Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Education Government The Courts News

University of Ohio Abandons Students Attacked by RIAA 242

Posted by Zonk
from the just-have-to-run-faster-than-the-hafling dept.
newtley writes "The University of Ohio was putting a brave face on being #1 on the RIAA hit list, but it now appears they have caved in to RIAA intimidation. Now, 'It appears that many institutions are simply prepared to wash their hands, refusing even to question the tactics of the industry,' let alone giving students meaningful legal assistance, says Ohio lawyer Joe Hazelbaker. He's written to OU associate director of legal affairs Barbara Nalazek saying, 'Ohio University has an obligation to protect the privacy of its students and their records, which includes directory information.' The Recording Industry vs. The People blog is hosting a letter universities whose students being attacked might want to consider."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

University of Ohio Abandons Students Attacked by RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26, 2007 @12:39PM (#19283909)
    I saw them take the virgin filesharers to the middle point of the campus. The school administraters tied them down to a large stake. Then they hit a large gong and a terrible rumbling was heard from within the Law School building ...
  • by morari (1080535) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @12:41PM (#19283927) Journal
    The RIAA only cares about popular "artists", after all...
    • by shmlco (594907) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @12:55PM (#19284023) Homepage
      And if you have to have it, a used cd is often only $4 or so on half.com.
      • by Odiumjunkie (926074) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:33PM (#19284297) Journal
        I have a friend who doesn't approve of illegaly downloading music. He occasionally buys a second hand CD for a couple of bucks, then immediately downloads high-bitrate rips of the same album from bittorrent, because more often than not the disks are scratched and he can't be bothered spending hours trying to make a decent rip of his own. I always wonder, what exactly is he giving back to the artist? Aside from a few fairly abstract arguments to do with the price point being higher if consumers know they can sell CDs they buy second hand, in what way does buying second hand CDs benefit the artists/RIAA more than just downloading the damn thing?
        • by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear@pacbe l l .net> on Saturday May 26, 2007 @02:13PM (#19284577) Homepage
          The money gets passed on. Think of it like momentum.
          I buy a CD, artist gets their $0.50. I sell the CD to a friend, artist doesn't get a cut but now I have another $9 to spend on another CD.

          Compare this to only downloading.
          I buy a CD, artist gets their $0.50. I upload the music and half a million people get the song; artist gets nothing, I never get an additional cent to buy another CD.
          • by JesseMcDonald (536341) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @02:27PM (#19284703) Homepage

            The money gets passed on. Think of it like momentum. I buy a CD, artist gets their $0.50. I sell the CD to a friend, artist doesn't get a cut but now I have another $9 to spend on another CD.

            Actually, the existence of a second-hand market is part of what allows them to sell the CD for $9 (or whatever) in the first place -- people will spend more up front if they believe they can get some of it back later. The value of the used CD is factored in to the price of the new ones.

            Compare this to only downloading. I buy a CD, artist gets their $0.50. I upload the music and half a million people get the song; artist gets nothing, I never get an additional cent to buy another CD.

            Going by your original logic, half a million people now have an extra $9+ to buy another CD. This would seem to be an improvement from the "available money" point-of-view.

        • by dgatwood (11270)

          It reduces the number of secondhand copies by one, thus meaning that the next guy might not find one for sale and would end up buying a new copy. Legally, the number of copies floating around on the market is constant or decreasing (ass copies are destroyed) except when they do a pressing.

          Using P2P for avoiding trying to rip a scratched CD does not change the number of copies floating around. It merely delays the amount of time before the number of copies decreases. Using P2P to download it outright ef

