RIAA Adds 23 Colleges to Hit List, Avoids Harvard 282
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has added 23 new colleges and universities to its hit list, but deliberately omitted Harvard, apparently afraid of the reaction it's likely to get there, having been told by 2 Harvard law professors to take a hike. 'Under the new scheme, the RIAA sends out what it calls 'pre-litigation' settlement letters. Actually, they're self-incrimination documents and they're designed to extort preset amounts of around $3,000 from students with the empty promise that by paying up, they'll remove the threat of being hauled into court on charges of copyright infringement. In reality, all the students are doing is providing the RIAA with personal and private information which can conceivably be used against them ...'"
They are... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shamelessly stolen from bash.org and changed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I Can Only Hope... (Score:4, Informative)
And It's not just the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:To a New York Country Lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Similarly, if RIAA tries to sue the student, the student can claim extortion based on false information, even if the student had been downloading music and sharing the same.
The law works for the student's benefit too.
Get a lawer like Ray Beckermann (am not benefitted by this recommendation), or someone good enough and sue RIAA under RICO for sending threatening letters demanding payment.
You don't even need to understand the language written, just highlight words like "sue", "$3000", "failure to pay", etc. with a highlighter and say to the Judge that you received an anonymous note under your door and demand protection.
Re:Extortion... (Score:5, Informative)
You must clearly state your grounds for claim and allow the other party reasonable time (weeks to months, usually) to either counter your argument or settle your claim.
If the other party disputes your claim you should attempt to resolve the issue by negotiation before you file. If you make it to court without proof that you attempted to negotiate and the other party claims you refused to enter into negotiations you'll usually get ordered to seek mediation and lose costs as well.
If you have not made steps to solve the matter out of court then you usually cannot take anyone to the civil court. There are, of course, a few exceptions to this rule. This rule exists to prevent every RIAA, Dick and Head from suing every random person for which they can find a name and residential address.
"pre-litigation" letters are the first step before even attending the court registry to file papers.
That said, you also need to be able to identify the person(s)/entity you are filing against along with their residential address. An IP address is not sufficient information to do that. This seems like another RIAA scheme to kill two birds with one stone; fish for information about IP address holders and also cover the pre-litigation step required to actually haul them into the court.
With all that's going on in this industry it makes me sad that so much is being invested in tracking down people who download copyrighted music and movies yet there's millions of unsolved actual crimes including kidnapping, rape and murder each year. What about the drug dealers on the streets?
Q: Why aren't we investing more time and money into catching all the really bad bastards?
A: Because it doesn't help corporate suit-wearing wankers get ever fatter pockets and make ever larger "donations" (s/donations/bribes/) to candidates.
Another RIAA mistake? (Score:3, Informative)
Add to that the fact that no proceedings exist until the RIAA has all your personal details I think it'll be harder creating something that will stand a chance in Court, especially since recent rulings where judges have started to ask the RIAA to follow proper legal process instead of trying to selectively dodge the bits that allow a recipient to ask some rather painful questions. Oh, and why are people asked to self-incriminate?
Copyright infringement is *not* good, but there's such a thing as proof and due process. Even if that is inconvenient, it has to be followed.
With rights come obligations - on both sides.
Each time I read about the RIAA on Slashdot... (Score:4, Informative)
We worked our way up from East End pubs
To gigs and back stage passes
Ex-boxing champs, West End clubs
Americans in dark glasses
Driving ten grand cars, they drink in hotel bars
They're even making money in bed
They wouldn't be no loss, they ain't worth a toss
It's about time they all dropped dead.
[Chorus]
Take 'em all, take 'em all
Put 'em up against a wall and shoot 'em
Short and tall, watch 'em fall
Come on boys take 'em all
Well tough shit boys, it ain't our fault
Your record didn't make it
We made you dance, you had your chance
But you didn't take it
Well, I gotta go make another deal
Sign another group for the company
I don't suppose we'll ever meet again
You'd better get back to the factory.
[Chorus]
Take 'em all, watch 'em fall [x4]
[Chorus Repeat...]
Re:Harvard may have clout but... (Score:5, Informative)
No, but one of those professors at Harvard is former Governor of Massachussetts William Weld(R).
Can you say "we better not piss off the politicians and people with strong connections"?
I knew you could.
--
BMO
Re:Harvard may have clout but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Informative)
Thus far, two of my friends have been accused of file sharing by the University and neither of them even do it. Most of my friends DO share music, and those ones haven't gotten caught yet. Of course, neither of my friends who did get "caught" were allowed to appeal the decision so they both had to pay IT services $100 to "clean" their computers (the cost was regardless of whether or not anything was found) and they lost their internet access for a month.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Harvard Deliberately Omitted? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:For those too lazy to read: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Surprising? (Score:1, Informative)
Record companies prosecuting people who take their products without paying are just defending their business. get some fucking perspective.
Re:For those too lazy to read: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Illegal? (Score:3, Informative)
1) That the plaintiff has rights under current law. In some cases the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they own the copyrights they are asserting.
2) That current law is legitimate. It was passed according to legal procedure, but that is not sufficient to make it legitimate.
3) That denying that a law is legitimate is completely rejecting our system of government. In fact, your argument is simply a case of poisoning the well. To assert that a procedurally properly passed law is illegitimate, unjust, or even evil is requires one to argue that the procedure is flawed or incomplete, but it does not require completely rejecting the system the procedure is part of.
4) That arguing for or working towards a change in the law has a reasonable chance to succeed. If there's a logical argument for tilting at windmills, I haven't seen it. Since in the real world, one premise which certainly does hold (by inspection) and will hold for the forseeable future is that the RIAA&Co can effectively control copyright law, this is an exercise in futility, usually suggested by advocates of the status quo in order to waste the energy of those opposed to it.
University of Washington (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Illegal? (Score:3, Informative)
If you think that the system of government, or of legislation, is not legitimate in that sense, then I would agree with you.
Off the top of my head, the last time a federally-ordered scientific study was done on the reasons for keeping Cannabis in the same legal bracket as heroin, the recommendation was, as it has systematically been for every study in every country for about 40 years, to decriminalize the substance.
However the feds said that since tobacco smoke causes cancer, eating pot should remain illegal.
The public domain and intellectual property saga is equally perverted, but causes less people to be jailed.
Re:I Can Only Hope... (Score:3, Informative)
-Interscope v. Does 1-7 [blogspot.com] throwing out the RIAA's motion
-the article by Profs. Nesson and Palfrey [blogspot.com] telling the RIAA to take a hike
-Capitol v. Does 1-16 [blogspot.com] holding that it's impermissible for them to proceed ex parte and
-the article by Prof. Nesson and Wendy Seltzer [blogspot.com] urging Harvard to use its clinical legal programs to resist RIAA subpoenas and defend targeted students.