Slashdot Mirror
Univ. Help Desk Staffer Extorts Over Copyright Violations
McGruber writes "The Atlanta fishwrap is reporting that an University of Georgia 'IT security support' employee was accusing students of copyright violations, then demanding money to clear their names. Sounds like he's been caught stealing the RIAA business model."
Seems like universities don't understand who's paying the bills... this job shouldn't have existed in the first place. Nobody from the school should be in the business of making copyright accusations. That's the RIAA's job, and they're doing a heck of a job.
This is why we need business method patents!
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
He reportedly was in charge of monitoring illegal music downloads on university computers. Dehelean's position paid nearly $50,000, according to state records
I want that job and I'd actually do it ethically and legally.
$50K/yr to look at the output of some scripts? Where do I sign up!
I don't know about UGA, but when I went to college all students were covered with free lawyers and lawyers-in-training from the law school on campus for any dispute that didn't involve the university. They helped me fight off an MPAA attack when they didn't like my posting on Slashdot.
It should be a selling point to students that they'll be okay if they just need a little help by proving they did nothing wrong. Again, what side is UGA on here?
If you own the content and threaten to sue, it's good business. If you don't own the content and threaten to help someone sue, it's extortion.
The blackmail is despicable. But the whitemail is hardly pristine.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Couldn't live off his 50k cuz he's a crack feind.
This is actually a pretty common scam.
1. Find something that the target group is aware of that "threatens" them
2. Build up a cover that you are in a position to make that happen to them sooner
3. Claim you can make it go away for $$$. Enough so you make some money, but low enough that the target can scrounge it up.
3. ALTERNATE Pretend to be on the targets side. Say you can call a guy and do them a favor and be all sly and help a brother out for a few bucks compared to massive fines or legal action.
4. Cover your tracks and don't get too greedy and be ready to drop and run. This is where the guy in the article failed.
5. Profit
It's called a "Protection Racket", and it's not a 'scam' as much as 'extortion'. 'Scam' would imply more fraud than demanding something under threat.
Just a quick grammar Nazi point, it should be "a University", not "an University"...
Sorry this one annoys me, just because a word or acronym begin with a vowel does not mean you should use "an".
...and I think it's "asshole". Wow, what a jerk.
That said, this is the sort of situation that inevitably arises when violating the law. If you steal cars, and someone steals your stolen goods -- or tries to extort protection money from you, who are you going to call? A considerable proportion of organized crime exists because of this quandary. Ergo, my guess is that the lid was blown off this situation when the miscreant, probably carelessly, tried to lean on a student who wasn't actually pirating anything.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Article in the Athens (home of UGa) paper -- http://onlineathens.com/stories/020310/uga_558085836.shtml.
Can anyone name a carreer field where corruption hasn't existed? Seems like there's always at least one guy(or girl) figuring out if it's profitable or not.
I'd rather search for the answers than just ask the questions.
That sure is a mighty fine music and movie collection you have downloaded. Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
I'm really sick of all the idiots on the Internet who really see no difference between someone protecting the legal rights granted to them by Congress (who received a mandate [or if mandate is too strong a word, at least explicit permission] to do so directly from the Constitution), and some idiot who has no right to ask you for money.
Now, I know someone is going to bring up an argument that RIAA are a bunch of rent-seeking squatters who screw the artists, and it should be the artists who hold the copyrights, not RIAA which is a third party, so how is the RIAA any different from the guy in this article? Here's the simple truth: the difference is that the artists agreed to the terms offered to them by the RIAA member labels, and received compensation. Now, I'm no fan of the RIAA. I think the best thing that could happen to music would be for a few other labels to arise that truly compete with the RIAA (both competing to sign artists with more favorable terms, and competing to sell the products to customers with more favorable terms), but the fact remains that the artists signed away their copyrights and accepted the money. Even though they may have been in a position where they didn't think they could get better terms from any other labels, ultimately they are adults who voluntarily accepted those terms, and made a business deal, and the RIAA has done nothing illegal. The copyright statutes allow for the transfer of copyright.
