Slashdot Mirror
Judge Excludes 3 "John Does" From RIAA Subpoena
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of the RIAA's 'John Doe' cases targeting Boston University students, after the University wrote to the Court saying that it could not identify three of the John Does 'to a reasonable degree of technical certainty,' Judge Nancy Gertner deemed the University's letter a 'motion to quash,' and granted it, quashing the subpoena as to those defendants. In the very brief docket entry (PDF) containing her decision, she noted that 'compliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery.' There is an important lesson to be learned from this ruling: if the IT departments of the colleges and universities targeted by the RIAA would be honest, and explain to the Courts the problems with the identification and other technical issues, there is a good chance the subpoenas will be vacated. Certainly, there is now a judicial precedent for that principle. One commentator asks whether this holding 'represents the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops.'"
...a new law requiring better IP tracking built into all new routers and laptops.
No sig today...
When file sharing your music and movies, use public wifi points to crush any lawsuit potential from the RIAA!
Really? Even if they used it without your knowledge?
That's like saying that if I let my mates take my car and they go commit a crime with it (say a hit and run), I should be punished for it.
I wouldn't be classified as an accessory to their hit-and-run, so why should I be an accessory to their copyright infringement if I let them use my connection?
Most of my neighbours have wireless.
I could crack into them in minutes and download.
Are they supposed to be security experts now?
What about when WPA gets cracked? even the ones with a little knowhow will be open for a time.
If someone breaks into your house and commits mail fraud while you're away are you guilty because your door wasn't strong enough to keep them out?
"accessory to their infringement" is bullshit
The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense shown on this small scale is coming too late, I fear. Because even now, ISPs are caving to big media. Phorm worms its way through many UK ISPs, apparently undiminished. A consortium of service providers have agreed to keep tabs on the situation for the record insdustry, amongst others, and send out warning letters to infringers. Usenet has been all but dropped from the roster of ISP services.
Unlike the naysayers, I always believed that the internet would remain free. After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers, just like the postal service - and the postal service is not subject to search and seizure without due process. Nobody can open my private mail (unless it crosses borders) and check for pirated DVDs, without a really good reason to suspect that I'm pirating DVDs.
But I was wrong, and stupid, and for once in my damn life, too optimistic.
Because for every smart call like the one above, there are ten stories of companies we need to be able to trust voluntarily caving to pressure. It's too damn late.
In 2001, my alma mater had 2 45mbps lines for the university and they were consistently hammered by the students doing file sharing. It got to the point that some people in the CS department joked that banging out packets across tin-cans-on-strings would be faster than using the campus network when classes were generally over for the day.
Then, the university instituted packet shapers across the network and it got usable again. Usable to the point where I didn't feel like I was on a 14.4k modem again.
If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.
The RIAA could demand some draconian cerberos system, but I doubt that rendering large campus networks unusable will garner them any support from the already annoyed campus IT admins. Anyway, much like the AV companies vs virus-writers, this battle is an entirely defensive one.
It's nice to see something logical leaking out of the judicial system, however.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
Isn't every one of these stories tagged as being the death knell for the RIAA? Don't get me wrong, I'm always glad to see the RIAA losing in these types of cases, but 'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
Isn't that what I'm did by paying the obscene "technology fee"? What ELSE is that 1224$ going toward?
Is it hookers? Hookers and blow? You can tell me the truth. I won't be half as mad if you tell me it's hookers and blow.
If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.
I have to disagree with your final point; in almost any University environment the students ARE paying for their connections one way or another. The terms under which they can use it, however, are usually a bit more restrictive that your standard ISP.
This isn't flamebait (I hope) but a genuine query. I have the distinct impression that, now people know that, specifically, Cheney is on the way out, judges are perhaps slightly more willing to assert the rights of the individual and liberal institutions and politicians are starting to find their backbones. (I'm reminded of Jay Gould's joke about the biologists who discovered a creature with a very small brain and almost no backbone, only it turned out to be a fish not a member of the House.) After all, the President-Elect is an expert on the Constitution, whereas the previous Administration seems to have contained some people who were experts on bypassing it.
