduction) are able to cough up $X0,000 for your education mean you get a pass from the law? Even supposing that I thought the RIAA's conduct was mostly in the wrong, and I am largely untroubled by it, I see no reason why we should let it steamroll the working class and legally unsavvy while protecting the (mostly) privileged folks attending a college that can afford sharp lawyers. (Despite being mildly worried about societal privilege, I am a card-carrying Republican. I think I'll vote for three tax cuts in penance for the previous paragraph.) If you want a change to the law for everyone, great -- let a few sons of politicians get hit for $5,000 fines with added public embarassment and you'll see the law changed PDQ.
Why infantilize college students -- specious arguments aside, they all know that piracy is illegal by now. Let them take responsibility for their actions.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Does the RIAA have court orders...?
Until they get some proper court orders signed by a judge the University shouldn't hand over any information.
No sig today...
I know the thread is old and nobody will see this but, the US Supreme court in the bonghits for jesus case ruled student protests about illegal acts is no longer protected speech.
So watch that protesting on campus, you no longer have first amendment rights about file sharing or any other activity that could be illegal.
Another thread removed from the constitution, another nail in democracy...
"Wait, is the RIAA going after UW students DOWNloading, or UPloading illegal files?"
Making the files available.
"And uploading, there is no way to statistically prove the statutory damages caused by uploading any one particular file (that I know of)."
And that's exactly why they're called statutory damages -- they're defined by law ("statute"); they don't have to line up with the damages suffered. You may be confusing these with compensatory damages (think "compensation") which are intended to have some sort of relation to the actual damages.
By the way, this is why statutory damages exist. In many instances, the actual amount of damage is difficult to calculate. Thus, we have the legal concept of statutory damages.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Actually dude, he has a point, you have to at least know where the computer is in case there is software on it that can cause havoc so you can shut it down. don't be so gun ho to accuse admins of wrong doing
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
The sad thing is, they are pretty much guaranteed to get a hit on that approach. The VAST majority of people here use DC++ to pirate media, and since DC++ requires 500MB (I think, I do not use it myself and refuse to help anybody set it up) of your own files to be available on the network, it's a pretty good bet that they are all uploading as well. They do block nearly all P2P apps to outside the dorms from inside (including limiting bittorrent to near-uselessness, which causes issues for everything from the Blizzard downloader to getting Linux CD images). Within the dorms though, not only are the networks unfiltered, there are a couple well-known DC++ hubs and everybody knows what they are used for.
Then of course, you get people like me (I strongly disagree with both the MAFIAA and media piracy, and while I don't support DRM or software patents I will laugh in your face if you download a noCD/noActivation/WGAVerification crack that fscks up your machine and then you ask me for help). I lived in the dorms. From time to time my computer was connected to a few different networks. I am sure some of those connections were used for illegal file copying (I know my roommates did). Aside from the question of how they were supposed to know who was using a given IP address in the first place, I'm possibly a target for one of these letters (yes, I got the email and wondered how long it would be until it appeared on Slashdot).
I like to think I have the resources to deal with this if I do get such a letter, but the truth is that I really don't if I want to graduate, not without major loans or some such. However, even if they only choose one student at random from the dorms, there is a well over 50% chance they would get a valid target. What they do then may be completely out of proportion but it's undeniable that UW dorm students, as a group and (on average) as individuals, commit copyright infringement on a vast scale.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Schools should have a backbone and tell the RIAA to fuck off.
/., where freeloaders will take the moral high ground... but man, do you ever win the prize!
Yay ! State-sponsored universities should spend bazillions of tax dollars in courts to protect our God-given "right" to download Britney's latest tripe for free (and saturate their bandwidth in the process) ! For great justice !!11!!
Oh, wait, perhaps they shouldn't. Perhaps instead it would be better for everybody if students, like, you know, did NOT use the university's network to break the law in the first place ? Uh ?
Seriously, I know this is
They might get a counter-suing or two... but for every one they get I wouldn't be surprised if they get a dozen legitimate hits. Even after I made it clear I do NOT support DC++ I still get requests for related help on a regular basis (and I freaking charge to help people I don't know, if it's more than a just-a-few-minutes kind of issue). With exceptions countable on one hand, everybody I know with a computer in the dorms has DC++ or the alternate platform equivilents. They aren't using them to swap class notes or Linux distros either.
The question is, of course, where the cutoff point is in terms of making money with this (apparent) shotgun approach to copyright violation cases. At the UW, they might well feast.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I'd say there is some likelihood, given previous history with RIAA tactics, that at least one of the students hit with a RIAA letter is in fact innocent.
I didn't say it would guarantee they don't get hit, simply that it would help them avoid it.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Correct, but you can hardly call someone a thief just because the RIAA says so. If they had any evidence, why wouldn't they go to court and acquire a subpoena for the information? Then the university would have a legal obligation to provide the information.
