RIAA MediaSentry, Dead In US, Is Alive In Australia 305
newtley writes "Disgraced and discredited 'private investigator' MediaSentry, fired by former patrons Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music, and Sony Music and their RIAA, may be dead and buried in America, but it's alive and well, resurfacing in Australia where it's once again plying its trade, probably under new management. 'I currently (but not for long) reside at a student dormitory... in Brisbane, Australia,' says a p2pnet reader, continuing: 'Yesterday I got called into the Managers office because the network manager had been contacted by MediaSentry and emailed one of the generic copyright infringement emails as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons. Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'"
Angels and Demons (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn, you could at least lose your dormitory for a movie worth watching.
Even worse result:
<RIAA> See? Illegal file sharing is why Angels and Demons did poorly at the box office and got an average rating of 38% [rottentomatoes.com]! It isn't the economy or quality, folks, our formula has never failed therefore it must be the file sharers! </RIAA>
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't do it.
Words to live by.
BZZZT (Score:5, Informative)
I know almost nothing about Australian law, but in the U.S., downloading a copyrighted work without a license is a copyright violation, and in some cases may be a crime. For civil copyright infringement, the law does not care whether you actually knew you were infringing the copyright. So you absolutely are the one who has to check for this.
I suspect Australian law is similar.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Funny)
In my day most people got thrown out of university accommodation for having wild parties and trashing the joint or for dealing drugs.
How things have changed.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true. Likewise, just because laws can be broken doesn't mean that every crime is a protest.
What Ms Parks did was absolutely, positively, NOT in the same league as what this student did.
To claim so diminishes both Civil Rights and the arguments against Intellectual Property.
There are things in the IP realm to protest, but the 'right' to download Angels and Demons is NOT among them.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah the illegallity of sharing movies is a gros affront to human dignity. Downloading free movies is exactly like what Rosa Parks did. Shithead.
Maybe if Rosa Parks could download the movie she wanted to watch, she wouldn't get the bus to go to the movies in the first place.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Informative)
My wife loses hers soon because the Movie Industry is laying off heavily.
Sorry to hear that, but if you think she's getting laid off because people are downloading what they can't afford to buy (ten dollars for a non-matinee ticket?) then you've had a little too much Kool Aid.
If the actors and executives voluntarily took a pay cut and redistributed the wealth a little bit so people could keep their jobs and possibly float the studios through this recession, I wouldn't see the film industry as being ridiculously top-heavy and greedy. I might even give some credence to the MPAA screaming "We're getting robbed blind!" every time they get near a reporter.
For the record, I'm not trying to be an apologist for people who choose to download copyrighted material, but at the same time I don't make any excuses for the business model the entertainment industry is fighting tooth and nail to preserve either.
Something to think about.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The AC was right, but he probably should have left of the "Shithead" part. Or someone with mod points left their sarcasm detector at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it was not an insult, if he can prove that it is a known fact. ^^
Re: (Score:2)
Calm down, he's not +5, he's +1 and since Mike Buddha was marked Troll he has since been modded +5
insightful.
Give it time, this article is new. Given the situation now I think it's safe to say that most readers ./ moderation is not real time but it, for the most part, works really
will see the first comment, go "what an ass" and then see the second and go "yeah, OK, I was going to
post but Mike took care of it.
well as shown by these two comments.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that a commons, a public library by and for everyone is a better model for creation and distribution of content than one that is limited by an unnatural monopoly. That everyone stands on the shoulders of giants and no man is an island of information.
The student that got kicked out of their dorm is not Rosa Parks. They are likely not oppressed in their day to day lives, just the victim of an IP scheme that has outlived it's usefulness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you think that movie studios should spend $100+million on a movie and then give it away? They may not be handling the situation well, but that doesn't mean it's right to steal their content.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you think that movie studios should spend $100+million on a movie and then give it away?
Good point (I wish all pro-IP arguments made as much sense as this). I will elaborate in hopes of making a bit more sense.
