NC State Stands Up to RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Technician Online at North Carolina State University reports that its Director of Student Legal Services, Pam Gerace, has advised students to remain anonymous, and has indicated her office's willingness to challenge the RIAA's subpoenas. What's more, the newspaper urges students to take Ms. Gerace up on her offer. The fighting spirit of Jimmy Valvano lives on."

then again....

ok, I take it back, not slashdotted, just v.slow.

"They said it could be $750 per song. The letter said, though, that they could just pay $3,000, which would not be based on the number of songs."

$3,000 == unlimited downloads.. hmm, not a bad deal... might be cheaper than 79 cents a track...

Re:then again....

$3,000 == unlimited downloads.. hmm, not a bad deal... might be cheaper than 79 cents a track...

Maybe, until you realize that they could sue you for $3000 over and over again. Then it doesn't seem too good.

Also

You had better also read the agreement carefully. When DirectTV was pulling this stunt, they were including a blurb where you admitted to having committed copyright violation. Given that there are now criminal penalties on the books for copyright violation, you could very well be paying $3000 for a nice vacation to 'pound you in the ass prison'.

Way to GO NC STATE!

STICK IT TO THE RIAA!!

We need more groups officially banding together like this - the RIAA's bully tactic days are numbered!

Re:Way to GO NC STATE!

Unfortunately, those days are probably numbered higher than you or I would like.

An even better stick

Just don't buy RIAA music. It's not that hard. I'd put my usual links to a dozen sites where you can find great independent/free music, but you guys can probably find them yourselves.

'Course I can never resist linking RIAA radar:
http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com]

People are finally starting to get it

It looks like people are finally starting to get it. Big fish can't be allowed to attack the little fish without facing risk.

Now, if only the general public realized they bring this on themselves by continuing to fund the **AAs with their purchases, maybe it'd actually make a difference...

Re:People are finally starting to get it

Now, if only the general public realized they bring this on themselves by continuing to fund the **AAs with their purchases, maybe it'd actually make a difference...

Now, if only the general public realized they bring this on themselves by continuing to violate copyright (remember all you GPL fans, these are the same copyright laws that give the GPL substance*), maybe it'd actually make a difference...

You want to make a difference? Simply voting with your wallet by not purchasing tracks isn't enough. That's only part one.

Part two is STOP VIOLATING COPYRIGHT by downloading the tracks. The RIAA and record labels are after your money. First they try to get your money via sales of tracks (physical CDs or downloads from online resellers). If you don't buy the tracks but download from p2p networks, they will try to get your money via lawsuit. Either way, they get your money.

Once sales drop AND p2p downloads ALSO drop, the labels will get the idea that the product they push is crap and need to change in order to make it worthwhile. They would have to, since both revenue streams (via sales and litigation) would dry up.

* I'm not implying that GPL fans are also p2p downloaders; I'm pointing out that laws that protect your rights are the same laws that protect others' rights, and cannot be applied selectively.

Re:People are finally starting to get it

Once sales drop AND p2p downloads ALSO drop, the labels will get the idea that the product they push is crap and need to change in order to make it worthwhile.

Problem is, most people disagree with your assertion that it's crap. Whether through critical thinking about the music/video or just because they've been indundated with commercial pop culture & ads, this stuff is top shelf by virtue of being what everyone wants.

Your solution means people have to dig up their own (indie) music; they can't just buy the catchy song they heard on the radio, and they can't grab a copy of that movie that had such an exciting preview. And truth be told, most people aren't really equipped to select the good music from the bad, except with the simple gut reaction that they already have to hearing a song on the radio and deciding to buy this mainstream album instead of that one.

I guess my point is that mainstream music is mainstream for a reason, and saying "just don't buy it" is not realistic. It's like asking millions of Bud Light drinkers to start selecting small-batch German microbrews instead. Good luck.

