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 ...'"

Comments

Illegal?

[dotslashdot]

This is nothing short of extortion. I never download music w/o paying for it, but now this just makes me want to bleed them to death by a thousand cuts--or megabytes.

Re:Illegal?

[someone1234]

This won't cause them any loss of profit. Much better would be to PRETEND you download stuff, by going to known RIAA honeypots. Then hire a good attorney :)

Re:Illegal?

[jez9999]

But you won't do it, because downloading music, as opposed to stealing, doesn't harm them.

Re:Illegal?

[eat here_get gas]

it's mindless idiots like you that make legitimate music collecting all that more difficult for the rest of us.

Thanks.

Re:Illegal?

[Optikschmoptik]

Wish I could mod you up for that. What good does it do to spread the RIAA's top-40 tripe around and give it free publicity? GP(AC) does little more than two favors for the RIAA:

A. Free advertising for their artists, and by extension their cynical business/art model.

2. Support their sue-everyone campaign by showing that everyone has their music, and no one has paid for it.

So we have more people getting sued, more outrage from the clueless and influential over all this 'rampant lawlessness', and a bunch more terrible music coming out of speakers. hooray.

Re:Illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually yes they can mate. lets revisit your bolshy attitude the day you get a letter for downloading copyrighted material. Of course, you could GROW UP and stop taking stuff that isn't yours, but what are the chances of that?

Re:Illegal?

[daskinil]

Deaf people listen to music too, they just listen to it really loud with lots of bass. They literally "feel" the music.

Re:Illegal?

[torokun]

What happened to all those engineer-type people who used to hang out on slashdot? They tend to be more rational than this bunch I see.

Let's think about this logically.

RIAA has a right to sue anyone they think has committed copyright infringement against one of their members. This is because there is a _law_ that was passed by _congress_ supported by the _constitution_ that gives them this right. Unless you completely reject our system of government, you can't argue that a company is evil for suing someone who violates their rights in this manner.

If you disagree with the law, then the _logical_ thing would be to argue for or work towards a change to the law, not to vilify the company for asserting their legitimate rights under current law.

So if they can rightfully sue, they can certainly rightfully warn someone they're going to sue, and offer a cheaper alternative settlement agreement.

In fact, it's a lot nicer than just suing and making an example of someone. In any case, the courts routinely emphasize how great it is for parties to settle out of court, or use arbitration rather than the courts, because it saves everyone time and money, and reduces the load on the judicial system.

All I see on here and places like boing boing is this train of logic: I'm not a big company, I'm a hacker. I feel for other hackers. We all like hanging out and file trading on the net. It's fun. Therefore it sucks that people are getting sued for it. Therefore, those guys are bastards. Furthermore, what they are doing must be evil/immoral/illegal somehow. Or at least, they should just stop it 'cause it sucks. Plus, they can't stop us, nyah nyah.

This is purely emotional drivel.

Re:Illegal?

[misterjbryan]

I'll agree with you that the arguments presented here, whether or not founded logically, often fail to present their logical foundation and end up sounding like emotional drivel. That being said, stating that a person or entity is 'evil' implies that what they do is somehow immoral. Morality and Legality are two very distinct concepts, and neither is entirely inclusive of the other. In a democratic society, it is true that we strive to make the legal system reflect our collective moral standards and expectations, but it does not take much review of history to find a plethora of cases where our laws don't support, and in some cases reject, generally accepted moral ideals. I will not attempt to recreate the moral arguments that have been presented in much more detail and eloquently elsewhere by people such as Lawrence Lessig, Eben Moglen, Alexis Rossi, and others. This is primarily because to establish a truly sound argument about the negative social, moral, and economic impact of current copyright and patent law requires more space and time then I have for this comment. Continuing to push for changes in legislation is certainly more productive than simply commenting on ones dislike for the current situation, and I hope people continue to vote and lobby for legal changes. There are logical reasons for believing that the actions of the RIAA are morally justified. However, dismissing an argument that has been made many times before as merely 'emotional drivel' simply because it is not restated in its entirety is not fair to the presenter and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the background subject.

Re:Illegal?

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree.

People can also go for civil disobedience for bad laws (tho these days they forget that includes accepting the punishment).

Riaa are a bunch of thugs and the terms of copyright are unreasonable these days-- however using brand new works without compensating the creators is equally immoral. I remember 7 years ago folks like the ones here were saying on boards like this "well sue the people who are infringing".

They emotionally "want it" so they rationalize their acts. The main problem there is, if they fool themselves into believing they are doing no wrong, they will eventually be caught. If you are going to break the law and do not want to do it for the purpose of civil disobedience then you better be discrete and keep right from wrong straight in your head.

Re:Illegal?

[Scrameustache]

Let's think about this logically.
RIAA has a right to sue anyone they think has committed copyright infringement against one of their members. This is because there is a _law_ that was passed by _congress_ supported by the _constitution_ that gives them this right. Unless you completely reject our system of government, you can't argue that a company is evil for suing someone who violates their rights in this manner. illegal != evil;
legal != !evil;

Logically, just because the law allows you to legally do something evil doesn't make you immune from being called evil when you choose to act on it.

Re:Illegal?

[AusIV]

RIAA has a right to sue anyone they think has committed copyright infringement against one of their members.

Not quite. The RIAA has a right to sue anyone against whom they have evidence suggesting copyright infringement against one of their members. In the past, they've sued someone who didn't own a computer, continued suits knowing their target was not responsible, and deliberately target people who would be least able to defend themselves.

The RIAA doesn't have a track record of playing fair in their suits. They've sued people using very little evidence, and have persisted in their cases, often driving innocent people to settle to avoid legal fees.

I'm currently attending one of the schools on the list (not surprising, considering the rampant amount of file sharing that goes on there). I haven't shared music online since the ninth-circuit court of appeals handed down the Napster decision, but if I'm targeted with one of those letters, I suspect my parents will encourage me to pay up rather than face the stress and legal costs of fighting it.

If they send 20 letters to random college students, they'd probably get 15 settlements and 5 court cases - they would then drag out the 5 court cases as long as possible to drive up the legal costs for the defendants in hopes of reaching a settlement. Once it becomes clear they won't reach a settlement and have very little hope of winning their case, they'll ask to dismiss with prejudice so they can avoid paying the legal fees of the defendant. Of all of the 20 original letters, they probably got $45,000 from the 15 who settled right away, and another $30,000 or so from those who settled after going to court - a pretty good haul for random letters.

The reason I vilify the RIAA is not that they are enforcing their copyright, but because their approach does not necessarily target the guilty, and the innocent have almost as much incentive to settle as the guilty. They can rake in the cash by making it more costly to fight a bogus case than to settle, and it's very rare that they're made to pay legal fees. Now, if they were collecting as much evidence as possible and verifying it before pursuing settlements, you wouldn't hear me complain, but their tactics have been much less admirable.

Re:Illegal?

[russotto]

Let's think about this logically. RIAA has a right to sue anyone they think has committed copyright infringement against one of their members. This is because there is a _law_ that was passed by _congress_ supported by the _constitution_ that gives them this right. Unless you completely reject our system of government, you can't argue that a company is evil for suing someone who violates their rights in this manner. If you disagree with the law, then the _logical_ thing would be to argue for or work towards a change to the law, not to vilify the company for asserting their legitimate rights under current law.

Logic can prove anything that's not itself a contradiction, given the proper premises. And there are a large number of unstated premises behind your argument which simply do not hold, among them:

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.

Re:Illegal?

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, that does them no harm at all. In fact I can't think of any legal action that will harm them. I'm boycotting them, but that's for my benefit, not because I feel it will do them any harm.

I take that back. I have thought of a legal strategy that would harm the RIAA. Set up a fund for musicians that want to have an accountant go over the bookkeeping of the company that they are signed with. Every time this has been forced, the record company has been found to be underpaying the musicians. (This may be a biased sample, of course, but it can't be cheap and must be embarrassing for them to allow outside accountants to go over their books. And the bad publicity would deter other musicians with talent from signing.

Re:Illegal?

[HiThere]

a) It's not stealing.
b) This is the law that the RIAA wrote, and bought. I may fear it, but I won't respect it.

OTOH, this kind of protest is totally silly. It doesn't hurt them at all. If you want to hurt them, push an independent musician or write your congressman (my senators are both thoroughly bought, so writing them does no good..maybe yours is different).

[Wry humor]
Or hire an assassin ... but who should be the target is a difficult question. Probably the record company accountants ... but it's hard to be CERTAIN that they're crooked. If, however, as I believe the books have been cooked, then replacing an accountant might be more difficult than replacing a director. And they'd probably be easier targets.
[/Wry humor]

Re:Illegal?

[drew]

Since you decided to throw the constitution into the mix, how about the part where they are encouraging people to incriminate themselves in case they ever do decide to bring any of these people up on criminal copyright infringement charges?

Re:Illegal?

[torokun]

I would disagree, as long as the law is legitimate. If you think that passing laws the way congress does lends them legitimacy, because it allows representation, then it is at least unlikely to be immoral to simply use the rights you're granted under those laws in the way they were intended to be used.

If you think that the system of government, or of legislation, is not legitimate in that sense, then I would agree with you.

Re:Illegal?

[moogle001]

You seriously think that because one is "lawful" they can't be "evil"? Eh, my dork score just shot up... In any case, you're completely off the ball. Even assuming the laws and the government were 100% legitimate, individuals and companies are responsible for the abuses of the system. If one company is doing something reprehensible, even within the law, they MUST be vilified for it. That's generally the only way that there's recourse against them, as the laws (and the awareness of the general populace) doesn't change quickly. Now, if you don't think RIAA's methods of protecting its interests aren't reprehensible, that's a matter you can debate. But I would say you should examine their history...

Re:Illegal?

[jedidiah]

Conversely, I have the right to sue you for no reason whatsoever and either consume your time and money answering my filings or burdening you with some default judgement that will trash your credit report and allow me to come to your property with a sheriff start siezing things.

If you had any clue about logic you would not be confusing the letter of the law with what is ethical or what is good public policy.

Re:Illegal?

[torokun]

Well, there are a couple of ways to look at that. There is a big power differential between those with money and those without, and that's not going away anytime soon. I tend to see the problems you're talking about as a problem of this monetary differential, because if the defendants could easily pay their legal costs, this would be a non-issue.

This could be fixed, though, by adopting the loser-pays rule of Britain, which I think I agree with. Or, at least, have a loser-pays rule when the loser is the plaintiff. In the U.S., the rule is that each side pays its costs, except when one side doesn't play fairly (to simplify a bit).

Generally, the courts should be hard on a party that sues without a reasonable good-faith belief that their suit has merit. They should be subject to sanctions.

The other problem in this respect is our system of "notice pleading", which requires very little to no evidence before filing a suit. We use the discovery process to develop evidence. This is fairly new, as before the 20s or 30s (I forget exactly when), a plaintiff was generally required to have much more evidence to support their claims at filing. I think these changes have gone too far, and although discovery is great for some reasons, the bar should be somewhat higher at the initial pleadings.

Re:Illegal?

[nasch]

Maybe if RIAA lawyers' bodies starting turning up in large numbers, having been gruesomely mutilated, they would become unable to find any lawyers willing to continue this practice. Of course I would never advocate such a course of action, but it could make a profitable movie. Wait, that benefits the MPAA! ARGH!

Re:Illegal?

