RIAA Afraid of Harvard 425
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.""
Appeasement is often cheaper (Score:2, Insightful)
We also paid tens of thousands of dollars to a teacher who didn't pass his probation because it would be cheaper than paying lawyers.
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.
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:Cowards, maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:4, Insightful)
The funny thing is... (Score:2, Insightful)
I do not care about actors, musicians, directors, managers, producers because they all get paid no matter what. If they are good they will continue to get paid. When I see shows like MTV cribs...and what these celebs buy with my money...screw them. They don't need their 3rd or 4th super car. They don't need their insane boats or whatever it may be. I am sorry but actors/actresses don't need to be paid millions for their roles in movies. Musicians shouldn't expect $90,000 for a small gig at a club. Execs make way too much money for me to give a rats ass about me stealing a damn album.
These guys have outdated ways of thinking and they are fighting for their last breath and instead of working with the consumers they go and fight the consumers. All I know is that I want to see propirating videos on youtube.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Elephant and Mouse situation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
I just meant that it takes a certain degree of intestinal fortitude to keep doing what they do, for as long as they've been doing it, and not become violently ill from a sense of self-loathing.
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.
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.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Still... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, it's just that that phrase seems to carry a certain hubris that irritates me.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Cowardly? Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Try Freenet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:3, Insightful)
The actual computer science, I learned from books. The profs were really just props, decoys to make it look like it was a teaching establishment. All but two were complete doorknobs; one was a brilliant but misunderstood hacker, the other was a humble but honest developer who had no fear asking his own questions. Those two had my respect, all the other used-car salesmen, outdated COBOL monkeys and glorified book readers weren't worth anyone's time.
Mind you, I got caught in one of the many scamshops that thrived in the tech bubble of the late 90's. Think Devry but worse, it was really just a quicker way to get the same useless piece of paper. I'm just glad I had the knowledge long before entering the halls of ignorance, and I know it's not always that bad. I also know that in any profession there are always more bad workers than good; the problem is in I.T. the sloppy workers never get culled. Short of having a server rack fall and crush him, a stupid I.T. guy has little to worry about in the unprofessional execution of his tasks. Worst case, he'll get fired and have to find a new staffing agency (of which there is no shortage), but most likely his boss just doesn't have a clue.
As a lawyer... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Still... (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowing how to TEACH is much more difficult than knowing the subject.
I have very poor teacher that knew a lot about the subject. I learned nothing from them.
I had great teacher that knew the subject well, but not lots. I learned a lot from them.
Anyone can know about any subject. All it takes is a book and some practice (to understand it). However, try and teach a bunch of teenager kids, and your views of teaching will change very fast.
Good teacher are a rarity. If you take a class of 100 CS students, you will probably end up with 50 or 60 good programmers, 2 or 3 exceptional programmers. If you can get 1 good teacher from those 100, you are in luck. In most cases, you don't get a single one.
Re:The funny thing is... (Score:1, Insightful)
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...
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.
Re:RICO (Score:3, Insightful)
United we stand, Divided we Fall (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RICO (Score:3, Insightful)
The attitude that comes across from so many non-American posters on Slashdot is interesting. They feel perfectly free to lump ALL Americans into some arbitrary (usually negative) category, criticize us, and call us names (even though we built the largest industrial economy and military on the planet, not something usually accomplished by Flat Earthers.) On the other hand, if an American says anything remotely similar you take umbrage. ALL French are cowards. ALL British are stuck-up. ALL Arabs are terrorists. ALL {insert nationality here} are {insert favorite racial epithet here.} You can talk about Americans not being able to think for ourselves, but we're the ones with all the "intellectual property" that bootstrapped China and India into the industrial age.
Ten to one the Chinese aren't too interested in what your country has to offer, except maybe target practice. For your sakes, you'd better hope we don't collapse too soon, before you've had a chance to build up your own defenses. Russia and China are going to be on the world scene in a major way, sooner or later. Mark my words. When that happens, you'll be wondering why you were complaining so loudly about us.
If you had even bothered to read any of the posts left here by politically-aware Americans (and there are many) you'd find out that A LOT OF US OBJECT TO THE SAME THINGS YOU DO. But nope
You, sir, are an ignorant, hypocritical prick. Don't bother replying, I've wasted enough keystrokes for the evening.
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:3, Insightful)
Just ask a search engine [google.com].
I disagree with your point, too. The sum of human knowledge does indeed improve over time, by most definitions of "sum of knowledge." We still have records of almost everything that was done since recorded history. What has been lost is not nearly as much as has been obtained. Maybe you don't know how to smelt bronze, nor I, but it is a part of the sum of human knowledge. With a little research, and some time to learn we can do anything the people of 3000 years ago could. They couldn't do a lot of what we can do now.
One of the most important advances we have made is in research. We have libraries and the internet. We can obtain knowledge much faster and more efficiently than our ancestors could.
Re:The reason is much simpler (Score:3, Insightful)