        • Maybe your friend goes to concerts? Maybe by buying a used cd from some guy, that guy has the money now to buy a new cd? If your friend is listening to a band, it's benefiting that band from word of mouth and mindshare. Sure, those are the abstract arguments you refer to, but does it matter if he's not directly putting a buck into the band's pocket? If I sell a painting for a couple of hundred bucks and someone sells the painting for a thousand - should I be getting a share because I'm the original painter?
        • Programs like Exact Audio Copy are able to painstakingly rip even the most scratched CDs very well when in secure mode. A friend of mine left a CD behind his computer desk for several years. Over time, the wheels on the desk would run over the CD and grind parts of it away. He found the CD while cleaning one day, and decided to see whether EAC could recover it. The CD was badly scratched and had dust all over it. After cleaning the dust off, and leaving EAC to run overnight, he was able to extract all of th
        • You have a friend who disapproves of illegal downloads, but routinely bittorrents extra copies of the used CDs he buys?
          Purchasing the used CD and bittorrenting a playable copy of the music are separate transactions. That bittorrent is still not strictly legal, even with the used CD in his possession. Of course, the record labels wish that used CDs weren't legal; they too realize that neither artists nor record labels get cash from those transactions. So (since I'm not against used CDs) oh well...
          BTW, d
        • He is propping up the original sale price. By having a secondary market for the used CDs, people who buy new CDs and then resell them when they're tired of them are able to free up money to buy additional new CDs.

          The downloading part is sketchy, but there is an effect from the secondary purchase. I would submit, however, that the value of the used CD is partly based on how beat up it is, so your friend should be purchasing CDs that are at least of sufficient quality to actually read, otherwise he's really
  • by ajanp (1083247) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @12:41PM (#19283931)
    I guess they decided to not to take the advice from our favorite anti-RIAA Harvard professor http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/05/04 13249 [slashdot.org]

    I'm going to go ahead and take a wild guess that a couple hundred University of Ohio students will be receiving some pre-litigation notices in the mail sometime next week.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shmlco (594907)
      Actually, I'm not sure what legal assistance they're supposed to be giving. I mean, what brain-dead college student doesn't know that downloading copywritten music and movies is legally wrong? Who hasn't been told? Who didn't get the memo?

      Or is using the school's network the determinant factor? If I commit a crime on the school's streets or property, can I assume that I automatically should get "legal assistance" too?
      • by Firehed (942385) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:16PM (#19284165) Homepage
        If students get sued into oblivion, they can't pay tuition. And if the college does something meaningful and beneficial for their students, they're a lot more likely to actually see donations later on.

        I'm by no means suggesting that the college has any obligation to provide any assistance, but it's certainly to their benefit in the long term.
        • by NDPTAL85 (260093)
          1. Most schools have way more applicants than they accept. If one drops out cause they can't afford it anymore than they have hundreds waiting in line to replace that student.

          2. If the person is too cheap to buy a $99 iTunes download then what makes you think they're going to make an alumni contribution later on?
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            > If the person is too cheap to buy a $99 iTunes download then what makes you think they're going to make an alumni contribution later on?

            How about because many students worry week-to-week about money for food, let alone for luxuries like DRMed 128kbps iTunes tracks?

            And I know, I know, if music is a luxury, why don't students just do without? Well, my first year at University, I didn't live in halls and I couldn't afford DSL, so no high-speed downloading for me. And guess what? I didn't spend a dim
        • One problem I see with your point: The existing donor base for a major uni like OU is gonna be massive because they have been feeding grads into it for about two centuries.

          This link: http://www.ohio.edu/foundation/about.cfm [ohio.edu]

          indicates a history of private sector donations going back to 1816. 2006 saw roughly 25 thousand people donate a total of $35 million USD. In 2004 the 'Bicentennial Campaign' concluded after bringing in 221 million USD.

          How many successful alumni over the age of 50 are going to be clued
        • by westlake (615356)
          If students get sued into oblivion, they can't pay tuition.

          The student isn't sued into oblivion. He gets an opportunity to settle out-of-court. To structure his payments.

          OSU can't be expected to provide its students blanket protection against civil liability. It can't be expected to carve out an exception for the file sharer.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by crawling_chaos (23007)
          Ah, but there is also another place to hit the university in pocketbook: the Alumni. If you are an alumnus of the University of Ohio and feel they are taking the wrong stand, be sure to let them know the next time they want a few bucks for the school. Enough of that, and the private universities and colleges will tell the RIAA to stick it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Yeah, what a joke. "Let alone provide meaningful legal advice" - that's your counsel's job, not your damn schools. Some of the points made in the article are somewhat valid, but definitely not anything down this track. "Whine, poor students doing something illegal, and their school isn't shielding them from it!"
        • Yeah, what a joke. "Let alone provide meaningful legal advice" - that's your counsel's job, not your damn schools.