[nasch]

I would disagree, as long as the law is legitimate. You really think it's possible to have a set of laws that ban everything unethical and nothing ethical? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are not claiming that about current US law. Is it unethical to emotionally torment someone for no reason? Should it be illegal? Is it unethical to lie to and betray your friends? Should that be illegal? Law and ethics will never perfectly overlap, and there will always be things that the law permits but we should not do.

Re:Illegal?

[torokun]

1) Yes, I'm discussing the situation where a plaintiff does have a copyright. If it doesn't, and it's not an honest mistake, then that would be fraudulent.

2) I discussed this in an earlier response, but I do think the law is legitimate. I don't think it's always the best approach though.

3) Yes, this was a bit of hyperbole, but if you don't think the law is legitimate, you should work to either change the system or the law.

4) If changing the law is not possible, you're in one of two situations I can think of, off the top of my head. (1) If you're in the majority, you're pretty screwed. Try to change the underlying system, or try civil disobedience or a revolution if you care enough. (2) Others in your society disagree with you, and you lose out fair and square to them.

My main point is that I don't blame the RIAA for doing what it's doing, just as I don't really blame a teenager for being horny. Even if there are problems here, I think the problems are in the disconnect between copyright law and the practical realities of enforcement, rather than in the actions of the copyright holders.

Re:Illegal?

[Scrameustache]

I would disagree, as long as the law is legitimate. If you think that passing laws the way congress does lends them legitimacy, because it allows representation, then it is at least unlikely to be immoral to simply use the rights you're granted under those laws in the way they were intended to be used.

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.

Re:Illegal?

[cyphercell]

ever tape a song off the radio? seriously, I see a lot people posting with this idea of theft but how many of you have grown up mixing tapes and giving them to your friends or copying a song off the radio as a child?

Re:Illegal?

[Khaed]

I got the impression he was buying music, from the "w/o buying it" part. So I assume now he's implying he'll stop buying the music. Which won't hurt them much at all if he's the only one who stops buying music. It's a billion dollar industry. Everyone on /. could boycott them and not make a bit of difference.

Not that I let that stop me. I haven't bought anything from an RIAA label in a long time. But I'm very obviously in the minority on that.

Re:Illegal?

[shark72]

"This is the law that the RIAA wrote, and bought. I may fear it, but I won't respect it."

Copyright law was very much alive and well before the RIAA came around in the 1950s. When the RIAA was formed, recorded music had already been protected by copyright for three decades.

The most recent revision that's the biggest threat to your file sharing is the NET act, which makes you liable to go to the klink if you distribute enough stuff even if you're not charging for it. But Microsoft and other software vendors are your bugaboo, here.

Re:Illegal?

[eat here_get gas]

I collect 60's and 70's live concerts- NO ONE OWNS THEM with the possibility of the taper. the fucking crap for sale these days makes me puke, especially them fuckers that "sample" and "loop" others' music. wtf. make your own!

Re:Illegal?

[dodongo]

Logic can prove anything that's not itself a contradiction, given the proper premises.

Not to be coy (promise!), but can logic prove that?

Re:Illegal?

[torokun]

I agree that ethics and law are overlapping but never equivalent spheres. I'm only positing a small part of this, that is, that when a legitimate law grants rights to people, like copyright, or freedom of speech, and they exercise those rights in line with the law, that's not unethical in and of itself.

If they use that right to betray a promise to a friend, for example, that would be unethical but still legal. But the RIAA, as far as I can tell, isn't really doing that, but rather, trying to get at the people who are infringing its members' copyrights. If they use unethical methods in the process (lying, etc.), that's a different story. But warning letters and settlement proposals are not, in and of themselves, unethical.

Re:Illegal?

[nasch]

But the RIAA, as far as I can tell, isn't really doing that, but rather, trying to get at the people who are infringing its members' copyrights.

If that's what they're doing. It is possible that they are going after anybody they can find and are not too worried about whether those people have actually infringed any of their members' copyrights. This campaign could be designed to convince people to stop getting music from the internet because of the fear of getting sued. I don't know if that is the case because I don't have all the information, but if I understand correctly it would be legal. That is, I don't know of a law that prevents them from sending a threatening letter to someone even if they have no evidence of wrongdoing. But IANAL; maybe you know more than I do.

Re:Illegal?

[HiThere]

The copyright law used to allow copyrights to expire in a reasonable period of time. I felt that before the time of the "Sonny Bono Copyright act" that the period was already longer than was reasonable...so they extended it. Then with the DMCA they extended it again.

Just because I believe that some copyright laws are reasonable doesn't mean that I believe ANY copyright law is reasonable. The current laws are unjust, and the RIAA (and MPAA) are the companies that wrote and bought them.

Re:Illegal?

[shark72]

"The copyright law used to allow copyrights to expire in a reasonable period of time. I felt that before the time of the "Sonny Bono Copyright act" that the period was already longer than was reasonable...so they extended it. Then with the DMCA they extended it again."

Oh, I agree 100%. I think copyright terms are at least twice as long as they should be.

However, this is largely not relevant to the discussion at hand. See all the posts about how piracy is booming at their school? It's largely new stuff. These are teenagers we're talking about -- they're not building their collections of Elvis Presley music or Bing Crosby movies, nor are they trading old Apple ][ warez. Big Champagne tracks the traffic on the P2P networks; notice how this week's top pirated songs match up so closely with the top legal downloads. Sure, some older stuff that perhaps should fall into the public domain is being tracked, but it's not a significant part of the P2P volume.

A century or so ago, copyright term was 14 years. Even if we had that 14 year term today, the vast majority of the stuff that college students are trading would still fall under copyright protection.

Re:Illegal?

[shark72]

"ever tape a song off the radio? seriously, I see a lot people posting with this idea of theft but how many of you have grown up mixing tapes and giving them to your friends or copying a song off the radio as a child?"

The RIAA tends to go after the "whales," who are sharing hundreds or thousands of songs. That allows them to leverage the maximum potential statutory damages possible when gunning for a settlement.

The taping of a song or two, vs. the massive distribution of music in violation of copyright law, aren't really equal, and anybody who equates the two need only look at other areas of the law. Moving a hundred kilos of weed is liable to get you in more hot water than selling a joint or two to a friend. Stabbing your friend with a fork is far less serious than stabbing ten thousand strangers with a fork. Driving five miles above the speed limit in a school zone will net you a smaller fine than driving 50 miles above the speed limit. In so many areas of the law, how much of it you do makes all the difference.

I've copied a CD or two for friends but I don't think for a minute that this is equivalent to sharing it with a hundred thousand of my closest friends with BitTorrent.

Re:Illegal?

[gaderael]

Stuff like that is just more fuel for the RIAA's fire. This is certainly not the smart way to fight the RIAA's tactics. It's more akin to the anarchistic elements who show up at anti-war rallies and smash car windows, and destroy property.

Re:Illegal?

[mpe]

RIAA has a right to sue anyone they think has committed copyright infringement against one of their members. This is because there is a _law_ that was passed by _congress_ supported by the _constitution_ that gives them this right.

Except that they are not suing anyone. What they are doing is sending universities a list of IP addresses and asking that university (for free) to translate those addresses into the name of a person. Note that the university is perfectly entitled to ignore such a request unless it's made through a relevent court order...
If the RIAA were interested in enforcing copyright the simplist thing for them to do would be to sue the universities in question (as "corporate people").

Re:Illegal?

[mpe]

The RIAA has a right to sue anyone against whom they have evidence suggesting copyright infringement against one of their members.

Actually anyone can (normally) sue anyone for any reason. If that reason turns out to be bogus and the case goes to court the judge is likely to be rather unimpressed with the plaintiff. If someone does this a lot they might find themselves needing to gain a court's permission to sue.

The RIAA doesn't have a track record of playing fair in their suits. They've sued people using very little evidence, and have persisted in their cases, often driving innocent people to settle to avoid legal fees.

They have also tended to get upset when countersued. I wonder what would happen if they were sued in response to one of these "settlement letters"...

Re:Illegal?

[mpe]

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.

If anything Cannabis is more illegal than heroin. Given that morphine and related alkaloids can be perscription drugs.

Re:Illegal?

[mpe]

I collect 60's and 70's live concerts- NO ONE OWNS THEM with the possibility of the taper.

Actually all sorts of people could claim ownership over them. Not just the actual musicians and song writers.
On the other hand it's unlikely that they know they have possible copyright claims of your recordings.

Re:Illegal?

[mpe]

The copyright law used to allow copyrights to expire in a reasonable period of time. I felt that before the time of the "Sonny Bono Copyright act" that the period was already longer than was reasonable...so they extended it. Then with the DMCA they extended it again.

The period in the 18th century was 14 years, someone recently cacluated that the optimum length in the 21st century is also 14 years. Thus the equivalent of the 18th century term now is probably something closer to 5 years...

Re:Illegal?

[mpe]

See all the posts about how piracy is booming at their school? It's largely new stuff. These are teenagers we're talking about -- they're not building their collections of Elvis Presley music or Bing Crosby movies, nor are they trading old Apple ][ warez.

A "pirate" download can fall into 3 catatagories.
A) The downloader would not have bothered with the whatever if they couldn't download it. Which also includes people who couldn't buy it even if they wanted to...
B) They are less likely to buy it because they have downloaded it.
C) They are more likely to buy it because they have downloaded it.

Whilst the RIAA/MPAA/etc would tend to claim that everything is B this self evidently isn't the case. What is most interesting is the ratio between B and C. Only if B is significently more common than C does it make sense to persue downloaders. Indeed if C is more common than B it's actually self destructive to persue downloaders.

Re:Illegal?

[Fastolfe]

their approach does not necessarily target the guilty, and the innocent have almost as much incentive to settle as the guilty.

I realize I'm nitpicking here, but these are civil cases where there is no guilt or innocence. You're only liable or not liable for damages. This is also why it seems odd that they'd be pursuing cases against people that are only indirectly involved. Only extreme cases of copyright infringement are crimes, and it wouldn't be the RIAA going after you, it would be your own government.

The RIAA's tactics are no different from any other Big Business or malcontent exploiting America's legal system. The fact that you can sue anyone for any reason, and literally extort settlements because it's cheaper to pay a few thousand dollars than defend even utter nonsense at a trial is heartbreaking. Larger businesses, taking every precaution to avoid being sued (look at all of the warning labels!) nevertheless have to set aside a sizable portion of their budget just for these nuisance settlements. It's become just another cost of doing business in the US. And we all pay for it in the end, because these costs will influence whether or not these businesses can price their products competitively. And if they can't, that's less competition, which means fewer jobs and higher prices from those that are left.

Re:Illegal?

[cyphercell]

The RIAA tends to go after the "whales," who are sharing hundreds or thousands of songs.

I have never, ever heard anything that validates this claim. Do you happen to have a link? Yes distribution is an issue, but there is absolutely nothing I have heard of that suggests the RIAA makes a distinction based on volume.

Re:Illegal?

[shark72]

Sorry, I don't -- it's my understanding of their strategy from a few years back when the lawsuits began, from reading some of the court documents. They may have changed now that they're expanding their program and leading with settlement letters; for all I know you might be liable to get a letter if they catch you sharing just one song. Ray Beckerman might be able to jump in here and offer his opinion, since he's on the front line.

Statutory damages are, I believe, $750 per work, so the plaintiff has a lot more leverage if they go after somebody whom they've observed to be sharing 1,000 songs. A $3,000 check might not seem so bad if they're wagging a potential $750K tort in your face.

You may be correct that the RIAA no longer makes such a distinction when sending out settlement letters, but the law does. At $750 per unit, the statutory damages can get scarily high even if you're a typical pirate with just five or ten albums in your share directory.

