University of Washington Will Aid RIAA 406
Several readers let us know that the University of Washington has announced that it will pass on RIAA settlement offer letters to students identified, presumably by IP address, as suspected file sharers. "The notices say offending students have 20 days to settle with the association by paying it about $3,000 to $5,000 or be taken to court without possibility of a settlement." The Vice Provost for Student Life sent an email to all students saying, "The University has been notified by the RIAA that we will be receiving a number of these early settlement letters. After careful consideration, we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged copyright violators."
result of years of lawsuits against custumers (Score:2, Interesting)
Or is the lawsuit tactic the new sales method.
Sigh... (Score:1, Interesting)
I still remember the... (Score:5, Interesting)
The new STASI (Score:0, Interesting)
Instead of obliterating freedom for the lie that was communism, the new STASI obliterates freedom for the lie that is copyright. And there is no Ronald Reagan to save us. So sad.
Re:Dont blame the UW just yet (Score:2, Interesting)
recording this information in the first place? I know that many other universities committed to student
rights simply do not record the DHCP lease information, so it cannot later be subpeonaed
by the likes of the RIAA.
UW is indeed aiding and abetting the RIAA here, by keeping records they need not be keeping.
To the folks who made the Nazi analogy: It is a historical fact that the Nazis were greatly
aided by careful records on religious affiliation kept in the countries they invaded. That's
why most European countries (namely the ones invaded by the Nazis) do not, in fact, are legally
prohibited from, keeping track of the religious affiliations of their own citizens.
I'm surprised nobody's said this yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dont blame the UW just yet (Score:5, Interesting)
They were also aided by the careful records on gun ownership. The blitzkreig motorcycled up to the local cop shop, grabbed the records, and went house-to-house collecting guns. Then any resistance movements had to start from scratch with stolen or air-dropped weapons. That's why many gun owners - especially those who were involved in WW II or know its history - are so dead-set against gun registration databases.
Re:I still remember the... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not anonymous speech. IF you say something, be prepared to stand up and back it up. Just because you *can* say something does not mean you can say something and will never be found. Just as you have a right to say whatever you want about me, I have the right to find out who you are and confront you about it.
>>protect our rights
Like the rights of the copyright holders? Who protects their rights? Oh yeah, the RIAA does. You do not have the right to distribute copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder. If you are using bittorrent to download copyrighted music, then you are, at the same time, uploading that same music.
>>war protests
I really don't see how that factors in. I guess if you want to link the military-industrial complex and the Illuminati, then maybe it makes sense.
>>Ii [sic] sort of saddens me to see the management, who must have been in those protests
The things they protested were thousands of times worse. Whites openly killed blacks. The government openly forced young men into military service. Women had few, if any, rights. Homosexuals were harshly persecuted.
We have it pretty good today. It'd be better of people voted, but I digress.
>>now lookig [sic] for the easy way out
How is having you fight your own battle the "easy way out"? A third party comes forward and advises that IP 10.10.10.200 was downloading "Hit me baby one more time" from IP 20.20.20.200 at 11:30 GMT on 1 June 2007. They are requesting the user's contact info for that IP lease at that time.
That's all.
If you want to argue about whether or not you were downloading a "real" copy of a copyrighted song, then you still get to do it in court.
If you want to argue about whether or not you were also uploading that same copyrighted song, then you still get to do it in court.
If you want to argue about whether or not you were the actual owner of that IP at that time, then you still get to do it in court.
If you want to argue about whether or not someone behind a NAT you run was downloading, then you still get to do it in court.
If you want to argue about whether or not the evidence was collected properly, then you still get to do it in court.
The point is that you actually have to stand up as a named person and defend your good name. Mom, dad, and the University will not take care of you for the rest of your life. College is the best time to learn that.
Now, if you want to argue that the legal system is broken, then I'll agree. But, within the confines of the game, the RIAA is playing the hand they were dealt. You must do the same. If you want to change the rules of the game, then get out and vote. If that isn't fast enough, then shoot some RIAA lawyers every time they file a suit.
But, do not, under any circumstances, be mad because mommy isn't wiping your ass anymore...
Re:Forwarding, not revealing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your line of thinking reminds of the people who say "Well, you should let the police search your home without a warrant if you have nothing to hide."
The University's job isn't to assist a private corporation nor "hide" anyone. If there is a civil violation, it is the RIAA's job to demonstrate who did it, or get a subpeona for the information. If they can't get a subpeona, then that should tell you something.
But IPs and MAC Addresses can be spoofed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Link to full text of letter sent to students (Score:3, Interesting)
"The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from the internet"
So the student is already illegally downloading, nice to know they are taking the word of the RIAA.
After careful consideration, we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged copyright violators.
Oh... So now they are alleged.
The University is unable to provide legal services to students who have violated copyright law through illegal downloading or sharing.
Good. So are they going to defend the accused and innocent then?