          Actually, there are a lot of universities that provide legal counsel for free to their students (unless, of course, you are suing the univerisity). At my undergraduate school, the attorneys would even represent you in court if you needed it. At my graduate school, even though the attorney would not represent the student officially, you could still get tons of free helpful legal advice to use

          • But now Ohio University is refusing to give legal counsel to students caught in RIAA filesharing cases--except for "surrender!"
            • But now Ohio University is refusing to give legal counsel to students caught in RIAA filesharing cases--except for "surrender!"
              Well, that's exactly my point. Ohio University probably does have student legal counsel (I think another poster pointed that out exactly), so they should be giving them proper legal advice instead of throwing them to the wolves.
            • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray.beckermanlegal@com> on Saturday May 26, 2007 @05:06PM (#19285793) Homepage Journal
              Actually, let's be careful here.

              Ohio University's office of Student Legal Services has done an excellent job -- far better than the SLS at many other schools -- of advising the students. In fact they affirmatively went out of the way to help them find counsel [blogspot.com] and to make them aware of their legal rights [studentlegalrights.org], and of resources upon which they could draw.

              The problem is that under their charter, they're not authorized to litigate in federal court, and have to refer the students to outside counsel.

              Now the university's counsel's office should be taking a more activist role than it has, as Mr. Hazelbaker eloquently pointed out in his letter [ilrweb.com] (pdf).
      • by compro01 (777531)
        I mean, what brain-dead college student doesn't know that downloading copywritten music and movies is legally wrong?

        yes, as the RIAA would never make blatantly false blanket accusations.
    • by hxnwix (652290)
      There's a reason that Harvard has a better rep than the University of Ohio.

      And it's not just that Ohio sucks. Aye, the home of Blackwell, the black heart of voting fraud, poll taxes and electorate purges... If you live in Ohio, particularly on a state campus,

      GET OUT
  • by no_pets (881013) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @12:46PM (#19283961)
    In other news... enrollment drops at the University of Ohio.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bladesjester (774793)
      In other news, it's not the Univeristy of Ohio. It's Ohio University.
      • by no_pets (881013)
        Blame the editors. I cut and pasted. And no, I didn't RTFA.
        • I know you only cut and pasted. The editors are indeed to blame, but so is the submitter. One of the sites linked in the article appears to be his and it makes the same bloody error, so in effect, the person who submitted the story didn't read any of the freaking real news stories either.

          In a greatly ironic and humorous twist of fate, apparently either the editors knew what he was talking about and didn't do any actual editing or slashcode automates a whole lot (and does it well) because all of the relate
  • Victims? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @12:47PM (#19283975)

    It sounds to me like we're making a classic stupid military mistake: we keep on defending ourselves, at our homes, schools, and workplaces.

    So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      First, campaign contributions to the best opponent of the Senators Disney. Make it perfectly clear that you're contributing against Senator Disney. If you've got some extra time in the summer, volunteer for one of their campaigns.
    • Good idea, but how? I mean, planes get old after a while...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It sounds to me like we're making a classic stupid military mistake: we keep on defending ourselves, at our homes, schools, and workplaces.

      So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them? How do we start fscking over the RIAA / MPAA / Disney / NJ Turnpike Authority?


      Well, don't lump every Slashdot reader in with "we", as a lot of us don't download music and find the whole issue a big murky grey area best avoided..

      But the way to fight back is to, well, fight back. The university has a law school, put it to u
    • by turing_m (1030530)
      "It sounds to me like we're making a classic stupid military mistake: we keep on defending ourselves, at our homes, schools, and workplaces".

      I don't think there's that much to worry about. RIAA/MPAA are fighting a battle that is very difficult to win in the face of rapidly reducing costs of information storage and dispersal and no means to prevent it.

      It's not that much unlike Viet Nam or Iraq. Robert S McNamara's book "In Retrospect" talks about how much redundancy the North Vietnamese supply chain had, and
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      It sounds to me like we're making a classic stupid military mistake: we keep on defending ourselves, at our homes, schools, and workplaces. So let me ask: how do we take the fight to them?
      How about a counterclaim [blogspot.com] for copyright misuse, demanding forfeiture of their copyrights?
  • by Yath (6378) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:05PM (#19284095) Journal
    University students are adults. Why should Ohio University - or any other nearby entity with deep pockets - step in to help them?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Reason 1: Because if the students end up losing all their money, they can't pay more tuition.