Re:People are finally starting to get it

You bring up another part of the problem... the fact that the RIAA controls so much of the industry that it becomes next to impossible for indy bands and labels to find their way into the ears of the average music consumer. With the RIAA paying radio stations across the country to play their music and only their music, paying the MPAA studios to feature RIAA artists in their movies, MTV only playing music backed with millions of dollars worth of video behind it, etc.

I'm not saying that RIAA music is crap and indy is good, but without access to indy music most people don't even have the opportunity to make the comparison.

Rather then trying to beat down the RIAA through boycots and banners. Why not work to help promote indy music. Why doesn't iTunes have an RIAA free section where people can demo songs and download them DRM free? Why isn't there a fund setup to help get indy bands on the radio along side the RIAA stuff?

I think we'd do better to help get people off the RIAA koolade more by promoting the alternative rather then trying to tarnish what they're used to today.

Re:

Maybe the big fish can provide it in a way where I get to listen to it the way I want.

Re:People are finally starting to get it

Maybe the little fish should enlist the help of the giant crabs to force the big fish to enable the little fish to get what they want or cut the big fish out of the picture all together and let the shrimps regain control of their output.

Re:People are finally starting to get it

I don't know, the whole thing is beginning to smell a little fishy to me.

Get some sense?

I wonder if the RIAA will ever stop and realize that if they'd just fought this war fairly, most people would have been understanding with them. That if they'd did all the legal work they should have, and caught people with fair tactics, that jurors and the general public would be on their side. Because it IS against the law to download Intellectual Property you don't have rights to.

But instead, they decide the law doesn't apply to them anymore and use as many underhanded and illegal tactics as they can. Now it doesn't matter if the RIAA is right, nobody in their right mind could possibly side with them.

This is completely disregarding the entire concept of following the advances in technology instead of trying to fight them. If they'd simply tried to embrace technology and make it easy and quick to buy music, instead of doing everything they can to make it painful and slow... Maybe they'd actually be making more money than ever.

Instead, they've now got entire countries talking about legislature to make the copying of intellectual property legal.

Re:Get some sense?

Because it IS against the law to download Intellectual Property you don't have rights to.

Really? I thought that it was only against the law to distribute IP you don't hold the rights to. I don't have much knowledge about laws in the USA (which I assume is what you mean) OTOH, so I may be wrong.

Re:Get some sense?

I thought that it was only against the law to distribute IP you don't hold the rights to

No. And most laws in European and other countries that have signed onto WIPO are basically uniform. A copyright holder has exclusive rights. These include:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In other words, if we look at (1), then it becomes obvious: to download is to make a 'reproduce the copyrighted work in copies'. Literally, it seems, copyright is the 'right to copy'. Downloading a copyrighted work is against the law.

Now, there is a difference between willful infringement and non-willful infringement. Willful infringement means that you know you're making a copy of a copyrighted work, and non-willful means that you don't know what you're copying is copyrighted or not. It could be argued that because downloads don't carry a notice, that the downloader has no idea whether or not what he's downloading is copyrighted and not licensed for download or if it is licensed for free download, or public domain or what.

It's somewhat of a specious argument -- you'd almost have to be half stupid to think that a song labeled, say, 'Smashing Pumpkins - 1979' (what I happen to be listening to ;) is not copyrighted or is licensed for free download, since Smashing Pumpkins CDs are sold in stores and carry a copyright notice and the RIAA has been reminding us all for sometime that downloading their studios' music is illegal.

But -- I've seen stranger things being believed by courts and juries.

IANALBIPOOGL

(I am not a lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw)

In downloading the copy is made by the server

When you do the downloading, the server copies the bits and sends it over to the internet. When it has arrived on your system then you are simply saving it into a file. If you went into the ridiculous definition of ram copies, then you could not even play

Re:In downloading the copy is made by the server

The argument I've seen used (successfully) in the past against this kind of point is that whilst the remote server is physically making the copy, the downloader is the one who caused the copy to be made (by starting the download process). That makes the downloader the only human responsible, seeing as you can't sue or prosecute a server. An analogy would be that if I shot you, I could argue that I didn't kill you - the gun did. In reality though, I caused the gun to fire, so it's my responsibility.