Re:Illegal?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA tends to go after the "whales," who are sharing hundreds or thousands of songs. I have never, ever heard anything that validates this claim. Do you happen to have a link? Yes distribution is an issue, but there is absolutely nothing I have heard of that suggests the RIAA makes a distinction based on volume. That's because it is a false claim. The RIAA is "targeting" accounts that have a couple of hundred song files, many of which have been lawfully obtained through purchased downloads and/or ripping personal copies from one's own cd's.

Bringing lawsuits, and demanding thousands of dollars in settlement money, over such minor infringements, is unprecedented.

Re:Illegal?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They may have changed now that they're expanding their program and leading with settlement letters; for all I know you might be liable to get a letter if they catch you sharing just one song. Ray Beckerman might be able to jump in here and offer his opinion, since he's on the front line. They've been going after accounts with a couple of hundred song files -- not necessarily all the RIAA's and not necessarily all downloaded without authorization.

Re:Illegal?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA's tactics are no different from any other Big Business or malcontent exploiting America's legal system. I don't know, it's pretty unusual for Big Business to spend millions of dollars suing its customers. This type of copyright infringement suit is a totally new thing... maybe 5 years old. Except for the RIAA, MPAA, Direct TV, and cable descrambler cases, I've never heard of anything like this.

Historically a detection by a copyright holder of a non-commercial infringement would be ignored, or at most would result in a cease and desist agreement, not a choice between (a) a federal copyright infringement lawsuit or (b) payment of thousands of dollars.

Re:Illegal?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

If the RIAA were interested in enforcing copyright the simplist thing for them to do would be to sue the universities in question Yes but the universities would fight back.

Now we can't have that, can we?

Re:Illegal?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It is possible that they are going after anybody they can find and are not too worried about whether those people have actually infringed any of their members' copyrights. This campaign could be designed to convince people to stop getting music from the internet because of the fear of getting sued. It could well be.

Re:Illegal?

[Fastolfe]

Who isn't the RIAA's customer? It's not like this is a business that is trying to avoid losing customers to a competitor. The general public has no clue what the RIAA does, who they represent, or who its "competitors" are.

If the individual music labels were the ones in the news, that might be an entirely different matter. The beauty of doing all of this through the RIAA is that none of the RIAA's members are in the light. Yes, some of us know who they are, but when someone reads something in the news about the RIAA suing people downloading music, they're not thinking about the labels behind it. (And even if they do, how many are going to keep up their little protest when So-And-So's latest album just came out, and it's REALLY good, like omg!)

Re:Illegal?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Who isn't the RIAA's customer? It's not like this is a business that is trying to avoid losing customers to a competitor. The general public has no clue what the RIAA does, who they represent, or who its "competitors" are. If the individual music labels were the ones in the news, that might be an entirely different matter. The beauty of doing all of this through the RIAA is that none of the RIAA's members are in the light. Yes, some of us know who they are, but when someone reads something in the news about the RIAA suing people downloading music, they're not thinking about the labels behind it. (And even if they do, how many are going to keep up their little protest when So-And-So's latest album just came out, and it's REALLY good, like omg!) When I use the term "RIAA" I'm using it as shorthand for the 'cartel of 4 major record companies, and 1 independent, which have agreed to collude together to bring lawsuits under the aegis of their 'trade association', the RIAA, listed here and here.

It is well known who the culprits are.

Re:Illegal?

[Fastolfe]

It is well known who the culprits are.

...among those that are interested in this topic. You and I know who they are. But ask anyone on the street who the RIAA is, and they'll either shrug their shoulders or say, "They're the guys that sue you when you steal songs off the Internet!"

Which is exactly what the RIAA wants to hear. Details like who the RIAA represents, the fact that mere downloaders aren't sued, only those redistributing, and that infringement isn't theft, are lost on the general public. The only people changing their habits are those that have bought what the RIAA wanted them to buy, or those that have researched the issue and are avoiding giving RIAA members their business. But they're all in a very tiny minority, I suspect. Had every RIAA headline over the last few years said "Sony" instead of "RIAA", or, even better, a specific band, I rather suspect they would feel the backlash.

Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[TheRealMindChild]

You know what? If you all actually cared, you'd be spending less time on WoW, and more time writing your senators/organizing festivals to educate the public/burning crosses/whatever it takes. It is obvious the court system doesn't have a clue about the whole picture... how many of them do you think read slashdot a day? Probably -2. They need to get the info from somewhere. Make it common knowledge.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Vaticus]

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!

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Radres]

Then what is your excuse for not writing your Congress critters?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[SolitaryMan]

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!

Be patient, my friend! These stupid laws will be dumped on your country really soon.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Ash Vince]

Actually I believe the aussie government is already well on the case.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/19/22 14254&from=rss

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[ResidntGeek]

It's a pointless waste of time? Seriously, thousands of letters against thousands of dollars, what do you think wins?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[iamacat]

If the school will not only not lift a finger to protect their students, but hand them over to the RIAA to a silver platter, then don't attend these colleges!

I take it that you have some meaningful explanation of why a university should protect students from consequences of a currently unlawful activity. Are we talking about students making highly creative derivative works from copyrighted music? Is copying taking place because the music conveys political protest and got censored? If this is just a student who didn't want to pay a tenner for a rap CD, I am not sure what educational/social value is there to protect.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[syousef]

Have you ever written to your representative? If you have has it ever made a difference? What chance do you think you have against someone that's donating money to his or her next campaign ?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[umghhh]

I dono about values but you left out one question: is copyig taking place at all?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it that you have some meaningful explanation of why a university should protect students from consequences of a currently unlawful activity. Are we talking about students making highly creative derivative works from copyrighted music? Is copying taking place because the music conveys political protest and got censored? If this is just a student who didn't want to pay a tenner for a rap CD, I am not sure what educational/social value is there to protect.

They should go to every length possible to protect a student who might not have done it, and certainly offer no assistance to outside organizations fishing in their pond for students to make examples of!

The question in my mind isn't whether downloading music is right, I could care less. I prefer vinyl, but that's neither here nor there. The question is whether I would want to attend, or want my college-age offspring to attend, a school that would not only allow but in many cases facilitate random RIAA lawsuits.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[TapeCutter]

Here in Oz they go by the name ARIA, they are not a great deal different to the US version. The laws are also just as fubar'd as in the US - just ask the lawyer in Melbourne who has a patent on the wheel.

Fortunately the PBS was quarantined from the free trade agreement so we still have reasonable prices for prescription drugs, however everything else covered by IP laws is in the process of being "harmonised with the US" with Ruddock leading the charge ( For non-aussies: Ruddock is our Attorney General and all round slime bag ).

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Mike89]

Actually I believe the aussie government is already well on the case.

Correct, as a resident Aussie this is already the case over here too. Hooray for not being able to sing Happy Birthday to you, happy birthda... be right back, someones at the door.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Nullav]

I don't know about you, but if I were in a position of power and greeted by a shitstorm of letters every day, I might consider doing something. The real problem isn't that our opinions aren't worth anything, but that we all think they are. Maybe one or two people will write in, but no one else thinks anyone cares, thus giving every congressman and all of the corporations in their pockets a license to do whatever the hell they want.
What we need is some kind of organized effort. Here we have network that spans the entire developed world, but what's the most people do with it in that direction, online petitions? ...
Of course, it's not like I'm going to do anything beyond this little rant; I'm busy playing Civilization. I'm sure someone else will do it...right?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Morlark]

I take it that you have some meaningful explanation of why a university should protect students from consequences of a currently unlawful activity.

If by "currently unlawful activity" you mean trying to extort money from students, then I submit that it is up to you to provide a reason why they should not be protected, rather than the other way around.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Dragonslicer]

The US owns the patent on having a slime bag Attorney General. We'll see you in court.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Timothy Brownawell]

I take it that you have some meaningful explanation of why a university should protect students from consequences of a currently unlawful activity.

Because they're only being accused with no reason to actually believe those accusations?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[TapeCutter]

Divorce court?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[thc69]

Thinking that the RIAA could conceivably stop attacking their customers: Ok, I suppose it's possible.

Thinking that WoW addicts can pull away from the game long enough to write to congress, or even long enough to read through Slashdot until they get to your comment: Totally unrealistic.

Forget the WoW addicts, they're a lost cause. They don't care anyway, all they want to listen to is the WoW music that they already get as part of their paid WoW subscription.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Great. That's what we need: Slashdotters in power. I can just imagine: economy and culture would go to hell, the government would wither, the system would turn decidedly undemocratic (ironically enough), but internet penetration and speeds would soar.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Dragonslicer]

You better believe we're keeping custody of the kids.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[bconway]

I dono about values but you left out one question: is copyig taking place at all? On college campuses? Is that a joke?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[Maxo-Texas]

But imagine if laws were passed through a modding mechanism.

Someone posts a possible law and once it gets up-modded enough- it's legal. It can later be down-modded as it goes out of favor.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[iamacat]

Dude, the university is not giving student names to RIAA. Rather, they are just forward letters to students identified by IP addresses. If the "accused" is innocent - as in never having illegally downloaded copyrighted songs while in university - you would bet that he/she will raise a stink and the lawsuit, if any, will be dropped once a probable source of confusion - insecure network, public access to a computer in dorm is explained to the plaintiff.

If Bill Gates sent you a letter claiming that you hit his car and asking for $3K in repairs, would you just settle because you are "scared of a big corporation" even when you know you are innocent?

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[HiThere]

You parsed that incorrectly. Instead of reading it as:
"Is someone copying music illegally on the college campus?"
you should have read it as
"Is the person charged with copying music illegally actually doing so?"

I don't know what the odds are for a student chosen at random, but judging from the evidence available so far, those would be the odds wouldn't be made any higher by the additional knowledge that the RIAA had filed suit against them. They seem to be picking names at random.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[dmclap]

Actually I believe the aussie government is already well on the case.

Correct, as a resident Aussie this is already the case over here too. Hooray for not being able to sing Happy Birthday to you, happy birthda... be right back, someones at the door. It's that way in the United States, too; they just can't stop a collection of private citizens from breaking into singing it spontaneously. That's why most restaurants have their own variations of Happy Birthday, since it could be argued that they could be making money off of the song if they sing it as part of a birthday celebration at the restaurant.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[theelectron]

If Bill Gates sent you a letter claiming that you hit his car and asking for $3K in repairs, would you just settle because you are "scared of a big corporation" even when you know you are innocent?

Has Bill Gates been found to sue individuals who didn't settle but do not even own a car? Has Gates been known to rack up thousands in lawyer fees only to try to drop the case when he found out he was wrong? Has Gates been known to do this hundreds or thousands of times with a high settlement rate, even for innocent people? 'No' you say? Well, then I guess your analogy might have missed a few assumptions...

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[milkman_matt]

Which brings up an intersting point, I know I've seen comments by people who work at universities, do you block most P2P ports in the labs? If not (some might not) wouldn't it be possible to install a file sharing ap on a jumpdrive then save them to it? Then who are they sending the notices to? ...well, probably whoever logged on to that computer at that time I guess, but does that actually -prove- that they did anything? Insecure networks should be tougher to go after people too...

Can they sue the person providing the insecure network? They aren't up/downloading anything, they just have poor security practices, they could maybe log MAC addresses, but even then that wouldn't help the RIAA out any either. It just all seems so very loose.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[dodongo]

AFAIK it never matters if the accused is "innocent". In civil cases, it only matters if they can be found liable. In criminal proceedings, it only matters if they are "guilty" or not. So this: "as in never having illegally downloaded copyrighted songs while in university" isn't actually the issue, but rather, it's whether or not the defendant can be found liable for infringement of copyrights which are held by the record labels RIAA represents.