So long as the RIAA-members have legally obtained their copyrights, they are well within their legal rights. If you don't like the way the copyright laws currently exist, then you need to work hard to get them changed. But, it's easier to just violate copyright law than to actually effect change (either by getting a popular movement started to change copyright and convince people that the changes are just and necessary, OR by starting up some competition and letting the Free Market solve the problem - both of which are hard work), so people take the lazy way out. They just make illegal copies, and blame everybody else.
Law != Justice
In a related issue, I recently had an eBay listing pulled, stating that a copyright holder had ordered it to be taken down for violating their copyright. It was in fact an original, unopened DVD package (not salable through Half.com). Not an unlawful copy, and explicitly allowed by the first-sale doctrine, which is part of US copyright law. I contacted eBay and they gave me an e-mail address to contact the "Verified Rights Owner (VeRO)", who has an agreement with eBay that requires them not to abuse their power to take down listings.
In this case, the VeRO is well-known for taking down legitimate listings in order to ensure that nobody buys their product second-hand. The VeRO, of course, has zero incentive to do any investigation into whether they were incorrect, since (a) they already got their cookies by eliminating a market competitor and (b) eBay will not do anything about it if they were wrong. In my case, the VeRO contact person actually bragged to me about taking down "hundreds of listings every day."
I've heard of similar stories involving other VeROs. The best part is that you can't relist the item safely, since it'll get taken down again and eBay will be happy to revoke your account if you have a couple of strikes for "copyright violation." It's a really crummy deal, but it's part of the copyright idiocy that we live with today. If you run a used bookstore or music store, I hope you have a good insurance policy and a lawyer on retainer. Someone is going to come in with the torches any day to make sure that people only buy new copies of their content. If we could do this to make other consumer goods more rapidly consumed, we'd be a step closer to a Brave New World.
So we have the accusation of one student to school security. This student has no apparent proof and noone else is corroberating the story. I would err towards taking the word of the business professional over the college student who admits breaking the law by downloading copyright works... but I guess it's not as good a story if you question the premise.
Piss on 'em (for stealing from others)
...seems to me that this could end up being a good thing. IT staffer extorts students, making sure to conspicuously duplicate the RIAA's methods, and in court, he offers the RIAA defense. The jury rightfully swats this down and convicts him of extortion. Now, future victims of RIAA extortion lawsuits have a precedent to point to. Maybe he planned this whole thing to make noise and draw attention to the despicable RIAA methods, but then maybe I'm interpreting altruistic motives where none exist.
Do I read this correctly, you're threathening the Anonymous Coward?
. . . is on the path to an MBA or law school and then into politics.
Be very afraid.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I feel the need to point out the exception of "fair use". That is predicted in the law and the RIAA, MPAA et. al. choose to ignore it anyway. when they do that, they're acting illegally, committing blackmail and just being general assholes. Of course they're assholes either way, but in the other cases they do it legally.
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
If there is a position at a University created to monitor copyright violations, are they not acknowledging a copyright violation on their network is their responsibility and if violated can now be held accountable? (Please forgive my English, its my primary language)
Congress (who received a mandate [or if mandate is too strong a word, at least explicit permission] to do so directly from the Constitution)
Mandate is too strong a word. The Constitution empowers Congress to grant copyrights, or not, as they see fit, subject to a few restrictions, but it neither requires them to do so, nor encourages them.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And if the RIAA were practicing due dilligence to avoid accusing the innocent, and if the RIAA were making sure to only persue copyrights it actually owns, and if the RIAA were behaving legally and ethically in its investigation, and if the RIAA was attempting a good-faith protection of copyright (they seem to just see this as a revenue stream), and if the penalties were sane, then I would agree with you.
I support copyright, though I oppose that it's been extended to a century or more here in the US. I oppose piracy when there are good legitemate alternatives. That's a far cry from supporting an organization that takes exorbitant money from the innocent because it can.
Protection Racket implies the one taking the money is also the one doing the damage.
In this case, it's blackmail; the blackmailer is providing information to someone else who will do the damage.