It is not just in the US. Would the British Labor Party have dared to increase taxes on the rich and cut consumption taxes if Obama had not proposed something similar? Would they have dared to have an attack of socialism where the banks are concerned had Bush not had to do exactly the same?
As Clinton so rightly said, it's the economy, stupid.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Via other legislation, it looks like colleges and universities in the US are going to be expected to take active steps - training and education, and likely technical as well - to curb piracy or else risk losing federal funding. It's part of the "Higher Education Opportunity Act". They're now in the "rulemaking" phase, but I find it hard to believe that the Department of Education is going to be particularly accommodating, and I'm not confident that the new administration will be substantially better than the old on this issue. I think this case is going to give the RIAA/MPAA and their allies in congress something to point at to say "See! We need more protection".
If we're required to do blocking and monitoring, the BU defense won't hold, because we'll have the data. At this point, the biggest factor is the delay. If you're a university buying service through a provider, and the letter goes to them first, it takes at least a week, often more, to get to you. By that point, there's usually not even any reason to look for the torrent they're complaining about.
You bring up something that I think about somewhat often.
On the one hand, the Internet is incredibly useful and provides so much information and entertainment which I believe everyone SHOULD be able to access. It would be a huge loss to society, imo, for people lose this.
On the other hand, computers are complex. Networks are a complex part of computers. Security is a yet more complex part of computer networks. These are things that people spend years learning about and are constantly learning more about, yet here we are encouraging average, untrained people to stick computers which they are basically system administrators for on the largest, most complex, and hardest to secure network in the world? How much sense does that make?
I work at a U, and they charge the students, faculty, staff, departments, and everything else that has any money, an obscene amount of money for a network connection. Students ARE paying, and barely getting their money's worth, even when file sharing.
They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
" One commentator asks whether this holding 'represents the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops.'"
We can only hope, and keep fighting this kind of tyranny being hoisted upon us by the RIAA.
I do not think copyright 'law' needs tossed out, as it seems to be the baby in the bathwater, but there is some disruptive changes needed.**
**Disruptive to current models of music distribution, and if you think the current 'woolly mammoths' won't go to extinction without fighting tooth-n-nail, then you have not been 'out there in the real world' lately!**
Bring back copyright law/legislation to original/sane levels, and I think that most people will abide/be okay with that.
On the other hand, it has gone on long enough that I don't know if changes/reform will make a difference anymore....everyone is getting used to the idea that you can go to ThePirateBay* as a last resort, or less painful route....the line becomes more grey and much broader as time goes on.
*Not to single out TPB, but they are the most 'visible' lately*
Currently, I am leaning towards the 'cat has been let out of the bag' camp. Ever tried herding cats in a burning barn?
Ask the RIAA how that works out if you're curious. *hint==NOT!*
Personally, and for the /. record, the last music I bought was a CD I had to special order through Hasting's Books and Records, and that was the only one out of four that I wanted that was still being published and/or available.
Out of the other three, one had a *shudder* myspace page, but we could never connect...tried for over 3 months, the other two, well TPB and Ktorrent fixed that. The first, I just finally gave up and scrubbed the mission due to frustration, and moved on.
Since then, I have avoided any RIAA produced music. I have several friends in indie (not signed to labels) bands that have pointed me to some really kick-butt stuff where I can either pay the artist/band, or it's free-legally and ethically.
I feel FAR from deprived, especially after listening to the current pop radio stations when riding along with someone else.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Of course, it would be so very socially awkward to point out that virtually all policies slashdot have supported so far amount to in effect a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy, where the poor who are for whatever reason unable to use a p2p service and thus purchase CDs subsidize the entertainment of those who otherwise generally can afford it. Oh no. Pointing out such things is just not cool.
Policing the network requires a mindset which assumes the students will do bad things and the administration is determined to catch and punish accused systems perpetrators.
Managing the network, as your example shows, is the proper implementation of policies and configurations which allow the University community to effectively perform their work.
