Slashdot Mirror


RIAA MediaSentry, Dead In US, Is Alive In Australia

newtley writes "Disgraced and discredited 'private investigator' MediaSentry, fired by former patrons Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music, and Sony Music and their RIAA, may be dead and buried in America, but it's alive and well, resurfacing in Australia where it's once again plying its trade, probably under new management. 'I currently (but not for long) reside at a student dormitory... in Brisbane, Australia,' says a p2pnet reader, continuing: 'Yesterday I got called into the Managers office because the network manager had been contacted by MediaSentry and emailed one of the generic copyright infringement emails as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons. Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'"

305 comments

  1. Angels and Demons by Andr+T. · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn, you could at least lose your dormitory for a movie worth watching.

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    1. Re:Angels and Demons by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Damn, you could at least lose your dormitory for a movie worth watching.

      Even worse result:

      <RIAA> See? Illegal file sharing is why Angels and Demons did poorly at the box office and got an average rating of 38%! It isn't the economy or quality, folks, our formula has never failed therefore it must be the file sharers! </RIAA>

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Angels and Demons by the_macman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.

      The same thing could be said about Rosa Parks. She was also breaking the law. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right.

    3. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. He wasn't kicked out for copyright infringement, he was kicked out for demonstrating such poor taste.

    4. Re:Angels and Demons by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah the illegallity of sharing movies is a gros affront to human dignity. Downloading free movies is exactly like what Rosa Parks did. Shithead.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    5. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah the illegallity of sharing movies is a gros affront to human dignity. Downloading free movies is exactly like what Rosa Parks did. Shithead.

      Maybe if Rosa Parks could download the movie she wanted to watch, she wouldn't get the bus to go to the movies in the first place.

    6. Re:Angels and Demons by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the fuck is wrong with Slashdot??? The guy saying that your right to download movies for free is the same as your right to sit on the bus regardless of your skin color, he gets a +5 and hailed as a god among men, and the guy who says that's a retarded comparison is modded Troll. Every last one of you honestly believes that downloading Angels and Demons is exactly the same thing as refusing to give up your seat on a bus because of the color of your skin? Honestly? HONESTLY?

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    7. Re:Angels and Demons by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is true. Likewise, just because laws can be broken doesn't mean that every crime is a protest.

      What Ms Parks did was absolutely, positively, NOT in the same league as what this student did.

      To claim so diminishes both Civil Rights and the arguments against Intellectual Property.

      There are things in the IP realm to protest, but the 'right' to download Angels and Demons is NOT among them.

    8. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      no just today's mods

    9. Re:Angels and Demons by Andr+T. · · Score: 1

      Mod parent 'troll for inconvenient truth'.

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    10. Re:Angels and Demons by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, Funny

      In my day most people got thrown out of university accommodation for having wild parties and trashing the joint or for dealing drugs.

      How things have changed.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    11. Re:Angels and Demons by keithius · · Score: 1

      Every last one of you honestly believes that downloading Angels and Demons is exactly the same thing as refusing to give up your seat on a bus because of the color of your skin? Honestly? HONESTLY?

      No, that's what we call an ANALOGY, or for the nitpicky among us, a SIMILE. Even though the poster did say "exactly like," its clear from context that they were not speaking literally. No need to get so worked up about it. (Unless, y'know, you enjoy getting worked up like that.)

      --
      "Programming is the fine art of making a machine that has absolutely no intelligence act as though it does."
    12. Re:Angels and Demons by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      The AC was right, but he probably should have left of the "Shithead" part. Or someone with mod points left their sarcasm detector at home.

    13. Re:Angels and Demons by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Calm down, he's not +5, he's +1 and since Mike Buddha was marked Troll he has since been modded +5
      insightful.

      Give it time, this article is new. Given the situation now I think it's safe to say that most readers
      will see the first comment, go "what an ass" and then see the second and go "yeah, OK, I was going to
      post but Mike took care of it. ./ moderation is not real time but it, for the most part, works really
      well as shown by these two comments.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    14. Re:Angels and Demons by Tikkun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that people have a right to read, listen, watch, remix, rebuild, modify, reverse engineer and otherwise contribute or take part in our culture. Obviously laws around the world today don't match my beliefs, and many people disagree with this statement.

      I believe that a commons, a public library by and for everyone is a better model for creation and distribution of content than one that is limited by an unnatural monopoly. That everyone stands on the shoulders of giants and no man is an island of information.

      The student that got kicked out of their dorm is not Rosa Parks. They are likely not oppressed in their day to day lives, just the victim of an IP scheme that has outlived it's usefulness.

    15. Re:Angels and Demons by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The only difference is one of degree. The illegality of sharing data is a small injustice, but an injustice nonetheless.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    16. Re:Angels and Demons by Miseph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure it's an analogy, or simile, but that doesn't make it a good one. Sorry, but comparing some kid wanting to watch Angels and Demons for free to a Civil Rights leader taking a stand against legalized overt racism is complete BS.

      A better analogy (simile) would be something like :comparing Rosa Parks to file sharers is like comparing apples to tentacle rape.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    17. Re:Angels and Demons by hagardtroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From where I'm standing you are getting a +5 for mis-quoting and mis-representing what that person meant. Also, creating a gross generalization of the slashdot crowd.

    18. Re:Angels and Demons by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, it was not an insult, if he can prove that it is a known fact. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    19. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the illegallity of sharing movies is a gros affront to human dignity. Downloading free movies is exactly like what Rosa Parks did. Shithead.

      Maybe if Rosa Parks could download the movie she wanted to watch, she wouldn't get the bus to go to the movies in the first place.

      The only reason people took offense to Rosa Parks is because she didn't call shotgun. everyone knows that.

    20. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? Hers was a Human Rights Issue. Downloading of a movie is Theft. I may not like the costs to see a movie or listen to music, BUT Its whats funding thousands of jobs. My wife loses hers soon because the Movie Industry is laying off heavily.

      Basically Human Rights vs theft. How can you even compare them?

    21. Re:Angels and Demons by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      are you sure that's the rating on the movie or the original posters scores on his final exams?

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    22. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if Rosa Parks was a filmmaker she might feel that your illegally stealing her movie is a gross (spelled correctly) affront to her dignity and that of everyone else that worked to create the film (writers, directors, cinematographers, actors, the list goes on...).

    23. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry, not theft.

    24. Re:Angels and Demons by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm telling you, if the movie-going public doesn't start falling in line and paying to watch movies like they're supposed to, there's no telling what may happen.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    25. Re:Angels and Demons by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Informative

      Every last one of you honestly believes

      You need to look up how slashdot's moderation system works before you make dumb comments. It takes three moderators to make a comment +5. I'm pretty sure there are more than three users of slashdot other than yourself.

      After you educate yourself on how the moderation system works, you may continue to make dumb comments.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    26. Re:Angels and Demons by CoolCalmChris · · Score: 5, Informative

      My wife loses hers soon because the Movie Industry is laying off heavily.

      Sorry to hear that, but if you think she's getting laid off because people are downloading what they can't afford to buy (ten dollars for a non-matinee ticket?) then you've had a little too much Kool Aid.

      If the actors and executives voluntarily took a pay cut and redistributed the wealth a little bit so people could keep their jobs and possibly float the studios through this recession, I wouldn't see the film industry as being ridiculously top-heavy and greedy. I might even give some credence to the MPAA screaming "We're getting robbed blind!" every time they get near a reporter.

      For the record, I'm not trying to be an apologist for people who choose to download copyrighted material, but at the same time I don't make any excuses for the business model the entertainment industry is fighting tooth and nail to preserve either.

      Something to think about.

    27. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even close.

      Downloading movies is WAY more important.

    28. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So in your world no one gets paid for their content. There's a reason not everyone is a content creator...not everyone's good at creating content. If the thing you did best in life (i.e., had the most talent at) was creating content, would you want to get paid for it? If you don't believe professionals that create content should get paid, then get ready to watch YouTube crap the rest of your lives...the truly talented creators will not have the spare time or energy to devote to their creations because they'll be spending all their time and energy in another career in order to survive. World, if you want to go the "commons" route, get ready to lower your standards for creative content.

    29. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're an idiot. There is no argument for freely viewing or downloading IP that cost it's developers hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. Go back to sleep and your dreamworld that's free of any IP. To me it sounds like you disagree with having an economy. Once again you're a fool. It sounds like you live your life in a video game like Second Life - that's how out of touch with reality you are. So in your life I suppose you could take everything for free from culture like you spouted in your post. Flame off.

    30. Re:Angels and Demons by ifdef · · Score: 1

      It seems obvious to me that he was being sarcastic. Did you think he meant it seriously?

    31. Re:Angels and Demons by Coldmoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would be a fine postition except for the fact that the actual content creators are not the ones getting the bulk of the revenue. I am all for seeing that artists get full and proper recompense for their work; its the bloat in the system that is the problem...

      --
      Coldmoon over Dark water...
    32. Re:Angels and Demons by nausea_malvarma · · Score: 1
      What asshole tagged this flamebait? Ok, obviously it's a little ridiculous to compare file sharers to Rosa Parks, but still: Doesn't Rosa Parks serve as an example that sometimes it's justified to break the law? That sometimes it's necessary?

      Whoever posted that was making a good point. We should reward thoughtful commentary, instead of suppressing it.

    33. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite your inane ranting (and it was decent; you ALMOST had me convinced), I'm STILL going to download movies, music, and software for free. Why? Because I can. No amount of lame moral arguments and IP spew will convince me otherwise. I've been doing it since the early 80s and will continue to do so. So fuck you.

    34. Re:Angels and Demons by vanyel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you think that movie studios should spend $100+million on a movie and then give it away? They may not be handling the situation well, but that doesn't mean it's right to steal their content.

    35. Re:Angels and Demons by navyjeff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe they shouldn't make $100 Million+ movies. Maybe they shouldn't use shady accounting practices to act like it costs $100M to make a movie. Maybe they should let movie theaters keep part of the money from the tickets they sell so that it doesn't cost $4.50 for a soda there. Maybe they should release movies in theaters and on DVD on the same day so I don't have a bunch of yammering teenagers kicking the seat behind me while the ice monster in Star Trek screams at 110 dB.

      I don't think it's necessarily right to "steal" their content. But Hollywood is far from blameless for making it desirable to download movies.

      Maybe I'm just bitter.

    36. Re:Angels and Demons by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Well, I did say the dude was a shithead. I'll own that.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    37. Re:Angels and Demons by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a terrible but solid analogy. While I find modern copyright extensions unjust, they are trivial in comparison to human rights. Still, both disobeyed what in their eyes was an unjust law. It's certainly not a good analogy, but it's sound.

    38. Re:Angels and Demons by Tikkun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you think that movie studios should spend $100+million on a movie and then give it away?

      Good point (I wish all pro-IP arguments made as much sense as this). I will elaborate in hopes of making a bit more sense.

      First, there is demand from movie theaters to have movies. If they don't have new and interesting content, they will go out of business. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that even if Hollywood kicked the bucket, movie studios would pool their resources to make movies that people want to watch in theaters. They may not end up costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, but this may be a good thing for the quality of films (and with computers continually getting faster special effects will get better every year, just within the budgets that people are willing to pay for).

      Second, the people making movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars depend on the shared cultural experiences and works of civilization (see: Disney). There is no reason to assume that culture, memes and archtypes that were created hundreds or thousands of years before IP law will not be expanded upon without IP law, nor that they would create such interesting works without that groundwork laid by those before them.

      Third, innovation always changes the playing field. Before the invention of the printing press the world of information was largely controlled by the church (at least in the west). After it's invention the works of many people became available to others at a dizzying rate. The monopoly on information was lost to the church and they never regained it. Looking back on it it is obvious that the innovation of the printing press was good for society, but while the revolution was going on it was not clear that it would be a good one.

      Finally, I believe that people that create are driven to create. They may not become multimillionaires, but there will always be a demand for people to create content and a willingness for people to create it. When it makes sense for people to do this as full time jobs there will be people willing to pay them for it. And if there is no one willing to pay for content, and no one that is willing to do it for free, then the conclusion I would draw would be that no one really wanted it in the first place.

      If you've gotten this far I thank you for your time.

    39. Re:Angels and Demons by MaineCoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So because the system is imperfect and the content creators don't get the bulk of the money, you would support cheating the system so that not even content creators get any of it?

      Fine logic there.

      --
      Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
    40. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, in your perfect little world, who pays for the creation of the content (a.k.a. IP)? Do the actors work for free? What about the camera men, gaffers, builders, editors, musicians, fx artists, and dozens if not hundreds of other people involved? It doesn't matter if you're talking about a crappy, over priced Hollywood blockbuster or that great little indy flick put together on a shoestring budget. Money is required.

      Don't get me wrong, altruism is a great thing, but the truth is this utopia of yours does not work until _everything_ is free. I agree with your statement that, "a commons, a public library by and for everyone is a better model for creation" and I would love to create for the pure pleasure of it. But I need to pay rent, pay to turn on my lights, pay for gas and food and even pay my taxes (yes, I like having functioning public works, clean, drinkable water is a really nice thing!)

      The simple fact is someone has to pay the bills. So, my question is, where exactly does this "right to read, listen, watch", something I may have created, come from?

      What gives you the right to take freely from other people?

      The rights of fair use, to "remix, rebuild, modify, reverse engineer," etc, are something we need to protect with vigilance, but freeloading and stealing shouldn't be tolerated!

      That begin said, vigilance is also needed to protect the rights of the student, on the assumption that he didn't do anything wrong and is being wrongfully accused. That, however, is a different issue from your statement above.

    41. Re:Angels and Demons by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Please, a threat of a sequel to Coyote Ugly isn't a threat! Here is how you do a threat- "Go see our next crappy flick or we will make a remake of Xanadu staring Mariah Carey and we'll make new Star Trek flicks staring the third stringers from American Idol and written by the guys that wrote Enterprise!"

      Now see THAT is a threat. Hell I bet the Mariah Carey Xanadu remake would be banned under the Geneva convention just for the sheer brutality of it. We would have prisoners going "Please give me the waterboarding! The sound it hurts too much!"

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    42. Re:Angels and Demons by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 1

      Ya because after reading endless stories about these guys ruining lives (see THIS article) I am just itching to pay $30 for admission, so some guy in a suit can have another helping of stem cells served to him in the skull of a baby panda.

      Maybe if they handed out minor fines, but they are RUINING PEOPLES LIVES.

    43. Re:Angels and Demons by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well back in reality of course. This story has nothing to do with copyright and nothing to do with a pack of ass hats at some trolling, racketeering firm. This is all about some cowardly building manager who simply took the easy way out.

      The easy way in this case was to simply turf the student out onto the street because it is the quickest, cheapest solution. They know a struggling student can't afford to challenge them in court and they get to keep the students deposits etc. So the real target for the ire of the community is really the manager.