If I'm off in this assessment, please offer corrections or elaborations as necessary :)

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[ResidntGeek]

if I were in a position of power and greeted by a shitstorm of letters every day,

...then you'd fire your secretary for not giving you a one-sentence summary.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed

[mpe]

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!

Assuming they don't try "exporting their laws"...

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!

So the Australian Parliment won't be changing any Australian laws in the name of "Free Trade" Agreement with the US (or anywhere else for that matter) and all Australian police will point out to any RIAA/MPAA reps that the last A dosn't stand for "Australia" and they should leave before finding themselves locked up for wasting police time.

They are...

[akkarin]

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.

Re:They are...

[moosesocks]

Sigh....

Why do Harvard (and the other Ivies) receive so much more sympathy from the media and general public than these sort of anonymous, (and mostly small) state colleges?

Does this mean that the RIAA is deliberately avoiding chasing after those with money? Because, by avoiding the Ivies, that's exactly what they're doing. (GWU being the exception here -- their tuition is frightening)

Even so, given that we're talking about the RIAA, I'd love to see them try to target one of the more high-profile schools, and have their asses handed to them in court. What they're doing is nothing short of extortion and racketeering.

But then again, I guess this is becoming the status quo for the education and legal status in the US.

Re:They are...

[Lost Engineer]

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment: most college students are willing to settle for 3 grand given their finances. Their parents' money doesn't (generally) come into play here. Of course, if you had a lot of it you could fight the claim. But only if you were provably innocent AND were willing to spend more money on lawyers than it would cost to otherwise settle the case.

If anything, the RIAA is chasing after larger schools. More students leads to more profit with less expense.

Re:They are...

[Fred_A]

Why do Harvard (and the other Ivies) receive so much more sympathy from the media and general public than these sort of anonymous, (and mostly small) state colleges?

Because politicians will come out of them ? And they don't want to alienate the ones who's support they'll need later ?

Re:They are...

[chazzf]

The RIAA may have over-reached this time. I'd be impressed if they can even find Northern Michigan University, let alone transport themselves there.

Hope you boys like US 2!

I Can Only Hope...

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

As a student at one of the named universities, I can only hope, for their sake and for the students', that the schools take a good hard look at their situations and view their internet account holders as paying customers and not criminals upon first accusation (looking at you, University of Kansas!). Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent.

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[TheMeuge]

The obvious solution to this is to change the logging policy and erase the IP logs after a few days. Since there are no laws (yet) that require you to keep any sort of logs, changing this policy would instantly relieve the universities of this uncomfortable position.

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[Joebert]

Somthing about dropping logs & being relieved just sounds right.

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[zCyl]

Customer? How about considering students members, since after all, they do "apply" and are then "accepted" as a member of the student body. And most colleges and universities have some sort of charter which makes the education of these students the primary goal and focus of the institution.

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[Nullav]

Call them what you will, the universities wouldn't be around without the millions of dollars coming from their students. As such, a boycott of a university wouldn't be too bad an idea. (Though I'm sure most people would move off-campus instead of switching. Much more convenient, especially if you're on a scholarship program.)

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent.

If any other organisation were to protect their revenue by blocking the judicial system, they would be considered corrupt. Oh well, I guess anything is permissible while upholding a narrow bastardisation of the concept of common good.

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[SIIHP]

"Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent."

I'm skeptical. While this subject may be a pet cause for many slashdotters, I'd wager the number of people who consider it as a legitimate criterion for university selection is vanishingly small.

Keep in mind, many of the schools listed have a significant number of students that went there because they had to, not because they wanted to. The schools in my state recently began limiting incoming freshman enrollment because they simply didn't have room.

In light of that, the idea that schools will lose revenue because of this just doesn't seem realistic.

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[CompMD]

There was an interesting article in the Lawrence Journal-World (local paper) about the University of Kansas' new policies regarding students accused of copyright violation. I recommend hunting around their website for it.

The University of Kansas will capitulate to anyone that threatens them. The chancellor is inept and doesn't care about the students. The IT Security Office is manned by a bunch of lunatics (all the awesome old guys from Academic Computing Services are gone) that will do anything in the name of "security." Also at this school, the attitude towards students is that they are always wrong, and the Great and Holy Chancellor and his Apostles in the administration are always right. They will destroy students to appease the RIAA, mark my words.

I'm intrigued that the RIAA would be threatening Internet2 members. Notice that the RIAA is a member of Internet2. What possible positive contribution can they make? Look at the rest of the members. I think that if I were a member institution threatened by them, I would petition for their expulsion from the network.

Re:I Can Only Hope...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

As a student at one of the named universities, I can only hope, for their sake and for the students', that the schools take a good hard look at their situations and view their internet account holders as paying customers and not criminals upon first accusation (looking at you, University of Kansas!). Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent. And my hope is that the administrators and legal counsel at your school, and the others, take a good hard look at:
-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.

Extortion...

[drosboro]

Extortion sure does sound like the right word for these "pre-litigation letters". Makes me glad I'm Canadian. We just have to pay a ridiculous levy on our iPods and CD-Rs because we're bound to use them to pirate music.

Re:Extortion...

[AngryJim]

If I lived in Canada and purchased an iPod that included a fee that went straight to the record companies, I'd naturally assume this gave me immunity and just pirate to my hearts content. It's just logical because I've already paid my pirating fee. But hey that's just me.

Re:Extortion...

[basic0]

This is totally off-topic, but I don't remember anyone asking me or any other tax-paying Canadians if we approved of a tax on our iPods.

AFAIK, legally, corporations have all the rights that a person does. They are essentially a "person". You're a person too, try going to the government and demanding they do anything and see where you get. I remember 10 or 15 years ago, almost half the population of Quebec (that's ~3 million people) wanted to separate from Canada, which ended up in a referendum on the matter. Yet, a handful of "people" in the form of record labels can go to the government, ask for something, and get it without it even being mentioned on the evening news.

In a way, I don't blame the corporations. A corporation is a greedy, socially dysfunctional "person". That's their nature. No, I blame the politicians and lawmakers for being equally greedy, and us regular citizens for not holding them accountable in any meaningful way (i.e. bitching about it on internet messageboards, then paying the tax or obeying the new draconian law or voting Conservative or whatever anyways). We're a continent of pussies, allowing ourselves to be ruled by some of the most fucked up people you could possibly find to put in charge of things. We're all guilty. This record labels vs. the world stuff is just a microcosm.

Re:Extortion...

[drosboro]

It's not just you. Most of us who pay the levy feel the same way! Incidentally, the iPod levy was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada a couple of years ago, but the CPCC (Canadian Private Copyright Collective) is currently in the process of trying to ram through another levy, this time covering iPods and flash cards for your camera as well (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2112/125/ ).

Re:Extortion...

[thegrassyknowl]

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.

Re:Extortion...

[permaculture]

drosboro said: "Makes me glad I'm Canadian. We just have to pay a ridiculous levy on our iPods and CD-Rs because we're bound to use them to pirate music."

Let me guess, this doesn't mean you're legally allowed to fill your CD-Rs and iPods with pirated music, even though you pay a tax for that.

Re:Extortion...

[NemesisNL]

No but, I live in the Netherlands that has the same tax scheme, here downloading is legal and uploading is not. So you have to be carefull with the software you are using. In emule I set an empty directory as shared. I'm not sure how things work with bittorrent since the software downloads and uploads at the same time. I do however remove the torrent when the download is finished. Someone might get pieces of a song but never the entire file. I don't know how tracable that is. Can you identify a song when all I'm sending is 10% of the file?

Here politicians have suggested everybody pay a small extra overall tax in return for legal free downloads. This tax would then be distributed in the same way the levy is now. I wouldn't mind that if it makes the downloads legal.

Re:Extortion...

[totally bogus dude]

emule downloads while it uploads, too. Pretty much any "modern" P2P application is able to upload parts of the file it already has without having to wait for the full thing to be downloaded.

I don't know how much of the file you have to send before you can be accused of uploading it; I would imagine not very much is required. It probably depends how well the prosecution understands the technology, and how well they can explain it to those who are rendering judgement.

Re:Extortion...

[CHacker]

Actually the Courts have ruled that since we pay a levy to cover the alleged losses suffered by the behaviour (downloading) we are legally allowed to continue with the behaviour. This ruling has held despite the sniveling coming from the "music industry" about their alleged rights.

Re:Extortion...

[IronClad]

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.

IANAL. Clearly, by your misguided assertions you are not either.

One does not need to look far to see numerous counter-examples. SCO Group's suits, for example.

There may be some venues where your descriptions begin to apply, but not in US Federal courts. The US court system is badly broken. Not coincidentally, the same congressional judiciary committee members who regulate the courts also regulate copyright law.

That said, the US political system is broken too. And not just at the top, but at the bottom. When was the last time that members of a US congressional judiciary committees heard en masse from voting college students? From slashdotters? Or even individually from you? Congress loves you. They wear your apathy and your ignorance like royal robes.

Re:Extortion...

[Scrameustache]

AFAIK, legally, corporations have all the rights that a person does. They are essentially a "person". You're a person too, try going to the government and demanding they do anything and see where you get. We need to do this scientifically: I'll try it, and then we'll get someone with as much money as these corporations to try it, and compare results.

Re:Extortion...

[shark72]

"If I lived in Canada and purchased an iPod that included a fee that went straight to the record companies, I'd naturally assume this gave me immunity and just pirate to my hearts content. It's just logical because I've already paid my pirating fee. But hey that's just me."

Good news: most of the Canada levies go directly to the artists and bypasses the record labels. The bad news... only Canadian artists.

Assuming the levy gives you immunity is a bad, bad idea. It's a common misperception that the Canada levies are a form of socialized entertainment; that you're "paying in advance" as in socialized health care. This is incorrect.

If you're a Canadian and you feel like pirating some music from a US or British (or some other non-Canadian) artist, go ahead -- if you want that music and you'd rather not pay for it, that's your choice. Better the money stays in your pocket than going to somebody you've never heard of, right? But don't do it because you paid a levy at some point. They will not see one cent of that money.

Re:Extortion...

[Citizen of Earth]

almost half the population of Quebec (that's ~3 million people) wanted to separate from Canada

Only about 35% of Quebecers wanted to separate from Canada. The other 15% wanted to retain their Canadian passports & citizenship, eliminate their share of the federal debt, and continue to receive federal transfers while not paying any federal taxes living in an independent country.

A legitimate secession of any province/state should require a clear question ("sucede from Canada and form an independent country") and a 2/3 majority of voters (since it's a Constitutional change). Anything less is bullshit.

Re:Extortion...

[thegrassyknowl]

IANAL. Clearly, by your misguided assertions you are not either.

In the twice, while I was a small business owner, I had to litigate I was required by the courts to follow the process I described. You might think the system is broken but have you considered that in all of the high profile examples you list you didn't see all the menial BS that went on before it went to court? Perhaps SCO Group did signal their intent to sue and allow the other parties reasonable time to find a solution before they went to court? I'm not defending SCO - let that be known.

The US system is badly broken, yes. That brokenness comes from high powered corporates using it for their own end with a bunch of high powered expensive lawyers against the little man. Did you ever notice that *usually* they're picking on individuals or smaller companies who haven't a chance to defend themselves against the legal weight of the corporation?

Re:Extortion...