Managing the network is more effective and provides a more collegial atmosphere.
In my CS Department, all the information which could be used by the RIAA to track student usage of systems is NOT logged. Attempts to obtain unauthorized access are logged; but not successful authorized access. [All you security types can take your immediate objections and stuff them in your policy orifice.]
Discussions about people being charged are meaningless. The real questions are: Would there be a conviction? And would a reasonable person interpret the law the way the courts now do? It's always possible to be sued or charged for all sorts of things that aren't really at all likely to result in a decision, at least if you can afford a lawyer.
Did you know that technically, every single person in the U.S. who has opened a pack of cigarettes and not torn the tax seal across instead of peeling it off, even once, is guilty of a felony?
Who is John Cabal?
Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.
This is flat out bullshit. Criminally, It doesn't matter if the car was stolen or borrowed.
This analogy is bad, because it's relatively simple to determine who the operator of the car is (spoofing cars is really hard), where it is not so easy to peer through the ether and see who using a PC, or even if that PC is the one you think it is.
The anwer is simple. The basic rule is: Survive, or die.
Those that can survive spam, trojans, virii, fraud, rootkits, scams, and the rest of it, will be the those that still use the internet in some decades. :)
(Unfortunately, this most likely includes the users that are the source of those problems too.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Why don't you get your facts straight?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If you're spending $122 for a hooker and her drug habit, you're paying WAY too much.
Free Martian Whores!
Tell that to Elliot Spitzer ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
We paid $125/semester. Granted, our school also didn't feel the need to keep up with the Jones WRT bandwidth.
This line in particular caught my eye:
"...the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops"
I thought, well ... hm. They just got a federal law passed creating those copyright cops, didn't they? Minor setback here, if that?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You forgot blackjack. It al goes to hookers and blackjack.
I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right."
Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing.
I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."
Maybe the money's going toward Package Shaping software...
The sinister "three strike law" pushed by Sarkonazy and his subordinates creates a new category of "crime", that of "not securing properly one's connection", I shit you not. That way you can't use the defense of having been infected by a virus or having your router hax0red, it's your fault, you should have been a master sysadmin.
Nevermind that megacorporations themselves can't be fucked to secure all their systems, you, Joe SixPC, are supposed to one up PCI/DSS or FIPS whatever, or you can't be allowed to the interwebs.
Of course it's a massive pack of FAIL on so many levels, but that's what GWB's BFF has in store for us.
How do IPs not specify identity?
They just don't.
Sure, you can build a system with multiple paths of registration and logging and authentication, but a majority of those processes can be spoofed or socially engineered.
If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
How do IPs not specify identity?
They just don't. Sure, you can build a system with multiple paths of registration and logging and authentication, but a majority of those processes can be spoofed or socially engineered. If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.
Thank you. Now if we could only get the judges to realize this.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I guess the citizens of New York paid too much!
(damn, I got penalized for typing too fast again. "Slow down cowboy it's been 19 seconds since you hit reply)
Free Martian Whores!
Yeah, we did. It's a shame too because we had really high hopes for him. He won 61 out of 62 counties too so he actually had a mandate to do some of the stuff he promised. Then he burned up his political capital on drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants instead of reforming Albany.....
Guess you can't win them all. At least we got a funny blind dude who isn't afraid to crack jokes at his own expense out of the deal ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What, a MafiAA plant get their facts straight?
Why, if they did that they'd never have a case and even the most dimwitted of judges would laugh them out of court. Their entire strategy revolves around either (a) bribing judges or (b) confusing them by throwing around meaningless technobabble designed to convince people that 1 is 0, red is blue, black is white, and that therefore they should go off and get themselves killed at the next zebra crossing.
Simply putting up the money doesn't mean you have the right to impact other peoples use of the same infrastructure they're paying for. Downloaders aren't the only ones using the network.
I agree that when you pay for something like an iPhone it's yours to do with as you please. A uni, however, is offering you a service for a fee. They're free to dictate terms on the use of that service. Don't like the terms, goto a different uni.
