Slashdot Mirror
University of Kansas Will Not Forward RIAA Letters
Bonewalker writes "Looks like the University of Kansas may not be as pro-RIAA (or anti-student) as initially assumed last week from our recent discussion. From the Chronicle article: 'Kansas officials told the student newspaper that they will not heed the recording industry's request to pass pre-litigation notices on to 14 students accused of music piracy. Many institutions have forwarded the letters -- which offer students a chance to settle file-sharing claims out of court at discounted rates -- but some have declined to do so, citing concerns over students' privacy.' Of course, this doesn't make that 'one-strike' policy any less flawed, but it shows that they aren't simply throwing their students under the RIAA bus, as one poster put it."
Well, sure they won't. They're kicking the students out after one strike, so what's the point in forwarding a letter to someone who's no longer there!
I'm JOKING... I think.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
No, they're going to tie them up and leave them on the tracks in front of the on-coming train.
The RIAA could start a new branch, the Global Oversight Department, to oversee this stuff.
They'd probably get a better response from places like Kansas with that branch.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I'm glad they decided to stand up for their students. College is (like it or not) partially a parent-replacement, and a good parent tries to discipline their kids before handing them over to the legal system for pirating a few bucks worth of thoughtless major label tunes. I am much more likely to send my kid to University of Kansas now!
technical writing / development
"letters -- which offer students a chance to settle file-sharing claims out of court at discounted rates"
Amazing, the RIAA is now in the business of offering discounted lawsuit settlements. "Our lowest offer ever! Settle for only $999, no evidence scrutinized! Limited time so act now!"
(I'm a home user, not a student) from HBO because they caught me uploading The Sopranos. Well, actually, I was downloading it, but using bittorrent so i was of course also uploading. Anyway, I was glad to see it was just a cease and desist kind of thing and not a settlement offer. I've been a little more careful since throwing away that pair of underwear, I must confess.
I am not left-handed, either!
The letters are addressed to IP addresses. The RIAA expects the university to do its legwork for them. Next time, read TFA.
The letters don't come with the student's name on them. Rather, the RIAA gives the university an ip and time of an alleged offense, and sticks the university with the charge of tracking down who that student is. This can be quite a bit of work, especially when the RIAA waits longer than the university keeps detailed logs. At my university, nearly 30 students were to be notified, but because detailed logs were only kept for 30 days only 7 seven students got letters.
The RIAA letters aren't sent in the mail. This isn't a USPS filtering.
The RIAA contacts the university saying IPs X.X.X.X and Y.Y.Y.Y have been sharing songs. Please give the users this letter. Other universities have done the look up and found which users were those IP addresses belonged to and forwarded the letters on to the students. Kansas has effectively told the RIAA to fuck off.
I think the letters are usually sent by the RIAA to a certain IP address, the college then looks up the student in the IT records and forwards the letter to them. If KU does not forward these letters then RIAA will have to file a subpoena/DMCA/etc to get the students ID info from the university.
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
Is it me or does this smell like some sort of backtracking and/or that someone may have educated the school about their rights a little?
Which only benefits the RIAA/MPAA. Which doesn't benefit the American middle-class, lower-class, or anyone outside of America. I know how this will all turn out though, just as smokers how nice it is that the rest of America is turning on their habit, sure they never thought that that would happen (not the best example though).
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Kansas University is a pretty big school (~40k students I think...) The other large university (Kansas State University) just blocks all P2P; I used to work for the Enterprise Server group there.
I'm assuming that the RIAA has sent a generic letter to 'the user of IP x.x.x.x at time xx:xx' and expects the University to do the legwork on figuring out who the student was. U of K could a) not have the logs or b) choose not to reveal the user without a court order. When we receive these sorts of requests, we may or may not investigate depending on the nature of the offense. However, we very rarely provide any sort of information to the requesting party without a subpoena.
A couple of 30-somethings embark on the ultimate roadtrip
I fail to see how it would be the responsibility of the University to do dirty work of the RIAA regardless of their stance on music/file sharing. If they were responsible that would mean the provider of internet access is responsible for the way it's subscribers utilize their service. I'm sure the school, in most cases would attempt to pass on notices to students unless it goes against policy, but what is somewhat different about this case is that the RIAA is somehow imposing responsibility on the school. Even though the involvement at this point is minimal, it's a slippery slope that could lead to the university policing it's students or acting as an intermediary in a potentially tricky legal situation. 14 letters soon becomes 1400 letters, and then starts using up university resources. Now they have direct relationship between the RIAA and the school, where it is assumed the school is going to handle this burden of distribution at a minimum.
IANAL - but it seems to me they've also effectively taken part in blocking a legal action. AIUI, that can make the University of Kansas liable/responsible.
Kansas has effectively told the RIAA to fuck off.
Ahhh, 'effectively'. That one little word that separates fantasy from reality.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Well, you proved you aren't a lawyer here. There is a standard way to get the IP->name mapping. Its called a court order. You go before a judge, show your evidence, and if the judge agrees there's merit in the case they will order the university to hand the information over. Until then, the university is well within their rights to keep the information secret. If the state has any decent privacy laws, they may even be legally bound to do so.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Are these sent by certified mail? Does the RIAA need proof of delivery to pursue their lawsuit successfully? Or can they just go ahead and sue, without the student getting any warning?