[rdoger6424]

You're on the wrong site. I think you're looking for digg.

These letters are quite ridiculous

[Aellus]

I work as an undergrad for the IT office of one of the universities near the top of the hitlist, and I've personally read the letters that they send. To actually read the letter in person really gives you the feeling like "Holy Hell, they're actually doing this." The letters are such bullshit, and it is obviously just a scam to save them the legal fees of taking people to court. The sad thing is that its working for them, and for backwards reasons; In the first batch our school received (which was about 30 letters), only one student didn't respond to the letter. They got sued, and i assume had to pay up in the end. The RIAA got 30 people's worth of payout from the cost of one court battle. Even if they lost that case, they still wound up with 29 payouts for the cost of 1. I'm sure if no one responded that some people wouldn't be sued, but who wants to take that risk? While i have a problem with the strong arm court tactics they've been taking in the past few years, at least the "sue everyone" tactic was still properly using the legal system to resolve their disputes. However, these letters are extortion, and its that simple.

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[Adult film producer]

Mad Propz to you for giving up those 30 students names! You've earned some real street cred in my hood.

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[Joebert]

I got one of those letters & I've never even been to college.

to: joebert@gmail.com
from: riaa2007@hotmail.com

Dear joebert,

It has come to our attention that you've been downloading music illegally at school, we have records of you using one of the file sharing programs that can be found at download.com to recieve the files after being tipped off by your schools IT department.

If you send $3,000 to our paypal account we will not proceed to sue you for upwards of tens of thousands of dollars.
If you prefer you can send cash to P.O. Box 1234 somewhere FU & nobody has to know about this.

Thankyou for your prompt action,
RIAA

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[Lord Kano]

I'm sure if no one responded that some people wouldn't be sued, but who wants to take that risk?

It's a modified prisoner's dilemma. If you cooperate you get a smaller penalty than if you don't cooperate and others do. If noone cooperates, then you have a chance at getting no penalty but you have no way of knowing what everyone else is doing.

LK

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[moosesocks]

I'm curious:

How did the RIAA get the identities of your students?

If your college's IT people gave the RIAA access to your students identities without a proper subpoena, you guys are every bit as much to blame.

From what I understand, the subpoena bypasses the extortion letters, and sends the case straight to court where it belongs.

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[mikiN]

Anyone notice how this mass-mailing resembles spam, only in a somewhat twisted way? Send many letters, expect only a handful of people _not_ to respond, squeeze those non-responding poor bastards for what they're worth, and squeeze everyone else somewhat less. If it wasn't for the spammers to (think they're about to) have the law at their side, this stuff deserves to be put with the likes of 419 scammers, MakeMoneyFast frauds and loan sharks.

Maybe we could coin an acronym for this stuff? I propose BLAM: Bogus Lawyerist Accusatory Mailings. Anyone with a better idea, feel welcome to respond.

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[mikiN]

Ok, so BLAM is taken. How about FLAM (Frivolous Lawyerist Accusatory Mailings)?

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

While i have a problem with the strong arm court tactics they've been taking in the past few years, at least the "sue everyone" tactic was still properly using the legal system to resolve their disputes. However, these letters are extortion, and its that simple. I strongly disagree with you that their "sue everyone" tactic was 'properly using the legal system'. Their cases are
-based on insufficient evidence
-based on fabricated legal theories
-based on unconstitutional and shocking damages theories, and
-champertous, barratrous, and extortionate.

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[Aellus]

True, I should have said that it was "at least using the legal system," even if not properly. My point was that it was better, however much, than these letters.

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[russotto]

The damages theories may be shocking, but I don't see how they could be unconsititutional. Congress undoubtedly has the power to set copyright law, and they've set the statutory damages to "obscene" (partially at the behest of the RIAA, of course). That gives the RIAA the leverage to do everything else.

Re:These letters are quite ridiculous

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The damages theories may be shocking, but I don't see how they could be unconsititutional. Congress undoubtedly has the power to set copyright law, and they've set the statutory damages to "obscene" (partially at the behest of the RIAA, of course). That gives the RIAA the leverage to do everything else. Read and learn how they could be unconstitutional.

To a New York Country Lawyer

[westlake]

The lawyers I've known have been careful about the language they use - the language they quote. The polemic you link to strikes me as singularly adolescent and inflammatory. It will fire up the crowd. Of that much I am sure. But it doesn't tell me what I need to know.

Re:To a New York Country Lawyer

[freedom_india]

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.

I don't normally like giving props to Harvard...

[alflauren]

But it's about time that a university stood up for its students. My guess is that worries over future endowment contributions will mean that universities begin to take the defense of their own a bit more seriously.

The spy in the sewage..

[wanax]

I think the thing that shocks me most is that many universities law faculties aren't going off on the current cases. I mean, these are supposed to be the 'liberal' part of the law. And ONLY Harvard is PUBLICLY strong enough to defend these charges? Where is that oft touted liberal element in the US university system?

But getting back to the core of the matter, I have to wonder why colleges are bending over about a matter so core to their own liability:

Colleges 'pirate' thousands of documents every year in a way that is NOT allowed by current US copyright law.. and they want to believe it's students.. not professors downloading papers that their library hasn't subscribed to? Taking a hard line on music copyright will only kill the colleges that take it up! They won't only drive away students... but also professors who suddenly can't do their research because of miserable libraries (BU COUGH).

Re:The spy in the sewage..

[JonathanR]

Exactly the GPs point. The libraries are anally retentive, so the faculty staff get their illicit copies from the 'net (or multi-generation photocopies, as it was in my day)

Re:The spy in the sewage..

[lessthan]

Wait... wait... are you saying that properly implemented copyrights are stifling the innovation libraries are supposed to foster?? It can't be true!

Re:The spy in the sewage..

[Scudsucker]

Where is that oft touted liberal element in the US university system?

In the minds of wingnut Republicans, that's where.

Re:The spy in the sewage..

[aeschenkarnos]

Remember who it's "oft touted" by.

Re:The spy in the sewage..

[AgentPaper]

University of Michigan's been pretty good about it so far, I think. They have a "DMCA agent" who reviews infringement claims and warns suspected individuals that they're being targeted for action. If you actually infringed on someone's copyright, i.e. distributed music, movies, etc. on the U's networks, then it's on you to remove the infringing material and deal with the complainant. If you didn't, though, the DMCA agent will tell the complainant to fsck off on your behalf and tell you where to find your own legal shark. It's not ideal, but it's a hell of a lot better than "Hello Joe Student, we got this nasty letter about activities that may or may not have been committed, that may or may not be illegal, that may or may not be associated with an IP address that you may or may not have used at some point in the past. Now kindly bend over and smile."

These clowns overreached enough when they targeted the public Ivies on that list (Penn State, Ohio State, Minnesota et al), but they must be downright mad to go after Missouri Rolla. Why in the name of all that is good would you want to piss off a school full of explosive demolition engineers?

Re:The spy in the sewage..

[elrous0]

Yale lags behind Harvard yet again.

Re:This is all far worse than the taxes....

[iminplaya]

AFAICT your constitution says you should.

You're confusing that with the declaration of independence, which, of course, advocates nothing of the kind. It makes statements of the right and obligation to overthrow a corrupt, tyrannical government. Rebellion is not murder. The constitution, on the other hand, authorizes the government to repress such a rebellion in any way it sees fit. That would include murder. But when the government does it, it's not murder.

Hey baby, troll here often?

The letter is more dangerous for RIAA than student

[iamacat]

If RIAA was to sue the student based on the information in the letter, they would open themselves to counterclaims of deceptive business practices and even racketeering. Given that a student would be able to declare bankruptcy for any significant judgement while RIAA members have billions of dollars in the bank, risks would far outweigh the benefits of such a lawsuit. I say the letters are exactly what they look like.

And It's not just the RIAA

[Aellus]

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.

Re:And It's not just the RIAA

[Aellus]

Err, after re-reading what i wrote, i was _not_ implying that it should happen. I was pointing out that its a problem, and that it definitely _shouldn't_ happen. Its late, i chose bad wording.

IP Evidence?

[FieroEtnl]

Elsewhere on the website, Mike O'Donnell, a University of Chicago law professor, gives a good discussion of why the RIAA's policy of identifying people solely by their "unique" IP address is a load of crap. I'm honestly surprised more people haven't used this kind of a defense when the RIAA targets them. Maybe it's because it's not well-known knowledge yet?

In any case, I'm glad that I'm living off-campus next year as my university is on that list and is now notorious for its one strike policy. WTF is up with the idiots in Kansas anyways?

Re:IP Evidence?

[OverlordQ]

The IP number given as return address in a packet is provided initially by the actual sender, which may (and in the case of an attacker often does) provide an address used by another interface not at all involved in the production of the packet. So the return IP address in a packet received by an RIAA detection effort does not indicate even the IP address of the actual sender in any reliable way.

So some how, some magical third party C is somehow able to not only forge packets with my IP, but successfully somehow negotiate a transfer of data between uploader A and downloader B by having a one-sided conversation with A?

I think the evidence they use is somehow more then just a single packet's worth of data.

Re:IP Evidence?

[Garen]

Think about the bazillions of open unsecured wifi routers out there that people also often use as a network switch. Someone could easily connect to them and download something 'illegal'--meanwhile the externally visible, internet-routable IP that the RIAA identifies is associated with a customer. RIAA then sues said customer, who had nothing to do with the alleged infringement.

Harvard Deliberately Omitted?

[Gibbs-Duhem]

Just like how they "deliberately omitted" the 5,673 other schools not in the list of 23 they didn't omit?

Seems strange to assume that the RIAA is scared just because they picked other targets. They're choices in every other instance seem completely random, why would this one be any different?

This is like saying that MIT is "conspicuously absent" and claiming it is because MIT refused to log traffic for the RIAA on their internal network because of the sheer technical insanity of the request. Correlation != causation.

Re:Harvard Deliberately Omitted?

[c0p0n]

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.

Re:Harvard Deliberately Omitted?

[HarvardAce]

I couldn't find it in TFA, but my understanding is that Harvard was originally included in the list, but then dropped after it indicated a willingness to fight the RIAA and not sell out its students. I know that Harvard isn't the only college/university fighting the RIAA on this, but I hope that as bigger names start joining the fight, the smaller schools will take their lead and also start saying no to the RIAA.

Re:Harvard Deliberately Omitted?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I couldn't find it in TFA, but my understanding is that Harvard was originally included in the list, but then dropped after it indicated a willingness to fight the RIAA and not sell out its students. I know that Harvard isn't the only college/university fighting the RIAA on this, but I hope that as bigger names start joining the fight, the smaller schools will take their lead and also start saying no to the RIAA. To the best of my knowledge they have not attempted to take on Harvard.

Also we don't know how many schools may have said no to the RIAA, our information on this is anecdotal. Only the RIAA knows for sure... and they're not telling.

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[rs79]

"A couple of law professors are not representatives of the school"

Heh. Charlie Neesan is not just "a professor". He's a law professor that started the Berkmen Center for Law and Technology. He's the last guy in America the RIAA wants to annoy. Where do you think Lessig got his ieas on coyright from? He was a student of Charlie's. Charlie is way cool.

Neesan's point is simple and quite legal: the RIAA should not outsource their investigation to universities.

Call me stupid

[Askmum]

or better: uneducated in American law, but isn't this standard practice in any criminal investigation? Admit to a lesser crime to avoid the risk of being sentenced for a higher crime (that you didn't commit). Plea-bargain it is called, and in my eyes it is the worst form of extortion on the planet.