No sig for you!!
I'm serious. It takes a Lessig point and brings it to where it really needed to be: the basis of copyright is supposed to be the preservation and innovation of works, not stifling and killing them off in a vault somewhere.
We should not expect those users to know all the ins and outs of security. They should only know the basics: keep your password secure, and don't enter your personal details (including credit card info) on unknown sites (a simple google search on the company name is usually enough to get a few references on a company - if no reference it's of course not OK). That's all a user should know, and care about.
Then the more advanced user starts installing a WiFi network by themselves (as opposed to a TelCo installing it), they should know that there is such a thing as encryption and that it is a good idea to use this.
All the rest they don't need to know. The implementation of this WiFi encryption and key exchange: leave that to the experts. Protection against cross-site scripting, drive-by downloads, etc: this is the browser developer's task. Preventing rootkits from taking over: the O/S developer. A user should not need to know anything about all this, a computer is first and foremost an appliance, it just has to work.
If only the software developers were doing their homework and the hardware resellers checking on the software they install and only work with secure stuff, then those computers can be connected to the Big Bad Internet safely.
No user is the source of a rootkit, a virus, or a trojan. A typical user does not have the knowledge to write any of these often very sophisticated pieces of software. By the time they can write a virus they are software developer.
How do you "audit" to find out what a MAC address was temporarily set to?
DHCP logs only get you from IP to MAC, they don't tell you anything about what that MAC is being used by.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Replace "hit and run" or "download song" with "drug related crime" and you are in for a rude awakening. Even without your knowledge, the police with seize your car (in the usa) if it was used in a crime involving drugs. Once it is seized, it is auctioned off and the money goes the the police. ... then they came for the potheads and i did not care because I did not do recreational drugs ...
Simply putting up the money doesn't mean you have the right to impact other peoples use of the same infrastructure they're paying for. Downloaders aren't the only ones using the network. I agree that when you pay for something like an iPhone it's yours to do with as you please. A uni, however, is offering you a service for a fee. They're free to dictate terms on the use of that service. Don't like the terms, goto a different uni.
Another post with no relation to the real world.
Don't like the terms, go to a different uni? I'm sure there's a perfect University out there somewhere, but I've yet to find it. And I've been at, and worked at, a whole bunch of what would be Ivy League institutions, if we had such a thing in Britain. No, you've got to work with what you've got, in the real world.
If you pay for a service, and that service cannot support you and everyone else using it, then that is only your problem if you are using it wrong. Otherwise, whomever you're paying for the service has a duty, legally, to step up and provide you, and everyone else, with that acceptable level of service.
This is no different in a University. However as I originally stated the terms of use at a University are usually quite restrictive. Looking to bolster your music collection? Look elsewhere. Bit-torrenting a series of relevant lectures, but can't, because the connection is too shitty? Your institution needs to help you out.
So, as you can see, we can't just shove some protocol into a black hole. Hell, World of Warcraft uses bit torrent to distribute patches and there are a LOT of students legitimately using that for studies in virtual worlds. It might not be a supported application, and they might not have a right to get their pally up to 80 on our networks for FUN, but trust me, a lot of forwards looking institutions take virtual worlds very seriously and if there's even a HINT of educational benefit, the IT department cannot make a unilateral decision to stand in the way.
So, welcome to the real world. We have jobs to do, and we have to do right by the people we're doing them for.
That was one of my points. What I'm saying is that assuming no spoofing took place, the amount of investigation required to make an accurate determination (that is, with a reasonable degree of accuracy) on who the culprit is would, as per TFS, drag a disproportionately large number of people into discovery for a case that doesn't even pertain to them (and that's guaranteed... reminds me of a witch hunt).
The fact that this data can be spoofed very easily only further proves that such data isn't a valid method for identification, and certainly isn't good data on which to base a judgment.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
An IP specifies identity just like a home address does. Sure, the house may belong to me, and you have reasonable suspicion that it's me in there, but it could theoretically be ANYONE in the house. My mom, my wife, a neighbor, a burglar, whoever. That's why an address existing is not enough to positively identify me as the person who, say, crank called.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
You can also be charged with a crime if they do not have a driver's license, or do not have insurance.
