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.
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.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
With the advent of Tanya Anderson counter-sueing the RIAA and Safenet, couldn't this just result in n more counter-sueings?
Well, they have protected their IP righs by purchasing perpetual - and unconstitutional - copyrights from a Congress that is supposed to protect the public good. Ergo, pretty much any sympathy they may have had is gone.
Thomas Galvin
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?
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.
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.
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.
Welcome to democracy. In a democracy, the interests of one part of the population are to be balanced with the interests of the other parts. Ideally, this happens by each part of the population electing representatives and watching out what laws get passed, etc.
Copyright law is not one of the ten commandments: It's just a law that some people made up at the time because they thought it might have value. Some people today believe it no longer has the same value, and here on slashdot plenty of people think that. Deal with it, move on.
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...
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?
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.)
http://www.campchaos.com/blog-archives/2006/05/nap ster_bad_good_or_goblin.html
Link to the torrent on the official site. Music, stage recordings, interviews, the works. Each torrent containing a text file stating that this is the official & legal torrent.
Now, for the twist: I'd also have a high-speed torrent server. If people pay $X or more, the torrent server will serve connections from their IP address.
If the official torrents were excellent, there would be little point in making unofficial ones. That means that everyone downloading my music would also get links to my official site, where they can visit for more content as well as paying for it. (Note the psychological kickback: If people pay a very reasonable fee for something, they will be less interested in seeding it to others for free.)
Couple in with official merchandise, signed photos, posters, limited edition x and everything else.
Finally, charge real, hard cash for live performances. The more people are downloading your music, the more potential customers. Heck, have an online forum and find out where they live, then hold performances where it will be easy for them to come.
Just a fantasy, maybe. But I strongly believe that business models must adapt to technology. Attempting to regulate technology with legislation to preserve static business models is utterly stupid. I'm leaning towards legalizing piracy and see what business models spring up. As long as people are willing to pay for something, someone will come up with a clever way to get paid for delivering it.
Should they be forced to sit back and watch as everyone in the world downloads for free what they invested a lot of hard work into producing? If you produced something that can be represented as information... Not much choice, I'm afraid. People have always been good at sharing information. Millions of information-processing machines interconnected in a global network isn't exactly slowing things down. You may like it or not.
I lost my sig.
I'm not sure they can defend themselves, frankly. I guess I differ from most of the most vocal Slashdot people in that I believe P2P file sharing (specifically a subset of that - theft) is hurting the music and movie industries, and I believe that stealing content via P2P is morally wrong. That said, I oppose their suits on a number of grounds (possibly more than I can recall off the top of my head); to name a few:
- 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? No, really, I want you to type in your answer and click "submit".
- The RIAA has been using downright illegal tactics to bring these cases (see Beckerman's site for details about this). And I'm not throwing the term "illegal" around lightly, like many Slashdotters. I mean they are literally defying direct orders made *by the courts* in order to bring law suits that they would not have been able to bring using purely legal methods.
- 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? Again, that is not a rhetorical question; I am expecting a real answer.
- The RIAA needs to preserve their undefeated status because they cannot possibly catch all of (or even enough to save their business) the true P2P thieves out there, let alone distinguish the thieves from the ones who have not immoral uses (such as seeing if they want to buy and album/movie legally). This is a painful exercise in futility. Their only (false) hope is to try to generate enough fear to make everyone they don't have resources to sue stop sharing. This is *not* working, and cannot in theory work. While it's true that they may be able to reduce (not stop) theft via P2P in the US by going after web sites and individual P2P users, where they have the power of law suits, such suits cannot be brought in a majority of the world because they do not have jurisdiction (let alone the resources to sue that many people), meaning that even fear is outside the
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
Okay, here goes:
the RIAA have been acting like a bunch of assholes for a decade now, both the organization itself and the member labels. They have pissed away any good will they could have had. The Napster thing, their assault on fair use, bullying tactics, subjecting us to that bitch Hilary Rosen, support of the DMCA, eternal copyrights, annoying DRM, et cetera.
We don't like them. Even those of us who support some form of copyright pretty well hate the RIAA/MPAA. It's like the SCO case: They come across as a bunch of dickless lawyer assholes and piss geeks off.
They're not looking for just any violator -- they're looking for people in a situation where they're not in any financial situation to fight back. So far, all the cases we're hearing about are college students, single mothers, etc. They tell them "pay us $X or we'll drag you through court and you'll have to pay us more than $X plus legal fees." Even if you're innocent: RIAA has money to burn on legal fees and the scare tactic is what they're after, not the pay off. Most people, even innocent, can't afford to lawyer up and fight the RIAA.
The answer should always be: "Piss off." They've never won a case, have they? So why should anyone believe any of their efforts are in good faith? Don't forget Sony-BMG is one of the RIAA member labels, and their "good faith" put a root kit on the PCs of people who actually paid them for music.
So yes, on this site, the majority of us hate the RIAA. Because they're assholes of the highest order. They trounced the nearest competition in a poll of most hated company on some website a few months back. At least in the case of Linux/MS/Apple there are two sides to it -- fanboys and haters -- but here it's like 99% haters and 1% supporters of the RIAA. There's just no contest.
We hates the RIAA. We hates it. Stupid fat Rosenses.
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).
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.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
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 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.
Is it just a fundamental belief on here that copyright holders should have no recourse against violaters?
No, but there is a problem with the system as it presently exists. The protection of intellectual property was orignially enshrined in the Constitution as a *limited* (not as Jack Valenti was fond of saying, "infinity minus one day") term of protection, and therefore profit, for the creator in exchange for the public receiving the fruits of that idea when it entered the public domain, thereby "promoting the progress of useful arts and sciences". However, something has gone wrong over the last one hundred years and the careful balance that was maintained between creators and the public by copyright, patent, and trade secret laws has been steadily erroded, hijacked, and skewed in the favor of the creators to the point that now many copyrights will not expire during the *lifetimes* of the people presently living that want to use or benefit from these "useful arts and sciences" without paying monopoly rents to the creators.
The average citizen can no longer maintain his position in copyright law against the onslaught of the content creators and their big money full-time lobbyists and so the public domain is erroded to the point where only quaint anachronisms and rare abandonments will ever see the light of day in the public domain. In the face of such a manifestly unfair system, as it stands today, many people have decided to work around or outside of the system because it is impossible for them to work within it.
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.
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 submit for your reading...Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States constitution, more commonly known as the Copyright Clause
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"
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.
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.
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...
(*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