Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Adds 23 Colleges to Hit List, Avoids Harvard
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has added 23 new colleges and universities to its hit list, but deliberately omitted Harvard, apparently afraid of the reaction it's likely to get there, having been told by 2 Harvard law professors to take a hike. 'Under the new scheme, the RIAA sends out what it calls 'pre-litigation' settlement letters. Actually, they're self-incrimination documents and they're designed to extort preset amounts of around $3,000 from students with the empty promise that by paying up, they'll remove the threat of being hauled into court on charges of copyright infringement. In reality, all the students are doing is providing the RIAA with personal and private information which can conceivably be used against them ...'"
The universities are: State University of New York at Morrisville, Georgia Institute of Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University of Central Arkansas, University of Delaware, Northern Michigan University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, George Washington University, Ohio State University, New Mexico State University, Eckerd College, University of Minnesota, California State University - Monterey Bay, University of Kansas, University of Missouri - Rolla, University of San Francisco, Case Western Reserve University, Northern Arizona University, San Francisco State University, University of Tulsa, Franklin and Marshall College, Western Kentucky University, and the Santa Clara University.
This sig left intentionally blank.
Hey, here in Australia, It's not really our place or even possible for us to write to U.S. Senators and Congress people about the state of the law in your country! I completely disagree with what the RIAA is doing, but somehow I think that the members of parliament here will quite happily ignore the state of the 'states, and won't get involved, even if everyone here wrote them about the issue!
John 3:16. Know it.
Drink Yourself Healthy: MonaVie
Good luck. Every higher education institution I've ever been to (a total of five) has treated the student as a terrificly inconvenient debtor and nothing more.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
As I mentioned in a previous reply, I work for the IT office for one of the universities. Apparently the RIAA has been lobbying congress (duh), as we also received a 20-something page letter from congress which essentially slaps our wrist for being such a naughty school for allowing our students to be such heinous criminals, and provides us with a survey to gauge how we prevent students from committing these crimes. I believe the letter was also sent to all of the top 10 schools in the country. The survey asks questions about how much we limit/filter student access to the internet, whether we monitor student access, whether we report illegal activities, what sort of punishment we inflict on students who get a DMCA complaint, etc. The wording of the letter also seemed to suggest that schools should actually be doing these things. For the record, my school does none of those things, and everyone in the the whole IT and Network office building scoffed at the idea. It's a place of learning, not a prison. I really get the feeling that the RIAA's direct dealings with schools and students wont be a problem in the future if they can somehow convince congress to make it required that schools monitor student access, and prevent students from using certain applications.
A mafia gang providing high-priced laundry services to a hotel is still extortion if the Feds can prove that cheaper laundry services were the norm in every other laundry company in the same street.
Similarly, if RIAA tries to sue the student, the student can claim extortion based on false information, even if the student had been downloading music and sharing the same.
The law works for the student's benefit too.
Get a lawer like Ray Beckermann (am not benefitted by this recommendation), or someone good enough and sue RIAA under RICO for sending threatening letters demanding payment.
You don't even need to understand the language written, just highlight words like "sue", "$3000", "failure to pay", etc. with a highlighter and say to the Judge that you received an anonymous note under your door and demand protection.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
When you wish to take somebody to civil court you must first show them your intention to do so.
You must clearly state your grounds for claim and allow the other party reasonable time (weeks to months, usually) to either counter your argument or settle your claim.
If the other party disputes your claim you should attempt to resolve the issue by negotiation before you file. If you make it to court without proof that you attempted to negotiate and the other party claims you refused to enter into negotiations you'll usually get ordered to seek mediation and lose costs as well.
If you have not made steps to solve the matter out of court then you usually cannot take anyone to the civil court. There are, of course, a few exceptions to this rule. This rule exists to prevent every RIAA, Dick and Head from suing every random person for which they can find a name and residential address.
"pre-litigation" letters are the first step before even attending the court registry to file papers.
That said, you also need to be able to identify the person(s)/entity you are filing against along with their residential address. An IP address is not sufficient information to do that. This seems like another RIAA scheme to kill two birds with one stone; fish for information about IP address holders and also cover the pre-litigation step required to actually haul them into the court.
With all that's going on in this industry it makes me sad that so much is being invested in tracking down people who download copyrighted music and movies yet there's millions of unsolved actual crimes including kidnapping, rape and murder each year. What about the drug dealers on the streets?
Q: Why aren't we investing more time and money into catching all the really bad bastards?
A: Because it doesn't help corporate suit-wearing wankers get ever fatter pockets and make ever larger "donations" (s/donations/bribes/) to candidates.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Add to that the fact that no proceedings exist until the RIAA has all your personal details I think it'll be harder creating something that will stand a chance in Court, especially since recent rulings where judges have started to ask the RIAA to follow proper legal process instead of trying to selectively dodge the bits that allow a recipient to ask some rather painful questions. Oh, and why are people asked to self-incriminate?