First, there is demand from movie theaters to have movies. If they don't have new and interesting content, they will go out of business. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that even if Hollywood kicked the bucket, movie studios would pool their resources to make movies that people want to watch in theaters. They may not end up costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to produc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This may or may not be true, but what you are basically saying is, "they are going to work hard (to create), and someone else will pay them for it, therefor I should be able to enjoy it freely." You're freeloading off someone else's hard work.
I'm suggesting that supply (stuff, in this case information) and demand (people that want new stuff) existed before IP laws, and that it will exist after IP laws are gone. I believe that IP laws are now obsolete, even if they ever were useful to the progress of mankind.
Shakespeare wrote plays before there was copyright. He was paid to make plays, because people wanted to perform them. Are people that perform his plays today freeloading, and should they pay his descendants for using his IP? The same goes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So because the system is imperfect and the content creators don't get the bulk of the money, you would support cheating the system so that not even content creators get any of it?
Fine logic there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Civil disobedience might be vital training for a healthy democracy.
the system is imperfect
More than agreed. It is seriously broken.
you would support cheating the system
Why not? What is wrong with bucking a system that most agree is unjust? Rebellion is a fine American tradition. How else do we get change for the better? Lobbying Congress often doesn't work well. Million man marches make lots of noise but produce little change. Should Vietnam draft dodgers have meekly reported to camp? Should they not have taken any extraordinary measures such as messing up t
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference is one of degree. The illegality of sharing data is a small injustice, but an injustice nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Informative)
You need to look up how slashdot's moderation system works before you make dumb comments. It takes three moderators to make a comment +5. I'm pretty sure there are more than three users of slashdot other than yourself.
After you educate yourself on how the moderation system works, you may continue to make dumb comments.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Three people think it's an important contribution to the debate. That doesn't mean those 3 people agree with it (although they might), it just means they think it's important.
Just because you disagree with something, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be modded up if it is going to stir debate.
Social Contract Theory, Souvernty, and Natural Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Social Contract Theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. REF [utm.edu]
Hobbes argues that we will do ANYTHING to avoid the State of Nature and will always, rationally, pick absolute authority.
I can not be told better, from the same article:
According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in oneâ(TM)s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Lockeâ(TM)s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions" (par. 6). Because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the âprogress' of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison on Shay's Rebellion (a violent opposition by ~1200 farmers regarding free trade agreements with Spain on the Mississippi River. Farmers feared the agreement would affirm sovereignty of Spanish traders):
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. REF [earlyamerica.com]
In another letter criticizing the (not yet ratified) constitution:
I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land... The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression. REF [kuro5hin.org]
In
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it's an analogy, or simile, but that doesn't make it a good one. Sorry, but comparing some kid wanting to watch Angels and Demons for free to a Civil Rights leader taking a stand against legalized overt racism is complete BS.
A better analogy (simile) would be something like :comparing Rosa Parks to file sharers is like comparing apples to tentacle rape.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a terrible but solid analogy. While I find modern copyright extensions unjust, they are trivial in comparison to human rights. Still, both disobeyed what in their eyes was an unjust law. It's certainly not a good analogy, but it's sound.
Not that sympathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
You chose to break the law and were punished for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He choose to break the RIAA rules and got judged in a kangaroo court.
Or was that extortion?
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really see too much room for debate when the accused states the matter as simply as "...a result of me downloading Angels and Demons". I don't read this and feel that the person is genuinely feeling remorse for what was done, only for getting caught.
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. The word 'allegedly' is missing, is it not? Confessions usually aren't up for a lot of debate, are they?
'Innocent until proven' is fine, but it sounds like the accused caved in the face of the evidence. If the accusation was false, THEN due process would likely have attached due to the assertion of innocence.
The same thing happens in the US all the time. After the arrest you are given the opportunity to confess. Those that do confess DO NOT go to trial.