      Reason 2: Because sometimes when hatred for the RIAA and reason get into a fight, reason gets its ass kicked.

      Pick one, or both. Personally, I'm going with the second one.
    • by mschuyler (197441)
      I agree--unless legal help is part of the tuition. To say it's because if the students get sued they won't have money to pay tuition? Mommy and Daddy do that a lot of the time, and if not, there're always more students who will fill an empty spot.
    • by hxnwix (652290)
      Professor Charles Nelson, Harvard School of Law:

      One can easily understand why the RIAA wants help from universities in facilitating its enforcement actions against students who download copyrighted music without paying for it. It is easier to litigate against change than to change with it. If the RIAA saw a better way to protect its existing business, it would not be threatening our students, forcing our librarians and administrators to be copyright police, and flooding our courts with lawsuits against relatively defenseless families without lawyers or ready means to pay. We can even understand the attraction of using lawsuits to shore up an aging business model rather than engaging with disruptive technologies and the risks that new business models entail.

      But mere understanding is no reason for a university to voluntarily assist the RIAA with its threatening and abusive tactics. Instead, we should be assisting our students both by explaining the law and by resisting the subpoenas that the RIAA serves upon us. We should be deploying our clinical legal student training programs to defend our targeted students. We should be lobbying Congress for a roll back of the draconian copyright law that the copyright industry has forced upon us. Intellectual property can be efficient when its boundaries are relatively self-evident.

      Perhaps Ohio doesn't have a law school that would enable students to defend other students. Perhaps Ohio just doesn't give a shit. Perhaps Ohio is complicit. Take your pick.

      • Ohio University does have a law school.
        They have recently changed their policy about how to deal with student downloading. So "complicit" is more likely than "apathetic."
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Ohio University is being asked to turn over confidential information that it is legally forbidden to turn over except pursuant to a (a) court order, (b) based on evidence that would be admissible at trial, (c) sufficient to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement against each person whose information is being sought.

      Ohio University owes a duty to its students to force the RIAA to make such a showing before it releases any information.

      In 2004 the RIAA was forbidden by a federal court to jo
  • It's Ohio University (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eldred (693612) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:08PM (#19284121)
    Correction: The school referred to in the story is called "Ohio University," not "University of Ohio."
    • I don't know how they get Univeristy of Ohio out of this. I've never heard *anyone* call it "Univeristy of Ohio" before (I went there and grew up in the general area).

      The funny thing is that we can blame this one not only on the editors but also on the story submitter who apparently didn't read the actual news stories himself (and calls it "Univerity of Ohio" in his own site which, by the way, he uses as one of the links in his story). :P
  • by mattgreen (701203) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:18PM (#19284179)
    But whatever happened to taking responsibility for what you do? Why would the university expose itself to lawsuits unnecessarily?

    Yes, the lawsuits are a bunch of bull, and yes, the RIAA is a bunch of thugs. But I have no doubt that the university told people that file sharing is a good way to get sued, and they went ahead and did it anyway. I have no sympathy for these people. As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that file sharing can make you the target of a lawsuit, but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it isn't considered illegal. And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the students did it because they wanted free music, not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

    If you want to change the situation, downloading files and trying to get sued isn't going to fix anything. Donate to EFF, move near the RIAA headquarters and intimidate them directly, or some other more direct means would be more effective.
    • by geoskd (321194) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:50PM (#19284409)

      But whatever happened to taking responsibility for what you do? Why would the university expose itself to lawsuits unnecessarily?

      Because the university put themselves directly in the middle of the situation by agreeing to act as *the* ISP for their students. They include the cost in tuition and provide the service for "free". The result is that the students have no choice but to pay the university for Internet service. Consequently, the university has a responsibility to protect those same students from the dangers of the net.

      Additionally, most college students are *not* adults when they start at a university, which is when most of them will run afoul of the RIAA / MPAA / Drinking laws. The university has agreed to act as the reponsible party for those students who are still minors, but instead of acting responsibly and defending the students from harm, they are actively handing over the students and the parents' to the Mafiaa. You tell me how many parents are going to let their kids attend a university that is abdicating the responsibility they agreed to take on, and leaving the kids and parents exposed to this kind of trouble.