In other words, you can be charged if you gave them the keys and legally they should not be driving at all, either because they are drunk or do not have the right to drive at all, if it can be demonstrated you knew that. And sometimes not even that, some states there is a presumption you will check their license before loaning them your car.
However, yes, you can't be charged with anything if, legally, they are allowed to drive, and they drive criminally once they get the car.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
These are things that people spend years learning about and are constantly learning more about
And the Wall of Sheep shows us that even those highly interested who dedicate large amounts of time to perfecting their understanding and know-how fail to get it right.
Exactly. You need to police the network and somehow magically tell the difference between someone downloading a torrent of the newest Need for Speed vs. Ubuntu. Good luck with that.
When you manage a network, you assign priority. At a university, lab HTTP traffic beats out dorm HTTP, and both beat out torrents, and during the day the labs might have a dedicated bandwidth the dorms can't use regardless if the labs are using it, but at night that's turned off...
Meanwhile, you don't give a damn about what's being shared on the dorm's internal network unless someone's piping high-resolution video from one room to another constantly and swamping the network.
It sounds more complicated, but in actuality managing a network is much much easier than policing it.
In fact, the part you actually do have to police or they'll swamp the network, the owned-virus-spamming computers, is probably a bigger hassle than everything else combined.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
What this means is that an IP cannot be connected to a person. It is obvious that this is widely applicable.
Within a year this should be clear that anything, and I mean ANYTHING, goes on the Internet. You cannot be convicted of anything by leaving an IP address in a log somewhere. You can, of course, be convicted if you put your (real) name, address and such in the same posting as the death threat against your childhood nemesis.
You wouldn't believe how many incredibly dumb people will do just about that. Or brag openly about how they are "getting away with murder".
I'd say this is clear justification for appeals based on illegal searches without probable cause for anyone that has been convicted of anything where the original seizure of their computer was based on an IP address.
I'm not going to try to split hairs here, because IANAL...
ok, I lied, I am.
I defer to the expertise of an attorney, but unless this was a ruling by a court of appeals or above, there is no precedent set. Trial courts render judgments which can be referenced in litigation, but not cited as "precedent" on other legal cases... is this not correct? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
On another note, I applaud this decision, because it freggin' makes sense.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
So true. All other points aside, and regardless of what side of the fence you sit, the above is one thing you can count on in security and RIAA stories all the time.
It's as simple as that.
Buy used CDs and DVDs. Preferably from local independently owned shops.
The ONLY new DVDs I've purchased in the last year or so have been the FUTURAMA movies, because I want MORE FUTURAMA! And the best way for that to happen is to show Fox that it's to their financial advantage to make more FUTURAMA.
However, other than those purchases, every DVD and CD I've bought for the past few years has been previously owned.
I get the movies and music I want, and the MAFIAAs get not one penny of my money in return.
When I get my newly purchased used discs home, CDs get ripped to iTunes, DVDs get ripped & stripped via MacTheRipper. Discs then get filed away for safekeeping, and my digital copies are used in their place.
If you MUST download music and video, USENET is a much safer alternative. The alt.binaries hierarchies have just as much digital new content as BitTorrent, and the popular/most used newsgroups have dedicated users who will, if asked politely, take requests for content reuploads.
Via NZB, downloads are as simple as one or two mouseclicks and are usually faster than BitTorrent.
Oh, and they are almost completely untraceable. Making life for the MAFIAAs all the more miserable.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
When I visit my college friends, I let my lap top pick any of open networks floating around (they are all on nice connections they won't mind/notice), since I can't directly access the network lacking a student ID. If I were to start downloading music, the download would look like it was their IP, but they wouldn't be a party, or even knowledgeable.
When I was in college we were also little commies on my floor, if someone needed my computer I had an account for them already set up. All they had to do was walk in, and use it, the same was true with most other people on my floor, though with less security. I could walk into my neighbors room to print a paper, and instead download the complete works of Engleburt Humperdink, and this download would be on his IP, without his consent or complicity.