      For the racketeering firm practising in intimidation and extortion, by targeting students with threatening bull shit letters couched in legal terms and made to look like they have some legal import, well they just are the liars cheats and thieves that they, really worthless individuals.

      As for uni students, always, always, endeavour to use an independent isp that has nothing to do with you school or your residence, as not only will you that solution often cheaper, but you will also discover it is far less privacy invasive and has no ramifications upon your place of residence or you grades.

      It would also help to know what was the place of residence and who was the manager.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    44. Re:Angels and Demons by freemywrld · · Score: 1

      What Rosa Parks did served to make a statement. This guy downloading a movie wasn't done to make a statement (as far as I can see).

      The statement, in his case, is being made after the fact, when consequences were handed down (whether just or not).

    45. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. Welcome to /. Home of cry-babies, wankers, and grab-asses. They behave this way whenever anyone tells them, no.

    46. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are we blaming the downloader?? He/she is only being curious. He/she is using the tech that was supplied to him by the big corps to do what is fashionable atm. He/she sometimes doesn't even know or care that a minority sees this as a wrong thing to do. Why not put the blame on the corps that where stupid enough to let the information leak to the internet in the first place, I mean it had to come from some where right! who leaked it to the internet??? There is your culprit, not the downloader.

    47. Re:Angels and Demons by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Civil disobedience might be vital training for a healthy democracy.

      the system is imperfect

      More than agreed. It is seriously broken.

      you would support cheating the system

      Why not? What is wrong with bucking a system that most agree is unjust? Rebellion is a fine American tradition. How else do we get change for the better? Lobbying Congress often doesn't work well. Million man marches make lots of noise but produce little change. Should Vietnam draft dodgers have meekly reported to camp? Should they not have taken any extraordinary measures such as messing up their health immediately before so they would flunk the physicals? Or serving in the National Guard like George W. Bush? Risk death for a war of very dubious merit? If they had, might the war there have gone on for another 10 years, or 20 years, because policy makers thought the public was backing them? If nothing else, that war broke the draft. Dare you think what W. might have done had he the power to draft millions of additional soldiers? Invade and occupy Iran and North Korea, and Syria, and Jordan and Pakistan, and what the heck, Saudi Arabia too, for the security of our oil supplies, you know.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    48. Re:Angels and Demons by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Finally, I believe that people that create are driven to create. They may not become multimillionaires, but there will always be a demand for people to create content and a willingness for people to create it. When it makes sense for people to do this as full time jobs there will be people willing to pay them for it. And if there is no one willing to pay for content, and no one that is willing to do it for free, then the conclusion I would draw would be that no one really wanted it in the first place.

      This may or may not be true, but what you are basically saying is, "they are going to work hard (to create), and someone else will pay them for it, therefor I should be able to enjoy it freely." You're freeloading off someone else's hard work.

      It is demonstrably true that money motivates people to do creative things. A clear example of this is Winston Churchill: every time he needed more money, he wrote another book. If it hadn't been for that motivation, we wouldn't know as much about that man. The list of people who have written books motivated primarily by money is a long one: Dr David Livingston, Hillary Clinton, Tila Tequila, Carrie Fischer......any time you hear about a million dollar book deal, you can make a good bet that money is the motivation behind writing that book. And a lot of them are good enough books that people are willing to buy them, even if no one person would be willing to pay the whole million dollars personally.

      The chance for money IS a big motivating factor to a lot of creative people, and copyright seems to be a reasonable way to maintain that motivating factor.

      --
      Qxe4
    49. Re:Angels and Demons by Tikkun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This may or may not be true, but what you are basically saying is, "they are going to work hard (to create), and someone else will pay them for it, therefor I should be able to enjoy it freely." You're freeloading off someone else's hard work.

      I'm suggesting that supply (stuff, in this case information) and demand (people that want new stuff) existed before IP laws, and that it will exist after IP laws are gone. I believe that IP laws are now obsolete, even if they ever were useful to the progress of mankind.

      Shakespeare wrote plays before there was copyright. He was paid to make plays, because people wanted to perform them. Are people that perform his plays today freeloading, and should they pay his descendants for using his IP? The same goes for Motzart, Beethoven, Plato, Aristotle, etc. Do you seriously think that Fox will stop making crappy TV shows because they no longer have a monopoly on distributing the video after it is broadcast? They haven't (de facto) since the invention of the VCR.

      Copyright was originally created to prevent people from profiting (i.e. selling) from the works of others without their consent and not designed to prevent people from reading their works in libraries for free. I don't see how it applies in a world where everyone has access to their own personal printing press and a library with the capacity to one day contain the sum total of human knowledge, culture, experience and information.

    50. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to full and complete due legal process before consequences for the act commited are imposed, however, are in the same category. Last I checked you arent supposed to lose your place to live because someone has ACCUSED you of stealing something.

    51. Re:Angels and Demons by vlad30 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WTF? Hers was a Human Rights Issue. Downloading of a movie is Theft. I may not like the costs to see a movie or listen to music, BUT Its whats funding thousands of jobs. My wife loses hers soon because the Movie Industry is laying off heavily.

      Basically Human Rights vs theft. How can you even compare them?

      Maybe the Movie and TV industry should start taking paycuts like the rest of us we complain about CEO's taking home far in excess in proportion to their contribution however actors are the same a small select group take home a disproportionate amount along with many fringe benefits. Then to be worse than the CEO's often expect to get paid over and over through royalties not just 1-5 years (as in bonuses) or even 17 years for a patent on something that saves lives, but 90 years.

      just a thought imagine if your bricklayer asked to get paid because our using the house you paid him to build

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    52. Re:Angels and Demons by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      The simple fact is someone has to pay the bills. So, my question is, where exactly does this "right to read, listen, watch", something I may have created, come from?

      The concept of 'freedom of speech' is fairly widespread among the liberal democracies. In its most general form, this right is the right to transmit whatever information you like to anybody willing to listen, without the interference of anybody else.

      Most cultures that recognise 'freedom of speech' still impose restrictions of various sorts upon it. Some impose restrictions on speech that would cause panic or riot. Or restrictions saying that the speech may not incite violence. Many restrict speech that might harm the reputation of some third party - sometimes even if that speech is in fact true. Some say that the speech must not offend certain racial groups, or religious groups. Some decide they ought to protect the king from criticism, some protect the government. Some insist that a certain percentage of speech transmitted across certain media ought to be in a particular chosen language. Some forbid you to transmit information that is likely to confuse automated systems that receive it and cause malfunctions. And some cultures have developed a strange concept called 'copyright', in which information can be 'owned', and you cannot transmit that information without the permission of the 'owner': the first person to have transmitted a particular sequence of information 'owns' it, and can forbid others to repeat that information if he so wishes.

      There are reasonable arguments in favour of all these restrictions on freedom of speech. I imagine you agree with some of them. I very much doubt you agree with all of them. Some people happen to think that copyright is an intolerable restriction on free speech, and that the loss of the big-budget Hollywood blockbuster is a price worth paying for an internet free of artificial constraints on the free transmission of information.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    53. Re:Angels and Demons by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It still seems like you are trying to get stuff for free, letting other people pay for it. Sure, in the old days there were patrons who paid to have things made, but that was clearly not as good as copyright. What problem do you have with chipping in your fair share to pay for something you enjoy? If you don't think you'll enjoy it, you don't have to pay, of course. Someone has to pay for the production of the art, why not the ones who enjoy it?

      --
      Qxe4
    54. Re:Angels and Demons by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      It is a "gross affront to human dignity" to be told where to sit on the bus? ACLU paid her to make a scene so that they could use her pretty face in court, just like when they paid Homor Plessy. In BOTH those cases they LOST. What was bullshit about segregation was that it was stupid and annoying. We have the same thing today with handicap seats on the bus, but nobody makes a big stink about it. And just like Rosa Parks, you can sit in the front of the bus until some crippled old white woman wants it.

      and as a loud mouth free market evangelical, it was the free market and nothing else that fixed that resolved that issue. It was a big enough annoyance for people to band together and boycott the bus system. Bus system could not operate without their fair, so they had to get rid of the BS rules. It was so detrimental it was obvious to other cities that they should change their policies before they have the same problem.

      Same thing with Woman's Suffrage, but nobody ever had to break the law: States with very small female populations (
      I went into it in another post (and subsequently put on my website) that copyright is extremely unnatural today and requires the threat of force to keep any type of compliance. There is no rule of law or social contract being enforced, these are bullies with enough money and lawyers to threaten anyone they like. But politicians can't get elected if they can't get on TV owned by big media. The Internet is changing that, but only so quickly. But every member of congress that doesn't see the atrocity that has become our copyright law in a practical way has violated their oath of office to uphold the constitution. Cleverly and intentionally misinterpreting it while someone feeds money and political ambition into your back pocket doesn't make it excusable.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    55. Re:Angels and Demons by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      I disagree

      A 'right' to 'download' 'Angels & Demons'? No.

      But whatever James Madison had sought to protect through limited copyright... this wasn't it. ACLU picked Rosa Parks cause she was pretty and would make a great poster child for the cause. Doesn't make the cause any less just, just acknowledging that there were some politics involved. If I were going to make an argument for the intellectual pursuits of mankind, I don't think this kid and his Angels & Demons download would be my poster child. I think I would pick someone a little more like... Eric Eldred, just to throw a name out there.

      And what happened to Eric Eldred AND Rosa Parks when they had their day in court? They got SHAFTED! They LOST! But Rosa Parks and the ACLU had their boycott, and Eric Eldred with Lawrence Lessig have Creative Commons.

      But honestly, I see your point. That really isn't the same. Creative Commons is more like if, taking another free market approach, the ACLU started their own bus system, and anyone that believed in all the colors of the rainbow could ride, hopefully beating out those mean ol' segregated buses.

      So no, Rosa Parks isn't like any of those people. Guess I'd have to say she was a little more like Peter Sunde (if she had a transporter from Star Trek).

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    56. Re:Angels and Demons by trawg · · Score: 1

      Three people saying "that your right to download movies for free is the same as your right to sit on the bus regardless of your skin color" is three too many.

    57. Re:Angels and Demons by Coldmoon · · Score: 1

      No, that is not the answer either so don't be so quick to attack. The system is failing to bring producers and consumers together. Until the media industry finds a way to bridge the gap with better business models, this type of thing will continue.

      The question here is whether they will arrive at that aha moment before they destroy the very thing they are trying to protect...

      --
      Coldmoon over Dark water...
    58. Re:Angels and Demons by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      So in your world no one gets paid for their content.

      That's not what he said.

      If the thing you did best in life (i.e., had the most talent at) was creating content, would you want to get paid for it?

      I would, and I do. And as a matter of fact, "creating content" is my job as well as my hobby.

      But do you know how most people go about getting paid for the thing they do best in life? They don't do that thing for free, up front, and then beg people to pay them for the thing they've already done.

      Nor do they go crying to the government for a license to restrict everyone else's speech and actions, in an attempt to force people to come give them money for doing the same thing that everyone else is now forbidden to do.

      No, what most people do is demand money for doing that thing they're good at before they do it. Football players don't go out on the field until they have a contract. Architects don't design houses without a paying customer. Mechanics don't fix cars for free, they fix cars that someone is paying to have fixed.

      Artists could stand to learn something from those people, and so could you.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    59. Re:Angels and Demons by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      too many != every last one

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    60. Re:Angels and Demons by Sanat · · Score: 1

      Times... they are a changing.

      We are seeing all of the "old energy" businesses from our father's and our grandfather's day beginning or being in the process of failure... Insurance, Movie Industry, Auto Industry, Banking, Organized Religion, etc. It is not because they are being mismanaged as much as the new energies of Humanity can not sustain the old any longer so these old businesses must fail and we are seeing each of those failures occuring presently.

      The "Old" will cling to their ways tenaciously. It was a similar situation with the dinosaurs, but in the end the change will occur... just as it did with the dinosaurs.

             

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    61. Re:Angels and Demons by nausea_malvarma · · Score: 1

      Thats not the point. I admitted that it's ridiculous to compare what Rosa Parks did to filesharing. The poster never said "this file sharer is acting like Rosa Parks". They just used her as an example that sometimes it's ok to break the law , to counter the argument that illegal = bad. The difference is that Rosa Parks fought for a cause. That's probably not the case here. But Parks serves as an example that not every law deserves to be followed.

    62. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking commie! Go back to Cuba, JACKASS!

    63. Re:Angels and Demons by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Three people think it's an important contribution to the debate. That doesn't mean those 3 people agree with it (although they might), it just means they think it's important.

      Just because you disagree with something, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be modded up if it is going to stir debate.

    64. Re:Angels and Demons by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. They are not giving the movies away, they are turning a [very] healthy profit. Their only problem is they are not making as huge a profit as they would like. So don't pretend the studios and all the artists are starving, because they aren't. They just aren't as rich as they would like to be. Sob.

      Copyright was designed to protect the work for a limited time so that the artist could make some money. There was no wording that implied obscene profits were due. If there ever exists a movie that doesn't make a profit due to people downloading it, then the producers don't have a market, and they should get out of the business. But yet they are still going - funny that. Any movie that doesn't make a profit probably isn't good enough to warrant one, so instead of bleating about piracy, they should concentrate on making decent content.

      When I was a kid, I went to the fair and was intrigued by a sign saying "The amazing rat lady - be amazed". So I paid my money and went in. I found a fat bitch wearing a body stocking eating a snickers bar surrounded by gerbils. If someone had taken a photo and displayed it outside, I would never have paid and gone in. The entertainment industry is a con job, you pay without knowing what you're getting, and there are no refunds. Not anymore. The market is now self correcting.

      Of the approximately 1.5 TB of content on my media server, something like 75% is recorded from TV and the rest are DVD rips, of DVDs that I own. Most of those rips were downloaded versions, which I decided I liked, and then went out and bought a hard copy as backup. What is wrong with that ? But the studios like to claim it is an either/or situation, where if a pirate copy exists, they make no money. This is patently false, so they can cry me a river.

    65. Re:Angels and Demons by CoolCalmChris · · Score: 1

      The entertainment industry would do well to look forward and embracing new technology and distribution methods as opposed to looking back and demanding that the old paradigms be maintained at any cost.

      And there's plenty of examples to point to that originally met great resistance but turned out to be a good thing in the long run. Videotape didn't kill movies, they made them more accessible and leveled the playing field for aspiring filmmakers to hone their craft. Cassettes weren't the death blow to the music industry, they ended up being a cheap medium to put more product out there for the record companies to profit from.

      Time and again, it has been proven that the problem is not in technology, but shortsightedness. The *AA's continued resistance to making lossless movies and music available online is simply another example of the entertainment industry ignoring the winds of change to preserve their hegemony, and it's proving to be a losing battle for everyone concerned.

      Nature abhors a vacuum, and apparently so do a large segment of tech savvy consumers. If the entertainment industry refuses to adapt, we will all have to bear the costs of their hubris.

