samrocks
Premium
join:2003-07-30
| reply to vpoko
University Email sent out to students
This is the email I got from my University.
I took out names of the people that sent it for privacy.
Students,
This important letter from Chief Information Officer.
applies to all students. I encourage you to read it carefully.
Thanks,
Director of ITSS
---
Dear student,
The Recording Industry of America (RIAA), an organization that
represents music copyright owners, is targeting students at
universities that it believes are illegally using peer-to-peer software
to share music files.
The RIAA has filed hundreds of lawsuits nationally against students the
past few years. Prior to filing a lawsuit, a subpoena is typically
presented to the owner of the network seeking the identity of a
specific network user. You should be aware that as the owner of the
University of Minnesota network, the University will comply with any
lawful subpoena and will provide the user's identity and any other
information sought.
In a Feb 28 press release, the RIAA has announced the launch of "a new
and strengthened campus anti-piracy initiative" and "a new process that
gives students the opportunity to avoid a formal lawsuit by settling
prior to a litigation being filed." The RIAA also announced that an
initial batch of 400 such letters were sent to students at universities
around the country. Although University of Minnesota students were not
among those listed in the initial group, the RIAA has stated its intent
to send several hundred such letters monthly. The University will
forward any such letters to the student the University believes to be
the user, based upon the information provided by the RIAA.
Illegal peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted works is a violation
of the University's Acceptable Use of Information Technology Resources
Policy. If you have downloaded file-sharing software from the Internet
to your computer for illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, please remove
it from your computer immediately. Please visit the links below to read
the RIAA press release, learn how to disable peer-to-peer filesharing
programs, and familiarize yourself with the University's Acceptable Use
of Technology Resources Policy.
Links:
RIAA press release: »www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/022807.asp
How to disable various peer-to-peer filesharing programs:
»security.uchicago.edu/guidelines···to-peer/
U of M Acceptable Use Policy:
»www.policy.umn.edu/groups/ppd/do···_Use.cfm
UMD ResNet Terms and Conditions
»www.d.umn.edu/itss/resnet/terms.html |
|
Carson
@charter.com | reply to Asmodeus
Re: Wow
Wow!! Well said |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine  :Illegal scams targeting senior citizens are bad also. The RIAA doesn't conduct illegal scams. They stay just within the line of legality with their "Settlement Center Agreement Machination." Well the RIAA, through their bought and paid for political hacks make the law.
If the Telephone were treated like a song no one could use or make a telephone with out paying Bell or his descendants until August 3, 1997. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :Jason, my investigations have provided information that you are in debt to me for $1,000,000 for illegally profiting from my postings here on BBR. No amount of proof that you offer to the contrary will seem to satisfy me. Please let me know immediately the exact steps I must take to "convince" you that you owe me $1,000,000 so that I can entice you to accept my settlement offer of only $50,000. Well, the first thing you'll need to do is form a huge national organization backed by multinational organizations who collude to monopolize an entire industry. Next, you'll need to hire about 50 lawyers to form your own full-time lawyer army. Then we can talk. 
said by calvoiper :C'mon. Let's get real here. To be frank, I worry more about TV ads targeting senior citizens with claims they must "act immediately" to "preserve" their Social Security, Medicare, etc. Illegal scams targeting senior citizens are bad also. The RIAA doesn't conduct illegal scams. They stay just within the line of legality with their "Settlement Center Agreement Machination." |
|
ooarashi
@ameritech.net | reply to Asmodeus
You watch too much Law & Order. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :...let's say that the RIAA comes by accusing me of copyright infringement. Now I know that I am innocent, but they're convinced that I'm guilty. No amount of proof that I offer to the contrary seems to satisfy them. ... Jason, my investigations have provided information that you are in debt to me for $1,000,000 for illegally profiting from my postings here on BBR. No amount of proof that you offer to the contrary will seem to satisfy me.
Please let me know immediately the exact steps I must take to "convince" you that you owe me $1,000,000 so that I can entice you to accept my settlement offer of only $50,000.
