Slashdot Mirror
University Bows to RIAAs Demands for Student Names
jcgam69 writes "Hours after a federal court judge ordered Oklahoma State University to show cause why it shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to respond to an RIAA subpoena, attorneys for the school e-mailed a list of students' names to the RIAA's attorneys. But now that the RIAA has what it wanted, the group is unsure about how to go about sending out its pre-litigation settlement letters. Some of the students are represented by an attorney, meaning that the RIAA is barred from contacting them directly."
every time we have a story like this it is assumed that the University should help protect students from the consequences of their (potentially) illegal actions.. err.. why?
Interestingly, this is the same attorney who back in 2006 won a case for Debbie Foster vs. the RIAA. A good choice.
My reaction is that why are the Universities expected to be the collection agency for record companies and movie companies?
There are perfectly legal avenues to pursue for the record companies. It's just that these are more complicated and expensive. I realize that doing the right thing is usually harder, but there are usually good reasons for following process.
Surely there are large numbers of DoD employees and Federal employees generally who are illegally sharing too. The Federal government's networks are famous for a lack of policing. It will be interesting to see what happens when the RIAA goes after millions of attorneys who are paid to be a lot more ruthless than the RIAA.
still a bad analogy. Contrary to what all those 'mandatory viewing' promos and trailers on DVDs say, copyright infringement is not equal to theft. Yes, it's a crime, but it's definitely not theft.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
Depends on your point of view. IMO it's the fault of the people who voted into office the legislators that made it illegal.
And no - this is not a cheap attempt at starting a flame war. I really do think the treatment of *most* individuals by the *IAA is pretty shabby, and in some case questionably legal. *IAA just has the financial backing to try, and the publicity mostly helps them, does not hurt them in a meaningful way. Since they *want* to be perceived as relatively evil group that you as the 'average joe/jane' are powerless against.
Now - the opinion part. I do hope they persist in this tactic. I recently have been turning to indie music in various forms and ya know what - found some *really* good material! Stuff I am happy to throw out a few $ to the artist, especially if they are getting a large cut of the money. And when I say really good - I mean excellent. Outstanding. Prime stuff. I haven't turned on my radio in vehicle or home since I started.
So - RIAA - keep it up. Indie music is my new crack - and their tactics are only ensuring a greater supply chain to me!
Since the RIAA has begged to reduce the fees they pay to artists yet AGAIN, ANY standing they have as being the "protectors of artist's interests" has gone by the wayside!
Artists and composers alike need to remember that the initials stand for the "RECORDING INDUSTRY of America," not the "Recording ARTISTS of America!"
Ask any artist who has been bilked out of millions that were made on their FIRST recording... especially when their SECOND one didn't do so well... notice how well the RIAA "protects" those artists from getting their backsides kicked to the curb instead of being given another chance by the label they had just made mega-bucks for, while they got zilch for their efforts!
What we need here is a good car analogy. Let me give it a go.
GM makes one, admittedly average, car and it cost them $1,000,000 to make it. They then duplicate the car by the hundreds of thousands, and sell them for $2000 each. The problem is, most people only want the doors or the wheels which are the only appealing part of the car, and millions of people in the world have the ability to exactly copy the wheels and doors, even the entire car if they want, for $50, using similar technology to what GM uses to copy the original car. So, GM is upset by that and starts suing people that copied the car, even though nothing was actually stolen from GM.
How'd I do?
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Of course, their whole modus operandi right now relies on the fact that civil cases don't require quite as much "beyond reasonable doubt" proof as criminal cases do. Then, of course, there is the whole "punish the entire Internet" because some clown just HAS to have the latest Britney crap. No, the Recording Industry Ass. of America has nobody to blame but themselves for the way the general public see them and, by association, their members.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Your question is invalid., The important issue is whether I did vote for (and thus legitimize the power of) the current leaders who support copyright, which I did not.
While I am a little uncertain whether the University would be liable under the things cited here, there action almost certainly violates Federal law. The Family Education Rights Protection Act (1974, if I recall correctly), or FERPA to it's friends, makes revealing almost any information about a student impermissible. Literally, I have had to refuse to talk to a judge about their child, due to FERPA. I wonder whether the Feds will get huffy about this, or whether they can be bothered (or perhaps they like the RIAA?). It sounds like this story could get fun.
Can somebody explain to me how this is possible in the US legal system? How can a university be obligated to provide information like this when it has nothing to do with the case, which is purely between the record company and the student? I can understand how a cowardly university board might cave to pressure, but this seems to be a judge ordering them to provide the information, without any evidence against the students other than a list of IP addresses, which is no evidence at all.
Your link pretty clearly states that the the law doesn't apply when:
"such information is furnished in compliance with judicial order, or pursuant to any lawfully issued subpoena,"
Seeing as there was a legal subpoena, how exactly do you feel what the university did violated the law?