All the article says is that "The University will not, however, forward students the RIAA pre-litigation letter, which gives them the opportunity to settle out of court."
How does this help the student? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical question. Anyone know the answer?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Third time I've had to say this. Universities are NOT "bending over" for the RIAA. They are FORWARDING MAIL. They gave the RIAA no personal information and at least in Purdue's case said they would NOT give them that information unless there was a subpeona.
Enough with this sensationalist "omg this university is in with the RIAA". If you ask me they are hurting their student population by not telling the students they have been targeted. That is all the other universities are doing. Telling them that there is a possibility that the RIAA will take you to court.
>>The RIAA contacts the university saying IPs X.X.X.X and Y.Y.Y.Y have been sharing songs.
It seems like the university would be kind of obligated to at least once launch an internal investigation like they would for plagiarism - someone is claiming the university's resources are being used for illegal purposes. Until they do an investigation at least once, they have no idea how credible the RIAA and their claims are.
They would not have to give up the names to anybody outside the university, but they could determine how credible these complaints are. If they could not be substantied, then they could just blow off the RIAA in the future and say the RIAA's claims are not credible. On the other hand, if RIAA's claims could be substantiated by an internal investigation then some type of disciplinary action would be in order.
I'm proud that finally KU has stood up to outside pressure and is protecting its students. Coincidentally, their Academic Computing Services department (university wide IS/IT) is being completely reorganized.
Just a few days ago I was ripping into old KU for pandering to the MAFIAA, and now we've got this partial about-face. Makes me want to walk over to walk over to the chancellor's house and tell him that this was a good decision.
A University that will forward the letters, BUT charge the RIAA a "handling fee." Let's say $900 per letter...
After Michael (Al Pacino's character) goes into hiding, Tom Hagen(Robert Duvall) says to Kay (Diane Keaton): "If I accept that letter and you told a Court of Law I accepted it, they would interpret it as my having knowledge of his whereabouts. Just wait Kay, he'll contact you."
Somehow I don't think that's far off.
You do realize that students' privacy cannot possibly (even theoretically) be violated by an act of communicating something TO THE STUDENTS as long as the students are the ONLY people to whom anything is communicated. They are not FORWARDING letters that are meant to be communications to the students. That can be done in a perfectly anonymous way. Ie., the letters can be given to the students without letting ANYONE ELSE know who these students are. So what privacy are we talking about here? All the article said is that they are not forwarding the letters.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
i posted this letter in the last story on /. regarding the RIAA but i did it a bit late (3 or 4 days after the story appeared on /.) so i dont think anyone got to read it.
below ive appended the letter which i am sending to the RIAA.
additionally, this recent story about the University of Kansas has inspired me to write letters to the other universities that have indeed forwarded the letters to the students -- regarding my decision to rule out all of them as places to do a PhD.
i highly encourage all of you to send similar letters. its time people start doing something about this rather than just complaining about it on internet forums.
--------
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 have over 200 CDs. I often re-listen 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 $0.50 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 happily 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
We used to call it "The Berkley of the Midwest" back when I was there.
Let's not forget that KU was where the student union was burnt down and classes were called early back during the Vietnam war. It was serious stuff.
Close, I think its about 36k students including the Medical School in KC and Wichita, and the Edwards campus. The network is old, open, in some places not well organized, and only in the last couple years has seen major updates. K-State even had functioning campus wireless before KU, although KU's is more advanced.
Honestly i can't stand the fact that major universities, which are practically ran by their student population, wont even stand up for their students-- at least as far as privacy rights are concerned.
they have no intention of actually pursuing,
citing non-applicable laws,
with an illegal joinder of Doe Defendants,
based on flimsy to non-existent real evidence,
and no opposition to this farce,
to get a judge to issue the required subpoena's that would force UK to turn over student identities to the Record Industry extortion machine. Only then will I feel that UK actually has their student's interests at heart first!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
How do we know you're not a goon from the RIAA sent to trick people into sending an admission of guilt?!?!!?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
As a faculty member at University of Kansas, I had the opportunity to talk to someone involved in the one-strike decision. Here's how he described the process of reaching their decision, paraphrased by me: Originally, KU adopted a three-strikes policy, and a few years ago, it seemed effective, as some students, when confronted with their first or second strike, pleaded to misunderstanding the policies of ResNet regarding filesharing. Basically, the three strikes allowed for learning to occur. Recently, however, the attitude of students when they received their first or second strike was, "eh." Students were aware of the policy, and they were simply ignoring it because they knew they had two "get out of jail free" cards in their pocket. Because no learning seemed to be occurring when implementing a first or second strike, the school decided such warnings were ineffective, and thus the one-strike-and-you're-out policy we have now. I'm not arguing for or against the new policy, but I thought folks would find the rationale KU used to reach their decision interesting.
Why? Everything you do on the Internet is completely anonymous unless you (or your ISP) rats you out.