Re:

That argument has always sucked -- the data comes over the wire somehow (doesn't matter really) and when it gets to your computer, you do what with it? You write a copy to disk. Oops, Copyright violation.

Having the data sent to you over the wire may or m

So by that logic...

DVRs/VCRs are illegal because you are copying data from somewhere onto media?

At first I thought downloading would cut and dry be against copyright law, but now I'm not so sure. I don't think the obligation to determine if the source is a legitimate distribution system should fall upon the user. By 'common sense', currently most P2P networks today with obviously copyrighted materials is a legally questionably thing to do (since you are definitely becoming the source), but what happens when a source with an air of legitimacy starts up a P2P based service that turns out to be illegal? Should users be penalized just because they were frauded and allowed their upstream bandwidth to be use by the company to commit copyright violation without their knowledge?

From a legal perspective, I'm actually finding myself thinking the only sane entity to chase would be the one who initially injects the content into the P2P network (i.e., the person who posts a torrent to a tracker). The second logical place would be the tracker itself if they have a demonstrated history of ignoring copyright notices, but the users, it's hard to say. Forget the technicality of whether the protocol borrows some of their upload, their action isn't really as different from using a DVR as one might think.

Re:

When you do the downloading, the server copies the bits and sends it over to the internet. When it has arrived on your system then you are simply saving it into a file.

But, but, officer, I wasn't speeding, my car was! You're splitting hairs. If I cause

Re:

It could be argued that because downloads don't carry a notice, that the downloader has no idea whether or not what he's downloading is copyrighted

Assuming you're operating within a country with standard copyright laws, in general everything is automatical

Re:

Really? I thought that it was only against the law to distribute IP you don't hold the rights to.

In the US, that is where fair use comes into play. Of course, that's why they created the DCMA which effectively makes using your right of fair use illegal.

Re:

I wonder if the RIAA will ever stop and realize that if they'd just fought this war fairly, most people would have been understanding with them. That if they'd did all the legal work they should have, and caught people with fair tactics, that jurors and the general public would be on their side. Because it IS against the law to download Intellectual Property you don't have rights to.

I'm not sure that they could have attacked it straightforward. They have no real means of doing good police work against people sharing files, unless you know of some other means to legally and accurately collect:

• A list of copyrighted files being shar

Re:

"But instead, they decide the law doesn't apply to them anymore and use as many underhanded and illegal tactics as they can. Now it doesn't matter if the RIAA is right, nobody in their right mind could possibly side with them.

This is completely disregardin

Re:

I'm not saying your choice of music sucks, it's just that there are TONS of people out there that do like it, and this is all directed at them.

I applaud your choice not to download illegal music, even if only because there's none you like.

Unless you're say

Re:

But instead, they decide the law doesn't apply to them anymore and use as many underhanded and illegal tactics as they can. Now it doesn't matter if the RIAA is right, nobody in their right mind could possibly side with them.

Sounds an awful lot like a divorce. And in this case, I'm sure the majority of Americans would appreciate being divorced from the RIAA.

Class action lawsuit?

According to the RIAA spokesperson, of the 400 students who the RIAA sent settlement letters to nationally, 198 of them agreed to it.

198 too many! This proves that the MAFIAA extortion is working all too well.

I work for NC State

I love NC State's policy toward the RIAA's stalin like tactics. While they do punish students on their own accord the entire legal department is against the RIAA's method of approaching students. I am very proud to work for a university that values copyrights while at the same time education it's students about their rights and current law.

On top of that then steps up and practices what it preaches.

No Student Responses?

I'm surprised students are not rallying to deal with the RIAA. Traditionally, college students have been one of the largest markets for recorded music. And the RIAA is directly attacking their traditional best customer with law suits. I would have expected campus rallys to fight the RIAA. Students obtaining pledges to boycott RIAA labels and distribution of lists of labels to boycott. Just surprised that theres no organized effort on the part of students to counter this.

Re:No Student Responses?