How exactly is this ethically/morall
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems he got a damn fast judgement. And a damn fast judgement done by a private company.
Does anyone remember 'Judge Dredd'? 'I am the law!!!'
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 on this sentiment.
He was punished based on an accusation, not on being found guilty.. that's skipping over an incredibly vital step in the justice system.
Really that's only a small step away from how 'justice' was administered during the 'Dark Ages'. I thought we had left that behind us, but apparently having lawyers and money means you don't have to bother with such pesky details anymore. More so because we're not talking of a fine or something small, but of evicting someone!
Oh while we're at it: What if someone accused you of having *something* illegal on your computer, be it a non licensed picture, an bit of software you didn't obtain legally, or some content you've downloaded. Would you be so happy to instantly loose your home without any independent parties being involved in judging what's true and appropriate ?
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, downloading movies should be illegal, but why are the charges so incredibly much more than shoplifting the DVD out of a store? If he'd done that, he'd probably still have his dorm room.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA didn't demand that he be kicked out of student dorms. His school did that.
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you people know he didn't get due process? How can you even assume that? Considering the fact that he confessed to this on a public website, I'm thinking his conversation with the manager went something like this:
Manager: Hey, kid. I got this letter here from a company called MediaSentry claiming that they traced a download of Angels and Demons to your PC. Is that true?
Kid: Yes.
Manager: GTFO.
That's due process, right there. The kid decided to use his study time to search for, download, and presumably watch a movie which he wasn't entitled to download, and now he's crying because he has to use his study time to find a new place to live.
The only thing newsworthy about this story is the fact that MediaSentry is operating in Australia, the kid who got what he deserved is not the story.
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:4, Interesting)
While that is true... He really would have got much more sympathy, even on /., if he had the brains to write:
"the network manager had been contacted by MediaSentry and emailed one of the generic copyright infringement emails as a result of me (allegedly) downloading Angels and Demons."
Honestly, students today... what is education coming to? Seems too easy to get into Uni these days. Innocent until proven guilty, but if you are admitting your guilt, then there's a good chance you are. He would have had a reasonable grounds for fighting this if he'd denied any wrong doing and shifted the burden of proof. Not very smart not to.
Culturally a little differnt (Score:4, Interesting)
Except, culturally, things work a little differently here. Or, at least they used to.
When you do something wrong, you own up to it. You admit your mistake. To deny you did something that you did actually do is seen as cowardice.
It goes back to the playground rules when you were at school.
But the times, they are a changing. More often, people are choosing to get a lawyer (goon) and hide behind them and make up bullshit lines instead of owning up and admitting what they did was wrong.
The innocent until proven guilty line only works for me when the accused is actually innocent. The guy in the story was just being a non coward.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no sympathy for him. He knew it was wrong to download it without paying for it. Instead of whining here, he should be addressing the issue with whatever governing boards are at his school.
Or look into transferring his credits to another school and getting on with his life.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because he wasn't technically entitled to any due process doesn't mean it's right. Regardless of where it happens, you deserve a right to defend yourself from accusations.
even if he was "guilty", in a court of law, would that same evidence be admissable? think about it. Private corporations shouldn't be allowed to play police.
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Informative)
Notice that even in the case of an actual criminal activity, police will take many variables in context before to punish.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was the result of a contract he willingly entered into between himself and the university about behaviour. He admits he did as described in the letter, and as a result, the university is asking him to leave the dorms.
Should have considered, perhaps, that they might actually have desired and expected that he adhere to the contract that he as an adult signed.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that even in the case of an actual criminal activity, police will take many variables in context before to punish.
Cops can use discretion on whether or not to arrest, it's up to judges to issue punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Had he committed an actual crime (as in criminal offense) and stole the DVD on a store, he would probably only get fined
Well that depends, doesn't it? Was the store a university-run store, or did he use university resources to help him steal it? Because, in this case, he used the university's network to download the copyrighted material. That's different than walking into an unrelated store and shoplifting, the university has a responsibility to police its own resources.
