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.
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.
"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 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.
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?
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.