This letter is very inconsistent with an organization staying neutral in this process. The University is spending money to comply with the RIAA's request, when there is an alleged violation.
I have been trying to figure out my field of specialty when I start practicing law, I think I may have found it.
Re:How should the RIAA defend itself? (Score:2, Interesting)
Link to the torrent on the official site. Music, stage recordings, interviews, the works. Each torrent containing a text file stating that this is the official & legal torrent.
Now, for the twist: I'd also have a high-speed torrent server. If people pay $X or more, the torrent server will serve connections from their IP address.
If the official torrents were excellent, there would be little point in making unofficial ones. That means that everyone downloading my music would also get links to my official site, where they can visit for more content as well as paying for it. (Note the psychological kickback: If people pay a very reasonable fee for something, they will be less interested in seeding it to others for free.)
Couple in with official merchandise, signed photos, posters, limited edition x and everything else.
Finally, charge real, hard cash for live performances. The more people are downloading your music, the more potential customers. Heck, have an online forum and find out where they live, then hold performances where it will be easy for them to come.
Just a fantasy, maybe. But I strongly believe that business models must adapt to technology. Attempting to regulate technology with legislation to preserve static business models is utterly stupid. I'm leaning towards legalizing piracy and see what business models spring up. As long as people are willing to pay for something, someone will come up with a clever way to get paid for delivering it.
Re:How should the RIAA defend itself? (Score:5, Interesting)
- Even in the worst case scenario - that the downloader and everyone they uploaded to are truly stealing the content (morally wrong), the suits they are bringing are orders of magnitude greater than the theft committed. $3k-$5k out-of-court settlements are nearly universal; tet most people will not upload much more than the amount they downloaded, and even in extreme cases not more than several times what they downloaded. So, if they downloaded a music CD worth $15, they have (assuming all parties are stealing) stolen (or willingly facilitated stealing) 2x-5x that (5x is a bit arbitrary), or $30-$75. Even at the high end of theft ($75) and low end of damages ($3k), that is *40 times* the value of that which was stolen; the other way around ($30 and $5k), it's almost 200 times the value. Can you honestly tell me that you support that? No, really, I want you to type in your answer and click "submit".
- The RIAA has been using downright illegal tactics to bring these cases (see Beckerman's site for details about this). And I'm not throwing the term "illegal" around lightly, like many Slashdotters. I mean they are literally defying direct orders made *by the courts* in order to bring law suits that they would not have been able to bring using purely legal methods.
- The RIAA has been using legal but immoral tactics to bring these cases. Most commonly, the RIAA picks people who they believe do not have the resources to defend against the suit, making the outcome the same, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent (and short-circuiting the justice system entirely): they have to settle, because they can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves (and if they do hire a lawyer, the RIAA lets them accumulate a sizable bill, then drops the case, so the people will usually have to pay more than the settlement would have been). This is done to build fear by maintaining a perfect prosecution record, to discourage others from sharing files or hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. I know of not a single case the RIAA has won - that is, the case has gone to verdict and the verdict was in their favor; if you know of a single case, click "reply" and link to it, right now. And because they drop cases once it becomes obvious they cannot win them, they have just the same never suffered a loss (though that tide appears to be slowly turning). They care so much about their perfect record that they will continue suits against people who they either knew from the beginning or learned during the trial are innocent, because dropping the case would show that they don't have absolute power, and diminish the fear they seek to create. Do you support each and every one of these methods? Again, that is not a rhetorical question; I am expecting a real answer.
- The RIAA needs to preserve their undefeated status because they cannot possibly catch all of (or even enough to save their business) the true P2P thieves out there, let alone distinguish the thieves from the ones who have not immoral uses (such as seeing if they want to buy and album/movie legally). This is a painful exercise in futility. Their only (false) hope is to try to generate enough fear to make everyone they don't have resources to sue stop sharing. This is *not* working, and cannot in theory work. While it's true that they may be able to reduce (not stop) theft via P2P in the US by going after web sites and individual P2P users, where they have the power of law suits, such suits cannot be brought in a majority of the world because they do not have jurisdiction (let alone the resources to sue that many people), meaning that even fear is outside the
Re:How should the RIAA defend itself? (Score:3, Interesting)
the RIAA have been acting like a bunch of assholes for a decade now, both the organization itself and the member labels. They have pissed away any good will they could have had. The Napster thing, their assault on fair use, bullying tactics, subjecting us to that bitch Hilary Rosen, support of the DMCA, eternal copyrights, annoying DRM, et cetera.
We don't like them. Even those of us who support some form of copyright pretty well hate the RIAA/MPAA. It's like the SCO case: They come across as a bunch of dickless lawyer assholes and piss geeks off.
