AT&T has been involved with this dispute in the past. I recently wrote a paper on copyright law and one of the cases I cited was McKee v. AT&T Corp. WL 3932188 (Wash. 2008). The court listed the following terms in the contract as offensive: prohibition of class actions, mandatory arbitration, forced secrecy of arbitration results, no punitive damages, no attorneys fees, shortened statute of limitations, and acceptance of New York law. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had no meaningful choice because everyone should have access to phone service and there is rarely meaningful competition. Sounds familiar right?
For anyone interested in reading an analysis of this case that actually sites precedent and contains legal arguments and not internet arguments I recommend reading the paper available at http://ssrn.com/author=1259310
If 40 pages and 150 footnotes is too much for you the cliff notes is available at http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/06/us-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-that-turnitins-fight-against-plagiarism-does-not-violate/
If clicking on links and reading articles is too much for you (and knowing this crowd this might apply to many of you) the bottom line is that the turnitin service is not a fair use (in my opinion). The contract the students signed should be unenforceable, treating students as guilty from the first day of class is wrong, and the potential for massive privacy violations is unavoidable.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T has been involved with this dispute in the past. I recently wrote a paper on copyright law and one of the cases I cited was McKee v. AT&T Corp. WL 3932188 (Wash. 2008). The court listed the following terms in the contract as offensive: prohibition of class actions, mandatory arbitration, forced secrecy of arbitration results, no punitive damages, no attorneys fees, shortened statute of limitations, and acceptance of New York law. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had no meaningful choice because everyone should have access to phone service and there is rarely meaningful competition. Sounds familiar right?
(You can see my paper at http://ssrn.com/author=1259310 and jump to footnote 38 to read about the case in context.)
Oh, and IANAL-Y (yet, because I'm waiting to pass the two bar exams I just took)
For anyone interested in reading an analysis of this case that actually sites precedent and contains legal arguments and not internet arguments I recommend reading the paper available at http://ssrn.com/author=1259310 If 40 pages and 150 footnotes is too much for you the cliff notes is available at http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/06/us-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-that-turnitins-fight-against-plagiarism-does-not-violate/ If clicking on links and reading articles is too much for you (and knowing this crowd this might apply to many of you) the bottom line is that the turnitin service is not a fair use (in my opinion). The contract the students signed should be unenforceable, treating students as guilty from the first day of class is wrong, and the potential for massive privacy violations is unavoidable.