In the common areas of said college there is still a campus wide wifi network, and your IP varies based on what routers your close too, and what connections are open at the time.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Every single relevant administrative authority, consultative board, industry assoc (besides MAFIAAs of course) and independent judicial entities have given it the thumbs down, be it from a technical point of view or a judicial point of view.
The Conseil d'Etat (~ SCOTUS in some respects) shot most of it down preemptively with respects to due process concerns. CNIL (Data privacy board) shot basically all of it down based on privacy breach concerns, and risks of false positives. The European Parliament has voted amendment 138 which preemptively states the fucking obvious against this fucking nonsense. The European Commission accepted amendment 138 against Sarko's request (that was a nice jab btw, accepting the amendment means that a 2/3 majority at the Council of Ministers would be required to remove it).
But they're ramming it through. All those advisories can't technically stop the law from being passed. If things keep going this way, the law will be adopted by the parliament, and a EU directive opposing it will also be adopted a few months later. (Note that customarily member states are tacitly supposed to refrain from legislating at the local level while a matter is being handled at the European level, but Sarko's decided THIS is more important than respecting our european partners)
In the end law would be challenged on at least three front, at the Conseil d'Etat (which, I believe, has the power to change implementation details so as to basically render the whole thing pointless), at the Conseil Constitutionnel (if enough socialist deputes get their head out of their asses and petition), and then at the European level, at the European Court of Justice.
But they're pushing that shit through so hard, it's some sort of foot-in-the-door in the door technique. And even though it looks like it's going to be quashed from above, they will probably try and try again to pass that crap through. Lobbyists for big media have nothing else to do, basically, and pols want big media's love, esp. an attention whore like Sarko. Whatever they get, they will come back for more. At this point it looks like we have to win every single legal / legislative battle to stop this plan from going forward.
Anyone got a link to what the University wrote to the Court?
I would be very interested in seeing what sort of technical grounds were deemed legally sufficient (and comprehensible to a judge) to quash the subpoena.
What happened to the rest of the students in the case? What was different about the three "Doe"s the University decided it couldn't identify?
If this is just a case of Media Bigspender making up 3 IPs that the IT department couldn't identify while they roll over and give up the rest of the students' names I don't see how this is special.
If you are at a public university, your tuition/fees likely don't cover what you get outside of bandwidth. At my small branch campus, the combined tuition/technology fee for a year doesn't cover faculty/staff salaries. Most of our money comes from the state. So...no. Your technology fee does NOT give a right to do whatever you want on my network.
Here is what the Chronicle of Higher Education has to say about it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
In an ideal world, yes, that's how it would be. Unfortunately, though, that's not how it is and likely never will be while keeping the level of freedom we have on the Internet today.
There's also that group of people who will never care about or bother with the very basics of security, such as not giving out personal info, not following links from random e-mails, etc. Just like we have people who drive every day, sometimes for long distances, who can't change their tire to the spare if it blows or do any other very basic car maintenance (my first slashdot car analogy, I'm so excited!). The Internet people are more like the drunk drivers of the Internet - their lack of concern also negatively affects others. Maybe we can bring back WebTV for these people?
So with all of that in mind, I find it a very interesting and perplexing (I think that may be the first time I've ever used that word) situation we've gotten ourselves into.
Which of those PDFs refutes this claim by the RIAA?
I'd be glad to hear the RIAA was lying again.
Please climb down from your high horse, good sir.
I never said the university didn't have an obligation to provide a reliable network to its students. I know there are a lot of valid uses of bit torrent. What I'm saying is - it is not an obligation of the uni to give you unfettered domain to download movies/music/porn for your personal consumption. I doubt you'll find a uni that has that in their mission statement.
A universities network is there to aide students/faculty in sharing information and learning. You pay them to provide an environment that encourages such. Simply because you pay, via tuition, for access to the network doesn't mean you can abuse it as you see fit.
No sig for you!!