RIAA, MPAA Instigate U.S. Naval Academy Raid 460
LaikaVirgin writes "After receiving a letter from 'four entertainment-based lobbying associations', the U.S. Naval Academy has seized nearly 100 midshipmen's computers that allegedly had pirated media. It's good to see that the armed forces know who's really in charge."
Re:This is Farging War! (Score:3, Informative)
so much for looking forward to college. All because of these bastard RIAA heads.
Re:Music? (Score:3, Informative)
Doh! Think before you post! "In The Navy" by The Village People, not YMCA... must be my day for stoopidity.
Re:How? (Score:3, Informative)
Given that, I suspect that the argument could be made that the computers don't actually belong to the midshipmen until after they graduate and the systems are fully paid off, and is government property until then. Any veterans out there that could offer more insight?
This is more serious than you think... (Score:5, Informative)
Naval Academy Midshipmen serve under an Honor Concept, which states:
"A midshipman does not lie, cheat, or steal."
Penalties for violating the Honor Concept include: reprimand, being sent to the fleet for a year (and maybe being allowed to come back), and getting thrown out of the Naval Academy.
Hopefully, the Honor Board won't get involved and these midshipmen will be subjected to only administrative discipline (loss of weekend liberty for a period of time, etc.).
You can count on one thing though - Everyone at the Naval Academy will get lectured on how they can't illegally duplicate copywritten material, and the next midshipmen who get caught won't get off so easily.
IAAUSNAG - I am a United States Naval Academy Graduate
No Veterans in the /. community? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Soldiers fall under the UCMJ not the Constitution when it comes to legal rights.
2) These Naval Academy students face being bounced out of there for violating the "code of conduct".
3) Ragging on /. will NOT change the fact that the RIAA has the "current" law on their side.
If you don't like the law, then become politically active and lobby for change instead of wining that you think it is wrong.
"All battles are fought by scared men who'd rather be somewhere else." John Wayne
Re:No Veterans in the /. community? (Score:1, Informative)
What about the Slaves in the USA?
Sometimes laws are just silly or unjust.
See Ghandi dumbass.
Re:No Veterans in the /. community? (Score:3, Informative)
Soldiers fall under the UCMJ not the Constitution when it comes to legal rights.
Not so. The UCMJ is subject to the Constituition, including the bill of rights. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981); Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976). "[M]en and women in the Armed Forces do not leave constitutional safeguards and judicial protection behind when they enter military service." Weiss v. U.S. 510 U.S. 163, 194 (1994) (Justice Ginsburg, concurring). Indeed, many appeals from military courts on constitutional questions have been heard by the Supreme Court.
Rather, the UCMJ arises from the Constitution giving Congress the power to define a military code of justice, U.S. Const. Art. I 8, cl. 14, which it has done. Congress chose to exempt the military from civilian rules of procedure and evidence but NOT basic Constitutional requirements of due process, right against forced self-incrimination etc. Indeed, as those rights are based in the Constitution, Congress lacks the power to write a UCMJ violating those rights.
Re:Music? (Score:2, Informative)
No, I'm not big into gay disco; I do work as a DJ and so I know a lot of music. People inevitably request such songs when they're drunk.
Re:My **AA fights... (Score:2, Informative)
Granted, I'm sure you can find a few legit uses for Kazaa/Morpheus/et.al. in an academic point of view, which is why I'm more for packetshaping than outright blocking it. (At least on student's personal computers - I wish we could block it completely in the labs.) I don't have much sympathy for the people who bitch that they can't use Kazaa on their university's network - no matter how you try to justify it, it's pretty damn evident that the primary purpose of the program isn't academic.
The gist of my rant is as follows: you may be paying $200/credithour for stuff plus added fees for on-campus residence - but you're there persuing a degree. And you're STILL buying a part of someone else's connection.
Re:Music? (Score:3, Informative)
No, because you're taking up someone else's seat.
or the amusement park without paying.
No, because you're making the lines longer.
Or jumping the turnstiles on the subway
No, because you're making the subways more crowded and slightly heavier.
Re:Music?-Accountability? (Score:3, Informative)
Legal definition of property [lectlaw.com]
Copyright myths dispelled [templetons.com]
The actual law [cornell.edu]
Fair use & copyright resourse at stanford [stanford.edu]
More resourses pro & con [negativland.com]
Intellectual property [uiuc.edu]
I know people don't want to read and understand the above, but they certainly want to voice their opinion of the way it should be when the law comes after them. A little late IMHO.
