Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UNSW Has Collected an Estimated $100,000 In Piracy Fines Since 2008

Posted by timothy on from the quasi-private-justice dept.

Jagungal (36053) writes The SMH reports that The University of NSW says it has issued 238 fines — estimated to total around $100,000 - to students illicitly downloading copyright infringing material such as movies and TV shows on its Wi-Fi network since 2008. The main issues are that the University is not returning any money to the copyright holders but is instead using the money raised for campus facilities and that it is essentially enforcing a commonwealth law.

56 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Not the holder's money by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huh? What's the confusion here?

    The fines that UNSW are levying are for breaches in the terms (or rules) by which students access the institution's network services. What power would UNSW have to "[enforce] a commonwealth law?" Most obviously you'd think this would either be under the contract between the students and the uni, or pursuant to the act by which the university is established, University of New South Wales Act 1989, s27 of which gives the university power to make it's own legislation. I thought these copyright holders might have talked to their lawyers (that was about 45secs of legal research there) before sticking their hands out ... oh wait.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Not the holder's money by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correct, a Fine is a Punishment, not Restitution.

    2. Re:Not the holder's money by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is nearly so clear as that. If the University is fining them instead of blocking their access and is failing to prevent the copyright violations that it is benefiting financially from then they might indeed have significant liability; even moreso if the fines are not based directly on law, but on a contract. In that case they're "fines" in name only, and actually just contract revenue based on known copyright violations.

      I'd say those media companies are going to get some sort of settlement from the University.

    3. Re:Not the holder's money by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      FTA:

      The university also disconnects guilty students from its network for as long as a semester.

    4. Re:Not the holder's money by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Unlikely.

      The university can fine you for parking violations, smoking where you're not supposed to, being in wanton possession of whatever.

      Should they want to turn your name over to another entity with whom you've performed allegedly bad behaviour, they can do that. Or not, should it suit them.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:Not the holder's money by Capsaicin · · Score: 2

      [I]s failing to prevent the copyright violations that it is benefiting financially from then they might indeed have significant liability

      They are acutely aware of potential liability. UNSW were the defendant in the leading Australian case about what liability flows from providing equipment which might be used in copyright infringement (University of NSW v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26). This, I'd guess, is exactly why they are coming down so hard on their students here.

      The university has no power to collect for the benefit of rights holders, nor to enforce the criminal law of the C'th. The fact that they are, within those powers they have, actively discouraging piracy must surely be taken as a mitigating factor. Upon what basis do you feel that the financial benefit derived from the fine is a relevant consideration in this case?

      I'd say those media companies are going to get some sort of settlement from the University.

      Sounds like the university is disinclined to reach that at the present time (nor have they shirked from taking these things all the way to the High Court). However, I imagine that the university would be unable to resist any discovery by the copyright holders of the identity of the individual students fined. Were I one of those students I'd be feeling anxious right now.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Not the holder's money by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      FTA:

      The university also disconnects guilty students from its network for as long as a semester.

      Just for the record, that supports what I was saying. Perhaps you missed my point and assumed I was in [some box]. Just assume I meant what I said and I said what I meant, and you'll have better luck understanding my point.

      They got the extra contracted revenue, reconnected the person, and probably bear some responsibility that they would not bear had they not been profiting. That extra profit makes it dubious that they are just a neutral carrier. They are involved in the content, they are profiting from it, and as long as you comply with their profit step, they will enable you to do it again.

    7. Re:Not the holder's money by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Huh? What's the confusion here?

      The fines that UNSW are levying are for breaches in the terms (or rules) by which students access the institution's network services. What power would UNSW have to "[enforce] a commonwealth law?"

      More over, which commonwealth law (that would be a federal law for the Americans playing along at home) are they enforcing?

      As yet, there isn't a criminal code for copyright infringement, it's a civil matter.

      As the parent said, universities have the ability to make their own legislation that is enforceable. Most universities use it for things like parking (which is at a premium), vandalism, plagiarism, smoking on campus and other acts that are too minor to get the police involved in. Although universities are legally permitted to chase people though the courts for this money, its much easier just to withhold their results until all fines are paid.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Not the holder's money by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Unlikely.

      The university can fine you for parking violations, smoking where you're not supposed to, being in wanton possession of whatever.