    66. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      we'll make new Star Trek flicks staring the third stringers from American Idol and written by the guys that wrote Enterprise

      Why do I think you would end up with West Side Story if you did that?

    67. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its whats funding thousands of parasites.

      Fixed it

    68. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you're right! He's already been told he's kicked out, he might as well have the craziest, drunkenest, stripper-filledest party ever seen on campus!

    69. Re:Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: She was already sitting in the black section of the bus. The white section filled up, and the driver asked her to move back so they could temporarily increase the size of the white section. She didn't "make a stand", she just didn't get up from the section she was already legally sitting in. The bus driver kicked her off the bus (something they can do for any reason whatsoever), and she left quietly. And then she was found guilty of disobeying the bus driver - not of sitting in the white section of the bus - and paid the fine without any complaint. The NAACP did the work - she just happened to be their second choice for photo ops.

    70. Re:Angels and Demons by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Rosa Parks was, at the time, a local leader for the NAACP. It wasn't an accident or even a single incident, it was a planned city wide protest involving Ms. Parks and several other activists. You are correct that she was never charged with sitting in the white section of the bus as it wasn't an actual offense, but neither was "disobeying a bus driver"... she was charged with disturbing the peace and public disturbance.

      Your account, much like the "little old lady with groceries" version (especially given that she was only in her 20s at the time), is simply not what happened.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    71. Re:Angels and Demons by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And just like Rosa Parks, you can sit in the front of the bus until some crippled old white woman wants it.

      Huh? Blacks were allowed in the back of the bus, and could never sit in the white section. Rosa Parks was seated in the black section of the bus. When the white section was full, a white man (not crippled old woman) needed a seat. The bus driver demanded she get up. She refused. She was a black woman seated in the black section of the bus when there was no problem with her being seated there. Until the bus got more full, and she was ordered to get up so a white man could take her seat in what was the black section of the bus.

      So I'm curious what you are talking about with Rosa Parks sitting in the front and what a crippled old white lady has to do with the discussion.

    72. Re:Angels and Demons by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      I was talking about today with regard to the ADA, though I think we rightfully treat the situations different, but that doesn't mean they are not related simply because one is right and the other is wrong.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    73. Re:Angels and Demons by freemywrld · · Score: 1

      But Parks serves as an example that not every law deserves to be followed.

      You are absolutely correct.

  2. Not that sympathetic by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You chose to break the law and were punished for it.

    1. Re:Not that sympathetic by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He choose to break the RIAA rules and got judged in a kangaroo court.

      Or was that extortion?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:Not that sympathetic by Andr+T. · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems he got a damn fast judgement. And a damn fast judgement done by a private company.

      Does anyone remember 'Judge Dredd'? 'I am the law!!!'

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    3. Re:Not that sympathetic by Psyborgue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is something called due process. He got none.

    4. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You chose to break the law and were punished for it.

      Noooooooooo! There's no law against it. Show me where there's a law against it. Where's there a law against it? That's not piracy that's copyright infringement and that's not copyright infringement it's not illegal. Nothing physical was stolen! That proves nothing at all was wrong because intellectual property sucks so long as it isn't stuff I made. And I wasn't going to buy it anyway so there's no sales lost, so I have the right to watch it! There's no explicit license! I agreed to nothing! I don't have to pay money to do anything I didn't agree to if the contract was not written on parchment made with specific paper, written in blood, and a million other trivial technicalities that PROVE I'M INNOCENT AND I HAVE THE RIGHT, NAY, DUTY TO DOWNLOAD EVERYTHING EVERYONE ELSE MADE FOR FREEEEEEEEEE!!!!1!1! Freedom liberty my rights privacy free

      ps plz dont tell them where i am

    5. Re:Not that sympathetic by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't really see too much room for debate when the accused states the matter as simply as "...a result of me downloading Angels and Demons". I don't read this and feel that the person is genuinely feeling remorse for what was done, only for getting caught.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    6. Re:Not that sympathetic by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not having read TFA, I'm assuming that he was actually kicked out of his residence for violating some sort of agreed upon terms of residence/bahaviour which he did admit to violating. If it's because he broke copyright law, there should be at least some sort of due process. The universities in North America have been amongst the few that have generally stood up to RIAA bullying tactics. Sounds like a different ball game in Australia.

    7. Re:Not that sympathetic by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Informative
      Had he committed an actual crime (as in criminal offense) and stole the DVD on a store, he would probably only get fined

      "Infringement notices not only provide a prompt and direct response to shop theft under $600, they significantly reduce the cost and paperwork associated with prosecution. The ARA would therefore expect that authorities continue working to reduce shop theft and improve deterrence with firmer enforcement measures," Evans said.

      From July 1 2008 police will be able to issue infringement notices for seven common offences, including shop theft of less than $600. The infringement fine for this offence will be two penalty units ($227). Guidelines for the use of infringement notices for this offence provide that police will consider factors such as the person's criminal record, whether the matter appears to be part of a wider criminal operation and whether restitution is an issue before deciding whether to issue an infringement.

      Notice that even in the case of an actual criminal activity, police will take many variables in context before to punish.

    8. Re:Not that sympathetic by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

      It seems he got a damn fast judgement. And a damn fast judgement done by a private company.

      Does anyone remember 'Judge Dredd'? 'I am the law!!!'

      I do remember Judge Dredd and the Supreme Court of the United States of America does too--it was totally badass!

      --
      My work here is dung.
    9. Re:Not that sympathetic by chabotc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      +1 on this sentiment.

      He was punished based on an accusation, not on being found guilty.. that's skipping over an incredibly vital step in the justice system.

      Really that's only a small step away from how 'justice' was administered during the 'Dark Ages'. I thought we had left that behind us, but apparently having lawyers and money means you don't have to bother with such pesky details anymore. More so because we're not talking of a fine or something small, but of evicting someone!

      Oh while we're at it: What if someone accused you of having *something* illegal on your computer, be it a non licensed picture, an bit of software you didn't obtain legally, or some content you've downloaded. Would you be so happy to instantly loose your home without any independent parties being involved in judging what's true and appropriate ?

    10. Re:Not that sympathetic by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And in this case, he only got emailed. Media Sentry didn't demand that the university terminate his residency contract.

      That was the result of a contract he willingly entered into between himself and the university about behaviour. He admits he did as described in the letter, and as a result, the university is asking him to leave the dorms.

      Should have considered, perhaps, that they might actually have desired and expected that he adhere to the contract that he as an adult signed.

    11. Re:Not that sympathetic by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I don't know. The word 'allegedly' is missing, is it not? Confessions usually aren't up for a lot of debate, are they?

      'Innocent until proven' is fine, but it sounds like the accused caved in the face of the evidence. If the accusation was false, THEN due process would likely have attached due to the assertion of innocence.

      The same thing happens in the US all the time. After the arrest you are given the opportunity to confess. Those that do confess DO NOT go to trial.

      How exactly is this ethically/morally different from that?

    12. Re:Not that sympathetic by owlnation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is something called due process. He got none.

      While that is true... He really would have got much more sympathy, even on /., if he had the brains to write:

      "the network manager had been contacted by MediaSentry and emailed one of the generic copyright infringement emails as a result of me (allegedly) downloading Angels and Demons."

      Honestly, students today... what is education coming to? Seems too easy to get into Uni these days. Innocent until proven guilty, but if you are admitting your guilt, then there's a good chance you are. He would have had a reasonable grounds for fighting this if he'd denied any wrong doing and shifted the burden of proof. Not very smart not to.

    13. Re:Not that sympathetic by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      He goes to a university, they kicked him out. The only due process he is allowed is whatever they granted him when he agreed to go there in exchange for him paying them money.

      I have no sympathy for him. He knew it was wrong to download it without paying for it. Instead of whining here, he should be addressing the issue with whatever governing boards are at his school.

      Or look into transferring his credits to another school and getting on with his life.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    14. Re:Not that sympathetic by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      Notice that even in the case of an actual criminal activity, police will take many variables in context before to punish.

      Cops can use discretion on whether or not to arrest, it's up to judges to issue punishment.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    15. Re:Not that sympathetic by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Laws and their sentences are written down for anyone to see.

      If part of the tenancy agreement said that they'd boot you out for copyright infringement fair enough. If they've just said that they can evict you at their discretion (as I suspect) then this is very unlike breaking the law and getting judicially punished for it.

    16. Re:Not that sympathetic by tsalmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a strong feeling that he admitted to the act (I won't call it a crime). That in a school setting is enough for action. I expect that if he had said "no not me" then he would still have accommodations and probably a lot more scrutiny of his internet actions than before.

    17. Re:Not that sympathetic by TheSambassador · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention that the severity of punishment is a jump away from the severity of the offense.

      Yes, downloading movies should be illegal, but why are the charges so incredibly much more than shoplifting the DVD out of a store? If he'd done that, he'd probably still have his dorm room.

    18. Re:Not that sympathetic by Sasayaki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Millions of people break the law every day; this particular issue of law, specifically. Copyright infringement. Why do all of those people deserve no punishment at all, while this guy deserves to lose his home?

      My issue is not that he should be allowed to do what he did, but that the punishment is:

      a) Extremely excessive, even for a habitual, repeat offender. We allow rapists to keep their homes (and even provide them with a new one!); is this worse than rape?

      b) Extremely sporatically enforced. Would you support a law that said you stood a one in a million chance of being executed for jaywalking?

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    19. Re:Not that sympathetic by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Just because he wasn't technically entitled to any due process doesn't mean it's right. Regardless of where it happens, you deserve a right to defend yourself from accusations.

      even if he was "guilty", in a court of law, would that same evidence be admissable? think about it. Private corporations shouldn't be allowed to play police.

    20. Re:Not that sympathetic by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      Maybe he has no remorse for the download. I think that misses the point. He was evicted because of the download. That seems extremely draconian. What I have issues with is the extent the .+AA will go through to ensure their "IP". It is a $15 movie or ($30 MSRP when it comes out on DVD), yet they had this person evicted, and have on many other occasions forced people into bankruptcy. Some even contemplated suicide over a lawsuit stemming from a fsking $30 movie. The .+AA has no sense of equal proportion. They will devastate lives over stupid shit.

    21. Re:Not that sympathetic by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you people know he didn't get due process? How can you even assume that? Considering the fact that he confessed to this on a public website, I'm thinking his conversation with the manager went something like this:

      Manager: Hey, kid. I got this letter here from a company called MediaSentry claiming that they traced a download of Angels and Demons to your PC. Is that true?
      Kid: Yes.
      Manager: GTFO.

      That's due process, right there. The kid decided to use his study time to search for, download, and presumably watch a movie which he wasn't entitled to download, and now he's crying because he has to use his study time to find a new place to live.

      The only thing newsworthy about this story is the fact that MediaSentry is operating in Australia, the kid who got what he deserved is not the story.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    22. Re:Not that sympathetic by Yaur · · Score: 1

      I read it as his college is throwing him out of the dorm, not that he was judged by a court. If he admitted to the network admin that he used school resources to pirate content taking those resources away seems like a reasonable thing for the college to do.

    23. Re:Not that sympathetic by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      He admitted, presumably only *after* he was punished. He never got a chance to defend himself, now did he? If he wasn't guilty, would he have had a venue or opportunity to defend himself? What if it were you accused, and you *hadn't* downloaded the movie in question (maybe it was a roommate using a shared computer or somebody using your computer as a wifi access point).

    24. Re:Not that sympathetic by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Had he committed an actual crime (as in criminal offense) and stole the DVD on a store, he would probably only get fined

      Well that depends, doesn't it? Was the store a university-run store, or did he use university resources to help him steal it? Because, in this case, he used the university's network to download the copyrighted material. That's different than walking into an unrelated store and shoplifting, the university has a responsibility to police its own resources.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    25. Re:Not that sympathetic by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What would have happened if he'd have stolen it from the University DVD shop? Presumably he used the university's network to download it in violation of the contract he signed with them.

    26. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. He broke copyright law. I publish my software under the GPL and BSD licenses, and expect people to respect the terms of the license. What's the difference here? If you don't like the license, don't download/buy/use the product.

    27. Re:Not that sympathetic by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      What if it were you accused, and you *hadn't* downloaded the movie in question (maybe it was a roommate using a shared computer or somebody using your computer as a wifi access point).

      Then I would fight like hell, and would win, because I was innocent.

      The presumption 'only after' is crucial to your position. Since there is at least an equally likely chance that this isn't the case, we'll just have to disagree about what we speculate actually happened.

    28. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not any different. He broke the law, and is busy whining about it instead of thinking about how he might (1) avoid such problems in the future, and (2) how he might do his civic duty to work to get the laws changed if he disagrees with them.

    29. Re:Not that sympathetic by vertinox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You chose to break the law and were punished for it.

      As opposed to the people that break unjust laws and were punished for it?

      I mean Aung San Suu Kyi has my sympathy even though she has indeed broke the "law" of her nation. She's probably going to suffer a long time because it.

      I'm not saying that what the file sharer did in anywhere in comparison with what she is trying to accomplish in Burma, but make a blanket statement that because you break a law means you don't get sympathy is foolish indeed.

      Hell. Legally, the American Revolutions broke the law when they revolted.

      Remember...

      Sometimes following a law is not always the right thing to do because sometimes a law is written in an unethical or immoral way.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    30. Re:Not that sympathetic by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You chose to break the law and were punished for it.

      No, he chose to break his university's policy and was punished for that.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    31. Re:Not that sympathetic by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      You migth win if you had a right to appeal, but was that the case? Again, it's up to speculation.

    32. Re:Not that sympathetic by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Assuming you were a paying customer, and had enough will to fight, you need not have been 'granted' the right. You'd fight them with or without their blessing. It isn't impossible to imagine a situation where one individual might have no recourse from actions of another, but getting kicked out of a dorm doesn't seem to be among them.

    33. Re:Not that sympathetic by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong, be aware that these articles on /. are often very biased against the RIAA, so the article may be light on details about the due process he may or may not have received, and perhaps even to the point of exaggeration.

      What if he informally confessed, for example?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    34. Re:Not that sympathetic by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      They aren't playing police, he is not going to jail. Don't be so dramtic.

      If I sign a contract in the US and am accused of doing something in violation of that contract, the other party can break the contract. I have a right to take it to civil court to fight the decision. I have a right to ask for a stay against any penalties until it is resolved. I even have a right to sue and receive judgments for my having to spend money to fight the suit and to punish the person breaking the suit.

      It appears the person in the article has decided to roll over instead of exercising his rights. Sucks to be him. 'Oh .. he's a poor student and doesn't have any money'. The law gives citizens rights, not abilities. Still sucks to be him.