Re:No Veterans in the /. community? (Score:5, Informative)
cite all the cases you want, it doesn't change the fact that the UCMJ is not really subject to the constitution. Certain articles of the bill of rights are in the UCMJ, such as the right against self-incrimination at a court-martial.
The problem is that you fail to understand the distinction between a court-martial and an article 15 hearing, which is what these young dumb-asses are going face. Article 15 hearings are not federal court cases, and as such are not subject to the constitution. The only thing that is limited is the punishment that can be handed down -- i.e. your CO can't sentence you to keel-hauling or flogging with a cat-o-nine-tails anymore. He can, however, summarily dismiss you from the military -- which is just as bad as far as these people are concerned. There are no rules -- if you try to request legal representation you will be pushed to rescind that request, as it will only make your punishment worse.
I know -- I've been to an article 15 hearing (coloquially known as Captain's Mast in the Navy). You are guilty from the moment charges are filed -- nothing you say or do will change the outcome. Everything from that point on is based on trying to minimize the punishment you get for whatever you were accused of, guilty or not.
Oh good grief - and cybersecurity at academies (Score:2, Informative)
-- The networks at all of the military academies are owned and operated by the Dept of Defense, which (especially these days) has good reason and authorization to monitor any and all traffic over them. Use of the networks for unauthorized purposes = misuse of government assets. Doesn't matter whether that use is "okay" "illegal" or "fair use" content-wise -- every time a cadet / midshipman logs onto the academy network they click on an acknowledgement that it is a DOD site, may be monitored and will be used only for authorized purposes.
-- Cadets/midshipmen can only connect to the Net via their academy's network unless they use a cellular modem and a private account, not my choice for high bandwidth downloading. So any music downloads were pretty likely to have occurred over those DOD networks, against the regulations the cadets/midshipment agreed to follow.
-- Cadets/midshipmen know their use can be monitored. They all take IT / intro comp sci courses -- required. They also all have at least some cybersecurity clubs -- West Point has a student SIGSAC chapter and the academies have an annual cyber security competition, judged by some fairly heavy hitters at NSA.
And yes, I teach at one of the Academies.
"America - love it or give it back!" - Cathy Moomaw, Native American weaver
Re:No Veterans in the /. community? (Score:4, Informative)
What the Constitution does is protect you against non-routine mistreatment: For example, suppose your CO orders you to convert to {fill in religion}, or penalizes you extra for a failure to pray. That's a First Amendment violation, and would be illegal even if military regulations permitted it (I'm sure they don't). Have a look at Weiss v. U.S. [findlaw.com]. The theory (right or wrong) is that if you wanted the additional constituitional protections that attach even to criminal prosecutions in military trials, you should have exercised your right to reject the art. 15 and demand a full court martial [a right that AFAIK exists for all military personnel except those serving on board ships at sea]. Yes, I understand that in practice the punishments get worse if you are seen to be wasting more people's time.
As for the defendant's perception that all he has left to bargain for is the level of punishment, this isn't actually so different from the civilian system: prosecutors have so many more things they might do than they have time for, they tend to charge the ones they think are most guilty or serious. Unless you have something exculpatory the police missed, you're reduced to plea bargaining: which is just another form of "trying to minimize the punishment you get for whatever you were accused of, guilty or not."
Note, however, that if you are caught red-handed it's ok to punish you more for failing to confess. That's done in the civilian courts (both by higher charges, since you didn't plea bargain, and by higher sentencing for 'failure to take responsibility'). I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the law, and I can't see why it couldn't be done in the military.
Now you are going to tell me that any idiot who thinks he can win such a federal case and have a military career afterwards has no sense. That's probably true, but that goes to the tendency of all organizations to retaliate against whistle-blowers, not what the rules say.
Here's a (farily) simple rule: The US Constitution applies to everything the US government does, not just court cases. It applies to all three branches of government including the executive (which includes the military). But "due process" is not a one size fits all standard. Rather, it's the start of an inquiry, 'What process is due under these circumstances?'
PS. I'm not a veteran. I'm a law professor.