      Should they want to turn your name over to another entity with whom you've performed allegedly bad behaviour, they can do that. Or not, should it suit them.

      None of those involve a company with a legally legit tort that is being profited from, so while those might seem like comparable things, they're not.

      If the University was "fining" students for parking on private property not owned by the University, and that is actually a pay parking lot, and they have no agreement with the lot owner to collect rents for parking there, and the "fine" isn't a fine established by law but actually a contract provision between the University and the student... then that lot owner can probably sue the University and recover that money. In the US, it would be that way. If it is in NSW, I have no idea. But your examples apples and oranges.

    9. Re:Not the holder's money by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Just because they're aware of the problem and reacted strongly is no guarantee that they successfully avoided liability. The stronger their response, the more possibility there is for expensive human error.

      Preserving protections as a neutral, unknowing middle-man is generally premised on seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil. Getting heavily involved to where they have admitted in all these specific cases to have seen the evil and received revenue for having seen it is just not the usual formula. It is somewhat dubious. If they have "no power to collect for the benefit of the rights holders," what right do they have to collect for their own benefit, based on content they don't have right to sell?

      This won't go to the High Court because the University really "stepped in it" by accepting the money. They won't have liability beyond what they collected, but they have no rights to what they did collect if it was indeed contractual revenue based on sharing copyrighted works.

    10. Re:Not the holder's money by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Just because they're aware of the problem and reacted strongly is no guarantee that they successfully avoided liability.

      Of course. As I wrote, "[it] must surely be taken as a mitigating factor."

      what right do they have to collect for their own benefit, based on content they don't have right to sell?

      They have a right, as I mentioned above under s27 to levy fines (whether in this particular instance is, as always, arguable, but also not entirely relevant). They are not collecting money for copyright infringement (as it exists at C'th law). They are collecting money for infringement of the university by-laws.

      ... the University really "stepped in it" by accepting the money.

      Again, I'd ask you to clarify why you think this is relevant to any potential liability they may have to the copyright holders? Forgive me for being so dull, but it is not at all clear to me (the relevant statutory provisions or even better some case law might help).

      They won't have liability beyond what they collected

      Really? Then why did they have liability in UNSW v Moorhouse beyond the charge they levied for the making of photo-copies? Again where does the idea come from that the fines levied have any impact upon their liability?!

      but they have no rights to what they did collect if it was indeed contractual revenue based on sharing copyrighted works.

      As I wrote above it is unlikely that this is being done under contract (where the rule regarding contractual penalty provisions would obviously cause some difficulty), and much more so that it being done under the express powers granted to them by the NSW Parliament to levy fines.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    11. Re:Not the holder's money by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      As yet, there isn't a criminal code for copyright infringement, it's a civil matter.

      Not quite accurate. There are actually a number of instances where copyright infringement can become a criminal act. There is a cost level at which the infringement becomes illegal, I believe if that value is higher than $5000 off the top of my head. You can also be charged if you release copyrighted material prior to the international release date. This happened to a Sydney guy who released a pirated copy of the Simpsons movie prior to its release date.

      You will also fall foul of a criminal charge if you are infringing on copyright for commercial gain. ie selling a pc with a pirated windows installed. Or selling the DVDs out of the boot of your car (in that case you will also fall foul of counterfeit laws)

    12. Re:Not the holder's money by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      The problem with 'copyright holders', is that unless UNSW makes some sort of notification that indicates which owners' copyrights were infringed, they have no way of knowing that they need to take legal action and request discovery. Can I as a random shmoe ...

      My understanding is that this usually handled by having the artists (or other original holders) assign their copyright to the collection agency APRA-AMCOS (with whom Music Rights Australia is "affiliated") who then collect licensing fees for the benefit of artists (or record labels) collectively and individually. Any random Schmoes who don't sign over their rights are out of the loop anyway.

      I'm not discounting any possible issues relating to standing.

      It may be possible for the police to go after UNSW generically under some sort of criminal prosecution ...

      That would require the UNSW to have had to committed an offence. I'm not sure even the fined students have done that. So no.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    13. Re:Not the holder's money by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      The copyright holder don't care. As long as the university is stopping people from downloading free content

      Why in the world would they want to stop people? They're making money from it! They have incentive to make it as easy as possible. Their best strategy is likely to be to ignore most of it and issue the occasional small fine. That both keeps it going and fills their coffers.