      -=Geoskd
      • by mschuyler (197441)
        Oh, Okay. I get it. Since Qwest is my DSL provider and since they take my money for it, and since I don't really have a choice, then Qwest is responsible for defending me when I use their services to commit a crime. makes sense to me.

        The cut-off date for kindergarten in most places is October 1st. Some places it is November 1st. You must be five by those dates to enroll that year. The definition of adult is 18 and over. Most students are 18 by the time they enroll in college, or within a month or so. So, ye
      • The result is that the students have no choice but to pay the university for Internet service. Consequently, the university has a responsibility to protect those same students from the dangers of the net.

        The university shouldn't protect anybody from the "dangers of the net," otherwise that would give them license to censor which is not conducive to the open learning environment they try to promote. Should the university ban P2P services to "protect" the students? No, the students are given all the tools,

      • Did you even read my post?

        First, you argue that the university is supposed to "protect their students from the dangers of the net." How much protection do they have to offer? If a student gets phished, should they refund their money? Should the university police networked computers and remove malware for them? Can you show me where in the Ohio University's computer policy they promise to do this? And since when does "protecting" students involve spending thousands of dollars in legal fees for something that
    • by Odiumjunkie (926074) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @02:02PM (#19284487) Journal
      > As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that file sharing can make you the target of a lawsuit,
      > but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it isn't considered illegal.

      As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that [practising homosexuality] can make you the target of [the death penalty in Iran], but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it isn't considered illegal. And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the [homosexuals] did it because they wanted [to have homosexual sex], not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

      As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that [taking drugs] can make you the target of [the death penalty in Thailand], but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it isn't considered illegal. And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the [drug users] did it because they wanted [to take drugs], not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

      As unfair as it is, they should suffer some consequences to what they did. Most anyone knows that [not wearing religiously sanctioned clothing] can make you the target of a [being raped with no legal recourse in more than one Middle Eastern country], but most believe that it won't be them. If you think it is unfair, then actually get up and move to somewhere where it [won't result in you being raped with no legal recourse]. And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the [women] did it because they wanted [to wear clothing that was not religiously sanctioned], not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.
      • Nice try. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mattgreen (701203)
        Nobody is dying or being raped. They are downloading music for free. The two are very different things. Nobody is being oppressed here. They're merely suffering consequences for breaking [mostly unfair] laws.
        • > Nobody is dying or being raped. They are downloading music for free. The two are very different things. Nobody is being oppressed here. They're merely suffering consequences
          > for breaking [mostly unfair] laws.

          You're quite right! My analogy is flawed because it isn't exactly the same situation as the situation it attempts to describe.

          To be serious, if you hold "People who suffer consequence Y deserve no pity because they performed action X while knowing about consequence Y" to be true, it does
        • by $uperjay (263648)
          I think that the laws are unfair is exactly his point, mattgreen.

          The students may not be surprised that they're getting sued, but it's still unjust. The law is wrong.
      • by esrobinson (1028500) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @07:35PM (#19287087)
        And I'm willing to bet that 99% of the [homosexuals] did it because they wanted [to have homosexual sex], not because they somehow believed they were sticking it to the man.

        I didn't realize there was a difference... >.>

  • But whatever happened to taking responsibility for what you do? Why would the university expose itself to lawsuits unnecessarily? that would be true if the RIAA did good research on who it goes after but it doesnt. the RIAA goes afgter people to scare any real pirates into not stealing music. if the university just sits back and watches people [many times innocent no less] they run the risk of losing students and that of course is much worse for them than fighting with the students. they have a lot more

  • by pembo13 (770295) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:36PM (#19284319) Homepage
    Don't buy new albums, and don't download their albums. Try it for a year. You should be able to survive that long.
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:37PM (#19284323)
    Almost as if the university is responsible for the students behaviour. Aren't people responsible for their own actions these days?

