Slashdot Log In
MTU President Peeved At RIAA
Posted by
michael
on Wed Apr 09, 2003 09:28 AM
from the fully-cooperating-site dept.
from the fully-cooperating-site dept.
mcdude writes "The president of Michigan Technological University has responded to the RIAA suit against one of his students, accusing the RIAA of encouraging cooperation with universities but then bypassing those procedures with the current suit. Curtis Tompkins says, 'I am very disappointed that the RIAA decided to take this action in this manner. As a fully cooperating site, we would have expected the courtesy of being notified early and allowing us to take action following established procedures, instead of allowing it to get to the point of lawsuits and publicity.'" Attention universities: lawsuits are your reward for being a "fully-cooperating site". If you missed the lawsuit news, see our earlier story.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The Current Stunt (Score:5, Funny)
accusing the RIAA of encouraging cooperation with universities but then bypassing those procedures with the current suit
For some reason, I mis-read "suit" as "stunt." On reflection, I do believe I had it right the first time.
Awful lot of law-stunts going on these days.
Am I the only one who thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Am I the only one who thought... (Score:2)
But that typically depends on what books you had to study in.
No publicity in cooperating (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA are pushing forward with a number of highly publicized actions in order to draw attention to the problem (as they see it) and try to scare people off. There is nothing to be gained by them dealing with people through the sort of process described Mr Thompkin's letter.
Re:No publicity in cooperating (Score:4, Interesting)
If the RIAA is actually trying to stop P2P music sharing, then shutting the offenders down after the fact is only somewhat effective; the material still gets out there.
Moreover, killing the servers isn't much of a deterrent - the worst that usually happens is loss of the ISP account or connection. Some schools might take disciplinary action, but most students I know don't perceive it as enough of a threat to stop them.
Before this, most students thought "I'm not big enough of a target for the companies to come after me". I guess this is their attempt to change that image - these are only local P2P network operators, and not even in the same galaxy as Napster/KaZaA/Chinese bootleg mills.
Parent
Re:No publicity in cooperating (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nice to see the president of MTU standing up for his students, and better yet, publicly stating his disapproval of the RIAA's actions. I think more and more people are starting to catch on.
The New Standard Oil (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need to do is 1) Reform the current laws (maybe with a "DMCA Lite"?) 2) Educate incoming freshmen at major universities about what the hell can happen to you for getting involved in this crap and 3) putting the RIAA in check by either legal means or a boycott on their products. Standard Oil did the same sorts of things to potential competitors and had all kinds of legal protection before TR came along and broke it up, but GW is certainly not interested in hurting potential campaign donors nor is anyone else I can think of given the proximity of a presidential election. Certainly the RIAA does not expect to collect 0.097 trillion dollars from a student but I'll wager a Golden Dollar or two that we'll hear that exact same number used in reference to Congress on why the RIAA needs "protection" against a new technology they can not use to their benefit. Allowing this sort of corporate welfare hurts both the consumer by allowing higher prices and the entire populace by allowing a de facto trust to run into the rights of the people simply for corporate benefit. Can anyone else present potential solutions to this problems?
Parent
Re:The New Standard Oil (Score:3, Insightful)
Horseshit. They're a trade and lobbying association, just like any other. For the RIAA to be in violation of antitrust law, it'd have to (for instance) make secret agreements between major labels about what new acts get signed, or set industry-wide prohibitions on how they distribute music over the internet. While I certainl
Re:The New Standard Oil (Score:3, Informative)
How about price fixing? Because the RIAA has settled a federal lawsuit over price fixing (The CD Minimum Advertized Price [musiccdsettlement.com] antitrust case), which certainly sounds like the behavior of an illegal trust to me. Of course, given recent behavior on the part of the Justice Depart
Innovation and Antitrust (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think that the RIAA is not involved in practices of intellectual monopolization, please name some record labels disassociated with
Maybe it's time to escalate the conflict (Score:5, Insightful)
You are an unnecessary organization.
Music can and will be made, produced, and sold without you.
Leave us alone or cease to exist.
Re:Maybe it's time to escalate the conflict (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not even sure they have to institute a ban, which would be interpreted negatively by the student body as a form of censorship. Most students are constantly on the lookout for something to "go activist" over. The University could simply hold a series of assemblies (or speak at a football game) and explain what happened, then ask the students who are disappointed in the RIAA to express their feelings by avoiding RIAA-sponsored material. While this might not have as big of an impact as an outright ban, it would probably still be noteworthy without damaging relations between the University and its students.
Parent
Re:Maybe it's time to escalate the conflict (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe it's time to escalate the conflict (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know the legalistics behind it, but I wouldn't want to be defending that case.
Parent
Re:Maybe it's time to escalate the conflict (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the rare occasions on Slashdot you see someone standing up for "the other side" using tools meant to protect freedom.