      As for deserving a right to defend myself, I can sue for libel if I think accusations are false and damage my reputation. I can use my right of free speech to post something on Slashdot and whine about my situation.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    35. Re:Not that sympathetic by mjhorn · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the punishment is excessive. But thats not the issue. The issue is that in living in University owned housing, you agree to certain terms. And while I don't know the specifics of this university, they typically prohibit the use of the school network for things such as illegal downloads. The consequences for breaking those terms are also spelled out. That being the case, he made a decision knowing the risk he was taking. He got caught. Now he's out of luck.

    36. Re:Not that sympathetic by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Maybe he has no remorse for the download. I think that misses the point. He was evicted because of the download. That seems extremely draconian.

      This is what I took from the article, as well. It's not a matter of it being illegal, or a civil rights protest, or whatever anyone else cares to dress it up as. It's a response out of all proportion to what was actually done. Now, if they had given multiple warnings, or the agreement for staying there is "absolutely no downloading of X materials," then yes, fine, it's a valid response, though I'd question the fact that a dorm is forcing a student out during finals time, as that seems even worse, since they're supposed to be caring about the student's academic performance.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    37. Re:Not that sympathetic by jackbird · · Score: 1

      In most places, there's a hell of a lot more due process to go through before a landlord can evict a tenant for lease violations, including nonpayment of rent. I fail to see how a "too bad" attitude is warranted here when the punishment (evicted from your home) is so disproportionate to the alleged crime.

    38. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some ways, australia is more compliant to american law than america is. We don't have any civil liberties in our constitution to prevent someone being carted away to Guantanomo and held without trial indefinitely, for example.

      The australian government is a weak and timorous beastie, eager to toady up to whoever seems powerful. I shudder to think of what will happen when China becomes the dominant player. I expect laws will be passed to 'respect' china by using their version of google, for example.

    39. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downloading copyrighted content is not against the law in Australia, just as it is not in America. And this is modded insightful?

    40. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he'd done that, he'd be in jail, so no, he wouldn't "probably still have his dorm room".

    41. Re:Not that sympathetic by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      He said 'I did it'. Why wait for due process? If he broke the law pretty much every rental agreement reserves the right to throw you out on the spot, even in America.

      He broke the law.
      He admitted to it.
      He's getting thrown out because of it.

      No real reason to wait for anything. No American university would keep this person either or defend them. American universities are taking a stance for civil liberties, not for protecting those who break the law.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    42. Re:Not that sympathetic by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Even after pleading guilty there is still a trial to prove your guilt. Confessions can be coerced. etc.

    43. Re:Not that sympathetic by nametaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The RIAA didn't demand that he be kicked out of student dorms. His school did that.

    44. Re:Not that sympathetic by nametaken · · Score: 1

      MPAA... and MediaSentry. Dur.

    45. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, you placed the school in legal jeopardy by downloading the movie on their connection. They decided that this was not cool, and told you to get out.

      I'd do the same.

      I don't agree with the law. I think the music/movie industry goons are going way too far in their mistreatment of potential customers. I'm not willing to take the heat for your actions, and neither is your school.

    46. Re:Not that sympathetic by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I really doubt the university would kick out a student just because someone accused that student of filesharing, even if that someone were the RIAA. From what I see, he was accused, he admitted the accusation was correct, and then he was kicked out.

      I don't know where you're pulling your inference that he only admitted to it after the punishment was administered, but I don't see any evidence of that.

    47. Re:Not that sympathetic by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I doubt he was evicted for the download so much as for breaking university or dormitory rules - rules he probably agreed to when he was admitted to the university.

    48. Re:Not that sympathetic by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Due process doesn't apply if he wasn't punished as a criminal. It sounds to me like he broke the university's rules, and they simply administered the consequences of breaking that rule - and I'd bet that he agreed to those rules when he was admitted to the school.

      It's stupid for anybody to complain when they're punished for breaking rules they agreed they wouldn't break.

    49. Re:Not that sympathetic by YourExperiment · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be fair, it's highly unlikely he watched all of it.

    50. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The universities in the USA have hardly stood up for students. Most of them I'd say have given into the demands of the cartel. They pass on notices rather than discontinue the storing of IP address information, they take up policies of disconnecting students that goes beyond the letter of the law, and when you complain they give you some BS excuse about the lawyers- who clearly don't understand the law or are taking the "just in case" approach. Nobody is standing up for students in the USA. It is a rarity for a university to stand up. Many that initially did even ended up sitting back down.

    51. Re:Not that sympathetic by TheSambassador · · Score: 1

      While true in this case, consider the cases where the RIAA is just plain suing someone. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, even with the "making available" argument, is ridiculous.

    52. Re:Not that sympathetic by coretx · · Score: 1

      Most people who get punished for breaking the law. Get punished by a judge, not by the RIAA/MPAA or one of their numerous outfits.

    53. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez what do you suggest as punishment for driving 2k's over the limit? The death penalty?

      Being made homeless for one count of minor copyright infringement. You sir are what's known as an asshat.

    54. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am in Australia and know someone who was forwarded one of these MediaSentry notices recently by their ISP (allegedly for downloading an ebook). The ISP (TPG) says that they will be disconnected if it happens again.

      That was the whole process. No recourse was offered.

    55. Re:Not that sympathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over here, you don't stand up against the court, especially if you rely on government contracts (All of our universities are public and rely on government funding).

      Additionally, it's not as easy to defend your self in these situations in Australia, especially since we don't have the libertarian streak as much as America does.

      I've known many people to have been in the right, yet the judge has over ruled them, and put it down to "Just deal with it".

      In other words, the Simpsons episode with the court, where they just want to give him "a little kick up the bum", is about right.

    56. Re:Not that sympathetic by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Jeez what do you suggest as punishment for driving 2k's over the limit? The death penalty?

      If someone gives me a document that says that if I drive 2k's over the speed limit that I'm going to be killed, and if I read the document, understand it, and willfully sign it, and then I get caught going 2k's over the speed limit, I'm not going to be very surprised if I get the specific punishment that I knew about and agreed to.

      If the kid wants to live in the university housing, then he needs to follow the rules he agrees to, that's it. If he doesn't agree with the rules, then he doesn't have to live there. It's not like if he doesn't live there he's going to be homeless, university housing is not the only place in the world to live.

      You sir are what's known as an asshat.

      No, an asshat is when you agree to not do something, and then you do it, and then you get all butthurt when you get punished for it. This isn't legal rocket science, this is what your parents should have taught you growing up.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    57. Re:Not that sympathetic by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 1

      Yes, but to say that the punishment being draconically out of proportion with the crime would be an understatement. Seriously? Kicked out of the dorms immediately? For being caught illegally downloading copyrighted material on what I assume is a first offense? Not being warned? Not simply having dorm internet services revoked? Wow, I'm speechless.

    58. Re:Not that sympathetic by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

      Actaully, no actual law was broken. Downloading copyrighted works is still a civil matter in this country.

      Being removed from your university accomodation for it is probably illegal, and you can probably drag the uni through the courts for it on account of a letter from Media Sentry doesn't hold ANY legal weight without a court order as well.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
  3. A new low by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Getting students evicted by putting pressure on the dorm management? That's setting a new standard in scumbag behavior, so what's next now? How do you go deeper when you've already dug a six feet trench underneath the sewer lines?

    1. Re:A new low by IndieKid · · Score: 1

      It's probably part of the tenancy agreement, "you agree not to break the law within these premises" etc. He could probably go to court to claim his innocence, but since he's just delcared on slashdot that he did indeed download the film illegally using P2P I somehow doubt that's the route he'll be taking.

    2. Re:A new low by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There is NOTHING in the story to suggest that MediaSentry put any pressure on the university to evict. They'd probably not even be aware that he lived on campus (in Australia, the VERY vast majority of students do not live on campus, and I don't believe a single university has even a single year where you are required to live on campus).

      They sent an email informing the college as owners of the IP address of the infringement. He admitted to it, and while looking over the agreement for use of his dorm, which almost certainly included a clause along the lines of "not using your ethernet port in your dorm for ...", they decided to terminate his residency.

      Stop looking for a way to spin this into "the new lows that RIAA will go to". It ain't.

    3. Re:A new low by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're probably correct. Because they did nothing wrong, immoral or generally unethical in the united states so far, right?

    4. Re:A new low by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      They sent a letter. I have no love for Media Sentry and their 'scatterfire' methods. But the university showed him the email, and he admitted it was him and that he did it.

    5. Re:A new low by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      And punishment fitted the crime - he downloaded one movie, deprived the movie studios of six dollars, and thus lost his home on the spot. Justice was served, right?

    6. Re:A new low by mjhorn · · Score: 1

      If when you bought your home there was a clause in the mortgage that said if you were to fail to keep your lawn cut to a specific height (or whatever ridiculous clause you'd like to insert) you'd lose the home, you could either agree to that and accept the consequences if you didn't conform, or you could decide that was an unfair condition and choose not to enter into the contract. Its not like the student was forced to live there or in doing so forced to agree to the terms of residency. He made a choice to live there and to agree to follow their policy. He also chose to break that policy. How is this anything but his fault?

    7. Re:A new low by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      If my bank wanted to repossess my home for failing to keep my grass shorter than three inches "because it's part of my contract", I'd love to see them try and get the courts try and ENFORCE that. They'd be laughed out of courts. Why do you think the RIAA is being vilified so much across the world? Mostly it's because they keep trying to impose punishment that is hundreds of thousands of times the worth of the offense, and is completely disconnected with any sense of reality. This latest stunt is just another one of the RIAA's faithful boot-licking lackeys pursuing overseas their failed american tactics.

    8. Re:A new low by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Comprehension. The RIAA neither asked for, insisted, demanded, and likely had no idea that the student's tenancy was revoked. That was entirely between the student and the university .

      If you have a problem with the severity of this, you have a problem with the university.

      I realize that the RIAA is a great posterchild to spit vitriole and venom at, but they had nothing to do with this.

    9. Re:A new low by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      That's totally irrelevant. The point is, the RIAA didn't administer or even ask for the punishment that was given - that was decided on and carried out by the university, without the involvement of the RIAA, most likely as a direct result of this student's violation of the agreement he signed in order to live there.

      Why, exactly, is anyone mad that the kid broke the rules of the dorm (or university) - rules he agreed to obey - and got punished for it? It's irrelevant that the rule he broke happened to be noticed by the RIAA.

    10. Re:A new low by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Let's look at this logically. They figured out that this student had made an illegal download, and rather than contact him directly and explain the situation, they contacted his landlord. What were they expecting to get from this? Perhaps that he demand the six or so dollars his movie ticket price he skipped on their behalf, thus wasting hundreds of dollars in Mediasentry costs? And how did they hope that this landlord would transfer their demands to this students, aside with the possible threat of massive lawsuits to him, for being an accessory to download? To me, this constitutes little else but outright blackmail. They knew they would never be able to prosecute this student in a legal court where due process was applied, so they applied pressure to the landlord so that he would do their own dirty work with no lawyer costs, bad publicity and risks of losing involved. The Barbra Streisand Effect, however, pretty much guaranteed that Slashdot would hear of it whether they tried to squelch the story or not.

    11. Re:A new low by belmolis · · Score: 1

      No, they contacted his ISP, which happens to be his landlord.

    12. Re:A new low by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Which again begs the question - why would they bother evicting him for a SINGLE movie download unless legal threats were enacted, i.e. blackmail?

  4. What's the problem? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'Yesterday I got called into the Managers office because the network manager had been contacted by MediaSentry and emailed one of the generic copyright infringement emails as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons. Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'"

    Exactly what is the student's complaint?

    If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.

    1. Re:What's the problem? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't be silly. It was just a matter of time before the movie was uploaded. If the movie cartels want to stay in business, they'd better find a way to give away all their product for free.

      Otherwise, they won't have any customers left.

    2. Re:What's the problem? by characterZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They will have plenty of customers left. There are millions of people who are willing to pay money to watch movies; which took a lot of time and money to create.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    3. Re:What's the problem? by Psyborgue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And how, exactly, could he rebut the accusation? What venue could he use if he was falsely accused?

    4. Re:What's the problem? by johannesg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Yesterday I got called into the Managers office because the network manager had been contacted by MediaSentry and emailed one of the generic copyright infringement emails as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons. Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'"

      Exactly what is the student's complaint?

      If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.

      I believe his complaint is that, for stealing ~$10 worth of books, he is now being punished by losing his house and possibly an academic year.

      Some of us still believe that crime and punishment need to be in balance somehow, and that simply isn't the case here.

    5. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is odd that they are forcing him to move. The university I attended would have disabled is network access upon receiving the complaint and possible banned him from using university computing resources. They would not force him to move, however.

    6. Re:What's the problem? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on this one.

      Where, exactly, exists the possibility that downloading Angels and Demons is a morally/ethically acceptable thing to do?

      You can dismiss the usual complaints immediately. The student was not:

      A) replacing a purchased copy

      B) circumventing unreasonable restrictions

      C) using the internet as another medium for broadcast content

      D) rebelling against the cost of a ticket

      etc, etc, etc

      So if the student is innocent, this needs to be yelled from the rooftops. Otherwise punishment seems perfectly reasonable to me.

      Further, if THIS is not actionable, is ANYTHING related to digital media ever going to be?

    7. Re:What's the problem? by Necroman · · Score: 1

      Uhh, I'm guessing he means the movie: http://www.angelsanddemons.com/

      --
      Its not what it is, its something else.
    8. Re:What's the problem? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      My guess would be either that is not the first time, or that there have been other issues. Seems odd that they'd evict on a first time infraction. Perhaps he got shirty about "Information wants to be free!" or somesuch and wanted to be hardline about it, so they decided to be the same.

      Seems there's more to it, I suspect.

    9. Re:What's the problem? by langelgjm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.

      Let me help you understand: the problem is that the consequences are inappropriate to the conduct. Your line of reasoning would have everyone accept whatever consequences are in place, no matter how draconian.

      There, now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    10. Re:What's the problem? by Rycross · · Score: 1

      My point of view is that copyright infringement (which is not theft), should warrant, at most, a bill for the goods copied and, at most, a 50% penalty fee on top of that. Getting kicked out of your home for downloading a movie is grossly out of line with the actual damages that occurred (and most copyright infringement penalties are... such as $700 for a $1 song).

    11. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every fucking comment with a high score is an attack on the kid. Are you guys trying to claim all of a sudden that you don't break copyright law and never download random shitty, blockbuster movies? Because otherwise you are all fucking hypocrites. The problem with this copyright thing is simply that absolutely every young person does it, and so the only fair way to enforce it is to throw every single young person in jail, anything else is totally arbitrary and random. When every single human does something it ceases to be immoral by default, and instead becomes part of the definition of normal human behaviour and therefore acceptable by default.

    12. Re:What's the problem? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.

      That's harsh to the point of hypocrisy coming from this site. Slashdot has spent years scheming about how to rebut such accusations even when they're true. Slashdot has spent years arguing that such downloading shouldn't be a crime, or should be punished only lightly (e.g., fine = retail price). Where are those posters today? Where are those moderators today?