    14. Re:Not the holder's money by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The fines that UNSW are levying are for breaches in the terms (or rules) by which students access the institution's network services.

      However, in this case, it means that the university is benefitting from the copyright infringement being conducted on their network, since they are collecting a 'fine', or a 'fee'.

      I don't know about NSW, but in other jurisdictions if you knowingly profit from the infringement (charging a fee to the infringer), and you facilitate the infringement (by providing the computer network), then you become liable for the infringement as well, or you may be a contributory infringer.
      It's no different from others such as Mega being held to answer from infringement on their public website since they receive Ad money.

    15. Re:Not the holder's money by plcurechax · · Score: 1

      If the University is fining them instead of blocking their access and is failing to prevent the copyright violations that it is benefiting financially from

      Some universities already have copyright clearance agreements in place, due to concerns of copyright material being duplicated in libraries, these agreements may allow the university or library to generate income as a means of cost recovery of any expenses from administering the program, and an incentive for enforcement.

      Since approximately 1% (or less than $1000 total, divided amongst all the Top of the Pops artists for the past 6 years) of the proceeds would likely end being paid to the artists, songwriters, and/or performers; really what difference does it actually make?

    16. Re:Not the holder's money by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      [T]hey are collecting a 'fine', or a 'fee'.

      They are very clearly collecting a fine not a fee. It is not for goods or services rendered or to be rendered, but as punishment for breach of the university by-laws.

      I don't know about NSW, but in other jurisdictions if you knowingly profit from the infringement (charging a fee to the infringer), and you facilitate the infringement (by providing the computer network), then you become liable for the infringement as well, or you may be a contributory infringer.

      The fine is an additional punishment to disconnection from the network for the rest of the semester. This is not the kind of situation which an ISP in both collecting a fee, providing access while turning a blind eye might face. Here the university charges a fee for access (via the general fees), obviously does not turn a blind eye, but instead upon breach both removes access and additionally levies a fine.

      The by-law enacted and the fines consequently levied are unambiguously for the purpose of augmenting the disincentive unlawfully to download protected materials. This is the very opposite of facilitating infringement.

      It's no different from others ...

      Let me guess, you're not a lawyer are you? It's always different ... ;)

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. $480 fines? by Truth_Quark · · Score: 2

    That would have gutted me when I was at uni.

    1. Re:$480 fines? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      I got $420 on average, which is $362 USD.

      Still a kick in the pants for a college student.

    2. Re:$480 fines? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      "I think a $640K fine should be enough to gut every student." -- Bill Gates

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:$480 fines? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In the US for most students it would just increase the debt load because of the way the credit limits are calculated based on expenses, and the fact that the "fine" isn't a real legal "fine" but just an extra charge.

    4. Re: $480 fines? by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

      I think there have been several comedic movies along those lines... always seems to work out for them. The school I went to was a joke as well. Most classes I got nothing out of.

  3. does the university retain a magistrate? by ihtoit · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Or hold Court under authority of the Crown, with a sworn Judge and a panel of jurors? Because if it doesn't then they have no legal authority to issue fines. In England this would be covered under Fraud Act 2006 sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 (that's 4 separate INDICTABLE criminal charges with a concurrent maximum sentence of ten years).

    Boom, motherfuckers.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:does the university retain a magistrate? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Boom, motherfuckers.

      I can't speak to the accuracy of your argument or your citation, because I just don't know, but out of admiration, I'm going to end every one of my Thanksgiving political discussions with family members with "Boom, motherfuckers."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:does the university retain a magistrate? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      In Victoria this would probably be enforced under the "civic compliance" court or the sheriffs office, for example private entities such a toll roads can issue infringement notices for such trivial offences as a late payment of a toll. It looks like the UNSW is using contract law, fines are a common feature of contracts, more so in business to business contracts.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:does the university retain a magistrate? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In most countries anybody can add a "fine" to contract terms. Legally it is just regular revenue, using the word "fine" doesn't create any special requirements or restrictions, or require any legal authority. The authority comes from agreeing to the contract.

    4. Re:does the university retain a magistrate? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Does Video2000?
      Does the hotel who's room you just wrecked?
      Does the rental car company who's car you returned dirty and without refilling the tank?
      What about the cab you threw up in?