It's easy to see from comments on here, just how people like Ashcroft believe they can do anything they like within the law (letter rather than spirit) to achieve what is "right".
It takes a strong character to do what the above poster did.
attention students (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:attention students (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not at all what I got out of it. Whether we agree with the law or not, Joe broke it. The University appears to be interested in protecting him (and all students) as much as possible. This would include disciplinary action by the school that would allow the student to move on after college rather than being burdened for the rest of his life by criminal charges and unjustified financial debts. Bear in mind that the RIAA may choose to smack down the University because their equipment was involved in this incident. Therefore, they have to play ball at least a little. They could have chosen to just tell Joe: "Sorry, you broke the law. Suffer the consequences. Try to enjoy what's left of your life." Instead, they at least had to guts to send an open letter which not only expresses their disappointment to the RIAA, but also informs the public and other universities about the situation. This can be a pretty powerful blow if other universities demand a written contract governing actions to be taken before they are willing to work with the RIAA on anything.
Parent
Bzzzt. Sorry, try again (Score:3, Interesting)
This is probably due to the fact that MTU students provide more revenue to the school than the RIAA does; and the fact that MTU doesn't want to see a drop in enrollment as a consequence.
But still...just because your university isn't al
Re:Bzzzt. Sorry, try again (Score:5, Interesting)
This is probably due to the fact that MTU students provide more revenue to the school than the RIAA does; and the fact that MTU doesn't want to see a drop in enrollment as a consequence.
It mostly has to do with MTU's legal role as the student's loco parentis (I think that's the correct term, but it has been nearly 40 years since that was a part of my life). Whether MTU intended to or not, this public letter to the RIAA seems to me to be a good first move in setting the basis for MTU filing a countersuit, or stepping in to defend the student, or both.
MTU is saying that it has a mechanism in place for justly disciplining its "children", that RIAA knew of this mechanism, or should have known of it, and that it is inappropriate for RIAA to involve the US legal system when MTU's judgment and disciplinary process was available and would have dealt properly with the situation, with much less damage all the way around. MTU can also argue, and probably would have to do so, that RIAA has damaged its student's reputation in a way that demands some form of compensation. The courts are generally favorable toward this kind of argument.
RIAA screwed up royally on this one. If they push this, it will blow up in their faces, because no university can afford to back away from this fight-- it challenges the nurturing role of universities and colleges and is an attack on principles of western civilization that were established hundreds of years ago, with the first universities.
Parent
Re:Bzzzt. Sorry, try again (Score:3, Interesting)
It is also true that IANAL. However my understanding is that in loco parentis is a principle of law that dates back to around the Magna Carta-- give or take a few hundred years-- and is not a statute itself. (btw, thanks for providing the correct phrase!)
It clearly applies to the university's role toward students who are minors, just as it applies to youth camps. But it also applies to some degree to students who are of age. How much, and in exactly what situations, are areas nobody has ever wanted to defi
But what good will come of it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess what's importain here is that the RIAA can more easy track a static ip whereas for a dial up connection they have to go though the ISP. Though I'm starting to wonder how they knew anyway who it was without the university's co-operation.
Reguardless, what can we realisticly expect Universities to do to help students? Any takers?
Re:But what good will come of it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really mean "free (as in speech) exchange of ideas" or free (as in beer) music.
It is the university's responsibility to protect the former, but discourage the latter. Let's try not to confuse the two.
Parent
Take my advice... (Score:2, Funny)
[--------**-] -- sacrasm meter
Is anyone surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pick your targets well (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, yeah, they want good publicity.
Re:Pick your targets well (Score:3, Informative)
Skippy
MTU Classes of 98 and 00
Letter starts well, (Score:4, Funny)
Taking all of this into consideration, we realize the seriousness of the allegations against Mr. Nievelt and will cooperate fully in resolving this matter.
Was I the only one expecting to see "Fuck You" - maybe even all in caps?
Too busy (Score:5, Funny)
Your organization responded to none of these messages.
That's because everyone in the RIAA was too busy either pushing lawsuits or restoring backup copies of their webpage.
Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
I've received numerous parking tickets in NYC when no other cars on that street received any, simply because I don't have NY plates and would be less likely to contest the tickets. However every single one was dismissed on grounds of selective prosecution, and that's just a $50 parking ticket. We're talking about a $97,000,000,000 lawsuit against a few people that were doing the same thing as hundreds of other people at their university, and millions of other people nationwide. Give me a break, these lawsuits are just plain rediculous and the world knows it.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, i'd counter sue stating that since these CD's did not have any copyright protection on them that it is the recording industry itself is to blame. Let's see, make it a $98 Billion countersuit. Is this any more bizzarre?
Re:Duh (Score:3, Informative)
Except for the fact that it is a civil suit and not prosecution. Private companies and individuals can do thing, such as selectively suit other entities, that the government cannot.