      Even those of us who think that what he did was wrong ought to be offering him a chance to crash at their place for a month or so.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    13. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So instead of ~$10 worth of books, exchange that for ~$15 DVD. The punishment still vastly exceeds the crime.

    14. Re:What's the problem? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I believe his complaint is that, for stealing ~$10 worth of books, he is now being punished by losing his house and possibly an academic year.

      Oh c'mon, man up Nancy. I got kicked out of the dorm my freshman year for smoking pot inside. I didn't fight it, because I knew I was obviously wrong, in fact I knew it wasn't OK to do that before I even did it, and I *even* knew that if I got caught they would probably kick me out. So they kicked me out, I got an apartment nearby, and never even missed a day of classes (well.. not because of moving, anyway).

      He knew that what he was doing wasn't allowed, and that there was punishment for it. He might have even known that the punishment was that he loses the privilege to live in the university housing. He's not losing his "house", he doesn't own the dorm, he's losing the privilege that the university extended to him to live on campus because he broke the rules that the university asked him to live by.

      If he loses an entire academic year because of this, he probably doesn't have the motivation to finish college in the first place.

      So what's the problem, huh? Where's your moral outrage? The university gives him a document when he moves into the dorm that says that if he uses the university's network to download illegal material then he may be sanctioned, including losing the privilege to live in university housing. He broke the agreement, he lost the privilege of living in university housing.. what's the problem? Where does the moral outrage come in?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    15. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just don't admit to it on a public forum when we do.

      From the article, it sounds like the kid downloaded the movie, and MediaSentry notified the Dorm Manager. When confronted, the kid admitted he did it. The housing agreement he signed when he moved in said he wouldn't download copyrighted material, and so he was kicked out for violating the housing agreement.

    16. Re:What's the problem? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Let me help you understand: the problem is that the consequences are inappropriate to the conduct.

      I disagree with you. Now what?

    17. Re:What's the problem? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      If you have a draconian law, you break it, and you wish to protest, you have two choices:

      1) Accept the consequences, while protesting, i.e. civil disobedience, or
      2) Reject the consequences, while protesting, and make yourself out to be a whiny thief who likes the crime, but not the time.

      If you don't have a draconian law, there's no problem. So basically, I agree with the GP recommendation.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    18. Re:What's the problem? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Actually, never mind. After some more thought, I agree the punishment is excessive.

    19. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, I'm guessing he means the movie: http://www.angelsanddemons.com/

      Uhh, I'm guessing you mean this URL: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4897351/Angels.and.Demons.CAM.XviD-DEViSE

      But otherwise, yeah the punishment does not fit the crime.

    20. Re:What's the problem? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Did he not sign an agreement for the dorm room that said 'if you break the law you have to go'? I can't imagine he didn't sign an agreement like that since every place that does this sort of thing, be it an apartment/flat or a university dorm room has such provisions in their rental/leasing agreements.

      He's not getting thrown out just because he broke the law. He's getting thrown out because he broke the law AND broke the rental agreement which HE SIGNED that stated if he broke the law he would not be allowed to stay.

      The consequences are appropriate, and he agreed to them. Don't agree to something than whine about it later when you fuck up.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    21. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as if didn't fully understand what he was doing and their potential consequences. Unless he didn't read his tenant agreement when he signed it. And used the "they'll never catch me" logic when downloading a brand new movie with p2p...

    22. Re:What's the problem? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Your argument is moot if he was punished for violating the terms of his residency - rules he previously agreed to - and it seems likely to me that this is the case.

      Would you be complaining if the rule he had agreed to and subsequently broken were something non-electronic like "no posting giant pictures of Barney the Dinosaur on your front door"?

      If you agree to a rule and then knowingly break it, you shouldn't be surprised if you have to face the consequences of your actions. It doesn't matter that the rule in this case has to do with filesharing.

    23. Re:What's the problem? by shalla · · Score: 1

      Let me help you understand: the problem is that the consequences are inappropriate to the conduct. Your line of reasoning would have everyone accept whatever consequences are in place, no matter how draconian.

      I don't know about the GP's line of reasoning, but mine pretty much goes, "If you sign a contract with someone and break the terms of it, expect them to treat you like you've broken the contract."

      I don't really think this is about copyright infringement or anything else so much as it is that the student presumeably signed both network/computing contracts and housing contracts that laid out regulations and consequences. I would assume that using university networks to commit copyright infringement is probably specifically mentioned in one or both of the agreements.

      If you don't like the possible consequences of contract clauses, don't sign them. If you do sign a contract, don't break the conditions unless you are prepared for the consequences. This is not a case of "A law is unfair and its consequences are too harsh." The consequences in this case are SOLELY the result of his decisions to live in a dorm and use uni resources for something he had agreed not to do. So he had choices. Don't live there. Don't use uni resources. Don't do it. Or take the consequences.

    24. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess would be either that is not the first time, or that there have been other issues.

      Oh i guess he must be guilty, cut his hands off.

  5. Boo hoo.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'""

    Wah?

    I mean come on, you're paying the price for doing what you knew would get in hot water at school. you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Boo hoo.... by daveime · · Score: 1

      You managed to take time out from studying and doing assignments to watch the movie. Pity you just didn't go to the cinema and shell out the measly $5 like the rest of us.

      If you are looking for sympathy, don't be so bloody blase about what you did. At least show some remorse. You sound like you consider this acceptable behaviour, and are only griping because you got caught this time.

      And thank your lucky stars it was an informal e-mail to your network admin, and not one of the "pay us $5000 dollars and we'll leave you alone" kind.

      Absolutely no sympathy for you, sorry.

    2. Re:Boo hoo.... by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?

      He must have missed the part in the AUP where it said dorm management would evict you for violating network policies based on the accusation of a private third party.

      Seriously, WTF /. Half the comments are along the lines of "you deserve this." Sure, he was downloading infringing material and violating the AUP - cut off his internet access. But throwing someone out of a dorm?

      Hint: what's to stop a creative student who is pissed at someone from spoofing an e-mail from MediaSentry to the management, and having someone else thrown out?

      The real ire should be directed at the management for throwing someone out of housing for violating network policies. What next - run an open access point, and you get expelled? Download a song, and your landlord throws you out of your apartment?

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    3. Re:Boo hoo.... by sbeckstead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You of course also have no knowledge of any action or investigation management took before throwing him out as we only have his half of the story. I hate to go all Les Miserables on people but he did steal the loaf of bread and he readily admits it. ( that's a simile people or even perhaps a metaphoric loaf of bread that he metaphorically stole)

    4. Re:Boo hoo.... by langelgjm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to go all Les Miserables on people but he did steal the loaf of bread and he readily admits it.

      If you've read Les Mis, you'll remember that Jean Valjean is thrown in prison for five years after stealing a loaf of bread. I.e., an unreasonable penalty for a crime that he did commit. So yeah, your analogy is more apt than you seem to realize :-)

      It's true that we only have his half of the story. On the other hand, I have a really hard time concocting any other side of the story that would warrant throwing someone out of housing for violating network policies. If he came crying to /. about how his network access got cut off, I'd have no sympathy. But being thrown out of housing just doesn't make sense at all.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    5. Re:Boo hoo.... by Lockblade · · Score: 1

      The real ire should be directed at the management for throwing someone out of housing for violating network policies. What next - run an open access point, and you get expelled? Download a song, and your landlord throws you out of your apartment?

      Actually, in both the dorms and apartments around my uni, yeah, they can. They usually only give you 48 hours to move out. It's not like anyone can take them to court, mainly because their tenants are all broke college students.

      Also, according to the code of conduct, they can expel you for violating copyright law.

    6. Re:Boo hoo.... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      He signed the rental agreement that said 'we throw you out if you break the law.'.

      So yes, its appropriate no matter how much you whine, bitch and moan like he does, don't agree to shit you don't feel is right, especially by signing a contract saying you agree to it.

      You, and he, are just whiney twits.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Boo hoo.... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      From all appearances, they didn't just kick him out based on the e-mail. It appears that he admitted to downloading it - why should they investigate further after a confession has been obtained?

      And, if he missed a clause in the AUP, that's his own fault. You shouldn't sign something you haven't read thoroughly - but if you do, you shouldn't complain when it comes back to bite you.

    8. Re:Boo hoo.... by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      I don't know about his college or yours, but I can say the college I attended (Boise State University) had a 100 page manual you received upon moving into the dorm. Sure, I was obligated to sign a form stating I would abide by all the rules of the dorms, and the rules could change, but the rules were not fully present when signing the form. Furthermore, upon receiving the manual, I did read it, but I was amongst the VERY few who read it. A 100 page manual of rules is not normally something one does for fun, and according to the rule manual, the rules could change at any time.

      What I can say though, is that were I to have been in his position, I could have requested arbitration by a trial of "peers" (this was in the manual). Having been an adviser before for one of these arbitrations, I know they take at least 2 weeks to be heard. The arbitration process would have been a good way of garnering enough time to finish the semester, plus the council of peers may offer a different punishment from the dorm manager.

    9. Re:Boo hoo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend! There is an overwhelming majority of support for this pour soul that has been evicted. Now we need the smart people of this site and Australia to take action and get this person there dorm room back. Australia this is not the attitude of the digger>>. We should be saying screw the American laws of the past dictatorship, they have moved on, let us move on as well???>>.

    10. Re:Boo hoo.... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      I would completely agree, this is not the poster boy you are looking for. Maybe someone a little more like... Eric Eldred? Oh wait... nevermind.

      Too bad we couldn't just use "culture" as an example of what we get from the free exchange of ideas. What irony. :(

      I find it hilarious that what makes this the worst possible example of a reasonable defense of a free culture is the fact that it was such a terrible movie... but then we say "serves you right, kid. You should have been pirating The Fountainhead".

      Lets say he works hard and gives ALL his money to the gods that give us books and movies. Would you have more sympathy if he pirated the textbooks and paid for the movie than for buying his textbooks and pirating the movie? Or is it pick one, and college students can just watch movies after they graduate and get a good job? I can tell you if I spent my money on Angels & Demons instead of a textbook I needed, I'd be REALLY upset.

      Since I can assume you are not a television executive or big time politicians (since they probably have JOBS or ski lodges instead of playing on slashdot), would it be fair to guess you are just a tool, or do you really believe that all derivatives of an authors ideas should have the full protection of force by the government for their entire life + 70 years for all circumstances has significantly met its burden of producing better artistic expressions than, say, you would have personally benefited from the "limited" number of works that might have been available, say, we still followed the Statute of Anne, and for the hell of it, even Donaldson v. Beckett?

      I am going to guess NOT, and that you are just a tool. But if you really have a rational argument for your position, please excuse the language: you will have my undivided attention.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    11. Re:Boo hoo.... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      If you knew how bad Angels and Demons was, you might understand. I pirated that movie months ago, and it sucked!


      err... and if anyone from the MPAA is reading this, it was meant as a joke. Please don't get me evicted.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
  6. If you're going to pirate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least be somewhat smart about it. Make some kind of attempt to hide your IP. Piggyback on someone else's wifi. Or better yet, just stop doing it.

  7. How is this not awesome? by ZiakII · · Score: 1

    Not sure about what colleges you went to but off-campus housing > *, only reason I thought people live in the dorm was because it is required for the first two years for new students.

    1. Re:How is this not awesome? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      This is Australia and its different to the US. There is no requirement to live in student housing. Some choose to do so because it may be cheaper than other options.

      The US requirement to live on-campus has always seemed bizzare to me.

  8. Boo-hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got caught doing something illegal and it hurts.

    nothing to see here

  9. Oy by Tridus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments "

    It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Oy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I presume this is a very boring movie, and he watched it to make studying look more interesting.

    2. Re:Oy by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.

      Maybe he was downloading it to watch after exams :-)

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    3. Re:Oy by system1111 · · Score: 1

      Ya ok cause people study 24 hours straight before exams with 0 downtime...

    4. Re:Oy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      using 100% of their system and network resources.

    5. Re:Oy by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.

      Yeah, we're real quick to judge. Surely this guy should be studying 24/7 without a break until after the exams, right?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:Oy by Maestro4k · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.

      We don't know when his finals period started, and there's generally a lag between detection by MediaSentry/etc. and the notice being sent. This can be days to weeks, but probably more like a day or two. So, it's very possible he downloaded the movie shortly before finals started, maybe as a bit of a break before studying like mad until classes are out. Hell, I remember going to see a movie in the theater with a bunch of friends the day before exams started once while in college. (Although to be fair, none of us had an exam the next day) People do need a study break now and then, and ~2 hours to watch a movie isn't a big loss of time overall.

  10. Yeah right by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009)

    Yeah right, that's what I used to say when I was in college too. If you had actually been studying for your exams and working on your final assignments instead of watching movies, you wouldn't be in this situation, would you?

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of hypocracy flying around here (not talking about the copyright infringement), FFS, everyone bleating on about how he should have been working instead of watching a film - whilst studying for exams did you never take any breaks, have some rest/relaxation, ever?

    2. Re:Yeah right by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure, I did. On the other hand, I never tried to make people feel sorry for me by saying, "X external factor will now prohibit me from doing well in school." If he were REALLY worried about not having enough time to study, he should have A) not procrastinated or B) spent his time studying instead of posting on slashdot and reading the responses (yeah, you know he is reading the responses).

      And if you want to call that hypocritical, it's not: sure, I procrastinated too, but it was a stupid thing to do: things very often come up at the last minute, and if you aren't prepared, you're going to get nailed. That's how life is, welcome to it.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:Yeah right by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      If you had actually been studying for your exams and working on your final assignments instead of watching movies, you wouldn't be in this situation, would you?

      Do you work every hour that you exist? Do you not have any time off doing things other than working? Do you think you could have come up with a marginally more clever response than a trite cliche?

      The student hasn't helped himself entirely by being so blase, but losing your home over downloading a film? When is that EVER balanced justice? ...Carl

    4. Re:Yeah right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The student hasn't helped himself entirely by being so blase, but losing your home over downloading a film? When is that EVER balanced justice?

      University dormitories have never been the epitome of justice. In my university you could be expelled for getting in a fight, even if the other person started it. There was a zero tolerance policy towards fighting. It may not have been balanced, but it stopped the fighting.

      Do you work every hour that you exist? Do you not have any time off doing things other than working?

      No, I've learned to get things done early enough so that when something unexpected comes up, I am able to finish it in time. I don't even care if he watches a movie or not, except now he is whining that he doesn't have enough time to finish his stuff. Well, sounds like he did have time if he was watching movies.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Yeah right by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      For the eighth time, I wish people would understand that the issue here is not the downloading. The issue here is that he broke the acceptable use policy for the university's network, and the university took action.

      It's irrelevant to discuss whether eviction is a suitable punishment for downloading movies, because that's not the issue.