They're not looking for just any violator -- they're looking for people in a situation where they're not in any financial situation to fight back. So far, all the cases we're hearing about are college students, single mothers, etc. They tell them "pay us $X or we'll drag you through court and you'll have to pay us more than $X plus legal fees." Even if you're innocent: RIAA has money to burn on legal fees and the scare tactic is what they're after, not the pay off. Most people, even innocent, can't afford to lawyer up and fight the RIAA.
The answer should always be: "Piss off." They've never won a case, have they? So why should anyone believe any of their efforts are in good faith? Don't forget Sony-BMG is one of the RIAA member labels, and their "good faith" put a root kit on the PCs of people who actually paid them for music.
So yes, on this site, the majority of us hate the RIAA. Because they're assholes of the highest order. They trounced the nearest competition in a poll of most hated company on some website a few months back. At least in the case of Linux/MS/Apple there are two sides to it -- fanboys and haters -- but here it's like 99% haters and 1% supporters of the RIAA. There's just no contest.
We hates the RIAA. We hates it. Stupid fat Rosenses.
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Interesting)
University of California campuses are subsidized by California. However, we still pay for our bandwidth with our HOUSING costs. I've actually read the budget, have you? I'm sure University of Washington is about the same. Maybe if they used their Computer Labs to download illegal content (which, btw, I think would be a minority) that's subsidized. But ten to one odds the majority of these letters will go to students living in Campus Housing where THEY pay the costs (or their parents, if you want to nitpick).
Re: The issue runs deeper..... (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to wake you up back into the real world, but a lawsuit is a civil rememdy, not a criminal proceeding.
The copyright cartels have purchased themselves a bunch of laws and the courts (civil and criminal) are forced to follow them.
No, the ultimate reason all this is a problem to begin with is that civil proceedings have a very different (much more lax) set of requirements than criminal proceedings do. As far as I'm concerned, if you file suit against someone else, you should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is guilty of what you charge them with just like you would if they were being charged with a crime. The reason, of course, is that in both cases (civil and criminal), government powers of coercion are being used against the target.
There also need to be serious penalties for abuse of the legal system, over and above much stricter proof requirements. Something like the initiator of a suit paying serious damages to the target if the initiator can't prove his case would work, so long as the damage was capped to something the initiator could reasonably afford to pay (and no, putting the initiator in debt for life doesn't count as "reasonable").
The U.S. is so far gone in so many ways that it hurts to think about it. :-(
Collateral Damage (Score:3, Interesting)
WSU's RIAA policy. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I still remember the... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is an expectation of privacy in schools, and violation of that privacy has landed multiple schools in trouble before.
Re:Link to full text of letter sent to students (Score:5, Interesting)
The University will be busy enough providing legal services (and temporary network admin staffing) to itself. AFAIK, any student who says "sue me" can claim "it wasn't me" and depose the university staff who identified them to pick apart their methodology. And if they find any flaw in the methodology, they can sue the University.
- Greg
Re:Link to full text of letter sent to students (Score:2, Interesting)
individual student and forward the letter to him or her."
Well then, just don't identify the student. Does the RIAA really have the legal power to make the University give up this information? It is much easier for the University to defend itself than it is for individual students to defend themselves, even if a student is wrongfully accused.
"we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged copyright
violators."
This implies that they are also going to identify the students to the RIAA, thus subjecting accused students to the extortion of the RIAA.
"We do so primarily because we believe students should have the
opportunity to avail themselves of the settlement option if they so choose. Not
forwarding the RIAA letter to students could result in their being served with a
lawsuit, with no chance to settle it beforehand."
Give students the opportunity to avail themselves, by identifying them to the RIAA? This does not add up.
To me it sounds like they could either not identify the students, or they could identify the students and then forward the letter to them. So they chose the second option, and they're trying to make it look like they're helping the students by giving them the "opportunity" to defend themselves. Well, they should not have given them the "opportunity" to be attacked in the first place.
It would be like if I told you that I was going to punch you in the face, and then I punched you in the face. You should be grateful that I warned you!
Reasonable doubt (Score:3, Interesting)
Until they get some proper court orders signed by a judge the University shouldn't hand over any information.
Re:Forwarding, not revealing. (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from the internet and requesting the university to identify the individual student and forward the letter to him or her.
Emphasis mine.
The way I read it, the RIAA is requesting that UW itentify the students, and the university decided that it will. Obviously, they are straying from your "standard procedure."
This is GOOD for the Students (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with the way the RIAA proceeds with these. You do not even know that they are pursuing legal action against you seeking your private information from a third-party. Since at this point you are anonymous the petition is most often granted, simply because you (John/Jane Doe) are not there to defend yourself. The University has offered to hand this information to the Students in question. This will allow students the opportunity to block the motions to discover their identity through the University. Which is much easier than trying to fight the lawsuit once all of the evidence is gathered against you (however weak or strong it is). Everyone is afforded due process in the US legal system, this actually gives the students an opportunity to partake in this right.
Hopefully more of them will fight these actions instead of just paying up or waiting to see what happens.
I applaud the U of W for this very hard decision. If more