Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Targets New Colleges, Still Avoids Harvard
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Billboard reports that the RIAA has filed its eighth round of 'early settlement' letters to twenty-two colleges. Continuing its practice of avoiding Harvard, the RIAA's new round does not include any letters to that institution, where certain law professors have counseled resistance to the RIAA and told the RIAA to 'take a hike'. The unlucky institutions on the receiving end of the 403 new letters include Arizona State University (35 pre-litigation settlement letters), Carnegie Mellon University (13), Cornell University (19), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (30), Michigan State University (16), North Dakota State University (17), Purdue University — West Lafayette and Calumet campuses (49), University of California — Santa Barbara (13), University of Connecticut (17), University of Maryland — College Park (23), University of Massachusetts — Amherst and Boston campuses (52), University of Nebraska — Lincoln (13), University of Pennsylvania (31), University of Pittsburgh (14), University of Wisconsin — Eau Claire, Madison, Milwaukee, Stevens Point, Stout and Whitewater campuses (62)."
insight through the mind
If the RIAA really had a case, they'd talk to kids from Harvard too. And since the Harvard kids were told to say no, the RIAA could sue the Harvard kids to oblivion. This only means one thing: the RIAA letters are extortion, plain and simple.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
This wouldn't exactly do the torrent community any favors, but if I were running a torrent client from a campus LAN, I'd block inbound connections from IPs not on my campus. If they cant see me sharing, they cant sue me.
Kinda find it interesting that one of the best law schools in the country isn't receiving these threats.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
Music and movies are being traded on Freenet under a 'culture freedom' movement. You shouldn't be able to be caught if you don't want to be, it's all a matter of your risk tolerance.
UMASS Boston doesn't even have dormitories, so how do they expect to be targeting specific students?! These blanket accusations to "set examples" and try to deter file sharing is absolutely despicable, and more colleges need to take hints from Harvard and not be intimidated by baseless claims that are already crumbling in the courts. All colleges that don't stand by their students and hand them over to the pack of lying dogs at the RIAA are complacent with the same absurdities and the students ought to wonder what they've been paying for at their respective colleges. The insanity continues, Fight the RIAA, Fight for your Rights!
Wonderfully, it seems the RIAA is picking a bunch of colleges with both the money and the staff to assist in defending their students. With other colleges already taking similar stances, I expect that many of the current round will do so as well. Thus, I expect the RIAA to soon learn that this method is fraught with enough reasons to ensure they fail.
My only worry is their attempts at creating circumstances and/or laws that "coerce" the colleges to give up their (possibly) innocent (or not) students without due process.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
If The RIAA were an ice cream flavor, they'd be pralines and dick.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
...that the RIAA is run by Harvard grads.
Figures, corrupt lawyers and all...
Different group of guys. Just because they all have Slashdot accounts doesn't make them the same.
Personally, if it hurt the RIAA I'd be all in favor of distribution of their copyright works. Unfortunately, I don't think it does, it only exposes you to risk (not much, but some). As such I think it's stupid. (OTOH, you'd need to pay me large sums to listen to most of what they release as music. $100/hour might do it, if it weren't too loud...and I could play computer games at the same time. So my opinion of relative worth vs. risk may not be normal.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Harvard professors receive 22 requests for counsel about 403 RIAA letters ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
* Don't listen to artists from member labels. Well, at least not new artists
* Don't buy their product. If you MUST buy, find a way to buy directly from the artist, or download artist-authorized bootlegs and send your money to the artist.
* Don't download RIAA product. Downloads only help them to justify their whining.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
If Harvard's professors really do have a valid defense that is intimidating the RIAA from suing them, they should do some pro-bono work for the other schools that ARE getting sued! Help out your fellow institutions for the betterment of everyone!
Perfect life lessons in this one...
- Bullies won't go after you if they are afraid that there's a chance of getting their nose bloodied.
- Don't have to run faster than the bear... just faster than the slowest guy running from the bear.
Harvard students are excluded from these notifications, not because of their innocence, but because of the fact that there are literally thousands of easier targets to go after that have no chance of fighting back!
I went to Harvard for college...
http://www.thecrimson.com/archives.aspx?SearchTerms=RIAA&SortField=0&PageSize=10&News=1&Opinion=2&Sports=3&Magazine=5&Arts=4
I hope the Crimson's servers stand up.
The RIAA frequently targeted students individually, and AFAIK continues threatening letters occasionally to individual students if they can figure out who you are. As you can see from the Crimson archives there was some pushback from the law school profs.
Back in the late 90's, your (fixed, non-DHCP) undergraduate IP at Harvard mapped to username.person.harvard.edu or something like that, making it trivially easy to see who was where, and you would 'magically' get spam for visiting websites, as your email was username@fas.harvard.edu. This was changed around '99 or so, now it is a roamXXX.student.harvard.edu I believe, and DHCP'd to a real IP address. This helps protect anonymity and individual student's activity, and Harvard does not give out the mapping to individual students.