      What we should be discussing is whether it's appropriate for the university to evict a student for breaking rules the student had previously agreed to, knowing that the consequence of breaking those rules is eviction!

      If the broken rule in question were "No graffiti on the external walls", nobody would be sympathizing with this guy. The fact is, he broke a rule he most certainly agreed he would keep. Why should the university allow him to continue living there?

  11. They want to play hardball? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Find out the names and addresses of the management of MediaSentry and.......

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  12. Fair's fair by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Of course he could have also been studying and working on assignments instead of downloading crappy movies and infringing on the copyright rights of those that hold them.

  13. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't do it.

    Words to live by.

  14. Stupid replies ignoring the point. by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As expected, there are a large number of replies by people who didn't even bother to read the summary. (Or, have poor reading comprehension, or even both, I guess.)

    The submitter is not the same as the student.

    Anyway, the point is, MediaSentry is still "alive", and still sending out automated messages.

    Now it seems that the student admitted to downloading the file ("as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons"), which sort of screws over any real complaint they may have had.

    Personally, I think it's disgusting that the manager paid any attention to the "generic copyright infringement email" at all. Seriously, if I were in that situation, I would delete the email and forget about it.

    I wonder, who is MediaSentry acting for in this situation? Does that company know that MediaSentry is doing this? Do MediaSentry have the right to sue on behalf of that company?

    And, is MediaSentry keeping track of these emails and watching for responses?

    --
    I wank in the shower.
  15. Appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want sympathy, for being punished for theft?
    You got what you deserved.

    1. Re:Appropriate by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Theft implies he could have and would have purchased it otherwise. It also implies he took the opportunity to watch the film away from somebody else, which is not the case.

    2. Re:Appropriate by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      No theft implies he acquired it illegally nothing more.

    3. Re:Appropriate by Lockblade · · Score: 1

      No theft implies he acquired it illegally nothing more.

      Nope. Theft implies taking an item from someone without their permission, not just obtaining an item. I can buy drugs from someone and it's not considered theft, even though I acquired them illegally. Just to be pedantic:

      Theft - the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use

      The key is that you're depriving somebody of personal property. Since he just COPIED the data and didn't deprive anyone of their own copy, it falls under copyright law.

    4. Re:Appropriate by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Wow, OK let me rephrase that. Theft implies the method used to acquire the item was not the usually accepted legal method of item acquisition appropriate to the item and its usual acquisition method.

      Theft can also be defined as depriving someone of control of the item in question and copying it certainly deprives the owner of control of that item through means not approved by the controlling owner. You need not remove property to have stolen it if you have denied the owner rightful compensation for that control. Are we quite clear now as to the legality of his acquisition of the aforementioned copy of the previously mentioned item?

    5. Re:Appropriate by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      And according to the supreme court, theft requires "misappropriation of physical property". But if the TV says it is theft, then the Supreme Court must be wrong... so long as I can trust Big Media doesn't have any conflict of interest with television.

      Hmm...

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
  16. This is fascinating. by TerranFury · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm going to pretend I have no opinion in this post and instead make a "meta-comment:"

    What I find fascinating is that, just a year ago, an overwhelming majority of Slashdot readers would have defended this student, written posts to the effect that it is justifiable to download copyrighted work, made angry statements about the MP/RI-AA, and the like. Now, I see many more posts (and story tags -- currently "righttosteal") like yours. Sure, the old pro-pirate posts are still around -- they are probably even still the majority -- but I think that the percentage is lower. I wonder if this means that attitudes are changing, and whether this is due at all to the RIAA's campaign.

    1. Re:This is fascinating. by mftb · · Score: 2, Funny

      I approve. Blind pro-piracy is extremely childish. Oh wait, slashdot.

    2. Re:This is fascinating. by grahamd0 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Or it could that the rational part of Slashdot's audience never actually supported anyone's right to download copyrighted material without paying, but objected their to their hijacking and circumventing the legal system to protect said material.

      In this case, the poster freely admits he did exactly what he was accused of. He isn't being persecuted by the RIAA, he is in blatant violation of the terms of his residency and his university is simply enforcing the policy he agreed to (perhaps without reading the contract).

    3. Re:This is fascinating. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about the change in attitude. Could it result from the fact:
      (a) That the jobs of most of the people who favor /. depend upon legal protection of IP?
      (b) Big Media public relations people joining /. to spin?
      (c) Simple maturation of the /. crowd?

      I wonder why!

    4. Re:This is fascinating. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Or it could that the rational part of Slashdot's audience never actually supported anyone's right to download copyrighted material without paying, but objected their to their hijacking and circumventing the legal system to protect said material.

      I don't know if I can identify objectively which is the "rational" part of slashdot, but I certainly have seen some high-moderated comments that say it's OK to download, so long as it's crap, and some that say that copyright should adapt to people downloading stuff for free. Slashdot certainly hasn't been entirely anti-downloading these past months.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:This is fascinating. by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      I suppose "rational" was a poor choice of words. One could certainly make a well-reasoned argument for that the film and record industries need to change with the times (and I wouldn't disagree).

      You could also argue for reordering western civilization against the pursuit of wealth, but most people, even if they supported that idea, would have to admit that it's a pretty tall order.

      I was more referring to the, "WAAAH! I don't want to pay for stuff!" crowd, which I've never perceived to be a majority.

    6. Re:This is fascinating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a shift of /. demographic.

      I blame NewYorkCountyLawyer. ;)

    7. Re:This is fascinating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the fact that it's a movie that's currently only a week into its theatrical release may have something to do with this particular one. It's not as if this movie is even available for purchase to the public.

      Plus given that more companies are embracing digital distribution for their content. iTunes and Amazon have embraced music without DRM. Even viewing films online has become somewhat reasonable with Netflix's streaming services, sites like Hulu.com, and so on. These are all things that (I think) we'd been pushing for. The whole justification for pirating content is becoming smaller, and is starting to boil down to "I wanted to rip it off instead of purchasing it."

      Yea, we're not there *yet* with companies like the RIAA still ripping off its artists, but we're making progress. And that's why the mindset is slowly changing.

    8. Re:This is fascinating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they realized they were just a bunch of 'material' whores who would obsess over corporations material.

      Seriously it is one thing to say "fuck the RIAA", it is another thing to just turn around and download it for free.
      "But there is no money lost in copying and they are taking too much money from my artist, but, but...."
      Just don't download the shit and worry about your own life not the artist, it's not that hard to figure out.

      Maybe they realized the 'free model' for movies/tv shows just will not work. Put your money your mouth is and prove them wrong.

      Nothing but a bunch of 'HECKLERS' and candyass children not getting their free Warez. As usual /. extremist can deal out the criticisim on Windows and Hollywood, yet they cannot handle the criticisim.

      It just got old around here getting modded out of every conversation because your not with the 'Slashdot Agenda'.

    9. Re:This is fascinating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your full of shit!! There i said it.... Because we all know its the other way around. You should read the .dot more often>>.

    10. Re:This is fascinating. by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No, it depends on the story. A certain story type will bring out certain commenters. Same with OS wars: some stories will bring out Mac fans, others will bring out the Microsoft defenders. Or global warming, some will bring out the tree-huggers, others the unbelievers. This guy, sounding like a whiner, gave a chance to those who aren't as pro-pirate.

      Although I have to say my opinion in favor of copyright (and against piracy) has gotten a bit stronger for a few reasons:
      1. I've had time to think, and I really haven't heard any good alternate methods for compensating artists. They all fall apart under closer scrutiny. Composers ought to get compensated without needing to attempt performance, as should studio workers, and even advertisers and distributors.
      2. It is a lot easier to get music online. I can pay a dollar or 89 cents, and really, for the amount of enjoyment I get, it's worth the money.
      3. If everyone pirated movies, (good, expensive) movies wouldn't get made. Therefore pirates are leaching off the payments of others. They may not be thieves, but they are definitely leaches.

        I agree that copyrights last too long, and they should be shortened, but unless you can think of a better way to compensate artists, I think it's the best way to go.

      --
      Qxe4
    11. Re:This is fascinating. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Nah.. us anti-copyright types have always been in the minority. People calling for the removal of amoral laws typically are.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:This is fascinating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My attitude toward the RIAA and MPAA have changed. After the behaviour i've seen over the last few years (including lobbying govt to pervert laws, suing customers, failure to pay employees, etc), I no longer support these industries - unless I feel very strongly that a particular product should be supported for the artists' sake. I do not support organisations that work against the interest of society - and the only way to achieve this is to hit their wallets.

      Where an artist goes direct to the public and I like their music, I pay my share without question - because the artists MUST be paid (we all need to earn a living). Note that the RIAA/MPAA pay the artists a pittence, so they clearly DO NOT work in the interests of artists.

      So you're right ... attitudes have changed.

      AC
      (on behalf of just about everyone I know who has similar thoughts)
      PS There are times when it is difficult to make the right decision. Eg. Newline screwed Peter Jackson over lord of the rings (read: breach of contract), I didn't want to support newline... But I bought the LOTR trilogy anyway.

  17. let the punishment fit the crime by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is weird. i'm i the only one here who finds this punishment (eviction) to be totally over the top for this copyright infringement?

    1. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, not in this case. If the dorm manager had evicted him for scratching the paint, it's a direct issue betwene the manager and the student. This, on the other hand, is the student bringing issues down on the dorm via legal issues with a third party. It looks like the dorm doesn't want to deal with fighting legal battles that aren't it's problem. The student likely signed an acceptable use policy, and so long as the student admitted fault or there was acceptable level of evidence, there shouldn't be a problem. The only issue would be blindly evicting based on every letter sent to the dorm management. It doesn't look like that's the case given the admission of downloading the film.

    2. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by sbeckstead · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you are but if it was in his rental/lease agreement that this would be the result then he got what he asked for.

    3. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I totally understand why some universities make you pay for your own internet connection... (yes some make EVERY student hook up a DSL modem to EVERY room on campus...). Good thing nobody secures wireless these days.

    4. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      there is a difference between the wording of a rental/lease agreement and what is legally enforceable (in Germany at least).

    5. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Sort of makes them useless doesn't it?

    6. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      That's a very profitable TelCo and very wealthy students. Cost * Rooms * Students is a lot of money. Much more than Cost * Students or Cost * Rooms.

    7. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

      We don't know the complete circumstances. First off, what are the legal requirements, in Oz, on the ISP (the uni, in this case)? What steps do they need to take in order to protect themselves? Second, what were the terms of the dorm rental agreement and the internet acceptable use policy? Did they state that you would be evicted for downloading copyrighted material? If the rules were clear from the outset, and the student violated them, too bad that he got caught. We have, at most, one side of the story (and probably not the complete side at that). Insufficient data.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    8. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by labnet · · Score: 1

      Yes, the punishment is over the top.I just paid $7 to see it at the Blue Room, in Brisbane.
      $7 is not worth an eviction.

      --
      46137
    9. Re:let the punishment fit the crime by Maestro4k · · Score: 1

      If you read the article you'll find that the dorm manager interpreted the following statements in the notice to justify evicting him:

      1.) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and
      2.) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you

      I think it's a real stretch to take those to mean "evict the student from the dorm". They're only asking for his Internet (or I guess more specifically, his p2p activity) disabled and any/all accounts disabled as well. (Network logins is what most reasonable people would understand that to mean.)

      What's really stupid is that they haven't actually conformed to those two statements. He mentions nothing about his network access being revoked, so he can still come to campus and use computers in the labs, or the wireless with his laptop. So he could still download more copyrighted stuff.... But he sure won't be living in a dorm any longer!

      Personally I think it sounds like the dorm manager either didn't like him, or was power-tripping. I just can't get "evict the guy" out of those two statements, unless I'm trying damn hard to do so.

  18. Punishment does not fit the 'crime' by JSBiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I put crime in quotes, because I believe it's only a civil infraction (although, I don't know much about Australian copyright law). In any case, getting kicked out of a dorm room for one 'count' of copyright infringement seems a little harsh, no? I mean, they could have started by just cutting his Internet access for a couple days or a week or something.

    I mean, I really fail to see how it is even *legal* to kick someone out of a dorm room/apartment/etc for copyright infringement. Don't you guys have any tennants' rights laws in Australia?

    1. Re:Punishment does not fit the 'crime' by hagardtroll · · Score: 1

      I wonder if he was caught ripping/burning a DVD that would have resulted in being evicted?

    2. Re:Punishment does not fit the 'crime' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many schools have fairly strict terms of service on their Internet service. I am willing to bet that it isn't the copyright infringement per se - it was the misuse of university services. As evil as MediaSentry may be, they are really kind of a side note to this particular story. In this instance they are playing the role of the hated snitch on the playground - no one is questioning that the incident happened, there is just annoyance that someone told on them.

    3. Re:Punishment does not fit the 'crime' by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Every rental agreement reserves the right to throw you out if you break the law. No one is going to argue that shouldn't be allowed, it should be allowed, don't break the fucking law and you don't have anything to worry about. Don't like the law? Fine, change it, but breaking it is still breaking it.

      The only recourse he has in most American states is that they can't throw you out THAT quickly. Here for instance they have to give you 30 days notice, then after that they go to court, which gives you 30 days notice, which after that there is something else silly that happens and you get another 30 days before the cops show up and remove you by force.

      That applies to everyone everywhere except registered businesses like motels/hotels where the average stay is under a certain period of time.

      Donno about down under, but thats ALL he could have done here too. He admitted he was guilty and he agreed to the terms of the rental agreement. Perhaps next time he should consider the actions he takes, including what laws he breaks and what contracts he signs.

      No one to blame here except himself.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Punishment does not fit the 'crime' by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      It depends if there's a clause on unlawful activity in the tenant's contract.
      If there's a law in the books about this, it's pretty cut and dry.

      Of course, we could all argue until we're blue in the face about the moral issues with it, and whether or not piracy should be considered against the law, but that wasn't what you were asking.

    5. Re:Punishment does not fit the 'crime' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, I really fail to see how it is even *legal* to kick someone out of a dorm room/apartment/etc for copyright infringement. Don't you guys have any tennants' rights laws in Australia?

      Well, considering that in the US I could get kicked out of my dorm room for breaking any number of different campus rules, I don't really know what you're going on about here. I'm fairly certain that using the uni network to download copyrighted material (and what appears to be admitting to it, at least the way it is written here) breaks some uni regulations. I lost a number of kids from my freshman dorm for what I can only term "stupid shit," and that was back in the fairly tolerant 90s.

      You agree to certain rules when you live on campus. If you break them, generally the uni can wave the contract, say "You broke it!", and kick your ass out the door.

  19. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also why not use some sort of VPN service while downloading things not allowed and using someone elses network? at least TRY to hide it a bit :)

    I'm surprised that p2p isn't blocked already if they are that hard on him. And if he was using some sort of VPN yet still got into this situation.