Important For Universities (Score:5, Insightful)
Having served on a comittee that heard some of these cases come up, the RIAA generally asks that the school shut down the site, cut of network access, and turn over the students name.
The fully cooperating university must be aware of what this last step means. It means the RIAA has the power to bypass any intermediate sanctions and sue a (usually poor) college student directly.
You would be surprised, but losing dorm room internet access for a year is considered a pretty significant sanction. This raises the issue to whole new level, one that is rarely seen on a college campus in another context.
The schools involved need to jump into this with their eyes wide open. It doesn't seem they were that aware in this case.
Re:Important For Universities (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately, this is illegal in most countries. Why is a university permitted to share the identity of students with the RIAA in the U.S., by the way? (I doubt it would matter in this case, however. Most likely, these students were tipped off by an insider.)
Sharing with your friends doesn't pay. -- Your RIAA.
So what's the point of being a member? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder, if they pursued legal action at Michigan State University, could they be held legally accountable for the ensuing riot?
Tom
Reminds me of that scene in Star Wars... (Score:5, Funny)
LANDO: LAWSUITS? That was never part of the deal!
DARTH VADER: I'm altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it any further.
Vader leaves
LANDO (to himself): This deal is getting worse all the time!
Michael, you got it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Attention universities: lawsuits are your reward for being a "fully-cooperating site".
The university isn't being sued, it's the student. The president dislikes the bad publicity that the lawsuit is generating, and I can't blame him for that. It drives away potential students when they find that one of the places they're looking at allows the RIAA in so easily. Sure, you can find out about how MTU was 'fully-cooperating' with the RIAA with a little bit of research, but now anyone who has a slight interest in the RIAA knows about it.
but what did the student do? (Score:5, Informative)
To think I was going to set up a web-interface lan spider here at my university.. if i only had an extra ethernet port around here. That would put any lawsuit in the $23 Bil range for me. Scary.
Unbelievable! (Score:3, Insightful)
... not that the RIAA filed suit without informing MTU what it was doing, but because he actually expected advanced notice!!!
Let's get real here! The RIAA has been exploiting the DMCA since it passed! If anything, somebody at some time is going to have to stand up for "fair use" rights (whether this student is guilty of infringement or not!). My sense is that universities, who have the most to gain from strong fair use laws, should step up to the plate. Instead, in a prime example of the pussification of America, universities cowtow and kiss ass to the RIAA out of fear of legal reprecussions.
Well, what's worse? Allowing the RIAA to slowly weaken fair use so that any lawsuit becomes a multi-billion dollar slam dunk for them, or stepping up to the plate (and paying the legal fees) to defend now?
Either way, the universities (whoever) are going to be out of a lot of cash. But, by fighting now, they at least can say they had the balls to do something about it!
-A
Not the real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I go to the University of Iowa.
We had a service here for a while called "HawkSearch" (our team being the Hawkeyes), run by a student. It existed for a while in the form of a http search page. One day, an article was written about it in the paper. The University had Hawksearch down within 10 minutes, and everyone they could prove used it had their internet connection shut off.
Of course, the university isn't stupid. They know exactly what I know, which is, every student in the school with a computer has kazaa and 80% of them run it like a vital piece of their windows XP. p2p will never die, so we have to live with it. until everyone realizes this (which may never happen), there will be this ongoing, useless struggle where some people suffer and some don't - it's the luck of the draw.
As for local area network sharing... it's just the wrong place to do it (on campus). I mean, if one of your friends wants a CD, they can borrow it. If you want music off the radio, you may tape it. I mean, let's be honest - your friends burn your cds, and you burn theirs. Is this worse or better? Better because it's not on a large scale?
p2ps next stage (if wide area sharing dies, IF) will be small local area networks, and without a university packet sniffer to rat out a small percentage of the guilty people, there will be no way to prevent it.
Let not the guilty go unpunished? Ha.
"It was like trying to hand out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."
- Apocalypse Now
Bullying and intimidation (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks be to the RIAA for creating a reverse fortune lottery. Millions of Americans are players. I wonder who'll be the next lucky winner who gets his/her life screwed? Perhaps the RIAA can kill two birds with one stone -- innovation and justice.
Fully-Cooperating Site is all that Cooperative (Score:5, Insightful)
A physical or digital signature of the owner of an exclusive copyright right (i.e., the copyright owner himself or the owner's exclusive licensee of the right(s) to reproduce, distribute, display, perform or create derivatives) or the owner's authorized agent;
A description of the works claimed to be infringed;
A description of the allegedly infringing works, sufficient to enable the agent to find them;
Sufficient information to enable the agent to contact the complainer;
A statement that the complainer believes in good faith that the use of the material is not authorized by the owner, the owner's agent or the law; and
A statement that the information in the notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that the complainer is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of one or more exclusive copyright rights.