If all they have is an IP address it does not show anything about who was at the keyboard. If they get that far, they can examine the computer and find pirated files. This still does not say who was at the keyboard when that occurred. Are you responsible for everything your computer does? Ever heard of spyware and BackOrifice? Of course you can't be held responsible for files on your computer.
If the University doesn't consider the "account holder" to be responsible for all activity on the connection, then it could have been your Auntie Em or Cousin Bo. Or the guy leeching WiFi in the parking lot.
This supposes that KU can associate a specific IP number with a known machine. Unless practice has improved a lot, they can't -- the allocation of IP numbers was a total, decentralized mess for a number of years, with nothing even remotely resembling a central registry. In my department, the "IP registry" consisted of a piece of notebook paper taped to a file cabinet in a supply closet. The situation may have improved over the last six months -- I vaguely recall someone wandering around systematically recording these for faculty machines -- but I don't know how it is for student machines.
For years (again, I haven't tried this lately), the standard technique for people who needed to get things done was a take an existing IP, and then just keep changing the last three digits until something worked. Yes, I know this is appalling practice; gives you some sense of the level of sophistication we've been working with. As Molly Ivins used to say, proof-positive that humans descended from monkeys, and damn recently at that, the former Board of Education notwithstanding.
Leaving open the possibility that KU's brave and principled stand is in fact merely an acknowledgment that they couldn't deliver the letters even if they had to, short of breaking down every door on campus.
Again, as a previous poster has noted, things have begun to improve over the last year, but the place was an IT zoo for the better part of a decade.
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
At least you think you do.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And the one flaw with this is that there isn't any "evidence" against the person until the person is identified. Woops. There is also a little problem - there is no one-to-one mapping of IP addresses to people. You can tie the IP address to a computer but it is completely unknown who was sitting at the keyboard.
Oh, you can guess. And most of the time you'd be right. But it isn't proof. I suppose in a country where people are put to death for having the wrong skin color in the wrong place that you could probably lose a lawsuit because your computer did something illegal. But the way this is set up today there is no proof. At a minimum I would think you would need a witness that saw you uploading at the exact time the alleged activity took place.
The final note on this would be if someone created a "Trojan uploader" that was installed via email worm. You get it on your computer and it uploads music and video files without your knowledge. Or, at least your direct knowledge. Then your computer is independently performing illegal acts anyone participating. This would pretty much end the possibility of prosecuting anyone for anything involving the Internet.
Emailed a threatening letter to the White House? Must have been MalMail. This is Windows, after all.
Uploading copyrighted music? That SneakUploader is going around again. Have to clean the machine.
Stabbed your wife 37 times with a dull fork? I'm afraid you're gonna have to take the rap for that one. Windows may be bad, but it isn't that bad yet.
You should try that argument next time you get a parking ticket on your unattended car.
That's why I said to perform an internal investigation. They are not allowed to turn over student names without court-order, so the university would be in total control to determine what occurred and what actions, if any, should be taken.
It just seems like a university would have a policy for dealing with complaints of illegal activity by students on campus using university resources.
When I was in school, a guy in our dorm found a bunch of backpacks, books, and calculators in his roommate's closet. He reported this as being suspicious to school officials, and they launched an investigation. The guy immediately confessed to stealing them and asked for mercy, and they school gave him a hearing where he could call in character witnesses to say he deserved leniency.
As long as there is due process, there is nothing wrong with the university investigating at least once to see how credible the source of the complaints is.
How is passing the letters on to the students an invasion of privacy?
If the university were to pass on the name of the student they believe was the one using the network at a specific IP address at a specific time, then perhaps that would be just such an invasion of privacy. But I don't see how telling the student that they suspect was using that IP address then about the letter, or passing a copy of the letter to them (surely the university would keep a copy for their "files") invades the student's privacy. If that was the only action done, the student could choose to contact the RIAA, or choose to ignore it. Something else must be implied by "passing the letter on" ... such as passing names or even SSN to the RIAA?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Got a cite for that claim of 'standard' procedure? Or are you just blowing smoke and being insulting to make yourself feel superior?
Its similar to those online lottery scams.
Spam everyone and get the details of the people who bite.
Its effectively tricking people out of their privacy.
Don't have a cite for it - but very early on in all these RIAA cases they were told the proper procedure is to file a lawsuit against a John Doe and then subpoena the ISP (or in this case university) to obtain the identity of the person. Of course this costs filing fees and is more expensive than simply mailing "settlement offers" to people.
that my alma mater further upriver will also do the right thing. But in between the country music, rodeo, and ga-ga love Richard Meyers, it will be only a dream.
I nearly spit tea on my keyboard...
Cars don't get malicious software
idiot
weren't the feds using a similar argument in favor of the illegal wiretapping? since the people who wanted to sue couldn't prove they were being wiretapped (since knowledge of who is wiretapped or how is classified/secret/whatever), they couldn't advance, if my memory serves me right.
the privacy of one's mind is important.
you do have something to hide.
I was referring to the argument in the parent post that you can not connect a PC, known to be at a certain IP address, with a computer owner.
Very few poeple are idiots; you should try to understand the post. Consider this part of growing up.