Re:Call me stupid

[db32]

Not quite. First this is civil court stuff not criminal court and they are handled entirely differently. Second, Plea deals are such an abortion of justice it is unreal, and its not for the silly extortion claim. Frequently what it boils down to is that the higher crime will take longer to deal with in court, but they still want to get the criminal, so the criminal's lawyer says "hey, you are guilty as sin, and they can probably prove it, but if you plea to this lesser deal you will get a lighter sentence and be done". Frequently Plea deals involve a considerably lighter sentence than what probably would have happened to you if you wasted the courts time and money going through a lengthy trial on something you did.

Look at molestation cases for example. It could be pretty obvious that something was going on, but you have a molestor and a child that doesn't fully understand what is happening as the real witnesses to the actual events. On top of that you don't want to put the child on stage for months forcing them to relive it over and over for the court, because ultimately it should be about helping the child more than extracting revenge. So you give the molestor a deal to end it quickly.

Re:Call me stupid

[Daniel Dvorkin]

In the child-molester scenario you give, I don't see how that's an "abortion of justice." Sure, ideally the molester would be convicted fully of the crime and receive the full sentence, but surely it's better to get a conviction of some kind and avoid further harm to the victim, than to either have the offender go free completely or to continue traumatizing the child.

Also, plea-bargains are an absolutely necessary tool for fighting organized crime. Low-level gangsters may be very bad people, but their bosses are much worse. So if you can get the "soldiers" to testify against the big guys in return for a lighter sentence, it's a win. The fact of the matter is, the power of the Mafia (the original Italian one, I mean) has been largely broken in America by this tactic; this is a Good Thing.

So what we need is to start squeezing the front-line RIAA lawyers ... "Look, we know you make your living suing college students and grandmothers and cute fuzzy kittens. We don't think much of that. But what we really want is the guys who pay your bills. So, tell you what: you agree to, say, giving up your law license and your big house and your fancy car, and go work at McDonald's for ten years, and testify against your bosses; and in return, we won't put you up against the wall and shoot you."

Re:Call me stupid

[db32]

Uhm...the mafia thing isn't usually a plea bargain, that is usually amnesty/immunity. You give me the get out of jail free card and I will tell you everything...entirely different.

As far as the molestors...the three cases I have been around (unfortunately it happens alot more than most people like to think about). 1. Kid gets 2 years standard probation for admitting to multiple counts of molesting a young girl and doesn't even have to register. 2. Guy gets 6 months jail + 10yr probation for pleading guilty to sexual assault on a child and indecent acts with a child. 3. And this one takes the fucking cake, and I swear to God I will be chearing in the streets if someone in this poor girls family drags this asshole into the street and turns him into a bloody smear that covers the entire block. Young girl is sodomized so badly that she has to go through multiple surgeries to repair the damages and will likely have many physical problems in the future (not to mention the psychological ones). Dear ol sodomizing dad pleads to some watered down form of child abuse because "he was punishing her for pooping her pants, and it was not sexual".

That is why the whole plea deal nonsense is such an abortion of justice. Beyond that...they are lawyers...which as far as I am concerned these days are worse than any mobster. And before anyone goes on about how some lawyers are good and required to defend people...I submit that if the laws weren't written by a bunch of dodgy ass loophole wrangling lawyers in the first place the shit would be pretty clear cut and the common man would be more than capable of defending himself in court in front of a qualified judge. If we didn't have a system based on the sum of 10 million technicalities it wouldn't be such a freaking mess. I am so glad that child molestor recently had his case thrown out because it took 3 years to find a translator in his native language that maybe 100,000 people speak, and the first translator ran out of the room in tears because she was so horrified by the details, nevermind though that he was using english in school...it violated his right to a speedy trial. I bet Kevin Mitnick was wishing he spoke some rare foreign language after that ruling.

woot

[scapermoya]

no UCs on there either. I guess I can keep azureus open after all.

Not a prison?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a place of learning, not a prison.

Thankfully, that can still be said about many of the universities in the US. I can still go to class at my college without having anyone question me or violate my privacy. Unfortunately, that no longer applies to most high schools. In high school, I had to walk through metal detectors to get on the campus. I had to deal with cops walking the halls at all times. I had to deal with being captured by security cameras in nearly every square inch of the building. I had to deal with random searches by police (including drug dogs) of the lockers and student parking lot "looking for contraband."

Metal detectors, guards, security cameras, random searches for contraband, and you don't have a choice whether or not to be subjected to all of this... Sounds a lot like prison to me. If anything comes of the VT shooting hearings I'm afraid the same thing will eventually happen to universities.

Our young people are growing up being conditioned to accept police-state behavior. God help us, as a country, a couple of generations from now if this continues.

Re:Not a prison?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse yet, our young people are getting used to the idea of no privacy. With all the changes limiting freedom in our society now, imagine what these young people will agree too when they get power.

My locker partner in high school had some problems with drugs. He learned that the police were doing a search one day and went home "sick". He left his coat in the locker. The drug dog went off on the locker. As they knew my locker partner had gone home, I was pulled out of class. I was questioned by the principal, two law enforcement officers and one of the school security guards for twenty minutes while the drug dog was at my croch. The reason he went off was my friend's coat. It smelled like pot and had trace amounts in one of the pockets. It was not enough to get him in any trouble, but it sure taught me a lesson about searches. They wasted my time, pulled me out of class (one I actually liked which was rare), and I had to deal with accusations. I was labeled a drug user after that. Teachers would publicly accuse me of using drugs. My grades fell because they thought I couldn't possible do my work on drugs. I must be cheating. In reality, I was mislabeled a drug user and had a shitty home life.

I don't have a lot of respect for any rights violations. This happened to me in the 90s (97 i think). What do they do to high school students now?

Another RIAA mistake?

[cheros]

I haven't seen the letters yet, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that they hold a threat of litigation without there being a factual basis, i.e. an as yet unfounded accusation. IANAL, but if I recall correctly there are laws against that. If their past "evidence" is anything to go by I would actually like to see ONE case that has been proven properly. Just one, to see if they can actually get this to work without abusing the law and mob tactics.

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.

Each time I read about the RIAA on Slashdot...

[CaptainPotato]

... 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...]

Re:Each time I read about the RIAA on Slashdot...

[Aellus]

Careful, do you have the rights to those lyrics? The RIAA might be reading this.

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[bmo]

"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

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[laejoh]

Harvard will be the RIAA's Vietnam; fighting a guy called Charlie :)

K.U. not O.K.

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> 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.

So I lawyers trained at Harvard Law Degree are pretty sharp. All it took from them was a sternly written letter back, presumably quoting the L.A.W..

Colleges that cave-in should consider, what sort of a message does it send prospective students? "Get your law degree with us, and you too can learn how to fold like a wimp" Probably not the best places to learn about Constitutional Rights.

Re:K.U. not O.K.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

actually im waiting for some student to sue the school for caving in and letting letting the students be harmed by the schools action. I wonder if a schools legal department has considered how going along with the RIAA might open them up to litigation. I wonder about that myself, because, as I pointed out here, the schools have been waiving their students' due process rights.

Re:Surprising?

[BakaHoushi]

Only if we're surprised to think that people can lie, cheat, threaten, and extort college kids, generally one of the poorest demographics around, for the sake of a couple thousand dollars when they already make millions/billions.

In other words, as much as I'd like to be, I can't say I'm shocked in the least. At this point, the MAFIAA is little more than an extortion ring, trying to squeeze money from wherever you can. "Well, Mr. Dean, you have such a lovely list of students at this college. It'd be a SHAME if a dozen of them were to suddenly drop out because they were sued into oblivion, all because you wouldn't cooperate..."

This isn't about copyright anymore. This isn't about Intellectual Property anymore. This is about a group of thugs in suits trying to use the judicial system to make a quick buck wherever and whenever they can, regardless of the legality or morality of it.

[...] , Aviods Harvard

[ascendant]

Who else Laughed Out Loud when they read this?

Extortion, pure and simple

[Stanislav_J]

We've seen ample evidence that an IP address does not necessarily correlate to an individual. In an actual court case, the RIAA would have to also show that copyrighted material exists on the computer in question (through an actual forensic search of the hard drive), that the files were placed in a shared folder that can be accessed by others, that those same files have been actually distributed to others through a P2P network, that no one else has access to the computer in question, that the person in question was actually the one who placed the material there and that the computer has not been compromised through hacking of any kind, etc., etc., etc. WAY easier just to extort a quick $3K a pop through fear.

I wonder why certain schools are targeted, and certain individuals at that school. Are certain universities passed over because they have a law school? A savvy law or pre-law student may well see through the bullshit and give the RIAA a run for its money in court. (And may well have relatives who are lawyers and/or sympathetic professors willing to knowledgably defend them.) Someone in another message said that 30 letters had been sent to the college he works at. Now, unless that is one tiny little college, I find it hard to believe that only 30 students file-share. I wonder if they target specific schools and dorms within those schools because of the type of students likely to be caught up in the dragnet? (I.e., naive freshman, yes; senior pre-law student, no.)

It's not for nothing that so many of you refer to the RIAA as the MAFIAA. The tactics are the same. Tell me, who does the Mafia go after when they run a protection or extortion racket? The big corporation with a bevy of lawyers and a lot of power and influence? Or the small businessman, the store owner who has few resources, barely keeps his head above water, and may well be an immigrant of questionable status or otherwise afraid of losing what little he has? Bingo -- they go after the weak, ignorant, and vulnerable.

The RIAA has been VERY lucky so far in that they have only in a few cases gone after the "wrong" sort of target that will fight back. No matter how careful they are, hopefully sooner or later they will hit a few more people who can really make trouble for them.

Let's help out the RIAA

[Genda]

Hey Everybody... let's all get together and help out our favorite greedy, draconian, ass monkeys!

Is there anybody out there who'd like to instigate an attack against Yale, Harvard, and the rest of the Ivy League in the name of the RIAA? I mean if they're so hot to trot, smacking colleges up side the head, they should go straight after the big guys! Put them in their place. Put the fear of God into the rest of the Universities in this country! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Someone needs to make them put up, or shut up.

Either their case has merits, and therefore they should be going after every college... or it is groundless, and they're guilty of frivolous lawsuits in the name of extorting those least able to protect themselves from legal harassment. So we need to all step up and let them know, that they can't just go around picking on smaller schools and weaking institutions.

The RIAA wants to poke a horets nest with a stick, they should get all the stinging their money can buy!

Just wondering...

[DeeVeeAnt]

How many of the kids of the RIAA/Recording industry/Ruling class elite attend Havard?

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[Ubi_NL]

I think you meant Charles Nesson. It's kinda polite to spell the name correctly.

But the schools listed WILL cave

[gelfling]

You know they will. And eventually the 'big' targets will stand alone and they will cave too. I kind of hope that in the end the RIAA figures out a sufficiently robust DRM that coupled with their legal tactics just drives people away from their content and no one pays it any attention at all. Then maybe Jay-Z and the RIAA can sue each other. Because really your only weapon is to stop paying them for anything at any time for any of their 'content'.

Re:Surprising?

[yurnotsoeviltwin]

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.

Re:Surprising?

[Dragonslicer]

I still wonder if they're really making any money on all of this. I suppose now that they're mass-producing settlement letters, but I'd imagine they're paying their lawyers enough that it would take hundreds of settlements to break even. I think it's more likely to be about fear and power. They just want to frighten everyone away from downloading music, going on the assumption that everyone that would otherwise download music will go out and buy CD's instead. The power rush of being able to create new laws whenever they want probably also contributes a bit.