See, that's the problem. What incites teenagers and young adults to be rebellious and makes them want to "Stick it to the Man"? Rock and Roll. or if you want to trace it back further, music in general. Jazz, Big Band, everything right back to the first cave-teen who banged two rocks together has been celebrating his/her independence from all things authority. Now, what is popular today? That's right, pop/psudo-rap/hiphop crap, produced and approved by...dun, dun, dun... THE RIAA. The Man wins. Until the teenagers and would-be activists start listening to anything other than the bullcrap produced, approved of, and shoved down their throats by the very corporation they should be fighting, Rock Is Dead.

Re:No Student Responses?

I'm surprised students are not rallying to deal with the RIAA. Traditionally, college students have been one of the largest markets for recorded music. And the RIAA is directly attacking their traditional best customer with law suits. I would have expected campus rallys to fight the RIAA. Students obtaining pledges to boycott RIAA labels and distribution of lists of labels to boycott. Just surprised that theres no organized effort on the part of students to counter this.

You're a generation late. Today's students are too caught up with Paris Hilton, American Idol, and beating Gears of War to protest anything of significance. They will riot (and burn couches in Morgantown, WV) over a football game but you can't get more than 20 or 30 to show up for a rally against an illegal war, grotesque violations of privacy, or any other more fundamental causes. Sadly, boycotting the major labels would require more sacrifice than these kids are willing to make.

Re:

If they protest correctly it is a lot easier to get people to join in. There was recently an "anti-war" demonstration across the street from my apartment (I live on a university campus). I say "anti-war" for while the majority of people there were agains

Re:

"Sadly, boycotting the major labels would require more sacrifice than these kids are willing to make."

People unwilling to fight for freedom do not deserve it.

Re:

People unwilling to fight for freedom do not deserve it.

And, we are losing it at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, that large segment of lazy/ignorant/apathetic Americans are contributing to the loss of freedom for those that do care.

Very nice, but lasting?

This looks like a very nice stand by a mid-level adminstrator. People in universities usually get a lot of freedom, a carryover from acedemic freedom (allowed to teachers, not students!).

Unfortunately, if the university's adminsitration isn't behind her (and they might well be, viz acedemic freedom), she could get reversed and reprimanded. Worse since the Regents ulimately report to the NC Legislature. Still, acedemics _can_ be cantankerous. And are expected to be or tenure would not be granted.

NC State Graduate, class of 2001

I used to live both on and off the campus, connected to the university's blindingly fast network. The wholesale violations of copyright law that I committed, that my dorm mates and fraternity brothers committed, that everyone within my entire social sphere committed were about on par with what you would suspect from a major state university. I could snag most full-length films in 20 minutes or less, and most full mp3 albums in a few minutes tops. Stealing went on then, and it probably goes on even now.

It might be useful to prattle on about how draconian and unjust copyright laws may be--to decry business models as antiquated and unrealistic and so on. But it would be a jury argument, not a legal one. The fact remains that these students probably *DID* do what they were accused of doing. And they probably *DID* know they weren't supposed to, and did it anyway. To couch wanton lawbreaking as political speech, as many of the more articulate "fuck the RIAA" folks tend to do, is just intellectually dishonest.

Re:

True. I can't believe that people here are actually condoning breaking the law. Many people at colleges are downloading songs illegally. The number is up for debate.

What should be done is change the law and boycott the RIAA/MPAA. Why aren't we seeing m

Re:NC State Graduate, class of 2001

I can't believe that people here are actually condoning breaking the law

You mean, you *don't* condone breaking a bad law?

Your nation (assuming you are American) has many beautiful stories about this: Davy Crockett saying "make sure you're right, then go ahead", or Thoreau, imprisoned for breaking a bad law (as he saw it) who was visited by his friend Emerson who said: "Thoreau, what are you doing in jail??!". Thoreau replied: "Emerson, what are you doing out of jail?".