      You most definitely can issue any fines you want in a legal contract, such as the one I guarantee people were presented with before they got access to the university's network.

    5. Re:does the university retain a magistrate? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      In most countries anybody can add a "fine" to contract terms.

      At common law (and certainly at Australian law) contractual terms imposing a penalty (in excess of the loss which could be recovered or a fair quantity of liquidated damages) is void and unenforceable. (look up 'penalty provision' or 'penalty clause') I ought never even have floated the possibility that this was contractual, my bad. As I wrote to you above "the rule regarding contractual penalty provisions ... [make it] unlikely that this is being done under contract."

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    6. Re:does the university retain a magistrate? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Oh, good, in that case nobody has to pay early termination penalties.

    7. Re:does the university retain a magistrate? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Oh, good, in that case nobody has to pay early termination penalties.

      Are you always this impudent when presented with new information?

      As I wrote "... in excess of the loss which could be recovered (here lost potential earnings) or a fair quantity of liquidated damages (via an agreed termination clause)." At common law a clause allowing you to recover, via termination penalties more money that you could have have possibly earned under the entire contract, would be judged to be a penalty clause and would thus be unenforceable. OK? Of course as regards employment law statutory considerations may impinge.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    8. Re:does the university retain a magistrate? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Before I go, I'd hate to leave you with the impression (as the Wikipedia article might), that penalty clauses will always and in every case be unenforceable. A famous exception flowing from the decision in Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Strange 447 [93 ER 626] where the penalty doctrine will not protect you from a penalty clause should the loss to the other party not be quantifiable in money terms.

      The point is that law is never simple. The best wishes of the layperson notwithstanding, the Law cannot easily be intuited, nor even unambiguously discerned from the observation of its apparent operation in everyday life. Even those with legal training are uncertain about its operation (actually we're more uncertain because of our greater knowledge of the uncertainties). The take home lesson here is simply, when you see what might be construed as a penalty clause in a contract, alarm bells should go off. That being the case it should have been obvious to me from the start there was only a vanishingly small possibility that university lawyers would chose any service agreement by which to institute the fines, a fortiori when an explicit statutory power to levy fines exists. My bad.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  4. Re:Punishment by mythosaz · · Score: 2

    You're welcome to not pay the fine -- all you have to do is forfeit your degree program.

  5. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do they get fined just a little bit more for having the luxury of being fined in Australia?

    1. Re:Interesting... by blackpaw · · Score: 2

      Do they get fined just a little bit more for having the luxury of being fined in Australia?

      Funny *and* insightful

      Wish the mod system could do that.

  6. Re:Punishment by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    I thought only Goverments, via the courts, had the power to issue a fine.

    The parliament of NSW has, via s27 of the New South Wales University Act 1989, bestowed upon the university the power to make subsidiary legislation, including by s27(n) "... by-laws ... with respect to ... the payment of such fees and charges, including fines." The university would argue that these fines and this particular by-law are empowered by this section. The student, should they wish to fight the fine, would argue it exceeds the power granted.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  7. Piracy fines? by Trogre · · Score: 2

    Are these fines actually for copyright infringement, or for mis-use of University resources? This is an important distinction.

    I doubt the University could legally collect on the former, unless they also happen to be the copyright holder of the obtained content.

    If the latter, then students downloading free content (eg material covered by a Creative Commons licence) for personal use should also be liable.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Piracy fines? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If the latter, then students downloading free content (eg material covered by a Creative Commons licence) for personal use should also be liable.

      Liable for what? Downloading copyright content without authorization? Does the Creative Commons license not allow downloading the material covered by it? How quaint.

      Mis-use of University resources is defined by the University, and it can quite easily include clauses regarding unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material, etc.

    2. Re:Piracy fines? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I meant the case of using University bandwidth to download content for personal use, that could trigger a fine depending on the University's Internet use policies. The licence of the content in that case is irrelevant.

      Mis-use of University resources is defined by the University, and it can quite easily include clauses regarding unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material, etc.
      I do agree with you there, and in that case the licence would be relevant.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:Piracy fines? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I meant the case of using University bandwidth to download content for personal use,

      I doubt that any university has a prohibition against students downloading things for "personal use". I know mine doesn't. There are policies against personal use of departmental systems for employees, but not students. We have a policy against commercial use, and a student running his online business out of his dorm room was cut off, but that's well beyond "for personal use".

