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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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...

[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...

[Joebert]

Somthing about dropping logs & being relieved just sounds right.

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...

[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.

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

[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

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..

[Scudsucker]

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

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

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.

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?

[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 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.

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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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:

[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:

[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?

You must be new here.

[b1scuit]

Of course we can!

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?

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.

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?

[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.

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.