So do you really find it hard to condone breaking a law? Or are you a status quo copyright law defender? (out with it man! :) )

My own view (FWIW) is that it's ok to break a bad law, but you are going to have to face the consequences if caught. But I *don't* think you have to try and get caught unless you want to make a special civil disobedience point. And others do not have to help the defenders of a bad law catch those who break it either. So, it's ok to break copyright law if it's a bad law, and I happen to think current copyright law is bad.

Civil disobedience isn't just breaking the law...

Civil disobedience is not necessarily intellectual dishonesty. And one doesn't have to have the moral eloquence of Ghandi to participate in civil disobedience, nor for it to have its intended effect when large numbers engage in it. Witness the prohibition of alcohol consumption and distribution in the US in the '20s.

In most forms of civil disobedience, the people who violate the law in order to show how the law is wrong also accept the legal penalties for breaking the law until the law is changed.

Breaking the law and then not taking responsibiliy for your actions isn't civil disobedience as Thoreau envisioned it.

Considering the number of people who fled speakeasies when they were raided in the '20s, I'm not sure how you can call that civil disobedience either.

Not to rain on the submitters parade but....

Not to rain on the submitters parade but Jimmy Valvano was fighting for his life from cancer these guys are only fighting suspected copyright infringement.

First ad on /. page

And the first ad right below the summary is...

Report Software Piracy
Earn up to $200,000 for Reporting Pirated Software - All Confidential
bsa.org/reportpiracy

You go girl !

(she was a girl am i right ?)

well. in any case i wonder what we can do as /. to support this stand.

our support and even interest in the matter might encourage college administration to back her decision, given that many youngsters who interested in t

Correction

This morning I received an email from Ms. Gerace directly, and it appears that the Technician Online article is not 100% accurate. In fact, the Office of Legal Services is not able to represent students in federal court, and the students will need to use outside counsel for the actual litigation. See correction [blogspot.com] on my blog.

Re:NCState webserver doesn't stand up to slashdott

The site works for me... maybe it's because I'm an NCSU grad.

Re:

That'll be the reason. I wish I could get the hang of this intarweb thing. ;o)

it's just very slow for me. slashdot loads very quickly though !

It is also possible that the subpoenas are invalid

the FA is not clear on why they might be invalid - any insights ?

Re:Not State, but State University.

No, it's not wrong, merely confusing to those who haven't heard the term before. For example: Florida State University is usually just called 'Florida State' when talked about. When talking about the actual state, it's said 'The State of Florida'. Always.

NC State is the same way. Any time the government is talking, they'll call it the State of NC. NC State will always be the university.

Re:

Hmm, does that mean that the RIAA is willing to take on the 11th Amendment and go through state government to sue students? Something tells me the campus lawyer has this ace up her sleeve when advising students to refuse settlement offers.

Re:Hypocritical to the extreme

NCSU has a chancellor that writes open letters to the students telling them to "respect the DMCA" and NCSU's stance on student's intellectual property is to take it away from them and claim it belongs to the university. This one instance does not make NCSU grand or great and I will not applaud them until they do the right thing elsewhere within the University as well. Before anyone responds with "That's how it is in real life" or some other bullshit answer I encourage you to go look around at both employers and other universities practices in regards to employee/student developed IP. Most universities have started giving that IP to the students and do not keep it for themselves as NCSU does.

I'm pretty sure you're absolutely full of shit. Most Universities (and all that I've been a part of), and pretty much every company on the planet require grad students/employees to sign over rights to what you create. If you're talking undergrad - where you pay the university - that might be different, but unlikely even then if you developed that IP with university property. For grad work, where the university pays you, the university keeps the rights. Sometimes there's a royalty sharing agreement, but you don't get to negotiate it.

As for companies, if you find one that lets you keep IP that you create as an employee, stay there. I've never seen such a company.

Re:Loved that movie

Jimmy Valvano was a great coach and great person, who led an over-achieving NC State squad to an improbable, buzzer-beating victory in the NCAA men's basketball championship. His greater fight was his fight against cancer, which he lost in 1993 at the age of 47, but without ever losing his joy, his love of life, his love of, and respect for, people, and his boundless spirit.