      If they are fining people for piracy, then the policy will be against piracy, not simply "anything for personal use."

  8. FYI by camg188 · · Score: 1

    FYI
    NSW = New South Wales
    SMH = Sydney Morning Herald

  9. Re:Punishment by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    I thought only Goverments, via the courts, had the power to issue a fine.

    I take it you never returned a rental VHS late before?

    Any contract can impose fines on either party as long as both parties agree to it. What's the bet that there's a EULA related to using the Uni's WiFi that the students didn't read. There certainly was when I went to Uni.

  10. Re:Punishment by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Ever had a library fine?
    Ever had a court summons or bailiff come to sieze your property because of that fine? I doubt it.
    But:
    Ever tried to borrow a book with an outstanding fine?

    Now do you see my point?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  11. Rubbish by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    In England this would be covered under Fraud Act 2006 sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 (that's 4 separate INDICTABLE criminal charges with a concurrent maximum sentence of ten years).

    You are talking rubbish. Organizations issue fines all the time in the UK e.g. libraries can fine you if you are late returning a book etc. I doubt every library has a sworn judge and a panel of jurors on hand to adjudicate your fine.

    Any organization can levy a fine through an agreement. Students typically sign that they agree to be bound by the terms of the university's code of student conduct in before they are allowed to enrol. That code will undoubtedly contain the relevant clauses allowing a discipline procedure to levy a fine on the student. Even without such a signed agreement the fine can still be enforced with the threat of losing you membership of the organization should you fail to pay.

    I can't see any way that any of the above constitutes false representation or abuse of position and section 6 and 7 have to do with possession, making and supplying articles for use in fraud (did you even read the act before citing it?).

    This is certainly not the behaviour you would expect from a university and I am frankly amazed that they are doing this to their own students. However if it is done within the discipline framework of the university and the students have signed on to follow that code then I would expect that their choices are limited to either paying it or dropping out and finding a better university to attend.

  12. Re:Punishment by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    Any contract can impose fines on either party as long as both parties agree to it.

    No. Generally any clause imposing a fine for breach (as distinct from the recovery of losses) would be void at common law on the basis of it being a penalty provision (see for example here). Your video rental store might be within their rights to recover from you any amount up to what they would have made had they rented out that late returned VHS (but no more).

    That's why I realised after I posted at the top that this would probably be done via by-laws. Silly me, duh!

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  13. Re:Not Safe for Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one ...

    Hopefully. However, given that you are not the only ignoramus on Slashdot, perhaps not.

  14. Correct, although you are missing the obvious by s.petry · · Score: 2

    If the University is "fining" the students and not turning them over the the proper authorities how are they not complicit in the theft exactly? What they are doing is exactly the definition of racketeering.

    Racketeering refers to criminal activity that is performed to benefit an organization such as a crime syndicate. Examples of racketeering activity include extortion, money laundering, loan sharking, obstruction of justice and bribery.

    Students give the University hush money, gets a slap on the hand "oh noez, no free wireless for up to a few months" and the University profits. Copyright holders are not seeing a penny of this money, Law enforcement is not prosecuting people for theft.

    Should the University fine rapists for profit and not turn them over to Law enforcement as well? Oh wait, this already happens in the US (if people are charged at all) so I'm sure it happens there too... Yeah, University officials should be in jail over this one. I doubt it will happen because people will focus on everything but the obvious.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Correct, although you are missing the obvious by lgw · · Score: 1

      Students give the University hush money, gets a slap on the hand "oh noez, no free wireless for up to a few months" and the University profits. Copyright holders are not seeing a penny of this money, Law enforcement is not prosecuting people for theft.

      In what way is downloading copyrighted material any kind of crime? Is it even a tort?

      Should the University fine rapists for profit and not turn them over to Law enforcement as well? Oh wait, this already happens in the US (if people are charged at all)

      What are you on about? The standard for accusation at a US university is vastly below any judicial standard for rape. At some places, the accused isn't even given a chance to defend himself.

      "Harvard's policy was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense." -- Alan Dershowitz

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Correct, although you are missing the obvious by s.petry · · Score: 1

      What are you on about? The standard for accusation at a US university is vastly below any judicial standard for rape. At some places, the accused isn't even given a chance to defend himself.

