Slashdot Log In
RIAA Afraid of Harvard
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:23 PM
from the well-aren't-we-all dept.
from the well-aren't-we-all dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report on p2pnet.net, the RIAA's latest anti-college round of "early settlement" letters targets 7 out of 8 Ivy League schools, but continues to give Harvard University a wide berth. This is perhaps the most astonishing display of cowardice exhibited to date by the multinational cartel of SONY BMG, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, and Vivendi/Universal (the "Big Four" record companies, which are rapidly becoming less "big"). The lesson to be drawn by other colleges and universities: "All bullies are cowards. Appeasement of bullies doesn't work. Standing up to bullies and fighting back has a much higher success rate.""
Related Stories
[+]
Harvard Law Professor Urges University to Fight RIAA 180 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Distinguished Harvard University Law School Professor Charles Nesson has called upon Harvard University to fight back against the RIAA and stand up for its students, writing 'Seeking to outsource its enforcement costs, the RIAA asks universities to point fingers at their students, to filter their Internet access, and to pass along notices of claimed copyright infringement. But these responses distort the University's educational mission. ...[W]e should be assisting our students both by explaining the law and by resisting the subpoenas that the RIAA serves upon us. We should be deploying our clinical legal student training programs to defend our targeted students.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The reason is much simpler (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, who do they have their knowledge from? The profs there. When you teach, do you tell your student everything you know? More important, when you learn, do you know afterwards as much as your teacher does?
Rarely loses the master against his padawan. So to challenge him, a fool you must be.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank youuuu Yoda.
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:5, Funny)
Fixed that for you, I did.
Parent
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:5, Funny)
That would make a good senior project: "Students, your assignment this year is to put the kibosh on the Recording Industry Association of America's lawsuit mill."
Parent
I'm a senior at Harvard (Score:5, Interesting)
1) most kids here are too busy with chairing their Model-UN-Investment-Banking-Labor-Movement meeting to even care about music, so they listen to a few cds and buy tracks from itunes (like many college campuses with high tuition, most kids have some hardware from apple) and hear most of their music on the loudspeakers at god-awful binge drinking parties
2) the few kids who listen to a lot of music are into indie bands, and the RIAA seems to go after folks who download more popular tunes. also there's pretty significant downloading/computer-illiteracy here (kids dont have the time to waste playing with the computer, and thus dont really understand where to get music illegally)
3) there's only like a couple hundred cs majors here, and there's only one out of that group with immaculate taste in music (me!) so I'm probably the only person at harvard that the RIAA could ever be angry at, but I don't download music.
There's nobody to sue!
Note to reader: The error bounds on this comprehensive study may be non-trivial.
Parent
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're halfway competent and intelligent, you continue to learn from experience, and very soon know MORE than your teachers did.
If that wasn't the case, knowledge would continue to shrink, as a bit of it is lost every generation, while in reality, the opposite is true.
Parent
Re:Still... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, it's just that that phrase seems to carry a certain hubris that irritates me.
Parent
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:5, Insightful)
In the process of getting a PHD is normally a process or specialization. It is quite common for New CS Undergrads to be better versed in newer technologies then many the professors especially near the end of your degree. First Computer Science as a study is a new area of study and Many of the CS professors have their Undergrad and Graduate Degrees in different areas of study, Engineering, Accounting, Physics, Mathematics, Business... Then got the Masters or PHD later on, in that process you just focus more on one area... Software Optimization, Artificial Intelligence, Neural Networks, Operating Systems, Programming Languages, etc... So they were privy to your general education in Computer Science as well because of their focus they tend to stay focus on their focus.... So you may be able to Out Program most professors in most applications, but if you go up against them in their speciality they can blow you away with concepts and designs that you may never have considered. Also if they did study the degree for their Undergrad they were focused on the current modern methods, Punch Cards, Fortran, Basic (no visual about it), Pascal, etc... they were concerned about application that run on mainframe terminals, reading off of tape, etc...
I am not saying that college Professors are super human ultra intelligent people who can code a computer using a metal file. As well I am not saying you are a bad programmer, I have never seen your work. But there is a tendency among programmers to think they are the best programmer in the world which in case they are actually average. And College Professors shouldn't be underestimated because then you will loose a lot of good education because of you closed mindedness. As well you cannot assume the Professor knows it all because it will reduce you ability to extend beyond what is taught by these specialist.