Re: (Score:2)
What would have happened if he'd have stolen it from the University DVD shop? Presumably he used the university's network to download it in violation of the contract he signed with them.
This is fascinating. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to pretend I have no opinion in this post and instead make a "meta-comment:"
What I find fascinating is that, just a year ago, an overwhelming majority of Slashdot readers would have defended this student, written posts to the effect that it is justifiable to download copyrighted work, made angry statements about the MP/RI-AA, and the like. Now, I see many more posts (and story tags -- currently "righttosteal") like yours. Sure, the old pro-pirate posts are still around -- they are probably even still the majority -- but I think that the percentage is lower. I wonder if this means that attitudes are changing, and whether this is due at all to the RIAA's campaign.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Or it could that the rational part of Slashdot's audience never actually supported anyone's right to download copyrighted material without paying, but objected their to their hijacking and circumventing the legal system to protect said material.
In this case, the poster freely admits he did exactly what he was accused of. He isn't being persecuted by the RIAA, he is in blatant violation of the terms of his residency and his university is simply enforcing the policy he agreed to (perhaps without reading the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I have to say my opinion in favor of copyright (and against piracy) has gotten a bit stronger for a few reasons:
Punishment does not fit the 'crime' (Score:5, Insightful)
I put crime in quotes, because I believe it's only a civil infraction (although, I don't know much about Australian copyright law). In any case, getting kicked out of a dorm room for one 'count' of copyright infringement seems a little harsh, no? I mean, they could have started by just cutting his Internet access for a couple days or a week or something.
I mean, I really fail to see how it is even *legal* to kick someone out of a dorm room/apartment/etc for copyright infringement. Don't you guys have any tennants' rights laws in Australia?
Re: (Score:2)
Laws and their sentences are written down for anyone to see.
If part of the tenancy agreement said that they'd boot you out for copyright infringement fair enough. If they've just said that they can evict you at their discretion (as I suspect) then this is very unlike breaking the law and getting judicially punished for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Millions of people break the law every day; this particular issue of law, specifically. Copyright infringement. Why do all of those people deserve no punishment at all, while this guy deserves to lose his home?
My issue is not that he should be allowed to do what he did, but that the punishment is:
a) Extremely excessive, even for a habitual, repeat offender. We allow rapists to keep their homes (and even provide them with a new one!); is this worse than rape?
b) Extremely sporatically enforced. Would you supp
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
You chose to break the law and were punished for it.
As opposed to the people that break unjust laws and were punished for it?
I mean Aung San Suu Kyi [bbc.co.uk] has my sympathy even though she has indeed broke the "law" of her nation. She's probably going to suffer a long time because it.
I'm not saying that what the file sharer did in anywhere in comparison with what she is trying to accomplish in Burma, but make a blanket statement that because you break a law means you don't get sympathy is foolish indeed.
Hell. Legally, the American Revolutions broke the law when they revolted.
Remember...
Sometimes following a law is not always the right thing to do because sometimes a law is written in an unethical or immoral way.
A new low (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They sent an email informing the college as owners of the IP address of the infringement. He admitted to it, and while looking over the agreement for use of his dorm, which
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly what is the student's complaint?
If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebu
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly what is the student's complaint?
If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.
I believe his complaint is that, for stealing ~$10 worth of books, he is now being punished by losing his house and possibly an academic year.
Some of us still believe that crime and punishment need to be in balance somehow, and that simply isn't the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, I'm guessing he means the movie: http://www.angelsanddemons.com/ [angelsanddemons.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I believe his complaint is that, for stealing ~$10 worth of books, he is now being punished by losing his house and possibly an academic year.
Oh c'mon, man up Nancy. I got kicked out of the dorm my freshman year for smoking pot inside. I didn't fight it, because I knew I was obviously wrong, in fact I knew it wasn't OK to do that before I even did it, and I *even* knew that if I got caught they would probably kick me out. So they kicked me out, I got an apartment nearby, and never even missed a day of classes (well.. not because of moving, anyway).