      Hahaha, here are two words for you to research. Penn State.

      After those two words, there are plenty of other Universities for you to investigate and see what happens with reported crimes. UCxx would be another great piece of research.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  15. Not even wrong by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    If the University is "fining" the students and not turning them over the the proper authorities how are they not complicit in the theft exactly?

    The university is fining (no scare quotes) the students for breaching the by-laws of the university.

    What they are doing is exactly the definition of racketeering:

    Racketeering refers to criminal activity that is performed to benefit an organization such as a crime syndicate. Examples of racketeering activity include extortion, money laundering, loan sharking, obstruction of justice and bribery.

    The activity of the university is not criminal. What crime, if any, do you think has been committed by anyone in this scenario? The activity is not being performed for the benefit of any organisation, leas of all a crime syndicate. it is not extortion, nor money laundering, nor loan sharking, and involves no obstruction of justice nor bribery. So no, it's not in the least like the definition or racketeering you give. I'm beginning to suspect that you are not a lawyer of the Supreme Court of NSW, am I correct?

    Please do not feel you are under any special obligation to form, let alone publish, opinions about which you know worse than nothing.

    Do you understand that the university has the legal right, bestowed by parliament, to formulate by-laws and issue fines for the breach thereof (ie. they have delegated legislative power)? Whether this particular by-law exceeds the grant of power under s27 of the University of New South Wales Act1989, as you would probably want to argue were you a student resisting the fine, is a separate question.

    Yeah, University officials should be in jail over this one.

    Oh come on, surely nothing short of hanging suffices!

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Not even wrong by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The university is fining (no scare quotes) the students for breaching the by-laws of the university.

      We know why they are fining, it says so in TFA. We also know that this relates to illegally downloading Copyrighted material. Downloading Copyrighted material without permission of the owner is also illegal. The University is not bothering to notify either the Copyright owner or Law enforcement that the student is breaking the law.

      You are trying to argue that based on the technicality of the verbiage for the "fine", the University is not obstructing justice and coercing students into paying them money which happens to result in no legal action against those students. No matter how you try and pretty it up, the students are being coerced into paying "hush" money..

      Do you understand that the university has the legal right, bestowed by parliament, to formulate by-laws and issue fines for the breach thereof (ie. they have delegated legislative power)?

      Oh come now, are you trying to claim that the University has been granted powers that can allow them to ignore the law of the land? This is not creating laws that include the National laws, this is a policy which thumbs it's nose at those laws.

      If, and only if, the University was passing this information over to law enforcement agencies or copyright owners (so that they could contact law enforcement or take other action) would I agree with their methods.

      I have no issues with a University having 100.00 citations for Toga parties, if students agree with their terms not to have Toga parties or pay the fine. That would not allow the University to ignore crimes associated with a Toga party, such as providing alcohol to minors, any type of assault (including sexual assault), larceny, murder, etc... If the University took the cash for any of those other things and did not call in Law Enforcement, University Administrators would be in jail and the University would be suffering massive amounts of law suits by the victims of those crimes. Since it's only "copyright" we let them get away with racketeering?

      Look, I'm not a fan of copyright law implementation (at least in the US where I live), but that does not mean that we can selectively enforce the law. If they are universally enforced it may result in better copyright law. As a selective punishment, it allows for illegal activities such as this University has been involved in.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Not even wrong by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Downloading Copyrighted material without permission of the owner is also illegal.

      If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings.

      The University is not bothering to notify either the Copyright owner or Law enforcement that the student is breaking the law.

      Under what obligation would the university be to report a student not committing a crime? Under what obligation is anyone to report an infringement of someone else's right?

      You are trying to argue that based on the technicality of the verbiage for the "fine"

      No I'm not, you simply do not understand the legal issues. And what is does "fine" mean as opposed to fine.

      ... the University is not obstructing justice ...

      In what possible way is the university obstructing justice?

      ... and coercing students into paying them money ...

      Presuming this by-law is valid law under the power granted to them pursuant to s27 of the UNSW Act 1989, the university is specifically permitted to coerce students into paying fines for breach of its by-laws

      ... which happens to result in no legal action against those students. ...

      The fining of the students in no way results in no legal action being taken against those students. Potentially, quite the opposite.