I am talking for experience, I use to be a Hot Headed programmer, slamming my profs behind their back because I could out program them. But I am a good generalist programmer so I can do most programming well, but I rarely able to do any thing exceptional. I am good at what I do and my clients agree. But can I do it all no.
Parent
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, he was already challenged by turning his laptop on, which is why he was one of the few who refused to use anything but chalk and blackboard to do his lectures. No powerpoint, not even overhead projector, the less tech the better.
Do I know more about programming than he does? Heck, anyone who has touched VB does. Would I dare to say I can hold a candle to him in math? Never. And I was good in math.
You will never know as much as your teacher in his subject after leaving him. That is a given. If your teacher is your primary if not only source of information about a subject, you're prone to know less about it than him. At best, you can know as much as he does. And even after leaving him and continuing on your own, he has a head start you can hardly catch up to.
Parent
Re:Actually, they're suing 7/8 of the Ivy League. (Score:4, Interesting)
If they sued a university or college, they'd have a fight on their hand... which is what the RIAA assiduously avoids.
Parent
Cowards, maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cowards, maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
As a lawyer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cowards, maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, do not disturb the 350-year-old 800-lb gorilla who has lots of friends and big piles of cash.
Parent
Re:Cowards, maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm as disgusted with the RIAA's tactics as anyone, but this childish name calling is getting old. It seems like every day on the front page of Slashdot is some article title with an overblown ad hominem attack against persons, groups or companies that rub us the wrong way. C'mon, people. We're smart, educated and savvy, do we really need to stoop to this?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, see i really could care less how low anyone stoops against them. In fact, you think of the most immoral acts that could be committed to their employee's, and i still wouldn't care.
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Informative)
And the tactics the RIAA lawyers use are inexcusable.
I've been in the litigation field for 34 years, and I've never seen anything like them.
Question. You say "I'm as disgusted with the RIAA's tactics as anyone". If you're aware of their doctored non-evidence, their misstatements of fact, their misstatements of law, their abuse of the federal judicial system, and their inappropriate tactics... are you suggesting something like that is not "stuff that matters" or "news for nerds"?
Parent
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Interesting)
Many thanks for your fine work in this area.
I have an experience leading to a question. I was involved in a civil suit, the other side's attorney pulled shenanigans, lying to the court, etc. My lawyer was incensed, and it seemed the suit was going to drag on for years, so he offered to settle with me for my hoped-for amount out of his pocket provided I release him to sue the other attorney (he was going to make way more money that way, he was that confident). I was ok with that, so that's how it went down.
From that, I learned that attorneys can be sued for shenanigans - malfeasance? - and that's my question(s). Could the RIAA be stopped that way? Attorneys are officers of the court, that makes them liable for malfeasance charges, doesn't it? If not in court, what about the Bar Association(s)? (All I know about the bar I learned on TV.....)
Can't the attorneys be punished and thereby discourage those practices? Is our system so broken that the answer is really no?
Thanks,
Earl
Parent
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Informative)
Here [blogspot.com] they were caught in a lie to the Judge; here [blogspot.com] the Judge figured out that they were lying about an "emergency" need to file their cases WITHOUT NOTICE to the other side; here [blogspot.com] we discuss the fact that even though their expert witness has admitted that their investigator did not "detect" an individual, the RIAA's lawyers continue to sign false court papers stating to the Court that their investigator "detected an individual"; here [blogspot.com]'s a recent pack of those lies which they submitted, in an undefended case, where the Judge realized that their first presentation of evidence didn't point to an infringement by the defendant; here [blogspot.com]'s that Judge, and here [blogspot.com]'s the State Attorney General of Oregon, catching them in those lies; and here [blogspot.com]'s the junk science put forth by their 'expert', whose real 'expertise' is getting LAN operators to fork over $76,000 at a time [blogspot.com] in protection money in order to make the RIAA and him go away.