He knew that what he was doing wasn't allowed, and that there was punishment for it. He might ha
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on this one.
Where, exactly, exists the possibility that downloading Angels and Demons is a morally/ethically acceptable thing to do?
You can dismiss the usual complaints immediately. The student was not:
A) replacing a purchased copy
B) circumventing unreasonable restrictions
C) using the internet as another medium for broadcast content
D) rebelling against the cost of a ticket
etc, etc, etc
So if the student is innocent, this needs to be yelled from the rooftops. Otherwise punishment seems perfectl
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.
Let me help you understand: the problem is that the consequences are inappropriate to the conduct. Your line of reasoning would have everyone accept whatever consequences are in place, no matter how draconian.
There, now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Re: (Score:2)
My point of view is that copyright infringement (which is not theft), should warrant, at most, a bill for the goods copied and, at most, a 50% penalty fee on top of that. Getting kicked out of your home for downloading a movie is grossly out of line with the actual damages that occurred (and most copyright infringement penalties are... such as $700 for a $1 song).
Re: (Score:2)
If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.
That's harsh to the point of hypocrisy coming from this site. Slashdot has spent years scheming about how to rebut such accusations even when they're true. Slashdot has spent years arguing that such downloading shouldn't be a crime, or should be punished only lightly (e.g., fine = retail price). Where are those posters today? Where are those moderators today?
Even those of us who think that what he did was wrong ought to be offering him a chance to crash at their place for a month or so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They will have plenty of customers left. There are millions of people who are willing to pay money to watch movies; which took a lot of time and money to create.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems there's more to it, I suspect.
Boo hoo.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'""
Wah?
I mean come on, you're paying the price for doing what you knew would get in hot water at school. you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?
Re: (Score:2)
You managed to take time out from studying and doing assignments to watch the movie. Pity you just didn't go to the cinema and shell out the measly $5 like the rest of us.
If you are looking for sympathy, don't be so bloody blase about what you did. At least show some remorse. You sound like you consider this acceptable behaviour, and are only griping because you got caught this time.
And thank your lucky stars it was an informal e-mail to your network admin, and not one of the "pay us $5000 dollars and we'll
Seriously - losing your housing is appropriate (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you *seriously* contend that losing your housing with like 2 weeks' notice or something ridiculous like that is a fitting response to the activity in question? I totally have sympathy for this guy. I don't see why anyone should lose their housing over copyright infringement. I mean, just disable his ethernet ports for a week or something. I fail to see how kicking someone out of the building with short notice is an appropriate response for minor copyright infringement.
Re:Seriously - losing your housing is appropriate? (Score:2)
There should have been a question mark at the end of the subject line of my previous post, for those confused. I just forgot it when typing out the subject.
Re:Boo hoo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?
He must have missed the part in the AUP where it said dorm management would evict you for violating network policies based on the accusation of a private third party.
Seriously, WTF /. Half the comments are along the lines of "you deserve this." Sure, he was downloading infringing material and violating the AUP - cut off his internet access. But throwing someone out of a dorm?
Hint: what's to stop a creative student who is pissed at someone from spoofing an e-mail from MediaSentry to the management, and having someone else thrown out?
The real ire should be directed at the management for throwing someone out of housing for violating network policies. What next - run an open access point, and you get expelled? Download a song, and your landlord throws you out of your apartment?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to go all Les Miserables on people but he did steal the loaf of bread and he readily admits it.
If you've read Les Mis, you'll remember that Jean Valjean is thrown in prison for five years after stealing a loaf of bread. I.e., an unreasonable penalty for a crime that he did commit. So yeah, your analogy is more apt than you seem to realize :-)
It's true that we only have his half of the story. On the other hand, I have a really hard time concocting any other side of the story that would warrant throwing someone out of housing for violating network policies. If he came crying to /. about how his network
Due Process (Score:5, Insightful)
"Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'""
Wah?