Harvard internally sends curious emails reporting "excessive bandwidth" use to us, which also still continues AFAIK. Several of my friends received these, we think it was in the neighborhood of > 10 GB per day use. They basically said to quit it, or we might look further as to what you are doing, or bring you in front of a disciplinary committee. This was back in the days of i2hub (remember this?), and most of my friends just throttled their bandwidth with no further problems -- very scared of the hassle of defending yourself even if it is "legit" activity.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
The day I can use Mickey Mouse in my own work is the day I give a damn about the RIAA's "losses".
Shh.
The problem is that the RIAA has a long history of filing lawsuits based on little or no evidence, which is how they've ended up suing at least a few families that have never owned computers and a dead grandmother who lived a similarly PC-free life. We're up in arms because of their shotgun, witch-hunt style tactics, especially since the cost and difficulty of defending yourself in court over something like this means that many people end up having to pay for crimes they never committed.
Having seen many discussions along this line over the past year or two, I've picked up on a couple of different motivations from people opposing the RIAA/MPAA. Most opposition appears to fall into these (simplified) categories:
The first group is the "all information should be free" group, and seems to see all manner of copyright to be immoral, unjust, and responsible for the deaths of babies.
The second group seems to not mind copyright, but is bothered by the poor quality of the product (especially music) and the exorbitant costs associated. They just want to punish the RIAA for stupid pricing and turning out crap, or to "stick it to the man."
The third group doesn't care about the copyright issue as much, but is more concerned with the appalling tactics used by the **AA groups. Filing lawsuits without proof, continuing to press suit on little old ladies without computers, unlawful search, threatening letters, invasive computer code, purchasing of legislators, etc.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
This is a very wise, if obscure to many, comment that copyright law has been so skewed towards the big corporations that civil disobedience is more than justified. Study the history of copyrights and you'll understand why the Founders of the USA democracy specified that secure for a limited time was part of the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, Congress (Republicans), the President (Clinton), and most of all, the Supreme Court of the United States have totally let us down on this issue over the last decade. The RIAA is now hard at work to steal back what little of the Public Domain still remains.
At the very minimum, DRM should be legally required to expire on the day that the copyright for the work it's protecting expires!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Go to Ray's blog and read up on the legal motions filed by students at other universities to challenge the RIAA's misuse of the law and true lack of evidence. And them file similar motions for any students sued at this university.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Those who must address miniscule grammar mistakes (it is a real word, however erroneous) can formulate no real point to make themselves. Go worry about something else, like getting sued by the RIAA for accidentally sharing your personal porn collection that you hid in a BritneySpears.mp3 file.
Actually irregardless is a nonstandard word meaning irrespective and regardless.
First post = troll. Cleverly worded post designed to enrage others = flamebait.
For me, it would be hard to choose, although my choices would probably be these (in this order:)
- They screw the artists with contracts which basically amount to indentured servitude.
- They screw the consumers with excessive markups (made possible by # 3 below)
- They have destroyed the integrity of radio with the ongoing practice of payola
- They engage in mean-spirited legal attacks against defenseless people
- They eat babies.
Well, that about sums it up for why I don't like major labels. Luckily, there are tons of great bands putting out their own stuff, so I can support the bands directly and avoid giving any cash to Their Satanic Majesties. Really we don't need these companies. We can support our local music scenes and independent touring bands. Do it for the poor little babies that the RIAA would purchase and eat if they got your money. That's right - think of the children!My truck is like a series of tubes.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The evidence strongly implies that Moore's law will end long before it becomes feasible to crack AES (and therefore AACS) by brute force. DRM is a social problem that should be dealt with - ignoring the problem because you think that it will magically get fixed in the future would be a very bad decision.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
I've seen numerous high rated posts on to this article with comments about how universities are failing to protect their students from the RIAA. As a general statement, I disagree with that assessment. Read before replying... As a recent grad from a major university in Boston, I can attest that universities are not charged with protecting or providing legal assistance for their students. In fact, pretty much any news story that I see about a student or group of students breaking the law includes expulsion of the students involved. The exception is that minor drug and alcohol offenses are treated as addictions and resolved with some form of mandatory counseling. Sometimes students are expelled for being arrested off campus (nearby)! Universities largely take a cut-and-run approach to problem students. So, the way they are acting with the RIAA is NOT a surprise at all.
:-) ). It should be the same for every other bit of personal information I have on record with my university. Every school that receives a bunch of these letters should have their legal counsel reply with another letter stating something like:
When a college passes a RIAA extortion letter to a student that they believe is the intended recipient, the college has done nothing wrong. In fact, I think it would be a liability to not pass the information along. I know that I would never want my university to act as a legal threat filter on my behalf because in the end, it isn't the university being held responsible, its me! The bottom line is that everybody who receives a threatening letter - be it legal or other - should consult with a lawyer and respond appropriately.
Many of the posts did recognize the *real* problem with some of these institutions: unethical cooperation with RIAA. Providing *any* information about a student, whether that information be an IP address, mailing address or name should be illegal. I know that recent laws have made it impossible for even my parents to access my student records and GPA without my express permission (which I have given
"This school acts as a neutral internet service provider. The intended recipients/users have been notified. It is up to them to respond individually. If you require any additional information, please obtain a court-ordered subpoena."
So for now, the real problem seems to be that many schools lack a fair and effective internet/data privacy policy.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.