1) Student downloads copyrighted material
2) Shifty university "copyright monitor" tech detects download
3) Tech contacts student and says "Pay up, or I'll turn you in"
4) PROFIT!
The MAFIAA doesn't like it when somebody tries to grab a piece of the action without first clearing it with the don and giving him his cut.
Do I read this correctly, you're threathening the Anonymous Coward?
What, like he's going to threaten the Anonymous Hero?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I can see it now...
Dehelean - "I just wanted the students to be protected, and i provided a valuable service"
RIAA - "Well you were blatantly extorting the students, and do not own the product in question"
Dehelean - "We'll you don't own the product in question either"
RIAA - "We are directly responsible for the security of our primary source of income - consumers"
Dehelean - "And I am directly responsible for the security of my primary source of income - students"
the difference is that the college agreed to the terms offered to them by the Network Administration member labels, and received compensation.
THIS particular system is protected by the law - the college has no case against Dehelean
Don't believe me? Look at http://www.bsa.org/
So long as the RIAA-members have legally obtained their copyrights, they are well within their legal rights. If you don't like the way the copyright laws currently exist
To be fair, I think there are a number of issues at stake here:
Mandate is too strong a word. The Constitution empowers Congress to grant copyrights, or not, as they see fit, subject to a few restrictions, but it neither requires them to do so, nor encourages them.
Not quite "as they see fit". There are 2 important restrictions:
Intellectual property law as it stands today respects neither. Mickey Mouse copyright is perpetual for all practical purposes. DRM stifles the improvement of Science (by restricting what devices may be made). Software patents stifle the innovation in that area.
So Congress did not receive permission to pass these "laws" from the constitution. So any title acquired (or maintained for an excessively long time) by the use of such "laws" is not "legally obtained", which makes the MAFIAA no better than the crooked university staffer.
Harry Harrison's lawyers are going to be contacting you shortly for posting the methods used by Slippery Jim DiGriz.
Not quite "as they see fit". There are 2 important restrictions:
* it must be limited in time
* it must be "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
There's a few more restrictions. The clause is "The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science . . . by securing for limited times to authors . . . the exclusive right to their respective writings . . . ."
So if we are to have copyrights, they must: Promote the progress of science; Be for limited times; Be granted to the authors of the works -- although this doesn't prevent the author from giving his rights away later or disclaiming them altogether; Not be granted to those who are not authors of the works, such as those who discover facts that they did not themselves create; Be exclusive in nature (i.e. a right to exclude others); Concern writings, and therefore not apply to inventions, ideas, marks, unwritten creative works (e.g. unwritten, unrecorded speeches), etc.
But as I said before, subject to a few restrictions.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You appear to have provided too much detail. If you were following the formula correctly, it would be:
1. Find something that the target group is aware of that "threatens" them
2. Build up a cover that you are in a position to make that happen to them sooner
3. Claim you can make it go away for $$$. Enough so you make some money, but low enough that the target can scrounge it up.
4. ???
5. Profit
I constantly wondered to myself "isn't threatening to report criminal activity if someone doesn't give you money extortion?" Glad to see it confirmed.
Now we need to start moving to prosecute the RIAA. They either need to report every copyright violation to the police, or quit extorting people.
We had text based Gopher and Pine, and we were damn happy to have it. IRC blew our minds, when I could type and flame someone in real time.
To play video games we had 2400 baud modems, and I would call the room across from me, and neither one of us could use the phone. Alternatively we could sit next to each other and use the same computer.
I barely passed University with all these distractions when you add a health dose of booze and women to the mix.
I have no idea how anyone graduates anymore. I think that is my job security now.
Get off my lawn you p2p music stealing college pirates!
> people who have actual copyright material that is actually being stolen
If you happen to be talking about artists, perhaps you should be more clear who you think is doing the stealing? LOL
> And now everyone can unleash their negative karma points
Awww. Poor li'l troll who can't take the rain should stay indoors. Anyway, cheer up, now that you post at a default -1 very few will bother to mod you negatively. (Anyway, it's more fun to taunt you.)