  20. Admit stuff much? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons.

    Haven't you learned anything?
    Your correct phrase should be: "... me allegedly downloading ..."

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Admit stuff much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your correct phrase should be: "... me allegedly downloading ..."

      Actually, that should be "...my allegedly downloading..." as rules of English grammar dictate that in this instance, the author should have used the possessive pronoun before the gerund.

  21. Seriously - losing your housing is appropriate by JSBiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you *seriously* contend that losing your housing with like 2 weeks' notice or something ridiculous like that is a fitting response to the activity in question? I totally have sympathy for this guy. I don't see why anyone should lose their housing over copyright infringement. I mean, just disable his ethernet ports for a week or something. I fail to see how kicking someone out of the building with short notice is an appropriate response for minor copyright infringement.

    1. Re:Seriously - losing your housing is appropriate by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      He incurs a possibly many tens of thousands of dollars of liability against the housing unit and all you want done is to have him stand in the corner for a couple of minutes? Besides you didn't read his rental agreement.

    2. Re:Seriously - losing your housing is appropriate by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about Australian law, but. . . why is the dorm responsible for tennant actions? My landlord isn't responsible for crimes I commit. Why would the dorm management be liable? If they are, then your laws in Australia really are broken. Are you *sure* that he incurs liability against the housing unit?

    3. Re:Seriously - losing your housing is appropriate by mjhorn · · Score: 1

      He didn't lose his house over copyright infringement. He lost it because he knowingly and willingly broke the terms of his residency there. Just like any lease, there are conditions on the ability to stay in university housing that you must sign in order to move in. He chose to do what he did knowing what the consequences might be. If he thought that was such an outrageous punishment, he should have either not agreed to the terms and found elsewhere to live from the start, or decided to actually abide by the agreement he signed.

    4. Re:Seriously - losing your housing is appropriate by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Not sure, but always a possibility. The cost of defending against it whether it is a viable lawsuit or not could be nasty. Taking steps to mitigate your liability are always prudent.

  22. Re:Seriously - losing your housing is appropriate? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    There should have been a question mark at the end of the subject line of my previous post, for those confused. I just forgot it when typing out the subject.

  23. Due Process by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'""

    Wah?

    I mean come on, you're paying the price for doing what you knew would get in hot water at school. you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?

    Um ... where's the due process. A third party, which has been discredited in another country and fired by the copyright cartels there because their ability to track offenders has been so abysmal and inaccurate, has made an accusation. One that, based on their track record in the United States, should be taken with a mountain of salt.

    Based on that accusation, someone has been evicted from their home at a time when they should be studying for exams. As far as I can tell, there's been no disciplinary due process, no hearings, no opportunities for appeal, just a summary eviction with no opportunity for the student to put their case forward. Maybe s/he is guilty. Maybe his/her roommate is a prick and used his equipment to do something stupid so they wouldn't pay the price. Maybe someone else did it entirely, and spoofed his IP address. Or maybe, like in so many cases in the US that the company had to close their doors, no one in the dorm was involved at all, and they're barking up the wrong tree completely.

    Doesn't matter. Summary punishment has been meted out, on the barest of accusations. That is a problem, the student's guilt or innocence not withstanding, and if I were considering sending a kid to university, that's one school I would avoid quite possibly wasting my hard earned money on.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, either you found some entirely different source of information or you are pulling that all out of your ass... All we know is that there is a kid who claims to have been kicked out of his or her dorm room because he or she downloaded Angels and Demons (note that there is no denying the downloading...). We know nothing else about the case. Was the punishment summary? We don't know. Was there more going on? We don't know. Is this the latest infraction in a long line of infractions? We don't know. Does the acceptable use policy have a zero tolerance clause? We don't know.

      What we do know is that _you_ have issued summary judgment on the school based on minimal second hand information...

    2. Re:Due Process by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Um ... where's the due process.

      Did you miss the part where he admitted he is guilty of breaking the rules?

      Its not an accusation, he made it a fact. There is no need for a hearing or opportunity for appeal, he fucking said 'I DID IT', and he said it like he was proud of it on a public website to the entire world.

      That makes him guilty AND stupid, as now he's got no chance at having anyone listen to his story when he tries to lie his way out of it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Due Process by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Just like so many others, you're assuming that the e-mail was the university's only basis for the eviction. There's no evidence of that - to the contrary, the OP readily admits that he is guilty.

      The most likely scenario involves the university asking the student whether the accusation is true - and the student saying yes.

  24. Doh! by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

    Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want our sympathy for doing something illegal, getting caught by someone and losing your residence. You then publicly admit you did it, and hope that you won't lose the lawsuit that is sure to follow! I don't really understand the purpose of your post other than to admit to being a pirate.
    I certainly have no sympathy for you, I have no animosity towards the people that caught you but if they did anything illegal you should certainly hold them accountable.

  25. Cry me a river by dave562 · · Score: 0, Troll

    "I got caught breaking the law and now I have to deal with the consequences." There is a reason that I stopped hacking computer systems after I turned 18. In today's legal climate with regards to the internet, downloading torrents is almost as dangerous as using Craigslist to solicit prostitutes or drugs. Whatever your stance on the morality of the laws, the reality of the situation is that for whatever reason (got $$$?), the law enforcement community and the courts are up in arms and on a witch hunt.

    I'm not sure what life is like in Australia, but here in Los Angeles, anything that I download from a torrent site, I can purchase on any train or Metro bus at one for $5, three for $10 (including Angels and Demons). The way I look at it, that's the much better deal. I get to contribute to the local economy, and my odds of catching a law suit are next to none. I haven't bought any movies that way because I am content with my NetFlix subscription, but the point I'm making is that if you are going to obtain pirated content, doing so via a college internet connection is probably the absolute highest risk way to do it right now.

    1. Re:Cry me a river by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      I suppose when everyone realizes that it's less risky to buy DVD off Chinese kids in the street then get them off Usenet or torrents, it'll be funny to see the record companies go 'OH SHIT' when they've realized they've given a massive free kick to organised crime. I'll laugh my arse off when it happens.

  26. Moderation often sucks on /. by JSBiff · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    On the one hand, /. is one of the only web-sites I've seen with a moderation system for comments, which is kind of cool. On the other hand, the way the moderation system works on /. will sometimes lead to crappy moderation.

    On an article about a UK plan to provide universal free broadband internet, I got modded 0:Troll for this post. Not sure how that is a troll given what the main article was about.

    It happens, take a breath, move on. Don't put too much faith in slashdot moderation.

  27. Re:Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, do by Hurricane78 · · Score: 0, Troll

    If it only were a crime...

    Hint:
    - Giving away stuff that you do not own because all you got was this lousy license, is breaking that contract.
    - Downloading stuff that someone offered you without any license (as in: free for everyone), is not anything. No breaking of any contract (Beause: Which contract would that be?), and no breaking of any law. (It was offered to you without any terms. How can you know if that person is not the rights holder. He claimed he holds that rights. You are not the one who has to check for this.)
    - Murdering **AA officials in their beds is a crime... unfortunately. ^^

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  28. This was a triumph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
    It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
    Media Sentry
    We do what we must
    because we can.
    For the good of all of us.
    Except the ones who are dead.
    But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
    You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
    And the Suing gets done.
    And you make a neat gun.
    For the people who are still alive.
    I'm not even angry.
    I'm being so sincere right now.
    Even though you broke my heart.
    And killed me.
    And tore me to pieces.
    And threw every piece into a fire.
    As they burned it hurt because I was so happy for you!
    Now these points of data make a beautiful line.
    And we're out of beta.
    We're releasing on time.
    So I'm GLaD. I got burned.
    Think of all the things we learned
    for the people who are still alive.
    Go ahead and leave me.
    I think I prefer to stay inside.
    Maybe you'll find someone else to help you.
    Maybe the EFF
    THAT WAS A JOKE.
    HAHA. FAT CHANCE.
    Anyway, this cake is great.
    It's so delicious and moist.
    Look at me still talking
    when there's Suing to do.
    When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I'm not you.
    I've experiments to run.
    There is research to be done.
    On the people who are still alive.
    And believe me I am still alive.
    I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    I feel FANTASTIC and I'm still alive.
    While you're dying I'll be still alive.
    And when you're dead I will be still alive.
    STILL ALIVE

  29. The Law vs The Rules by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    You don't go to jail for cheating on a test.

    You do get kicked out of school, however.

  30. After Reading The Fine Article... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    It seems that the situation is this: 1. Person X has by his own admission downloaded a movie. The admission was probably in some blog post, he hasn't (hopefully) admitted anything to the dorm management. 2. Dorm management received an email from MediaSentry telling them about some copyright infringement, and asking them to take the strongest possible action. 3. Dorm management talked to the guy, and the guy thinks he now has very little time to find a new place to stay. In the USA, one of the main problems is that the RIAA threatens 80 year old grannies, dead people, seven year olds and so on for illegally downloading music that we can reasonably assume they haven't downloaded. We may also assume that they threaten some genuine illegal downloaders as well. The other problem is that the consequences don't fit the severity of the action. In this case, it seems from what the article says that the guy is guilty of what he was accused of. But what should he have done? The problem is between him and dorm management. You can't expect the dorm manager to know about the RIAA (or whatever it is called in Australia) strategy; it took US judges years to figure it out, and I would expect that the average US judge should be more intelligent than the average Australian dorm manager. I think the right thing to do would have been first to deny anything to the dorm manager, then take a day to collect some of the tons of information that is available about the company and show it to the manager. Tell the manager: This is a company that in the US has accused 80 year old grannies, dead people, and seven year olds. That is currently accused in the USA for illegal investigations, and that has been fired by the RIAA in the USA because they are so incompetent. I haven't downloaded any movies. You can't evict me from the dorm because these guys make some wild accusations. You definitely can't evict me 14 days before my exams. If you try to evict me, I would have to go to court and ask for damages, which would be considerable. I'd hate to do that. Maybe the RIAA in the USA can do that, but you are a dorm manager and not the RIAA, and this is Australia where we have proper laws and not the USA. So let me stay here. If these guys think I've done something illegal, they can sue me.

    1. Re:After Reading The Fine Article... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      It seems that the situation is this:

      1. Person X has by his own admission downloaded a movie. The admission was probably in some blog post, he hasn't (hopefully) admitted anything to the dorm management.
      2. Dorm management received an email from MediaSentry telling them about some copyright infringement, and asking them to take the strongest possible action.
      3. Dorm management talked to the guy, and the guy thinks he now has very little time to find a new place to stay.

      In the USA, one of the main problems is that the RIAA threatens 80 year old grannies, dead people, seven year olds and so on for illegally downloading music that we can reasonably assume they haven't downloaded. We may also assume that they threaten some genuine illegal downloaders as well. The other problem is that the consequences don't fit the severity of the action.

      In this case, it seems from what the article says that the guy is guilty of what he was accused of. But what should he have done? The problem is between him and dorm management. You can't expect the dorm manager to know about the RIAA (or whatever it is called in Australia) strategy; it took US judges years to figure it out, and I would expect that the average US judge should be more intelligent than the average Australian dorm manager. I think the right thing to do would have been first to deny anything to the dorm manager, then take a day to collect some of the tons of information that is available about the company and show it to the manager.

      Tell the manager: This is a company that in the US has accused 80 year old grannies, dead people, and seven year olds. That is currently accused in the USA for illegal investigations, and that has been fired by the RIAA in the USA because they are so incompetent. I haven't downloaded any movies. You can't evict me from the dorm because these guys make some wild accusations. You definitely can't evict me 14 days before my exams. If you try to evict me, I would have to go to court and ask for damages, which would be considerable. I'd hate to do that. Maybe the RIAA in the USA can do that, but you are a dorm manager and not the RIAA, and this is Australia where we have proper laws and not the USA. So let me stay here. If these guys think I've done something illegal, they can sue me.

    2. Re:After Reading The Fine Article... by Esteanil · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up

      --
      I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
  31. Real Summary: by ausekilis · · Score: 1
    Should have been:

    Attention Australian p2p users. MediaSentry's lame-ass tactics are now working within our borders. If you're gonna do it, don't get caught, like me.

  32. The Second Half of the Story by Lance+Dearnis · · Score: 1

    Alright, just as a note, reading the article here provides a lot of enlightenment. Specifically, the second paragraph from the person. "Yesterday I got called into the Managers office because the network manager had been contacted by Mediasentry and emailed one of the generic copyright infringement emails as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons. The manager then proceeded to adopt an -as far as i can tell- exageratingly literal interpretation of the following exerpt from the automated email: 1.) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and 2.) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through youâ With less than a month left to the semester and in the misdt of the examination period he has asked me to leave the dorm. While I understand he does reserve the right to terminate my stay at his descretion I was just inquiring about the seriousness of recieving a MediaSentry email and if they are infact even lisensed to conduct their âoeinvestigativeâ work outside of the United States. Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009)." Looking over this, I'd actually paint a different villain. I think the manager already had it out for this guy, or, at the least, is a serious douchebag. Did the guy confess or not? Who knows. He -does- claim to have challenged MediaSentry's right to even send the e-mail, as well as being kicked out for it, and the person who followed through with it was the manager. I'm going to guess that the manager is either an asshole with a vendetta, or had his balls cut off twenty years ago and is scared shitless of anything that even smacks of legal action directed within fifty miles of him. Oh, and, seriously, what the hell? "You deserve to lose the place you live right before exams?" Seriously, what the hell is your idea of 'proper punishment'. This is the kind of stuff that can ruin the rest of someone's life. Does someone deserve to have their college degree taken away for what is, basically, a form of shoplifting? Or sneaking into a movie without paying for it? Copyright infringement is more popular then actual shoplifting, but carries a hell of a lot less risk to all parties involved. There's no real reason for such a disproportionate punishment as seen here. The question isn't "Does the punishment fit the crime" - it doesn't. The questions are if the guy actually confessed, and what the hell was going through his manager's head.

  33. Media Sentry is not dead in the US. by Thaelon · · Score: 1

    Articled headline is misleading if not completely wrong. MediaSentry is not dead, and the MPAA is still using it. They're just masquerading as "Safenet DMCA". But, it's still the same company. But now they're attempting to escape the horrible PR associated with the name MediaSentry. Exactly like the name of Gator was changed to Claria in an attempt to avoid allegations of spyware that were largely accepted as true.

    MediaSentry lives on in the US and ISPs are still bowing to their scare tactics and threat letters, typically this means immediately punishing their customers without due process and based solely on the allegations of SafeNet DMCA/MediaSentry.

    --

    Question everything

  34. Piracy in Brisbane university colleges by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    I spent a lot of time studying and working at universities in Brisbane, so I have a little first-hand knowledge of the situation in the colleges. Really, it's no different to ANY university college, where there's been traditionally lax enforcement of rules against piracy.

    Certainly when I was around a few years ago, the colleges were hotbeds of piracy, since they had some of the best internet connectivity in the whole country -- the colleges have very fat pipes straight to AARNet, which, in the absence of clear rules and enforcement, is a clear invitation to abuse.