In this case though, it appears that the RIAA does not have any evidence, and may have just selected some random IP addresses belonging to the university with a demand that the students using those IP addresses at the time the RIAA specified pay up or risk prosecution.
To deny requests for information based on mere allegations doesn't amount to defending theives, it amounts to protecting their students' privacy. I guess you never heard of "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt".
Denying requests for students' private information based on mere allegations does not amount to "protecting our God-given "right" to download Britney's latest tripe for free", it simply amounts to protecting their students' privacy. If the RIAA has something else than unfounded claims, they can surely go to court and obtain a subpoena for that information.
- People that spend their entire lives paying back massive debt for a couple of downloaded cd's, or were unjustly targeted or were about to win a case against the RIAA and they withdrew the charges/left the case before it was ruled and the person had to pay lots of legal fees.
- Waste of thousands (millions?) of tax payer dollars.
- Reduction in positive public view of RIAA.
Could someone please explain the logic of the RIAA to me? It seems from my angle that they are shooting themselves in the foot losing way more money over this then simply lowering their prices of the music to compete with the internet.I looked through a lot of quotes about life and they are all bullocks.
As someone that lives in the northwest, we're used to the Huskies rolling over in the face of stiff competition. I don't see why the administrative buildings should be any different than their football stadium =P
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
(*disclaimer: I personally think that the majority of these students are breaking the letter of the law. However I think that the law is wrong in this particular case. I am rooting for anyone who is on the receiving end of these lawsuits, and I am completely against the practices the RIAA employs.)
/.ers would RTFA then they would realize this action is in direct contradiction to what the RIAA wants. Therefore it is a win for those opposed to the RIAA.
The problem with the way the RIAA proceeds with these. You do not even know that they are pursuing legal action against you seeking your private information from a third-party. Since at this point you are anonymous the petition is most often granted, simply because you (John/Jane Doe) are not there to defend yourself. The University has offered to hand this information to the Students in question. This will allow students the opportunity to block the motions to discover their identity through the University. Which is much easier than trying to fight the lawsuit once all of the evidence is gathered against you (however weak or strong it is). Everyone is afforded due process in the US legal system, this actually gives the students an opportunity to partake in this right.
Hopefully more of them will fight these actions instead of just paying up or waiting to see what happens.
I applaud the U of W for this very hard decision. If more
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
"university" of washington. a "university" which has regulatory boards dont know jack about electronics or internet that they can decide an IP defines a person.
not only that, but they are very quick with their hands to sell out their students.
woe to those who chose uw as their higher education place. if you got time to switch, hop on another university's bandwagon - one that is not suck-up to SHITAAA.
Read radical news here
The University did not hand over any information to the RIAA. They are simply forwarding the letters to the students. This will provide the students an opportunity to protect their identity from the RIAA, thereby preventing the lawsuit to ever take place. Which is far easier than trying to prove that you as a hobby download 4MB text files named "prince-purple rain.mp3 "
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
I meant download and share not simply download.
Well that deserves "+1 retarded"
--
Even "Special Posters" deserve mod points.
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
don't be so gun ho to accuse admins of wrong doing
It's not always the "admins" fault, they are doing what's legally required. Some, like the administration of UW, are more willing tools than others but ultimately the problem is a legal one.
you have to at least know where the computer is in case there is software on it that can cause havoc so you can shut it down
You don't have to violate people's privacy to shut down misbehaving equipment. Technical people know this and also know the wire tapping requirements can not be justified this way.
I suspect you know this too but either want to be an ass or are in favor of privacy violations and other lawless action. Both make you an ass and both ultimately lead to a loss of freedom.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
from '98 to '02, it was ridiculously easy to obtain copyrighted information. A few students had created a web app called uw neo (later became uw tribe). This program would scan all the windows shares out there and catalogue everything. I'm not sure if the university cracked down on that search engine or not (or if they're using it to nab people).
One that collaborates with others, and only shares, say 75% of a file, or 49% of a file, if there are enough peers.
That way you can say, "A copy of the file the lawsuit alleges was never downloaded from my computer"
The University may be on the hook here. If their policy REQUIRES students to be connected to their network, and being connected to their network results in the student being fraudulently charged with felony copyright infringement, then it seems to be that the university would be on the hook for at least SOMETHING.
If I were going to college somewhere, I'd simply refuse to use the university's connection at all. I'd use my own if I could..
Well played.
However, my guarantee still stands. If the majority of Washington state taxpayers feel the same way that you do then the school will surely reverse its decision shortly. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
If the school wants to sell out its students, its time for them to move on.