Usually #1, the physical or digital signature of the copyright holder, is never sent with the complaint. So the college responds with a request for the signature. Usually there is never a reply back.
A lot of the work in tracking down pirates is done by third-party companies which have to send the signature request back up to the people they are working for. This small but significant bit of red tape seems to become an annoyance enough that no signature is provided. Thus making the complaint more or less dead.
So one can be fully-cooperating with the MPAA but at the same time not cooperating in a way the MPAA would like, mainly to ignore the signature requirement and just shut off whoever is providing the pirated content.
Chilling Effect and Precendent. (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Chilling effect. Every local sharing service I know of is shut down. The UConn Phynd hub had a message up the day of the lawsuit, and the website had vanished the next day. By making every kid in American thinking "I could be next0rz!!", they shut down every Phynd/Direct Connect/Flatlan system in the nation. But that's just gravy, because the real goal is...
(2) Precedent. If they can get these kids to knuckle under (which they most certainly will do, given the threat) and waive their federal appeal in return for a reduced settlement (pay $1k/year for the rest of your life, for instance), a big, shiny precedent will have been set---that the original settlement amount ($98B or whatever it gets reduced to) is a legit fine for the offense. Then, armed with precedent, they go after the bigger fish---KaZaA, ShareReactor---for setting up similar services.
It's dastardly clever.
--grendel drago
As Keanu would say, "Whoah" (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that theres a general consenus that any judge with any guts is gonna look at this suit and laugh their ass off. One person here has already raised the issue of selective prosecution, so theres one defense. But beyond that, the amount being asked for, especially considering who its being asked of, screams "Publicity Stunt." And, while many judges may not give much of a damn about screwing someone over, most of them, in my experience, have severe issues with having their courtroom being used as an advertising campaign. Severe issues.
I hope and pray that this kid gets a good lawyer, who has the stones to take this to trial and not buckle beforehand, and wind up just reccomending that the kid just settle. As others have noted, if he settles, then everyone is screwed, as it would set precedent. But the RIAA has already scored one point: two of my friends run a p2p service at school here in Nashville, and it has since been closed down. Oh well.....
Should they disclose $100bn loss on stock market? (Score:5, Interesting)
ISTR that in the Kevin Mitnick trial, companies including Sun claimed that Kevin's actions had cost them $billions in lost sales. However, some share holders took legal action against them, because by law, publically listed companies must disclose losses of this scale in a formal statement. The fact that none of them had suggested that either (a) they had not incurred the losses they claimed, or (b) they were guilty of misleading their shareholders.
I was wondering if a similar approach could be used in this case. Mythical multi-billion-dollar losses are being arrived at by multiplying hypothetical figures together once again. Anyone know what happened to Sun et al in the end?
More cooperation isn't needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't expect your school (or any other common carrier) to take your heat or cushion the consequences for what you do. You think what you're doing isn't bad? Fine, make your case in court, or with the public, or with your legislators; that isn't the issue. Don't drag your school into it. Even if your school has been shielding you up to now, it is apparent that the RIAA now sees through this.
IMHO, this is probably a good thing. While I believe this president desires to act in his students' interest and likely just wants the RIAA to go away so he can getback to his real job, waging this war through proxies is probably really just imposing additional burden on the school and really hurting everyone. And it must be damned unsatisfying for the RIAA. And it just muddies the issues. Let the engagement really begin, and if the results turn out to be radically different than peoples' sense of justice, then public policy can be revised as a result of it.
There isn't any reason for the schools to be a major part of the process, except to perform their duties as a common carrier. Just let it go, president Tompkins, and in a few years -- one way or another -- you won't have to deal with this crap anymore.
Relevant Slashdot Reading (Slashback) (Score:4, Informative)
Rosen, Valenti Warn Colleges About P2P [slashdot.org]
Handling Campus AUP (non-)Violations? [slashdot.org]
The second one is particularly interesting as it deals with Windows file-share indexing
Personal interest in this case (Score:3, Interesting)
Since I run a very similar indexing and search engine at Wesleyan University, I'm more interested than most in how this is going to turn out (and a bit worried that I'm going to be sued too, though it was really cool when PySMBSearch [sourceforge.net] got mentioned in the analysis [barillari.org] posted by the Princeton student). The idea that I could be liable for up to 15.1 billion USD (checking just a second ago, there are 100,921 files ending in .mp3 returned by my search engine) just for indexing other people's files, without explicitly providing any method of accessing them is just ridiculous.
I haven't taken the search down yet, but I'm seriously considering it, given how much the RIAA is asking, and given that I'm doing no more than any of the current defendants were (though I'm not sharing any copyrighted materials myself, so they wouldn't have the "direct infringement" case).
I'd rther see RIAA vs MPAA (Score:3, Funny)