     
    • And here I thought institutions of higher learning were responsible for standing up against unjust practices by the government and corporations. The punishments for this crime (I will admit, downloading music is stealing, for what it's worth) are unjust, I think we can all agree. They get this responsibility because when your university teaches subjects such as Ethics, you don't simply teach them in the classroom, you teach them through the actions of the institution. This is why I got in trouble with the u
      • by mschuyler (197441)
        Typical of the entitlement generation. Unless part of your tuition goes to legal help, the university is not responsible for defending you for stealing music, regardless of the penalty. You're the one who says the penalty is "unjust," but you are also the thief. Last I heard a criminal doesn't get to set his own penalty. You're opinion doesn't much matter here. The University is responsible? You could say the same for Mommy and Daddy. They are in the same position, trying to teach you ethical ways of living
        • http://www.studentlegalrights.org/ [studentlegalrights.org]
          Ohio University Center for Student Legal services. Their tuition pays for it. My university has one too. Most do.

          Let's take your logic to the next level, shall? Hypothetical (ok, not hypothetical. It's like this some places) situation: When you steal a piece of bread your hand is cut off, as are the hands of all theives. Of course, you knew the law ahead of time but you did it anyway, fine. Unjust law? How about if the law is that everyone who steals something is killed
          • As an alumni, I'm rather disgusted that my alma mater is rolling over on this. The students do indeed pay every quarter for legal services (and at $8 per quarter, it's well worth it) and the univeristy should be questioning the charges instead of giving them the student, no questions asked.

            As for protecting the student directory information, they actually have all of that available online (which is nice if you're looking for someone that you used to go to school with because a lot of us keep at least our e
      • by Colin Smith (2679)

        And here I thought institutions of higher learning were responsible for standing up against unjust practices by the government and corporations.

        Don't you think that is the individual's responsibility? I seem to remember students in the US protesting against the Vietnam war, in China students protesting against government oppression.

        Now... We have US students whining about being caught drinking under age and infringing someone's (thousands of people's) copyright.

        You see, there's a vital fact that seems to escape many people these days...

        Freedom is responsibility. Freedom and responsibility are the same thing. For every responsibility you give to so

    • Aren't people responsible for their own actions these days?

      Oh shit, I wet myself laughing so hard. "Responsible"? WTF does that even mean? The point isn't what the students have done, it's that the RIAA is ignoring legal procedure and rules of evidence to unfairly bully these people. It doesn't matter if they are guilty or not, they deserve a fair hearing. Not the perversion of justice that the RIAA dollars have wrought.

      I honestly hope I get caught. I would love to let my lawyer get medieval on those scumbags

  • Why be suprised? THe RIAA was going to cost them money and colleges today are not the same as they were decades ago.

    There are plenty of other students in line to get in.
  • http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,217 41980-5006024,00.html [news.com.au]

    Your money isn't going to the artists damn it. It never has and it never will. I think I have given up all hope for this damn country. Anyone know any islands up for sale?
  • IANAL, but...

    It seems to me that the RIAA's attorneys are guilty of many gross ethics violations. Why should concerned parties not go after the RIAA attorneys -- seeking their disbarment?

    If there were a fund for financing such, I would contribute.

    fwiw

    • The concerned parties oftentimes can't even afford to fight the original lawsuit, which is why so many groundless RIAA suits get settled. How can they afford that sort of countersuit?
  • If there is any certain way to get Congress to forget about the moneyed interests and actually listen to the people they are supposed to represent having a bunch of pissed off students, and the parents of those students, pressuring them is it. Some things to remember for the protest signs and letters:

    1) Congress does not have to grant copyright protection.

    2) If they do grant protection, it has to be for a limited time.

    3) One hour is a limited time.

    4) Sharing knowledge and culture is an inalienable right.
  • Personally when Ohio University went looking for donations later I'd tell them to go talk to the RIAA. Not like they'd get their money from them but after being backed out on I would certainly feel abandoned and unwilling to donate to a school who provided only as much as I paid for. Either I paid for my degree or I didn't have enough money to pay for it and we'd be square. I kn ow it's not the University's responsibility for backing up the student for something that is illegal but they should make a sta
  • I just want to be sure to clarify something.

    The Student Legal Services office at OU, which acts as a legal adviser and representative for the students, has worked very hard to make the students aware of their rights and to help them find counsel. Unfortunately SLS's charter does not authorize it to represent the students in federal court, so it must try to obtain outside referrals for them.

    It is the university's counsel's office to which Mr. Hazelbacker's letter is addressed.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...