Acting as a common carrier, the school doesn't HAVE to comply with the *AA, and shouldn't. ( now if the demand came from a *judge*, that is a different story, and there would be some debate, but not some company )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
People's attitudes have shifted dramatically in the last few years.
At one point, they at least knew they were doing something wrong.
Now we are comparing enforcing the law and legal rights as if it were nazism or fascism.
Sure-- copyrights have been extended unreasonably. But students are violating copyrights under a year old in many cases.
Given that UW's income depends on intellectual property and that I would expect at least the philosophy professors to have some views on right and wrong, I'm surprised that everyone is basically encouraging students to break the law so shamelessly.
I've broken the law and know that I'm doing so. It's a choice. But I don't revel in doing so and pretend I'm not even doing anything wrong.
Perhaps the problem is so many laws so arbitrarily enforced and so many bad laws that we are losing respect for the rule of law.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Then they can use the taxes they acquire from people who don't endore file sharing on other things, and then use the taxes from people who do endorse it to pay for the internet connections involved (which they don't do in the first place).
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
For those of you in the music department writing papers on modern artists, we kindly suggest that you rename your documents so that no reference to a band, album, or song title remains. Students in possession of file such as "Metallica's_Greatest_Hits.doc" "Que_Sera_Sera_.wpd" will most likely receive a settlement letter, as the RIAA lacks the intellect to distinguish the difference between such documents and actual downloaded music.
Additionally, it is not in your bets interest to bait the RIAA by placing hundreds of files with names similar to those above on your university file share. Trust us, they have bigger balls than you.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Extortion - pure and simple. PAY UP or you will be damned in our [controlled by us] courts.
The University of Washington has given their students a great advantage here. In previous cases, requests for immediate discovery by the RIAA have been granted due to ex parte of John/Jane Doe. It is at this point the RIAA's evidence against a person is the weakest. That is to say, they only have evidence that you have made intellectual property available, but none that indicates that you yourself have actually committed copyright infringement. If the request is granted, the RIAA will then subpoena your school to hand over information that identifies the actual name of the John/Jane Doe. From the information provided, it appears that these students have approximately 20 days until the RIAA will subpoena that information. However, the question of whether the RIAA has already been granted immediate discovery still remains. If the motion has not been granted before receipt of the letter, you may still have a chance to appear in court as John/Jane Doe to contest their request for discovery based on their relatively weak evidence. In response to such letters, I would indicate that all future correspondence with you be channeled through a college coordinator via a unique anonymous identifier such as John Doe #12345. By doing so you have established a means of communication by which the RIAA must use to notify you of any legal action they wish to pursue against you. In turn, this will guarantee that you have the opportunity to contest their motion for immediate discovery in court. At this stage it is important to remember that the burden of proof is on them. Therefore should you follow this route, you should not reveal any additional information to them other than what they already have. This includes your name and your identity.
I respect those who would challenge the Bully's whim, challenges are rift with the Unexpected, and builds the foundation of a strong Character; I guess maybe the UW needs to do what it does. As the father of a student who wishes to be a future Vet, I think maybe I will wait and see what other benefits UW offers its students. As it stands now, I have to shift to a "Neutral" when it comes to the UW educating, by example, its students on Character, and Ethics.
And you can call the kettle black all you want, but the fact still stands that being accused and being guilty are separate. In my opinion, your premature presumption is... well... immature and inaccurate, and I see your shoplifting analogy and say nay to it's accuracy. It's more like if [goddamn I hate shoplifting analogies in copyright infringement cases] somebody was caught shoplifting a store on camera and he wasn't caught, and you happened to look like that person and got in trouble for his crime, or were, being more relevant to this issue, accused of being the shoplifter with only crap quality security footage to go by.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I suppose you can take your own stand, but I have a hard time faulting the UW on "ethical" grounds. Clearly the people participating in illegal filesharing are the ones that have ethical issues. You might consider the RIAA a bully, but it is only looking to protect its property. Twenty years ago the sort of illegal mass distribution of copyrighted material was the province of organized crime. These days technology has enabled anyone with a computer to commit precisely the same crime, but it still is a crime.
So while you see the RIAA as a bully, it is more literally true that it is a victim of a crime. If you had information about a robbery withholding that information from the authorities would be unethical. How is this different? In this particular case the "bully" may be larger, but it is the smaller kids that are stealing the bully's lunch money.
I happen to believe in sharing, but that doesn't mean that I believe that people should be forced to share against their will. Ethics is about right and wrong, and it is hard to argue that the RIAA doesn't have the right to try and protect its copyrighted material.
"RIAA wont sue something that has money and resources..."
I'd argue that the RIAA would actually rather sue some agency/entity that HAS money and resources to take, rather than a bunch of penniless students who don't even have the $5000 they are trying to squeeze from them. In fact, avoiding a direct suit for harboring file-sharing lawbreakers is probably exactly why the school is complying.