Parent
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Interesting)
I also wonder if there might be a way to bring in this evidence at each and every trial. Unfortunately I can think of one very negative side effect for those defending against such tactics - weighing this evidence might make trials more costly (favouring the RIAA's deep pockets). However if it were presented well might it not be the difference between winning and losing? If done right is there any chance that showing this consistent abuse might result in similar actions being thrown out summarily?
Surely there is something in the system that attempts to limit repeated abuse/harassment? Some kind of provision for those who cry wolf and tie the courts up. If not there sure ought to be.
Are these thoughts pure fantasy or might this work in the real world? I defer to your wisdom in this. I am certainly not a lawyer. (I'm not even an American).
Parent
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they thought what they were doing was legitimate they'd take on Harvard too. Harvard gets sued all the time. Just not by people like this.
Parent
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they DO hesitate indicates that they really are bullying -- they're taking cases they know have problems and pushing them only against those they see as weak enough not to recognize that weakness.
Parent
Harvard = death star (Score:5, Funny)
Pushing around smaller and less reputable colleges and students may be fine and dandy...but trying to shove your weight around against Harvard is like lil timmy firing his peashooter at the deathstar, the RIAA would be decimated and a huge precedent would be set. Better to just leav'em be.
Re:Harvard = death star (Score:5, Funny)
Many paralegals died to bring us this information.
Parent
Try Freenet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Try Freenet (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, here's one good reason:
1. You've correctly realized that the media companies don't really care if you're sharing files legally or not.
I'm sure the rest of you can add to this list.
Parent
What's happening at Yale? (Score:5, Interesting)
So what's going on between the RIAA/MPAA and Yale? Does Yale's reputation as being the "nice" law school (if that's not an oxymoron) result in them being attacked more or less? Anyone have data?
Just curious
Re:What's happening at Yale? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
The Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Berkman is very forward-looking and proactive regarding emerging issues of Law and Technology. The various fellows have been vocal and supportive of copyright reform. With such an interested, knowledgeable band of law professors and law students, it would be a serious black-eye if the RIAA attempted to litigate on the Harvard campus. I have to believe that they would be handed a bruising defeat, that would establish precedent regarding their campaign of extorting* settlement monies from poor college students.
* I mean extortion in the common, non-technical sense. Don't sue me for libel please.
Berklee and Julliard also immune seemingly (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, while music students have more music downloaded/shared in general than almost anyone else I know, they also actually purchase more music than anyone I know.
Circumstantial Evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
1) They know they're case(s) are weak
2) Their campaign is most certainly not about suing wrongdoers. It's about calculated methods to change copyright by case law.
Really this won't stop until someone with resources starts playing in their playground.
That is, attacks the xIAA for racketeering, price fixing, extortion, by way of the civil courts this is not likely to end soon.
The US legal system is simply broken. Our society treats corporations as equals, yet they are designed to pool capital. Anyone can sue, with little recourse, and if you have enough money, you can make it so the average man cannot possibly fight back. Meanwhile, all the time that you spend fighting the lawsuit, you find it very difficult to better your life in any other way, even save and/or invest.
And if you start talking about methods to put the system back in check... well then you are labeled a socialist or a communist. There has been legislation all throughout the preeminent authority's tenure on free market capitalism, but I dare you to start talking about Antitrust legislation now.
But I digresss...
An Open Letter to Dorks and Losers (Score:5, Funny)
Hello. My name is Terrence "Mongo" Rennet, and I represent the American Council of Bullies, Toughs, and Schoolyard Ruffians. I'm here to clear up some tragic misconceptions about bullies and their place in the academic hierarchy, misconceptions that have gone unchallenged for too long. It is my hope that by "clearing the air," as it were, bullies and bullied can walk with head erect or cower behind lockers respectively with a newfound respect for one another.
Myth: Bullies are just jealous of your intelligence, sensitivity, or ability to play the oboe.
Fact: Bullies have no more jealousy of your mental abilities than we have of your clean, well-ironed, unfashionable clothing. To the contrary, we are profoundly glad that you have chosen to develop your mental prowess, leaving your body weak and defenseless against our brutality. For that we thank you, even as we elevate your underwear.
Myth: Bullies suffer from low self-esteem, and victimize others to make themselves feel better.