The problem may also be their own fear. Like politicians, if they appear to be doing nothing about a problem, they'll lose their jobs. Enough (important) people would rather see them do the wrong thing than nothing.

For those too lazy to read:

[beckerist]

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.

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[Broken scope]

Awesome, I transferring to Ga Tech at the end of the year, now I have an even better reason to go.

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[SteelFist]

I have to say that I am surprised that Penn State is on that list -- Penn State for a few years now has given us Napster subscriptions to legally download music to circumvent this problem -- this year they finally changed to Ruckus, but the same idea still holds. What is it that the RIAA is looking for if we had a legal way to download music?

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[Anonymous Coward]

What, that you might get in trouble for doing something that is obviously punishable by law to some extent? Even if you think it shouldn't be an issue, downloading music, blaming a college for getting in trouble when you doing something against the moral majority is dumb.

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[DavidTC]

What is it that the RIAA is looking for if we had a legal way to download music?

Um...money?

Maybe I'm not understanding the question.

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[russotto]

Franklin and Marshall College Hmm. What's a small college in Lancaster, PA doing on the list, otherwise consisting mostly of large universities? Did some RIAA lawyer get expelled from there?

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[chaoticgeek]

We have something like this, but it costs less than a regular subscription but it also stops if you are not using the campus internet to access the music service. I think it may be Ruckus but I'm not sure. The whole thing kinda sucks because you never really own the songs and as soon as you leave our campus you can not download any more songs. Plus it costs so much per month.

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[lamona]

Unfortunately, the fact that there is a legal way to download music will probably go against anyone caught using a less legal source. And it proves (in the minds of some) that the university has some responsibility for the download behavior of the students. Anyone remember the days of the Appropriate Use Policy? Basically, the rules on how you could and couldn't use the university's internet access. Fifteen years ago or so, those AUPs were all about not using the Net for commercial use. Today, they are about copyright.

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[LifesABeach]

I personally would be amused if the RIAA visited Yale. Because it is only a matter of time before class action status can be applied to those of the RIAA, AND their faceless masters.

Re:For those too lazy to read:

[skreeech]

I think the moral majority of young people has spoken. Downloading music isn't wrong to them. Music is "free" in many places to begin with. Music off the internet just feels like an extension to that for most people.

You must be new here.

[b1scuit]

Of course we can!

How to get around the RIAA

[192939495969798999]

1. Attend a $10 online course of some kind at Harvard.
2. Download your moozik.
3. ???
4. Profit!

As a student of one of those hives of villainy...

[Tikiman49]

I go to Georgia Tech, which to my surprise was on this list of horribly evil and bad schools. What exactly are the criteria the RIAA used to determine these schools? Tech has a 3-strike policy and has people who actually know what they're doing monitoring the network. First strike = warning, second strike = suspension from network and an interview, third strike = banned from the GT network. Why does the RIAA feel the need to step in on this as well?

Oh, right... $3000 is a pretty big motivator.

The RIAA are not the police, but they certainly seem to be acting like it. There has got to be some law clearly being broken by their strong-arm enforcement and intimidation tactics. The crime of copyright infringement is minor compared to the slimey law tactics I keep reading about. What is it going to take to stop it?

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[carbinworld]

C'mon now, like it or not, the North Vietnamese were referred to as "Charlie", not "Charles". It was a joke. Get it now?

Re:Surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Surprising?

[okinawa_hdr]

Americans can buy pitchforks and storm the buildings of the RIAA/MPAA/White House, etc.....but they don't. Do you know of the fall of Rome?

Re:As a student of one of those hives of villainy.

[fractalVisionz]

I also attend Georgia Tech. What is funny is that under Georgia law, and possible all law, that our parents can't see our grades, know our enrollment, or anything like that.

Yet at the same time, the RIAA is allowed to find out our information, which is legally privately protected? I believe even if our parents were to sue or subpoena Georgia Tech, the would still not be able to find out our information as it is protected by state law.

This is one of the reasons Harvard is on top of their game, because they recognize the rights of students attending.

I may be wrong about the exact extend of the law, but I know the parents part is correct. Just my 2.

Hey, imagine that...

[Anarchitektur]

Of all the Universities listed, none of them are known for their law schools. Who do they specifically exclude? The #2 ranked law school in the US (Source: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/ usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.p hp)

This only makes the fact that this campaign is based on preying on ignorance all the more obvious. No law students would fall for this, so they go to schools where they don't have to worry about law students.

Re:Hey, imagine that...

[ShadowDrgn]

Actually, look at the rankings for intellectual property law in particular. George Washington is ranked third, and Santa Clara University was ranked fourth last year (not sure about this year since you have to pay to see beyond the top three). I think it's fairly irrelevant because most law students don't live on campus. Also, *insert obligatory comment about how rankings are worthless garbage anyway*

I've attended two of the twenty-three on the list and haven't been sued yet, what do I win?

Re:Hey, imagine that...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Of all the Universities listed, none of them are known for their law schools. Who do they specifically exclude? The #2 ranked law school in the US (Source: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/ usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.p hp [rankingsandreviews.com]) This only makes the fact that this campaign is based on preying on ignorance all the more obvious. No law students would fall for this, so they go to schools where they don't have to worry about law students. Excellent point, Anarchitektur.

Re:Surprising?

[Gilmoure]

No, but 'Visigoth' would be a great name for a car or SUV.

Well...

[kitsunewarlock]

My college isn't much better off. I know from talking to the I&IT people that they have cease-and-desists pre-signed and ready to send out under the RIAA's orders. I also happen to know that no one who works there cares enough to actually use these documents. The worst that ever happens here is our network goes down every 6 months because some idiot leaked the password to the wrong person (mind you the people in charge of shutting it down are probably perfectly aware of it themselves--heck someone accidentally mailed every student on campus asking for the network password 4 months ago) and that person had to comply (i.e. send a cease and desist from atop the dusty pile) or else lose their job.

Berklee is ignored

[TibbonZero]

I hope that the RIAA doesn't read ./ and that i'm not shooting several fellow alumni and students in the foot with this, but from what I've seen the RIAA has stayed far away from Berklee College of Music even moreso than Harvard. Juilliard too.

I hear about lawsuits and letters against students at many other area schools (BU, BC, etc), but Berklee has always been kept out of it. My guess? The RIAA doesn't want to cause more "real enemies" from their artists. Each year, Berklee kicks out one or two groups that are signed to a major label, and many more of us are signed to major publishing deals. I don't think the RIAA wants to get the alumni upset that they are attacking fellow alumni and students.

For those that don't know, Berklee alumni are a serious part of the industry. Between the back end business parts, arrangers, composers, engineers and the front artists that are all Berklee alums, I don't think they want to walk on eggshells with Berklee.

And seriously, the average Berklee student has 100x larger music collection than any Harvard student I've met. We also buy more CDs than most people, but many of us download a good bit too.

If you were the RIAA would you piss off big alumni like John Mayer, Jan Hammer, Susan Tedeschi, Paula Cole, and Quincy Jones?

Yes, Harvard has several big lawyers and leaders as alumni, but pissing on Berklee is pissing on themselves- so they don't do it. Google "Berklee RIAA lawsuit" and try the same with any other school (harvard or BU) and you don't find any suits against Berklee students.

Re:Surprising?

[Gregb05]

any companies that defend their business by prosecuting customers might want to revise their business plan to actually include said customers. I'm sure there's a more favorable (read: less boycott-inciting) way of separating these people from their money.

You have to agree that most people see RIAA as a necessary bully at best.
I can't wait for music companies to realize they've been granted a free distribution system through the internet, and figure out how to use it effectively. This legal crap needs to stop, Overall been terrible PR for them.

Re:Surprising?

[moxley]

I would assume that organizations such as this have armies of high end law firms - they type who golf with judges and politicians at 250k per year private golf clubs - on retainer. If the RIAA themselves don't have such lawyers on retainer, you can bet that the multinational entertainment conglomerates do and would gladly provide them.

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[Scrameustache]

"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"? Can we hope they'll piss off another former governor?
I'd love to see the footage of a showdown between the head of the RIAA and that guy :-p

I wanna "snarfle the garthok"!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Harvard missing?

So is Yale.

So is University of Michigan, with the 2nd ranked law school after Yale.

Curious. But they can try to beat the hell out of NMU. What bullies, punching on weaker people.

Re:I wanna "snarfle the garthok"!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Harvard missing? So is Yale. So is University of Michigan, with the 2nd ranked law school after Yale. Curious. But they can try to beat the hell out of NMU. What bullies, punching on weaker people. A basic rule I learned a long time ago:

All bullies are cowards.

Re:Surprising?

[Temtongkek]

You're at UD? Nice.. See you at Brew HaHa sometime. ;)

Re:Surprising?

[HiThere]

They're making money as long as they can convince the record companies to pay their dues.

The RIAA doesn't need to make money on law suits. Any profits there are just a way of minimizing their expenses. Where they make their money is from the dues that they collect from the member companies. You know, Vanguard, Sony, etc.

Calling them a gang of racketeers isn't that far wrong, though, and may be technically accurate. But somehow you don't see these people being assaulted with RICO. Are they technically guilty? They haven't been convicted. Should they be? I don't know. But the cute thing about RICO is that your money and property are confiscated BEFORE you are found guilty. They you get to try to find a lawyer to take your case. For some reason it seems to be frequently applied to persons of modest means and with few political connections.

My letter to the RIAA

[bennini]

Dear Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, Warner,

I would like to inform you of my recent decision to stop purchasing music produced by your record labels.

In the past, I was a strong supporter of the music industry, music artists and the Compact Disc technology. I regularly purchased CD albums for several reasons. First, I consider myself an audiophile and enjoy the quality of music offered by the Compact Disc format. Second, I collect music and often relisten to an album many years after buying it. Third, I believe music artists should be rewarded for their hard work and skill. With respect to my favorite bands (Tool, the Cardigans and Garbage) I also believe it provides
incentive for them to continue producing music. It was because of these three reasons that I generally opposed and condemned the idea of downloading music illegally. I considered myself to be, what many refer to as, the music industry's ideal customer.

In the past few weeks, this all changed; and since your companies' prosperity in the music industry is entirely enabled by persons like myself, I would like to tell you why.

I have grown tired of reading about the endless lawsuits and out-of-court settlement letters spewed from your companies' legal departments. I am a 25 year old American student pursuing an MSc in Germany and find your methodology for dealing with students at American universities revolting and offensive. I also believe your companies' business model is flawed, rigid and destined to fail. Your inability to adapt to a high-quality digital distribution model (without DRM) will quickly undermine your revenue stream. There is no justification for a music CD to cost almost twice the price of a DVD movie; especially when one compares the production costs of the two.

Today, when I walked into the local music store, I took a look at the price of a new CD release, considered buying it, then decided to go home and illegally download it instead. I will continue to act accordingly until the RIAA changes its attitude, business model and pricing scheme.

This letter would not be justly sent without an offer to regain me as a customer. I therefore propose that you A) offer all music through iTunes DRM-free and with the option to download the files in a "lossless" format and B) reduce song prices to $0.25 per song with 50% of that going directly to the artist and the other 50% to be split at your discretion between the RIAA and Apple. Should you agree to said proposal, I will hapily purchase your music again on a frequent basis and actively campaign for the RIAA amongst my social networks and on Slashdot.org.

Sincerely,
Benjamin P

Re:My letter to the RIAA

[Nom du Keyboard]

Good luck!