Keep in mind that the RIAA wants the school to share the identities of the file-sharers with them. UW has not complied with that request. All they have done is agree to pass along the letters to the students in question. The RIAA hopes that these letters will scare the students in question into coming forth ON THEIR OWN and paying their fines voluntarily, since otherwise it (the RIAA) would probably have to resort to subpeona-ing the University to obtain the students' identities to pursue the lawsuits.
Either way, the RIAA makes money.
Considering all their options, UW has a lot more to lose, and the RIAA a lot more to gain, if the school refuses to help. I'm certain that this is what the RIAA was hoping they would do, so they could go after the school directly. UW's choice to pass along the letters but not give up the identities until legally required to do so is a reasonable compromise for them. They are making a show of cooperation up to a point and protecting themselves from being sued directly, but they are also protecting their students' privacy until legally forced to do otherwise.
Actually, when I was there (less than 10 years ago...) it was $37 a quarter for the "technology fee," which pays for the computer labs, bandwidth, 50,000 licenses for Photoshop, etc.
:-)
$37 is not bad for Internet2 speeds. During the good old days there, everyone had Windows 95 and all the shared folders were wide open.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Why dont we use some of his salary to pay the RIAA, heaven forbid another overpaid UW employee.
http://lbloom.net/uw07.html
"If you had information about a robbery withholding that information from the authorities would be unethical. How is this different?"
As a previous poster indicated, it depends on who's asking. In the first scenario, you are withholding the information from lawful authorities. In the second scenario, you are withholding information from another person or corporation, and your "ethical" stance on their demand come very much into play.
To put it another way, if the school principal asks me who stole from the school bully, then it would be unethical for me not to tell them. If the bully himself asks me, then it would depend on my opinions of the bully and the thief. If I don't agree with the bully's morals/ethics, then I have no problem protecting the privacy of the thief until the principal makes me rat on him.
Personally, until legal process demands it, I'd have no problem morally or ethically if UW chose to uphold their student's rights to privacy in favor of the RIAA's rights to make unreasonable demands as if they were an authority in this. And if they have any backbone, this is exactly what they'll do.
First of all, the ethics of the situation don't really change on whether you like the person that is asking. Second of all, the RIAA could press criminal charges against the filesharers in question, at which point the government would swoop in and demand this information of the University. The only reason that the RIAA is not using the criminal justice system against these people is that the criminal justice system would come down on these fools like three tons of bricks. The RIAA wants a $3000-$5000 deterrent and not millions of dollars in statutory fines, a felony conviction, and time in a federal prison.
Some bully. The RIAA could destroy these people if it wanted to. Instead it simply hits them up for a few grand.
There's a difference between "intellectual property" and the money contained in one's pension fund. When I spoke of "intangibles", I was referring to I.P. vs. money in various types of accounts (which, while not "tangible" in the sense of having the cold, hard cash in your hands - is understood to be equivalent).
.... and only a very small percentage of the total users on a p2p network who ever request a song you happen to be sharing on your specific computer. So the ONLY thing that should matter is how many times each song was actually downloaded from the PC. If you logged THAT, you'd find much of the shared music was probably NEVER downloaded even a single time, and many other tracks were subject to partial transfers that were aborted in the middle. Only a relative handful were ever successfully transmitted.
Amd sure, the standards that apply in criminal law are higher than for a civil case, but the risks are higher too. (You're not going to go around with a felony charge on your permanent record, affecting future employment, over a civil lawsuit you lost.)
The starving college student may indeed have a Mac Powerbook, iPod, etc. - but *many* times, those items were obtained from a student loan, which they're going to have to repay over a long period of time when they get out into the work world after college is over. None of that indicates they're loaded with disposable income. (Apple has regularly run offers for students where the iPod is thrown in free, or heavily discounted, with the purchase of a new computer. So getting one often means getting both, just for the record.)
And lastly, the idea that any one kid is "sharing music with 10 million or so people" is as flawed as the claims of losses based on the full retail price of each and every copy of a software program they can show someone distributed. There's only enough bandwidth to share so much at a time, for starters
I can also assure you this Washington tax payer does not support the University spending one penny to aid RIAA in there activities. I do not condone the actual illegal violation of copy right law, but that should be settled in the courts, not as harassment abatement. I just wonder what the legal liabilities the University assumes by wrongful identification of individuals? They are going to forward those letters to the correct individuals, right? They will be able to identify specific individuals, and not just computer owners or will they even be able to accurately do that?
You took my response out of context. Im not defending the MPAA notice issue, im just drawing focus to the fact that the admins need to be able to identify computers on the network incase they need to be shut down for serious issues such as DDOS attacks and what not.