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
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!
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!
Following a shipwreck a lawyer, priest, and newspaper reporter were stuck in a raft close to shore, but in waters clearly infested by sharks. After many hours of miserable huddling the lawyer screamed "I can't take it any more!", dove into the water and swam towards shore. The others shouted protests, but to everyone's surprise the sharks parted and let the man swim safely to land.
"It's a miracle!" exclaimed the priest.
"No... professional courtesy", explained the journalist.
And that also explains why the RIAA isn't going after the Harvard kids.
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.
For starters, it's different here because Copyright and Trademark law are completely different, with different justifications and goals.
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."