Interesting

[cdrguru]

OK, the general attitude here is "I'll have my music and nobody is gonna stop me!"

The real question is has the RIAA ever won in court? Obviously, the uninformed opinion here is no, but has it happened?

The second point is can anyone be successfully sued in civil court for anything on the Internet? Assuming they do not brag about it on open forums or otherwise admit their actions, it would seem the general opinion here is that since nobody saw you do it, it cannot be proven who did it. Therefore, no responsibility exists. This seems like a very dangerous position to take because it pretty much establishes a legal defense for any sort of action, legal or not, on the Internet. Does this sound like a good way to go? Should use of the Internet convey immunity?

Re:Interesting

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

OK, the general attitude here is "I'll have my music and nobody is gonna stop me!" The real question is has the RIAA ever won in court? Obviously, the uninformed opinion here is no, but has it happened? The second point is can anyone be successfully sued in civil court for anything on the Internet? Assuming they do not brag about it on open forums or otherwise admit their actions, it would seem the general opinion here is that since nobody saw you do it, it cannot be proven who did it. Therefore, no responsibility exists. This seems like a very dangerous position to take because it pretty much establishes a legal defense for any sort of action, legal or not, on the Internet. Does this sound like a good way to go? Should use of the Internet convey immunity? Your comment is pretty weird, as I haven't seen the "viewpoints" which you're criticizing expressed by anyone here other than you.

As to your question whether the RIAA has ever won, the answer is, to the best of my knowledge, they have never won a fully contested case.

The RIAA Seeks Out Weakness

[Nom du Keyboard]

The RIAA is great in the early stages of finding ways to keep people from fighting back when their case is the weakest. When, in fact, in the beginning where they actually have no case!

However, in an ex parte suit, their normal non-university approach, no defendant ever appears in court to show why personal information should not be released with the evidence provided.

And in these university cases, the university isn't being sued directly -- only threatened with bad publicity. As such, too many universities don't consider it worth their fighting on behalf of their students and cave in to demands that should be easy to shoot down.

The RIAA is using these cases in their attempt to rewrite copyright law more to their liking, and are being allowed to get away with it far too much!

Why not Harvard?

[PPH]

Possibly because its better to have a few future heads of major corporations, federal judges, etc. in your back pocket using blackmail than it is to extract a couple of bucks from them now.

Re:Why not Harvard?

[thepacketmaster]

More likely it's because the RIAA is scared that having that many lawyers-in-training and law professors pissed off at them might be a good way to have all their legal efforts crushed.

Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and-HERE's WHY

[Nom du Keyboard]

I take it that you have some meaningful explanation of why a university should protect students from consequences of a currently unlawful activity.

Because the RIAA doesn't have a valid, legal case, and are committing acts more akin to extortion, than valid lawsuits. That's why!

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[rs79]

Yeah probably, but I can't spall enyting write. If yu ask him I don't think he'd mined. I know Charlie; the point is important, the spelling isnt't. You were able to figure it out, right?

Re:Surprising?

[Schemat1c]

This is about a group of thugs in suits trying to use the judicial system to make a quick buck wherever and whenever they can, regardless of the legality or morality of it. Welcome to western civilization, it's been that way since at least the days of Rome.

Respond with fake credentials

[wiredlogic]

It would be hilarious if the lawyers were swamped with thousands of responses to the settlement letters using fake cedentials. Motivated students should contact their friendly IT staff to get copies of these letters for this research.

University of Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

I received an email from my school (University of Washington: Seattle) warning that the powers that be at my institution are pansies and believe that the RIAA is in the right. They have every intention of kowtowing and forwarding the "pre-settlement" letters. It really makes my gut churn to read this crap. Added emphasis is mine.

June 25, 2007

This message is being sent to all students with approval from the Office
of the Vice Provost for Student Life.
_____

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,

Eric S. Godfrey
Vice Provost for Student Life
OVPSL@u.washington.edu

Re:University of Washington

[Daffy Duck]

That's weird. The sentence you've chosen to emphasize that churned your gut is exactly the reason I find this letter makes some sort of sense. The university is receiving this advance notice that you're going to be sued, and they have a choice of whether or not to let you know about it. Keep in mind that the RIAA is going to get a subpoena for your contact information anyway, so the University can't shield you from a lawsuit by withholding the letter. If someone knocks on your door and serves a paper on you, are you going to feel better knowing that the university could have warned you about it ahead of time but chose not to?

I can see answering yes if you assume that every RIAA accusation is a lie and that every defense is going to succeed and cost less than a settlement. But guess what? Most of them aren't. I know the folks who have to handle DMCA matters where I went to school, and of the hundreds of accusations they've dealt with from the RIAA/MPAA (who are definitely thugs - don't get me wrong) less than 1% have been contested.

Re:University of Washington

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The university is receiving this advance notice that you're going to be sued, and they have a choice of whether or not to let you know about it. Keep in mind that the RIAA is going to get a subpoena for your contact information anyway, so the University can't shield you from a lawsuit by withholding the letter. Not so.

The RIAA will only be able to issue a subpoena if the Court grants an ex parte order authorizing it to issue subpoenas.

If the university brought applicable law to the judge's attention, or gave the students a chance to hire their own lawyers and fight the discovery application themselves, the orders would never issue.

See, e.g., Virginia decision and New Mexico decision.

Re:University of Washington

[Daffy Duck]

Well that's encouraging. And hopefully more universities will find themselves able to take advantage of this as it propagates from district to district.

But even so, would you really rather that the university not give you advance warning that the RIAA has you in its sights?

Re:University of Washington

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well that's encouraging. And hopefully more universities will find themselves able to take advantage of this as it propagates from district to district. But even so, would you really rather that the university not give you advance warning that the RIAA has you in its sights? Personally, if I were the student or student's parent, I would want my university to tell the RIAA that it will be willing to send along the letters if and only if the RIAA agrees that, as to any students who choose not to settle, the application for a discovery order will be made on notice and not ex parte, and will not violate federal joinder rules, as outlined in my Open Letter to Colleges and Universities.

If the RIAA would not agree to that, then I would want my university to tell the RIAA to "take a hike" with its settlement letters.

I would not care one way or the other about getting the letter, because it's not as though the letters contain useful information. The letter is simply a shakedown.

Well...

[Xenographic]

As far as I know, they have student legal services that are (supposed) to protect and advise students in any legal trouble.

The question then becomes, why cave just for the RIAA?

Re:Surprising?

[Foobar of Borg]

Record companies prosecuting people who take their products without paying are just defending their business. get some fucking perspective.

They are selectively prosecuting people who have the least means to defend themselves (such as college students), and are using tactics like ex parte prosecution, insisting on deposing ten year old girls face-to-face, and a host of other evils. Plus, copyright terms have gotten to be absolutely ridiculous.

If copyright terms were only, say, 20 years and the RIAA used normal legal means to prosecute file sharers for copyright violations, I would have absolutely no sympathy for file sharers. But, with life + 90 years copyright terms and RIAA's underhanded tactics, I say fuck 'em. They are the scum of the earth.

Educating minds

[Philotechnia]

I know the weekday news anchor in a city where one of the 23 universities is located. I'm trying to get her to run a story on this, ASAP. It's a small measure, but the more awareness of these heavy-handed tactics, the better, no? I'll post a link to the story if/when it runs, for those who are interested.

No losing jobs

[Gr8Apes]

The MAFIAA (RIAA/MPAA) are nothing more than legal fronts for their members to do these unsavory acts. They're not selling services, they're paid to take certain actions that would be inadvisable for the individual companies to take. Can you imagine the backlash were Sony, Disney, or Universal to try one of these lawsuits on their own?

So, money is not the direct reason for the MAFIAA's existence in and of itself. It is, however, to allow their corporate members to continue to create a "market" wherein they set the prices. By stifling alternatives to their pricing structure, they lock the market. After all, if you want lossless music, they're pretty much the only game in town.

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[Ubi_NL]

Neesan != Nesson
I don't care about his first name

Re:Harvard may have clout but...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Heh. Charlie N[esson] is not just "a professor". He's a law professor that started the Berkmen Center for Law and Technology. He's the last guy in America the RIAA wants to annoy. Where do you p]think Lessig got his i[d]eas on co[p]yright from? He was a student of Charlie's. Charlie is way cool. Neesan's point is simple and quite legal: the RIAA should not outsource their investigation to universities. The RIAA is petrified at the thought of having to take on Prof. Nesson. They are cowards, and they will never take on Harvard.

Re:Surprising?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I still wonder if they're really making any money on all of this. I suppose now that they're mass-producing settlement letters, but I'd imagine they're paying their lawyers enough that it would take hundreds of settlements to break even. I think it's more likely to be about fear and power. They just want to frighten everyone away from downloading music, going on the assumption that everyone that would otherwise download music will go out and buy CD's instead. The power rush of being able to create new laws whenever they want probably also contributes a bit. The problem may also be their own fear. Like politicians, if they appear to be doing nothing about a problem, they'll lose their jobs. Enough (important) people would rather see them do the wrong thing than nothing. Here's my take on the economics:
-they make money on the settlements
-they lose money on the default judgments and
-they lose a fortune on any case where someone fights back.

This looks familiar ...

[jc42]

In reality, all the students are doing is providing the RIAA with personal and private information which can conceivably be used against them ...'"

Hey, I get one or two dozen phishing messages per day. What's one more? If the email filters don't catch it, I can flag it as "spam" (and wish they had a separate "phish" category ;-), and I never hear from them again. My gmail account gets about 1200 messages per month in its "Spam" folder, and roughly half of them are now phishing attempts.

So what's the big deal here? Don't these college students know how to recognize a phishing message when they see it?

Someone should explain to them that if they reply, their info will just be added to an "easy marks" database that's sold to other companies, resulting in a flood of other such messages from shady companies looking for naive victims.

We really should be teaching kids to defend themselves on the Net. The first lesson should be not to reply to such solicitations, ever.

Re:As a student of one of those hives of villainy.

[bdjacobson]

The people I've talked to (while I haven't talked directly with OIT about this some of my friends who are on #2 have) said on #3 they turn your information over to the **AA. Has something changed?

Funny enough..

[Digz]

..I heard that song for the first time last night on the Sirius Punk channel.. ;)

Re:As a student of one of those hives of villainy.

[Daffy Duck]

The information that is unavailable to your parents is protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and it probably doesn't include IP address mappings. Even if they were protected by FERPA, that protection goes away in the face of a lawfully issued subpoena.

I'm unaware of a Georgia-specific law that supersedes this, but I'd be very surprised for any law to say that it trumps a court order unless it was some national security PATRIOT-type super-secret bullshit.

Re:Except

[Scudsucker]

Except your link is obviously a bunch of biased bullshit put out by people with an agenda. Try again.

Re:Surprising?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Bollocks. If the Romans wanted your money they'd get it by direct methods, generally involving pointy bits of metal, rather than waffling and pleading. And they wore togas, not suits.

Re:Surprising?

[Schemat1c]

Bollocks. If the Romans wanted your money they'd get it by direct methods, generally involving pointy bits of metal, rather than waffling and pleading. And they wore togas, not suits. There were direct methods and shady methods then just as now. Rome was also swarming with lawyers, salesmen and corrupt senators, not as different as most think. Okay so they dressed different, but as they say 'When in Rome...'

Re: Berklee is a music college!

[TibbonZero]

It's often misunderstood, but educational purposes does not release a person from all copyright things.

Moreso, the RIAA more often gets people on sharing of music, and I think any Berklee student could say that their outbound file sharing was for education only.