Stanford To Charge Reconnect Fee For DMCA Notices 344
theantipop writes "Stanford didn't like appearing on the MPAA's list of 25 worst offenders. Last week the university issued notice of a new policy in which students are charged a reconnection fee, ranging from $100 to $1000, if they fail to respond quickly enough to a DMCA complaint. The policy is to take effect September 1 this year. As a show of 'good faith' they are graciously allowing all students to start at the $100 fee level for subsequent notices."
Is this the solution? (Score:4, Interesting)
Secure transfers (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, just wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Due diligence. (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Wow, just wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see any room in this law giving Stanford discretion to make service contingent on receipt of a fee. Of course, IANAL so YMMV.
University backlash in long term to RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
So if there is any validity to these observations, then there may be a complete change of view against the RIAA and restrictive copyrights on the part of university administrations in about ten years that will last for another twenty or so afterwards. This pattern of overreaction to extremes followed by an idealogical reversal in the other direction seems to be the general dynamic of university administrations as the younger people who suffered from their positions in the beginning take control of the administrations through the long personnel change process. Often they are the only ones interested in gaining control of universities given the tediousness of administrative processes. Revenge seems to be a good motivator and would explain this tendency to shift between extremes.
So don't worry too much about your university being a poodle to the RIAA cokeheads. It will most likely change over time. In the meantime, set up websites where you can support the fellow students who have been randomly selected for RIAA extortion.
Suggestion to Stanford students: (Score:5, Interesting)
Do exactly this. Just go to the dorms, do a quick inventory of what the room numbers are, and send at least two notices each. You can address it to "resident" for each room number, no need to know names or anything else. Alternatively, do a ping sweep (or similar tactic) on your local network, and send notices to their office regarding all IPs you hit -- or simply make shit up, you're bound to hit one or two of the firewalled ones.
Everyone, please coordinate through Slashdot or something similar. Even do it around replies to this comment. Just make sure you aren't duplicating effort. Two is enough to force every single student you troll to be disconnected, once, and fined $100. That should be enough to cause problems for their "Information Security Office" even if the students were happy, and they should be pretty genuinely pissed off about the fines. But if you send more than that, you'll just be inconveniencing the students, not the university.
Also, $100 is really enough. They do threaten that after enough notices, they'll charge $1000, but really, every student has $100 (even if they don't want to let go of it); $1000 is starting to get serious (in case this somehow backfires). I imagine they won't be fined at all, anyway, but don't be an ass.
Now, the reasons I don't agree with this policy:
For higher education, they do sure seem stupid here...
The solution to "spending so much staff time responding to copyright violations" should be really fucking obvious: Don't spend so much staff time responding to copyright violations! Make the students sign something when they get their network access that makes the student -- not Stanford -- responsible for the copyright violation. Then make the RIAA take it to court.
(Does this work, legally? For all I know, the DMCA might have some sort of fine about not responding to copyright violation notices...)
Where'd the other 10% go, pray tell?
Where is your evidence that:
This is why you should send two to each -- to demonstrate how fucking bad this policy is. The MAFIAA has a history of suing grandmothers, 12-year-olds, and dead people, not to mention one woman who had never used a computer or the Internet in her life. Notice how I said "suing", NOT "sent takedown notices".
So, before they even get to the part where they drag you into court for something you didn't do, couldn't have done, or at the very least, their only proof is one screenshot that has your IP in it, Stanford will kick you off the network for the second notice, no matter who sent it or what you've done about the first notice. (The 48 hours only applies to that first notice.)
I'm sorry, but this is the kind of policy that would send me packing instantly. As in, bags packed, out the fucking door, get my transfer credits, drive to my parents' house, and explain that I need a new college. Whether or not I'd been doing anything illegal (which I have, by the way: I play DVDs that I own on Linux!)
Re:That is already so. (Score:3, Interesting)
But it is a very effective DoS attack by the RIAA against Stanford's student population. I'm concerned that it could lead to more students taking the RIAA's settlement offer instead of fighting bogus claims. Especially since Stanford's policy provides no option for the student to claim that the RIAA's complaints are completely without merit. The RIAA could simply keep resubmitting letters based on the same faulty information, causing a student to pay up to $1,600 (well, for the first three letters) to maintain their own network connection in addition to any settlement or judgment payments. Schools, unfortunately, don't have to play by the "innocent until proven guilty" rule when their students are accused of crimes; just look at the Duke University lacross team last year.
Re:PDF Dump (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Economics here... (Score:2, Interesting)
They fight tooth and nail to maintain a business model based upon 100+ year old technology. The movie theatre is reminiscent of pre-movie era stage performances, and cd/dvd's are just the modern incarnation of phonograph reels. This business model is to crush any competing distribution models (and any new technology assocaited with it) to preserve thier status quo.
Basic economics now comes into play. When there is demand, and no supply, a free-market will adjust to create the supply, and meet demand. Unfortunately, the RIAA and the MPAA have failed so miserably at meeting demand that the supply has been created ad-hock by hobbyists, hackers, and media pirates, despite the legal challenges and persecution.
However, instead of acknowledging the market forces at work, and responding accordingly, the RIAA and MPAA's response has actually inflamed the issue by crippling thier status quo distribution network with aggravating DRM.
And now by pushing for more legal protections and heavier regulation, the MPAA and RIAA are now forcing a confrontation between free-market economics and government control and regulation.
The MPAA and RIAA are trying to spin the facts to suggest that Piracy, and copyright infringement are the enemy, and thus justify legal intervention. In reality, Copyright Infringement and Piracy are simply a means, by which the market forces have responded to a growing demand amongst consumers. They are merely a symptom of the fact that the Media companies have refused to license thier content for new distribution, and therefore the only way to provide the content is to do so in violation of copyright.
As a free-market economy we should reject increased government regulations and market controls, which act to stifle innovation and the creation of new market opportunities. The MPAA and RIAA need to adjust to the changing marketplace, and make licensed content available to legitimate content-delivery providers.
no "caught" here (Score:5, Interesting)
little different than spanish inquisition eh ?