C'mon. Let's get real here. To be frank, I worry more about TV ads targeting senior citizens with claims they must "act immediately" to "preserve" their Social Security, Medicare, etc.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
BIGPZ
@verio.net
| reply to loincloth
said by loincloth :If a left-handed person cuts off the left hand of another left-handed person (wrong #1), and the victim reciprocates (wrong #2), then two wrongs makes two righties! LOL. I would say that Right or Wrong acts have there own merit. But you have to ask yourself, do you want to reward wrong with wrong and potentially make things worse? |
|
loincloth
join:2001-03-29
Danville, CA
| reply to Qumahlin
said by Qumahlin :If you cut my hand off I don't get to cut your hand off, it doesn't work that way. Hence "two wrongs don't make a right"...in some countries the statement is untrue because they actually do see two wrongs being fair...you cut off my hand, I cut off your hand and everyone in happy. If a left-handed person cuts off the left hand of another left-handed person (wrong #1), and the victim reciprocates (wrong #2), then two wrongs makes two righties! |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to rstrandb
said by rstrandb :You act like they have no choice. If they are innocent then they can fight the lawsuit. The RIAA has proof that these people did wrong. It is up to these people to fight the lawsuit, it's not my problem. Like I said in another post of mine, let's say that the RIAA comes by accusing me of copyright infringement. Now I know that I am innocent, but they're convinced that I'm guilty. No amount of proof that I offer to the contrary seems to satisfy them. (For example, the grandmother who was accused of sharing hip hop songs on Kazaa who owned a Mac... when Macs didn't run Kazaa.) Therefore, my only options are to either 1) take their settlement offer or 2) go forward with the lawsuit.
Going forward with a lawsuit isn't a trivial matter. It's not like I take one afternoon off, tell a judge "I didn't do it" and walk out a free man. It's a long, drawn out process involving a large commitment of time and money. Most ordinary people don't enough free time or money to fight a drawn out lawsuit. Especially when your opponent is the lawyer-rich RIAA.
So an ordinary person will be tempted to take the $2-3K settlement versus dealing with a lawsuit that could possibly bankrupt them even if they win. (Yes, they can counter-sue for legal fees, but that's another time/money commitment.)
The RIAA is actually quite shrewd about this. They know that most people will simple want the lawsuit to just go away (irrespective of innocence). They've priced their settlement offer to be more attractive than sinking time and money into a fight for your reputation. They know that guilty and innocent people alike will take the RIAA up on the offer. But they don't care. They only care about the number of "pirates" that they've gotten to settle so they can send out press releases proclaiming how they are taking "pirates" offline.
I don't deny that the RIAA should pursue pirates, but they should do all they can to minimize collateral damage. As it stands now, collateral damage means nothing to them. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to rstrandb
said by rstrandb :You act like they have no choice. If they are innocent then they can fight the lawsuit. The RIAA has proof that these people did wrong. It is up to these people to fight the lawsuit, it's not my problem. They're setting up a clearinghouse for settlements. I guarantee you, if you send out 1,000 bogus demands for payment and include some legal threats, some people will pay you to avoid going to trial even though they don't owe you. I have no problem with RIAA's tactics against the guilty if there are real consequences when they threaten the wrong person. |
|
rstrandb
Premium
join:2003-04-17
Albany, GA
 ·Mediacom
| reply to vpoko
said by vpoko :said by rstrandb :What I don't get is how all you people come down on the side of CRIMINALS. People getting sued by the RIAA downloaded and distributed COPYRIGHTED material. They did not have the right to do it. I'm glad all these jerks are getting sued, they get what they deserve. If they can't stand the cost of their actions, then they should not have done it. Bunch of bums too lazy and cheap to buy a cd so they STOLE them. No pity from law abiding citizens, they were not robin hood, they didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor, they took people's hard work and stole it for themselves. I'd agree with you if only the guilty were sued, but RIAA's tactics ensnare innocent people, too. The problem is assuming everyone sued by RIAA is guilty, and treating them accordingly. You act like they have no choice. If they are innocent then they can fight the lawsuit. The RIAA has proof that these people did wrong. It is up to these people to fight the lawsuit, it's not my problem.
--
Fight the war against secular progressives before the ideals that made this country great are lost forever |
|
sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT
| reply to vpoko
Since when can we trust the government?
I'd countersue them for a bunch of stuff, and probably go after them for a huge sum of money. The government approves this sort of stuff, but with Democrats controlling both the house and Senate, they may want to look into this, since the RIAA can't get their facts straight.