      No matter how you try and pretty it up, the students are being coerced into paying "hush" money

      That is simply absurd. It cannot be understood, by anyone across the issue, what you could possibly mean by "hush money" (which usually implies money paid to silence people). You are quite obviously out of your depth here. Admit it, you are in fact not a lawyer of the SCNSW.

      Oh come now, are you trying to claim that the University has been granted powers that can allow them to ignore the law of the land?

      No I wrote, "Do you understand that the university has the legal right, bestowed by parliament, to formulate by-laws and issue fines for the breach thereof (ie. they have delegated legislative power)?" In what possible universe could that be interpreted as allowing the university to ignore the law of the land?!

      If, and only if, the University was passing this information over to law enforcement agencies or copyright owners (so that they could contact law enforcement or take other action) would I agree with their methods. I have no issues with ...

      You're opinion and what you might agree or have issues with is of no consequence whatsoever. Better it would be if you didn't feel the need even to have one than to spout the kind of nonsense you have done here.

      it allows for illegal activities such as this University has been involved in

      I cannot fathom how it is, even after having this explained to you by a NSW lawyer (albeit a non practising one, I code), that you persist in this ridiculous notion that the university has, in exercising its right to formulate by-laws and levy fines for the breach thereof, engaged in illegal activities. I trust you system architecting is conducted with great mental discipline, expert knowledge and professionalism, but here you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.

      Let me try to explain this to you one more time:

      • UNSW is empowered by parliament to make by-laws and collect fines (see here).
      • UNSW does not want to get their arses sued off (again) by copyright holders, consequently
      • UNSW has made a by-law and told students in effect, "if you use our system to download stuff for which you do not have the p
      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Not even wrong by s.petry · · Score: 1

      If it is unlawful, is it criminal? By which I mean to ask, please point to the provision(s) of the Copyright Act 1968 [austlii.edu.au] which makes it an offence to download protected sound-recordings.

      Downloading copyrighted materials is not covered under US Copyright law, and it would appear that you are grasping for a plank to hold on to. Low and behold your plank is not there! Instead of performing your due diligence, you tried to cherry pick something you thought would keep you floating instead of spending a few minutes to research. For posterity, a few minutes is a gross exaggeration.

      In what possible way is the university obstructing justice?

      I gave three other examples and you just pretend that they did not exist. I should not go back the post you responded to and quote information you should have read in both of my posts. You did not claim I was wrong, you did not provide counter analogy, you are PRETENDING that they are not there.

      No I'm not, you simply do not understand the legal issues. And what is does "fine" mean as opposed to fine.

      That is a gem in and of itself. I'm wrong because you say I am, regardless of facts or argument. Do you claim that anyone not believing your opinion on everything does not understand, or do you restrict this bit of circular logic to just political issues? Rhetorical question, I don't want to read what ever you respond with but give it a good amount of consideration.

      I did not read further, because at this point you must convince me that you are not a deranged lunatic who is simply trolling. I won't hold my breath, but I've been surprised before. If you want to convince me, read and argue the points I presented instead of ignoring them or repeating the opinion I initially challenged and pretending that repetition makes it valid.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Not even wrong by eineerg · · Score: 1

      They are in effect profiting from piracy, while also being complicit in the offending. The fact that this is legal under the current interpretation of law is more reflective of a fucked up judicial process than anything else.

    5. Re:Not even wrong by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Notice: If you post anonymously do not expect a reply.

      Thanks for that promise. I'd like to take the opportunity to withdraw my statement to the effect that I believed "your system architecting is conducted with great mental discipline, expert knowledge and professionalism." You last post has left me doubting whether that is in fact possible.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Not even wrong by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      They are in effect profiting from piracy, while also being complicit in the offending.

      It's true that they are taking money they would not otherwise do, however the charge of complicity might be more fair if they were not also removing network access from the offending students. Remember a fine is the usual way (as envisaged by the empowering legislation) for punishing a breach of university rules, disconnection (probably not foremost in the mind of parliament in 1989) is the exceptional punishment here.

      Imagine if I parked in Prof. Blackacre's reserved car spot on campus. I would be issued with a fine. Would Prof Blackacre be on good grounds to argue that the university, in effectively profiting from my having taken his spot, were complicit in my taking his spot?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  16. Re:violence solves everything by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    why would anyone pay the fine?

    If you're a student, guess what? The university can suspend your grades and privileges till you cough it up.