Fact: While each bully has his (or her, as is increasingly the case) own deeply personal reasons for bullying, I can assure you that a poor self-image is not one of them. To the contrary, bullying is a high-pressure occupation, and only someone with an unusual amount of self-confidence will have the elán to shake down younger students efficiently while evading authority. Children without self-confidence tend instead to spend recess in the library, the computer lab, or pretending to be warriors in ridiculous fantasy games. Sound familiar?
Myth: If you stand up to a bully, he will reveal himself to be a coward.
Fact: This is perhaps the most hurtful stereotype of them all, in the sense that if you try it we will hurt you. Endless movies and after-school specials depict a tormented victim finally working up the courage to attack his neighborhood bully, after which said bully runs away crying and -- I must chuckle here -- calling for his mommy. What writers of these "entertainments" don't realize is that bullies invariably establish a complex ritual pecking order through constant low-level violence against each other. Haven't you noticed us punching each other in the shoulder at the bus stop? Then you've witnessed the magic of our social structure. Even if you, with your weak, gelatin-like arms were able to do us physical harm, I can assure you that we would recover faster than you can recite your grade point average and teach you a few things about savage poundings you can't learn from Spider-Man comics.
With that thought, I take your leave, confident that I have, in my own small way, improved the world's understanding of the art and craft of bullying. Good day, and if I see you after school you're dead meat.
brunching.com [brunching.com]
Re:An Open Letter to Dorks and Losers (Score:4, Interesting)
I am sure even you will agree that
1. Appeasement would never deter a bully.
2. A 'dork' or 'loser', or apparent dork or loser, standing up to a bully, enjoys the element of surprise.
3. Courage is a measure of internal fortitude and heart, not a measure of physical prowess.
4. Throughout history, there have been many instances in which courage carried the day against physically superior force.
As to any suggestion that the RIAA lawyers, who likely occupy leadership positions within your organization, will prevail... we shall see, we shall see.
With all due respect to the fine work carried on by your organization, I must reiterate; all bullies are cowards. I call upon your members to follow the lead of Darth Vader, and abandon the ways of the Dark Side.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Elephant and Mouse situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Elephant and Mouse situation (Score:4, Funny)
With competent assassins, this becomes much harder.
Or are we talking zombies and ninja assassins here? 'Cause that'd make a great movie.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Submitter is Charles Nesson, Professor of Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:No it's not (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Incorrect Information (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The funny thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actors and musicians also don't get paid for the time they actually spend doing most of the work--creating, rehearsing, making modifications, planning performances, and the like--you know, the kind of things YOU do at work while the money keeps rolling in before you finish. Artists, on the other hand, don't get paid until the work is done and rely on income for the performance. They get paid a lot because they get paid in lump sums.
Frankly, people like you who reduce an entire industry filled with legitimate artists, millions of middle-class employees, and hardworking entertainers who love what they do to the same level as some slimy fat cats in it are just as bad as the RIAA. By your logic, doctors are cheap hacks, too. You shouldn't pay your bill because you don't think they should charge so much or have unattractive offices. They don't deserve nice houses or things that you, Joe Armchair, would be jealous of.
Parent
Re:RICO (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's not a troll, exactly how?
How on earth did Creationists get categorically thrown into the same class of groups as the RIAA, Nazis, and patent lawyers?
I'm agnostic, but I know many Creationists who are just trying to find the world view that makes the best sense of their experiences, their reasoning, and various bits of historical evidence. I'm getting pissed that popular sentiment on /. is becoming that Creationists are a bunch of evil, ignorant bastards who are out to wreck the public teaching of science.
Creationism is a world view and a particular take on history, not a political practice. You might judge some Creationists to hold their views for bad reasons or insufficient evidence, but the same could be said of many reductionist evolutionists. But I know plenty of people smart, articulate reasons who understand the debate and have judged it more probable that creationism (not necessarily young-earth creationism) is the most-likely correct account of natural history.
Parent
Re:not cowardice (Score:4, Informative)
Expert Witness Defense Fund [fsf.org] (For technical expert witnesses, technical consultants, and computer forensic examiners);
Marie Lindor Legal Defense Fund [blogspot.com] (For defense of UMG v. Lindor [blogspot.com]);
Jammie Thomas Legal Defense Fund [blogspot.com] (For defense of Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com]).
Parent