If I were to put a tag on it:
99% of the time, the info is "screwed up"
1% of it is accurate. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to kyramilan
Re: Crime Victim Resource
The key point in both "extortion" and "threatening communication" is that the threatened action must be something that the person making the threat is not legally entitled to do. In the example stated, Dan is not entitled to commit vandalism or after-hours theft.
Anyone who can sue you can threaten to do so unless you agree to a settlement. If the law were otherwise, bill collectors would be out of business.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: Wow
First, you are deliberately confusing "discovery" (a court process) and "investigatory" (a pre-court process.) Anyone is entitled to "investigate" believed thefts without going to court first. If you run a business and you think someone is stealing from you, you may, for example, install video cameras or ask around about who is selling your stuff before ever considering court.
Second, the court system encourages pre-litigation settlement of claims. The court system recognizes it is a very expensive process and people would like to avoid it. Certainly, no person has an obligation to settle pre-court, but they may save money and legal expenses by doing so. They are also free to pass on such a settlement. No private party is under an obligation here to tell you to hire a lawyer.
You may not like the current laws enforcing copyrights (and I don't in some ways, either) but let's cool the rhetoric just a bit. The xyAAs have offered a settlement process. You are free to decline it. It's a CHOICE. Why deprive someone of a CHOICE?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to sd70mac666
said by sd70mac666 :This is racketeering. if they come after me I'll charge them with racketeering and extortion. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe racketeering and extortions are crimes, not torts, so the government would need to charge them. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to rstrandb
said by rstrandb :What I don't get is how all you people come down on the side of CRIMINALS. People getting sued by the RIAA downloaded and distributed COPYRIGHTED material. They did not have the right to do it. I'm glad all these jerks are getting sued, they get what they deserve. If they can't stand the cost of their actions, then they should not have done it. Bunch of bums too lazy and cheap to buy a cd so they STOLE them. No pity from law abiding citizens, they were not robin hood, they didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor, they took people's hard work and stole it for themselves. I'd agree with you if only the guilty were sued, but RIAA's tactics ensnare innocent people, too. The problem is assuming everyone sued by RIAA is guilty, and treating them accordingly. |
|
rstrandb
Premium
join:2003-04-17
Albany, GA
·Mediacom
| reply to vpoko
What I don't get is how all you people come down on the side of CRIMINALS. People getting sued by the RIAA downloaded and distributed COPYRIGHTED material. They did not have the right to do it. I'm glad all these jerks are getting sued, they get what they deserve. If they can't stand the cost of their actions, then they should not have done it. Bunch of bums too lazy and cheap to buy a cd so they STOLE them. No pity from law abiding citizens, they were not robin hood, they didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor, they took people's hard work and stole it for themselves.
--
Fight the war against secular progressives before the ideals that made this country great are lost forever |
|
sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT | reply to vpoko
This is racketeering. if they come after me I'll charge them with racketeering and extortion. |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| reply to Ritalin
said by Ritalin :
I was just going to giggle over the silly little quibble you have made over wordage. However after you posted this shining turd of a rebuttal I could not help but respond.
I hate seeing people argue over a phrase, its pointless and redundant, this case especially. The simple fact that I could debate what is a right and what is a wrong until you are ready to beat me with the closest blunt object validates this; would that be right or wrong?
You may be able to wonder around in circles with your argument to lose some people Asmodeus1, but to those that are paying attention you just sound like the kid that thinks he's smart after watching a few too many episodes of 'Law and Order'.
Stick to topic!!!
i just don't like the phrase because it is ultimately meaningless in the realm of law and just about everywhere else... but hey, you are entitled to your opinion about who you think i am... you couldn't be more wrong however, but you know what they say about orifices and opinions, right...? and i've never seen a single episode of law and order either nor survivor for that matter... oh well, i guess when you quip as an unregistered user you can say silly things on the internet as well... |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to calvoiper
There are two issues with it:
First, is the discovery/investigatory process being executed without a court warrant. I believe there is some law that they bought, that's never been tested in a courtroom mind you, that is protecting them there.
Secondly, there is the disinvolvment of the legal system in its entirety, and the fact that they're essentially offering you legal advice from an non bar-holding representative. Now I haven't seen the site, but if it doesn't make it abundantly clear that you should have your legal counsel going through the process for/with you, then it's clearly predatory.. |
|