    To be honest, I'm surprised it took this long for the record industry's hired thugs to start making examples out of college kids. Lack of due process is part-and-parcel of how MediaSentry and their scumbag customers operate, and they probably were counting on the fact that the colleges are run by clueless and credulous religious douchebags who could be very easily bullied around (I know, because I've met a few of them).

    Looks like MediaSentry and their dickhead mates have created the chilling effect they were looking for. I just feel bad for the kid losing his college room, even if he was busted doing something wrong.

  35. Let this be a lesson to you! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Next time, don't download the movie from bittorrent; instead, go to the nearest video store, shove a DVD down your pants, and run like hell!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  36. Re:Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, do by multisync · · Score: 0

    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't do it.

    And keep your eye on the sparrow
    When the going gets narrow

    Don't do it ...

    --
    I don't care why you're posting AC
  37. Roommates.com by jhfry · · Score: 1

    There are better ways to go about finding a place to live!

    Of course if you need a roommate who is cool with the same activities that made you homeless in the first place, then maybe this is the best place.

    Anyone here want a future "example" as a roommate? Make sure you get the last months rent up front, if the awards in the US are any indication, he won't be able to make his rent at some point.

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
  38. Three points and some change... by Yert · · Score: 1

    1.) The RIAA doesn't have anything to do with a movie. That's the MPAA, a completely different group of scumbags.

    2.) He was downloading the movie in question in order to (ostensibly) watch it, as opposed to (again, ostensibly) diligently study for those exams. My give-a-fuck pretty much ran out after making that connection - at least where "I'm getting kicked out at exam time!" is concerned.

    3.) I'm seeing a lot of comments regarding "due process" - this is a civil matter, through and through. While he is Down Under (the bus, looks like), I suspect tort laws work pretty much the same. He admits to downloading the film - no "allegedly" bullshit here, folks! Reminds me of that song... when charged with "Reckless Discharge of a Firearm" for shooting a jukebox, the defendant replied "Reckless, hell! I hit just where I was aiming!". Ahem. I digress.
    Anyways... he admits to downloading the film - which the MPAA has contracted with MediaSentry to monitor. MediaSentry, again contracted to do so, sends a DMCA-style notice to the University. The University is contracted by the student to provide housing and an education. The student is obligated to meet certain terms of the contract, or risk breach. He didn't meet one of those terms - likely, a clause along the lines of "I agree not to use the University network to download or distribute copyrighted material for which I do not have permission to download, distribute, view, or listen to." They cancelled the contract - or a portion thereof. He's lucky he gets to take the exams, honestly.

    These days, if you want to pirate, at least be smart about it. Use peerguardian and/or Tor and/or Freenet and/or IRC and/or FTP. Old school isn't monitored nearly as closely as this newfangled bittorrent stuff, but even with bittorrent, you can take some very simple measures to protect your identity. Otherwise, you might as well walk into a store, take what you want, and walk out without paying - smiling for the camera the whole time, no mask, no pillows, no wigs - and wonder how they found you when they come to arrest you.

    I'm sure someone will posit that "pirating isn't stealing!". Most people make this argument by stating that copying a file isn't theft; you still have a copy. That's completely true. Piracy is theft because you didn't buy a license to listen/view the copyrighted work, not because you "stole" the work itself. It's an important distinction. If you don't like the price of the license and want it for free, you can either pirate it (theft of service), or wait until the copyright expires. Until copyright law is sane, piracy is easier - but it is still theft. Change the law, not the definition of theft.

    --
    Truck driver, plumber, Linux systems engineer.
  39. If only there was SOME alternative to BitTorrent! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

    One that would use the net to distribute files in a manner that makes it virtually impossible to trace where and to whom they were distributed.

    I'm sure there are groups of people worldwide who await the news of such a breakthrough.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  40. Stop whining... by MikeV · · Score: 1

    As much as we may object, currently it's not legal to download movies like Angels and Demons except thru outlets the copyright holders designate. I know - media likes to be free - but are you an activist who can take risks and tolerate the consequences or a student trying to build a future for yourself?

    You put this on yourself. And you whine that you don't have time to do your homework and study? What about all that time you spent downloading and watching movies?

    I'd have sympathy if you were wrongly accused - but you did this and being an educated person you knew the risks and this gamble didn't pay off in your favor. You played in shark-infested waters and got bit. Suck it up and move on.

  41. This doesn't sound like MediaSentry's style by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This doesn't sound like MediaSentry. In this case they actually located an actual download. That's not MediaSentry's style.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  42. BZZZT by Zordak · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know almost nothing about Australian law, but in the U.S., downloading a copyrighted work without a license is a copyright violation, and in some cases may be a crime. For civil copyright infringement, the law does not care whether you actually knew you were infringing the copyright. So you absolutely are the one who has to check for this.

    I suspect Australian law is similar.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    1. Re:BZZZT by Sancho · · Score: 1

      A license is implied in the distribution of the work. See various bands who have distributed albums via BitTorrent. See every webpage you visit where a license hasn't been displayed or agreed to.

      Part of the GP's point is that absent an explicit license, the only reasonable thing to do is to assume that you have one until told otherwise.

      Now redistribution...that's a different matter entirely.

    2. Re:BZZZT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are correct. In Australia it is copyright infringement.
      It's covered by the Copyright Act of 1968.

    3. Re:BZZZT by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 1

      One could also argue that there is no way to determine the exact content of the file being downloaded, until it has been downloaded, and opened.
      The actual process of downloading a file is not copyright violation.

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    4. Re:BZZZT by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      But he got a license! From the uploader! A "you can do everything you want" license. The fact that that person did not have any right for it in the first place (which is only true, if he did have the original cd), has nothing to do with their contract. The downloader can't know that he lied. :)

      You have to check your reality for RIAA propaganda infection. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:BZZZT by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it really is the law. If you copy the work without permission, it is a copyright violation, regardless of whether you thought you got a license from the purveyor. At best, you would have a cross-claim against the purveyor. But that's between you and him. The copyright holder can still sue you.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    6. Re:BZZZT by trevorgensch · · Score: 1

      You really are joking with your comment, aren't you? It's hard to tell sometimes.

      Must try out your theory at my local car dealership. "What! How was I to know you weren't giving this one away for free? There was no price sticker on it or anything!"

      Geez, the lengths people will go to to justify their stealing.

    7. Re:BZZZT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean to tell me that if I give you a link to an "all rights reserved" picture and you follow that link and, obviously, download it, you are a automatically a criminal in the US?

      I'm sorry but that's fucked up. The EU countries I know usually have a saner approach, saying that if you download for your personal use it simply doesn't matter. Yes, even if you knew you are breaching copyright and are actively searching for that content. Only distribution for the public ie. the uploader, is guilty of infringement. Some even go as far as to acknowledge that limited distribution to friends and family is also legal.

    8. Re:BZZZT by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      Information is not a physical product. The same rules don't (can't) apply. Illegal distribution of information, in various forms, is seldom "stealing".

      Please try to wrap your head around this basic point, because until you do you'll keep producing false analogies like the above.

      Unlike a car, it's much easier to slip you a piece of unauthorised information (whatever "unauthorised" means) and make it look like you got it willingly. Making this a criminal act would affect YOU first of all, so in your place I wouldn't be so quick to shout "thief!"

      Still not convinced? What if I told you that I hold the copyright to this comment, which you've just downloaded and that you are now a criminal? You've stolen my "intellectual property", haven't you? It has no price sticker on it, but that's no excuse, right?

      And suddenly, you're looking at it with different eyes, and probably turning to a completely different set of laws and rules to defend yourself. Which is alright, as long as you learn the difference.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    9. Re:BZZZT by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I know almost nothing about Australian law, but in the U.S., downloading a copyrighted work without a license is a copyright violation, and in some cases may be a crime.

      Though theoretically true, no person has ever been prosecuted or even sued for downloading a work. So, by the enforcement standard (if they don't ever enforce it, it isn't illegal) it is legal.

  43. Signed, Blameless in Brisbane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May

    Or rather, instead of studying for your exams and working on your final assignments... you took the time to illegally download a pirated movie.

    But hey, blaming other people always feels better.

  44. I'm not dead yet by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

    "Bring out your dead" - Business model undertaker
    "Here's one for you, do you take cronies too?"- Public
    "Sure, pile it on the cart" - Business model undertaker
    "I'm not dead" - MediaSentry
    "He says he's not dead" - Business model undertaker
    "He soon will be" - Public
    "I can't take him like this, it's against union rules" - Business model undertaker
    "Well can you come back Thursday?" - Public
    "Sorry mate, I've got pay-per-view news on Thursday" - Business model undertaker
    "If you just hang around he'll be dead in a minute" - Public
    "I feel better" - MediaSentry
    "No you don't, you'll be stone dead in a minute" - Public
    "I feel like going for a walk" - MediaSentry
    "You're not fooling anyone you know" - Public
    "But I feel fine" MediaSentry

    ---MediaSentry is smacked around the head with the common sense stick---

    "Told you you'd be dead in a minute" - Public
    "Dump him on the cart then, next to SCO" - Business model undertaker

  45. Who gives a flying... by singingjim1 · · Score: 0

    Live and learn, loser. As much as we hate the RIAA and DRM, etc. If you get caught pirating media then you get what you deserve. Don't cry about it, douche. Man up and accept the consequences of your actions. Why is this on /.?

  46. What a douche. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a douche. Hey kid: You stole copyrighted material on the campus network, i.e. you committed a crime in your dorm. Of course they're going to kick you out. How about paying the lousing $8 and then studying for your exams

  47. Maybe by Frankie70 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).

    Maybe you should have been studying for your exams & working on your final assignments instead of downloading movies illegally.

  48. Re:Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, do by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 0

    This is the RIAA and unauthorized use of the phrase:

    "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't do it."

    Is in violation of international copyright agreements. Please pack up your things, a cab will be waiting to take you to the moon. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have on you, for the rest of your life.

    Sincerely, Douchebags.

  49. Culturally a little differnt by kramulous · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except, culturally, things work a little differently here. Or, at least they used to.

    When you do something wrong, you own up to it. You admit your mistake. To deny you did something that you did actually do is seen as cowardice.

    It goes back to the playground rules when you were at school.

    But the times, they are a changing. More often, people are choosing to get a lawyer (goon) and hide behind them and make up bullshit lines instead of owning up and admitting what they did was wrong.

    The innocent until proven guilty line only works for me when the accused is actually innocent. The guy in the story was just being a non coward.

    --
    .
    1. Re:Culturally a little differnt by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 1

      Well, that's part of the consequences of both a culture and a legal/judicial system that doesn't reward personal responsibility.

  50. I don't remember that movie by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

    Hang on ... I'll download it.

  51. Reality Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight. You admit to stealing but want to cry like a baby when you face the consequences of your actions. How about you quit school and become useful member of society. You know - push a broom, wax a floor. Then when you steal other peoples garbage they wont be mad.
    I'm just sayin ...

  52. RIAA shills? Just boycott that sh;t entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Individual copyright infringement is not a major crime, get over it you RIAA-paid shills posting on slashdot. Trying to pretend there are actually normal citizens out there who support copyright prosecution, huh? Nice try, but I don't buy it.

    This whole garbage makes me not even want to watch any of the movies involved, downloaded or not. I was thinking of seeing it in the theater, but just knowing that the makers of this movie have this attitude makes me think I have better and more enjoyable things to do with my time and money than watch their movie and support their outdated ideas. This just takes the fun out of the movie.

  53. Contracts say a load of shit, too much to remember by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Should have considered, perhaps, that they might actually have desired and expected that he adhere to the contract that he as an adult signed.

    Contracts say a load of shit. Not trying to troll, or flamebait, or defend this guy. Just making a point, and then y'all can make of it what you want.

    Have you read the EULAs of all your software? Can you remember what all of them say? Can you tell me what your employment contract says (NDA and non-compete clauses in particular)? Your account with your phone company, ISP and TV company (cable, sat, what have you), what do they say about what you can and can't do to their networks? Your contract with the bank, what does it say about liability for debit/credit card abuse?

    All those kind of contracts typically say a lot of reasonable stuff. And a little bit of shit hidden in the cracks. "You work overtime for free", "We can cut off your Internet if we don't like how you use it", "we can evict you if someone files a civil suit against you".

  54. ASTROTURF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is actually a plant from the RIAA, trying to scare P2Pnet-reading Aussie students into not downloading.

    "Ooo! Lookout, the MediaSentry boooOOOooogeyman! You could get kicked out of your dooOOOoorm! Ooeooeooo!"

  55. Money??? by profaneone · · Score: 1

    Why not just charge him $10 for the price of a movie ticket

    + $25 (for the hour of lawyer time it took to research and contact the manager [probably with sort of form letter at that])

    + $25 (for the hour of Media Sentry time for monitoring the p2p transaction.)

    While $60 might be a slightly expensive "movie ticket", the studio gets their cost recovered plus it is a low enough incentive that there will always be repeat offenders from whom to recover the lost revenue until a way is worked out to distribute movies electronically and on the same day as the movie release.

  56. Social Contract Theory, Souvernty, and Natural Law by thtrgremlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Social Contract Theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. REF

    Hobbes argues that we will do ANYTHING to avoid the State of Nature and will always, rationally, pick absolute authority.

    I can not be told better, from the same article:

    According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in oneâ(TM)s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Lockeâ(TM)s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions" (par. 6). Because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

    Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the âprogress' of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison on Shay's Rebellion (a violent opposition by ~1200 farmers regarding free trade agreements with Spain on the Mississippi River. Farmers feared the agreement would affirm sovereignty of Spanish traders):

    I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. REF

    In another letter criticizing the (not yet ratified) constitution:

    I do not like... the omission of a bill of r

    --
    Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
  57. Ah, Australia... by idlemachine · · Score: 1

    ...where failing US business models comes to die.

    God I wish this country had an identity of its own.

    And a spine.

  58. And they say "Honesty is the best policy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look what it gets you.

  59. Conditions for accomodation.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...at the uni probably included a clause on the use of internet and that it would not be used for illegal activity (wether civil or criminal).

    As soon as he admitted that he had done it, he's told to leave for breaching that clause.

  60. Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's been various US groups sending out copyright infringement notices to ISPs in Australia for years. Some ISPs ignore them, some pass the complaint on. One of the larger ones, iiNet, would forward the complaints on to the Australian Police, who would do absolutely nothing about it because they have far more important things to do.

    In fact, iiNet is actually in the middle of a legal trial against the recording industry because of their policy to pass allegations on to authorities rather than just disconnect people automatically, because apparently the Australian legal code says that they're supposed to take action themselves.

    Also getting evicted from your dorm sucks, but it's also exactly what I'd expect to happen in this sort of case. It's certainly not the first time I've heard about it happening either.