I mean come on, you're paying the price for doing what you knew would get in hot water at school. you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?
Um ... where's the due process. A third party, which has been discredited in another country and fired by the copyright cartels there because their ability to track offenders has been so abysmal and inaccurate, has made an accusation. One that, based on their track record in the United States, should be taken with a mountain of salt.
Based on that accusation, someone has been evicted from their home at a time when they should be studying for exams. As far as I can tell, there's been no disciplinary due process, no hearings, no opportunities for appeal, just a summary eviction with no opportunity for the student to put their case forward. Maybe s/he is guilty. Maybe his/her roommate is a prick and used his equipment to do something stupid so they wouldn't pay the price. Maybe someone else did it entirely, and spoofed his IP address. Or maybe, like in so many cases in the US that the company had to close their doors, no one in the dorm was involved at all, and they're barking up the wrong tree completely.
Doesn't matter. Summary punishment has been meted out, on the barest of accusations. That is a problem, the student's guilt or innocence not withstanding, and if I were considering sending a kid to university, that's one school I would avoid quite possibly wasting my hard earned money on.
How is this not awesome? (Score:2)
Oy (Score:3, Insightful)
"Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments "
It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.
Maybe he was downloading it to watch after exams :-)
Yeah right (Score:2, Insightful)
Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009)
Yeah right, that's what I used to say when I was in college too. If you had actually been studying for your exams and working on your final assignments instead of watching movies, you wouldn't be in this situation, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
If you had actually been studying for your exams and working on your final assignments instead of watching movies, you wouldn't be in this situation, would you?
Do you work every hour that you exist? Do you not have any time off doing things other than working? Do you think you could have come up with a marginally more clever response than a trite cliche?
The student hasn't helped himself entirely by being so blase, but losing your home over downloading a film? When is that EVER balanced justice? ...Carl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if you want to call that hypocritical, it's not: sure, I procrastinated too, but it was a stupid thing to do: t
They want to play hardball? (Score:2)
Find out the names and addresses of the management of MediaSentry and.......
Fair's fair (Score:2)
Of course he could have also been studying and working on assignments instead of downloading crappy movies and infringing on the copyright rights of those that hold them.
Stupid replies ignoring the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
As expected, there are a large number of replies by people who didn't even bother to read the summary. (Or, have poor reading comprehension, or even both, I guess.)
The submitter is not the same as the student.
Anyway, the point is, MediaSentry is still "alive", and still sending out automated messages.
Now it seems that the student admitted to downloading the file ("as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons"), which sort of screws over any real complaint they may have had.
Personally, I think it's disgusting that the manager paid any attention to the "generic copyright infringement email" at all. Seriously, if I were in that situation, I would delete the email and forget about it.
I wonder, who is MediaSentry acting for in this situation? Does that company know that MediaSentry is doing this? Do MediaSentry have the right to sue on behalf of that company?
And, is MediaSentry keeping track of these emails and watching for responses?
let the punishment fit the crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:let the punishment fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not in this case. If the dorm manager had evicted him for scratching the paint, it's a direct issue betwene the manager and the student. This, on the other hand, is the student bringing issues down on the dorm via legal issues with a third party. It looks like the dorm doesn't want to deal with fighting legal battles that aren't it's problem. The student likely signed an acceptable use policy, and so long as the student admitted fault or there was acceptable level of evidence, there shouldn't be a problem. The only issue would be blindly evicting based on every letter sent to the dorm management. It doesn't look like that's the case given the admission of downloading the film.
Admit stuff much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Haven't you learned anything? ..."
Your correct phrase should be: "... me allegedly downloading
The Law vs The Rules (Score:2)
You don't go to jail for cheating on a test.
You do get kicked out of school, however.
After Reading The Fine Article... (Score:2)
This doesn't sound like MediaSentry's style (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should have been studying for your exams & working on your final assignments instead of downloading movies illegally.