Copyright infringement is *not* good, but there's such a thing as proof and due process. Even if that is inconvenient, it has to be followed.
With rights come obligations - on both sides.
Insert
... I cannot help but think of the Cock Sparrer song "Take 'Em All" about record labels:
We worked our way up from East End pubs
To gigs and back stage passes
Ex-boxing champs, West End clubs
Americans in dark glasses
Driving ten grand cars, they drink in hotel bars
They're even making money in bed
They wouldn't be no loss, they ain't worth a toss
It's about time they all dropped dead.
[Chorus]
Take 'em all, take 'em all
Put 'em up against a wall and shoot 'em
Short and tall, watch 'em fall
Come on boys take 'em all
Well tough shit boys, it ain't our fault
Your record didn't make it
We made you dance, you had your chance
But you didn't take it
Well, I gotta go make another deal
Sign another group for the company
I don't suppose we'll ever meet again
You'd better get back to the factory.
[Chorus]
Take 'em all, watch 'em fall [x4]
[Chorus Repeat...]
I heard that your library burnt down and destroyed your only two books - and one was not even coloured in yet.
"A couple of law professors are not representatives of the school."
No, but one of those professors at Harvard is former Governor of Massachussetts William Weld(R).
Can you say "we better not piss off the politicians and people with strong connections"?
I knew you could.
--
BMO
I think you meant Charles Nesson. It's kinda polite to spell the name correctly.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
No, it's not surprising at all, but it sure is infuriating, especially considering that my school (University of Delaware) is on that list. Thankfully I don't live in the dorms or use the campus network for sharing, so I'm not worried, but it's still horribly wrong if they cooperate. I plan on writing the president a letter about this, maybe even getting a petition going.
Thus far, two of my friends have been accused of file sharing by the University and neither of them even do it. Most of my friends DO share music, and those ones haven't gotten caught yet. Of course, neither of my friends who did get "caught" were allowed to appeal the decision so they both had to pay IT services $100 to "clean" their computers (the cost was regardless of whether or not anything was found) and they lost their internet access for a month.
Colleges singled out:
State University of New York at Morrisville
Georgia Institute of Technology
Pennsylvania State University
University of Central Arkansas
University of Delaware
Northern Michigan University
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
George Washington University
Ohio State University
New Mexico State University
Eckerd College
University of Minnesota
California State University - Monterey Bay
University of Kansas
University of Missouri - Rolla
University of San Francisco
Case Western Reserve University
Northern Arizona University
San Francisco State University
University of Tulsa
Franklin and Marshall College
Western Kentucky University
and Santa Clara University.
They deliberately omitted Harvard because Prof Nesson's other activities. They don't have so big a pair of bollocks as to defy the power of the Empire.
Your head a splode
Saddam hussein was evil Osama bin laden and Hitler were evil.
Record companies prosecuting people who take their products without paying are just defending their business. get some fucking perspective.
1) That the plaintiff has rights under current law. In some cases the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they own the copyrights they are asserting.
2) That current law is legitimate. It was passed according to legal procedure, but that is not sufficient to make it legitimate.
3) That denying that a law is legitimate is completely rejecting our system of government. In fact, your argument is simply a case of poisoning the well. To assert that a procedurally properly passed law is illegitimate, unjust, or even evil is requires one to argue that the procedure is flawed or incomplete, but it does not require completely rejecting the system the procedure is part of.
4) That arguing for or working towards a change in the law has a reasonable chance to succeed. If there's a logical argument for tilting at windmills, I haven't seen it. Since in the real world, one premise which certainly does hold (by inspection) and will hold for the forseeable future is that the RIAA&Co can effectively control copyright law, this is an exercise in futility, usually suggested by advocates of the status quo in order to waste the energy of those opposed to it.
If you think that the system of government, or of legislation, is not legitimate in that sense, then I would agree with you. I do not believe in the legitimacy of the system, it has been corrupted and the masses are too sheepish to rise up, as is their patriotic duty.
Off the top of my head, the last time a federally-ordered scientific study was done on the reasons for keeping Cannabis in the same legal bracket as heroin, the recommendation was, as it has systematically been for every study in every country for about 40 years, to decriminalize the substance.
However the feds said that since tobacco smoke causes cancer, eating pot should remain illegal.
The public domain and intellectual property saga is equally perverted, but causes less people to be jailed.
You can't take the sky from me...
-Interscope v. Does 1-7 throwing out the RIAA's motion
-the article by Profs. Nesson and Palfrey telling the RIAA to take a hike
-Capitol v. Does 1-16 holding that it's impermissible for them to proceed ex parte and
-the article by Prof. Nesson and Wendy Seltzer urging Harvard to use its clinical legal programs to resist RIAA subpoenas and defend targeted students.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful