Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stanford To Charge Reconnect Fee For DMCA Notices

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the your-tuition-dollars dept.

Education 344

theantipop writes "Stanford didn't like appearing on the MPAA's list of 25 worst offenders. Last week the university issued notice of a new policy in which students are charged a reconnection fee, ranging from $100 to $1000, if they fail to respond quickly enough to a DMCA complaint. The policy is to take effect September 1 this year. As a show of 'good faith' they are graciously allowing all students to start at the $100 fee level for subsequent notices."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Economics here... (5, Funny)

AP2k (991160) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163253)

I mean its not like we wont have that money lying around from all the DVDs we sell, right? Right?

Re:Economics here... (5, Insightful)

Dimentox (678813) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163527)

But they assume you have the billions that it "costs them" from your alledged piracy. What gets me is that people seem to want to be able to get their content via internet.. So why the hell does the MPAA and riaa not see this as a sign to tell them where to switch their buisness model to. They have switched their business model but not to the right place. They switched it to no better than the mafia give us your lunch money. What i would like to see is Digital Streaming broadcasts of movies where you can buy a viewing ticket and watch it on opening night from your home. The movie theators suck, they are overpriced and i dont wanna sit next to some stinky person who talks on the cell phone.

Re:Economics here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163773)

So why the hell does the MPAA and riaa not see this as a sign to tell them where to switch their buisness model to

In current Corporafascist America, buisiness model switches YOU.

Re:Economics here... (-1, Redundant)

Dimentox (678813) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164105)

Who modded this Redundant needs to doubble check. There was not a redundant statment in this post when it was posted. Its goober moderator day it seems.

Re:Economics here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164163)

Your signature indicates you do not care, but your post says otherwise.

Re:Economics here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163817)

This warning advertisement of DMCA/RIAA to the public ... Is it paid? or is free for DMCA/RIAA?

What's Next? (2, Insightful)

CyZooNiC (656901) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163285)

Next you wont be able to graduate unless you pay your unpaid DMCA notices.

That is already so. (5, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163827)

Next you wont be able to graduate unless you pay your unpaid DMCA notices.

Most schools require a zero balance to graduate.

Being denied net access is one of the principle wrongs of the right to read story [gnu.org] . Even today, that is fatal. Witout network access, you can't register for classes. If Stanford has special policies for computers within their network which they deny to computers outside their network all of those services are denied for those "disconnected".

Re:That is already so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164203)

Witout network access, you can't register for classes.

Having your computer cut off from the network is not the same as being without network access. Chances are there are plenty of public terminals and computers in labs around campus which can be used for network access even if your personal computer can't be connected.

Re:That is already so. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164309)

Nobody cares about some GNU bullshit that a linuxfag wrote, ESPECIALLY if it's by RMS. Go spend a week compiling shit or something, and take your "GNU Philosophy" and shove it up your gaping asshole you gigantic open sores faggot.

Re:What's Next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163911)

What will happen when innocent but technically naive students get spoofed and framed for something they did not do? There are enough sociopaths out there who will, inevitably, do that. When I was in college, some ^&*hole hacked my account and caused me a world of trouble. In retrospect, other incidents showed it was likely someone in my dorm had a packet sniffer and a bad attitude. Death is not good enough for these griefers.

If any of them pay this fee... (1)

pulse2600 (625694) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163301)

...they should get on TV next to Jeff Foxworthy and say "I go to Stanford, but I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader!"

Re:If any of them pay this fee... (3, Insightful)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163475)

...they should get on TV next to Jeff Foxworthy and say "I go to Stanford, but I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader!"

Why?

It's Stanford's network; if you pirate files and violate the terms of use agreement you signed back when you activated your connection, they've got every right to kick you off the network, and every right to fine you to let you back on. And considering how important the internet is in higher education these days (almost all of my homework assignments, for example, are issued online and occasionally submitted electronically as well), I'd say that paying the fine so you've got your connection back is a pretty good idea.

Paying the fine so they can get their connection back isn't stupid. It's a necessity.

Re:If any of them pay this fee... (3, Insightful)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163681)

A necessity? You've never wardriven a college campus, have you?

I haven't either. No need, my hallway had 4 open APs last I checked.

Re:If any of them pay this fee... (2, Informative)

FromageTheDog (775349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163995)

I do live in Stanford on-campus housing -- and I can assure you that every private AP within range of my MacBook is quite secure.

Re:If any of them pay this fee... (2, Funny)

LordPhantom (763327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164127)

So... you've been busily securing them, have you?

Re:If any of them pay this fee... (2, Insightful)

WaxParadigm (311909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163737)

Why?
...
Paying the fine so they can get their connection back isn't stupid. It's a necessity.


The stupidity is in getting disconnected in the first place.

Re:If any of them pay this fee... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164097)

or hand the work in w/o the research and a copy of the letter in an appendix and watch the auto-pass roll in. A friend of mine got kicked off the network for committing an actual criminal offence with the university computers and he still got special dispensation.
OR, just withold whatever part of your tuition fees goes towards computer access. OR, pay with a cheque and cancel it. There are a billion and two ways to fight people who issue fines with no authority to do so. Pick one.

College candidates - reprioritize your preferences (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163305)

Just roll Stanford down in your list of preferred colleges/universities.

A university/college which gives more crap for what money bosses think than its students think is a one that is down the drain. Their reputation and quality of graduates tend to deteriorate rapidly in 5-10 years, which affects even old time graduates.

Just choose a university that cant stomach being a bitch to big buck.

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (1, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163379)

Just roll Stanford down in your list of preferred colleges/universities.

While I believe that Stanford buckling to "Big Buck" pressure is lame beyond belief, I can't agree with your argument. For prospective students to ignore Stanford because for the next four years they wouldn't be able to easily torrent some movies and risk their future and/or proximity to home by attending another college that happens to ignore the DMCA notices is just shortsighted.

Man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163833)

the parent was just Karma Whoring.

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (2, Insightful)

Retric (704075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164031)

Why, I avoided MIT because their campus sucks. When you're going to spend 3 - 5 years of your life at college why not look at the "little things" and chose one that meshes with what you want?

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (5, Insightful)

n00854180t (866096) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164193)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to de-rank Stanford because of this. If they're willing to harass their own students based on the whims of a private company, it's a short shot to doing more than just harass. Stanford (like others that seem to be more aware and responsible) has the clout to completely ignore the RIAA (as other universities have done), but instead it chooses to 1) harass students and 2) charge them arbitrary fees. All at the whims of a totally unrelated private company. Pretty dodgy if you ask me.

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164365)

Come on, this is Slashdot, where the smallest of slights is supposed to be grounds to:
Discontinue purchasing all products from a company with the thousands available in its line (Sony, Walmart, etc),
Quit your job (how many ask slashdots have you seen where the question is: "My boss doesn't understand the importance of X, what do I do?... and everyone yells get a new job! like you can snap your fingers and get a better job without any loss of benefits, vesting, etc.)
Move from your home, possibly out of state (See NY AG story).
Now we are also expected to turn down offers from one of the most respected universities in the world, because they are trying to avoid a legal hassle.

Is it no wonder that most "geeks" are seen as the problem children in most companies?

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (2, Insightful)

shaka999 (335100) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163461)

Examples?

I tend to disagree a bit here. A universities reputation is based on the quality of its research and how well it's graduates to in the work force. Research is paid for by outside companies which ARE concerned about their IP. A company will not want to be associated with a "pirate" university.

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163697)

> A universities reputation is based on the quality of its research and how well it's graduates to in the work force.

Last I checked Stanford was a liberal arts university, not a trade school. Their reputation is based on their scholastics, not how much money their graduates make.

jfs

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163467)

I wonder how Stanford would react to unauthorized duplications of that university's publications...

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (2, Informative)

nanosquid (1074949) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164221)

They'd probably cheer; academics tend to hate the restrictive policies of academic publishers.

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (2, Funny)

techpawn (969834) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163597)

Spoken like a true Yale man

Re:College candidates - reprioritize your preferen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163729)

Yes. Stanford better watch out, because we know that students that regularly violate copyright laws are known to be much more likely to raise the reputation of a university than those who show some regard for intellectual property.

Next thing you know, Stanford will be expelling students that cheat.

Silly Stanford.

Cheating == DMCA violation? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164239)

Notice, I didn't even say "Copyright infringement"...

Even if it was about copyright infringement, let me throw out an idea. It's not really a justification, just a concept:

Maybe if a student is actually pirating interesting stuff -- V for Vendetta, Ghost in the Shell, Firefly, Mythbusters, or take your pick -- it would be part of their education. I don't mean officially, but maybe these kids would actually take something from what they pirate. Given that they're starving college students, it's not like they have the spare cash to spend on all of these things, especially if they only buy a few (I wouldn't have bought Firefly if I didn't see it somewhere first).

In other words, piracy would tend to actually challenge and educate students. Cheating can do neither of these things -- all it teaches is how to beat the system, but it also makes it possible for the student to skip some education.

But maybe it's not even about copyright infringement. Given the way the DMCA works, it is (still!) illegal to play a DVD on Linux. And, whether you love or hate Linux, you have to appreciate that a kid who's bothered to run it is probably somewhat unique in some way.

Citizens, Reclaim Your College (3, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163989)

Just roll Stanford down in your list of preferred colleges/universities.

What and just let the MAFIAA have Stanford and everything it does? NFW. It is outrageous that people can be thrown off their network, fined and out of school without a trial on the word of a big dumb company that's got a reputation for suing innocent people. This needs to be fought at every level. We can't let big dumb publishers destroy public institutions over their pop proffits. Pop music and movies are not worth this. Lawrence Lessig [wikipedia.org] must be furious. Do you think he's going just leave? Where will you go that can't be screwed over?

University backlash in long term to RIAA (4, Interesting)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164079)

Universities tend to be sluggish in the internal politics of their administrations, despite their reputation of being progressive and cutting edge. There seems to be a time lag of about ten years between the opinions of most of the students on an issue and that of the university administration. But when the administration does change, it often seems to go overly towards the opinion that the previous university administration was so against. There seems to this pattern of bonehead inertia followed by a swing too much in the other direction ten years later. I noticed this during the Vietnam War protests of the 1960s when lots of quality professors were being fired for protesting the war in its early years and then having universities go strongly anti-military in the 1970s. This pattern also showed up in the 1980s with resistance to 'political correctness' in the 1980s followed by a stiff overreaction towards PC mentality in the 1990s.
    So if there is any validity to these observations, then there may be a complete change of view against the RIAA and restrictive copyrights on the part of university administrations in about ten years that will last for another twenty or so afterwards. This pattern of overreaction to extremes followed by an idealogical reversal in the other direction seems to be the general dynamic of university administrations as the younger people who suffered from their positions in the beginning take control of the administrations through the long personnel change process. Often they are the only ones interested in gaining control of universities given the tediousness of administrative processes. Revenge seems to be a good motivator and would explain this tendency to shift between extremes.
    So don't worry too much about your university being a poodle to the RIAA cokeheads. It will most likely change over time. In the meantime, set up websites where you can support the fellow students who have been randomly selected for RIAA extortion.

PDF Dump (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163307)

1
Student DMCA Complaint Policy & Reconnection Fee
May 11, 2007
Background
While file-sharing technology has revolutionized our ability to share information
with one other, its illegal use for pirating copyrighted materials is at unacceptable levels
at Stanford. On March 30, 2007 Stanford was listed as one of the Motion Picture
Association of America's top 25 worst offenders
(http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=196 9). We have also had a steep
increase in the number of piracy complaints filed against us by the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA).
From September 2006 - January 2007, Stanford received nearly as many Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaints as we received in the entire 2005-06
academic year. Of these complaints, 90% are directed at undergraduate and graduate
students: students who are jeopardizing the Stanford network by using it as platform to
steal songs, movies, TV shows, video games, books and software.
As of May 2007, the RIAA has identified seven Stanford network connections
that have been targeted for its "pre-litigation" notification program
(http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/022807.asp). The RIAA has said that it will
continue to send out pre-litigation notices each month.
Keeping up with the number of file-sharing complaints coming in under the
DMCA has required almost three full-time Stanford employees. It is an irresponsible
waste of Stanford's resources--your tuition dollars--to spend so much staff time
responding to copyright violations.
To defray these costs while underscoring Stanford's stance on copyright,
beginning September 1, 2007, Stanford will charge violators an Internet reconnection fee.
2
Student DMCA Policy
1st DMCA Complaint: The Information Security Office will forward a copy of the
complaint to the student, with an email instructing the student to
remove copyrighted content and respond to the Information
Security Office. A student has 48 hours to respond to the
Information Security Office (ISO) and attend to the DMCA
complaint. If the student addresses the DMCA complaint within
that time, there will be no disconnection, and no reconnection
fee. But if the student does not respond within 48 hours, the
student will be disconnected from the network. Once the DMCA
complaint has been addressed, the student will be charged $100
to be reconnected to the Stanford network.
2nd DMCA Complaint: The Information Security Office will forward a copy of the
complaint to the student and to the student's Residence Dean.
The student will be disconnected immediately from the network.
Once the DMCA complaint has been addressed, the student will
be charged $500 to be reconnected to the Stanford network.
3rd DMCA Complaint: The Information Security Office will forward a copy of the
complaint to the student. The student will be disconnected
immediately from the network. Network privileges will be
terminated. The Information Security Office will file a
complaint with Judicial Affairs for disciplinary action. New
network privileges may be granted at Stanford's discretion upon
the student agreeing to indemnify Stanford against any further
copyright violations, and paying up to $1000 to establish new
privileges.
Fees
Students may pay fees directly to the University within 30 days of the
reconnection; fees remaining unpaid after this time will be added onto monthly
University bills.
Although the purpose of these fees is to discourage piracy and compensate the
University for resources spent dealing with DMCA complaints, for the first year of the
program, the affected departments have agreed that these fees will be transferred to
ASSU's general operating budget to enhance Stanford student activities.
3
Reconnection Fee Effective Date
The imposition of the reconnection fee is the only substantial modification to
Stanford's treatment of DMCA complaints against students. The imposition of
reconnection fees will take effect on September 1, 2007. All students will start at the
$100 reconnection fee level. So if a student had one DMCA complaint filed against her
prior to September 1, 2007, then on receipt of a 2nd DMCA complaint, Stanford will refer
the matter to the student's Residence Dean and once the complaint has been addressed by
the student, a $100 reconnection fee will be charged.
Additional Information & Resources
File-sharing copyrighted content without permission is against the law and against
University policy. There are many easy and inexpensive ways to access or purchase
entertainment content lawfully: Ruckus offers a free music service to college students,
http://www.ruckusnetwork.com/pressrelease.php?id=6 2 [ruckusnetwork.com] ; songs are sold individually for
less than a dollar; you can rent movies through the mail or buy them online; or you can
even visit the library. Downloading content illegally through the Stanford network is not
an acceptable option.
To avoid both legal and university consequences, please take the time to remove
unlawfully obtained copyrighted content from your computer.
For more information about Stanford's Copyright Policies, see the Copyright
Reminder that was distributed this past October (http://wwwsul.
stanford.edu/libraries_collections/copyright_remin ders/index.html) and the Provost's
letter from September 2004 in which he discusses file-sharing myths
(http://www.stanford.edu/dept/provost/news/Provost Fileshare2004.pdf).
Contact
Questions about this policy may be addressed to Lauren Schoenthaler, Senior University
Counsel at lks@stanford.edu.

Re:PDF Dump (4, Insightful)

anexium (591672) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163435)

so they get an immediate disconnect with a $500 fee on the second dmca? but what if the 1st one was bogus/wrong/malicious?

Re:PDF Dump (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163695)

Well then it serves them right for not being able to explain the first incident when they are given the opportunity to rebutt the accusation.

Re:PDF Dump (2, Informative)

theantipop (803016) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163625)

I suppose it's worth mentioning that the $100 fee isn't automatic (I forgot to mention that in the summary). You have a window, albeit short, to respond before you get cut. Still, the notice seems to be cut and dry with harsh punishments despite the validity of any complaints received.

Re:PDF Dump (1)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164073)

I was thinking the same thing, but then noticed that there is no such response window for the 2nd or 3rd DMCA notice. So not only does the fine increase substantially, guilt is assumed, and the network connection is cut immediately. If I accuse someone of the same crime a second time (even if they were found innocent the first time around), does that make them more guilty?

Re:PDF Dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163811)

It doesn't seem that harsh. You have 48 hours to respond to the notice before you're disconnected.

I don't know that there's a reasonable interpretation of pre-DMCA US copyright law that would allow you to share copyrighted material on a p2p network. If you don't have any copyrighted material shared, that's your response.

The way I see it, Stanford is just tired of being stuck in the middle.

Guilty if charged? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164181)

Ok, I'm confused. I may just be missing something that is implied in this policy, but there does not appear to be any process to have DMCA Notification letters reviewed for validity? It appears as if the University, upon receiving a complaint letter, just assumes the student is guilty? I mean, I'm sure we're all *very* confident that 100 percent of such DMCA complaints received by the University will be legitimate complaints of factual violation by students. *cough*

Begin the countdown until a student or group of students brings suit against the University. . .

Due diligence. (5, Insightful)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163313)


Of course, they checked to make sure the charges were real before the instituted the fines, right?

I mean, these wouldn't possibly be trumped up charges after all.

Re:Due diligence. (2, Interesting)

uglydog (944971) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163623)

It doesn't say anything about that. Doesn't matter if it's legit. So if Viacom is sending out blanket takedowns again, the students are screwed. Couldn't you DoS this policy by just making half-assed claims?

2nd DMCA Complaint: The Information Security Office will forward a copy of the complaint to the student and to the student's Residence Dean. The student will be disconnected immediately from the network.

Re:Due diligence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164025)

You know, when people can't be bothered to read the second freaking sentence of the blurb it explains why the editors are as lackadaisical as they are.

What if the DMCA notice is fradulent or incorrect? (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163317)

Just because Stanford's name is at risk students, who aren't guilty of a *crime* and have no way to prove their innocence, are being dropped from the campus network and having money extorted from them by the University to reconnect?

That's a bunch of horseshit. The MPAA and RIAA are winning at their game with colleges when more should be turning to the legal minds on campus to see what they can do to shut this finger pointing media game that they are playing.

Re:What if the DMCA notice is fradulent or incorre (2, Informative)

tetromino (807969) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163539)

Apparently, if within 48 hours of receiving the notice, the student responds to the Stanford Information Security Office and explains that he has a right to host the content, there is no disconnection and no $100 fee.

Re:What if the DMCA notice is fradulent or incorre (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163633)

Apparently, if within 48 hours of receiving the notice, the student responds to the Stanford Information Security Office and explains that he has a right to host the content, there is no disconnection and no $100 fee.

What if the student isn't around for 48 hours (busy drinking, studying at the library, or fucking their SO at an off-campus location)? They should be given a chance at an in-person interview to explain the situation and fight the "charges" of IP infringement brought before they are charged anything.

I'm not saying not to cut their connection but to charge money too? Please.

Re:What if the DMCA notice is fradulent or incorre (1)

TheNicestGuy (1035854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164287)

Just because Stanford's name is at risk students, who aren't guilty of a *crime* and have no way to prove their innocence, are being dropped from the campus network and having money extorted from them by the University to reconnect?

No, as a matter of fact, they're not. Okay, the RIAA, MPAA, and DMCA turn my stomach as much as the next person who's realized that copyright is broken in the Internet age, but I'm going to have to play devil's advocate here and insist that people look a little more carefully at Stanford's position. From the release:

Keeping up with the number of file-sharing complaints coming in under the DMCA has required almost three full-time Stanford employees. It is an irresponsible waste of Stanford's resources[...]

Yes, this means the DMCA is annoying and overbearing, but that's not Stanford's fault. In fact, it shouldn't even be Stanford's problem in the first place—Stanford itself didn't infringe anything—but the copyright holders have to go through Stanford to get a name and address for the infringer. Stanford could just ignore it, but I don't know what sort of nasty liabilities that opens them up to under the DMCA. (I suppose that's the crux of the matter, so any DMCA experts are invited to fill in that blank. For now I'm assuming it potentially makes life miserable for them.)

So they have to connect the copyright holders with the alleged infringers, and it's costing them big money to do so, and they wouldn't have to do anything if no one on the campus network was file-sharing illegally. They could just as easily have said, "We don't care how you use our network, but some other people do. As long as we continue to receive DMCA notices, the cost of dealing with them will be shared by all students in the form of a network subscription fee. What? You've never file-shared in your life and shouldn't have to pay? Well, apply a little peer pressure to your peers. When we stop getting DMCA notices, we'll stop charging the fee."

And that wouldn't have been beyond the pale, although it's obviously not fair. But they didn't do that. Read carefully the "penalty" for the first notice:

The Information Security Office will forward a copy of the complaint to the student, with an email instructing the student to remove copyrighted content and respond to the Information Security Office. A student has 48 hours to respond to the Information Security Office (ISO) and attend to the DMCA complaint. If the student addresses the DMCA complaint within that time, there will be no disconnection, and no reconnection fee.

If you're infringing, you clean up your act and respond to the complaint within 48 hours, and as far as Stanford is concerned, you're golden. You may still get sued by the copyright holder, but let's face it: Under U.S. copyright law that is absolutely their right, and absolutely not Stanford's responsibility to shield you. If you're not infringing and the complaint is in error, you contact the complainant within 48 hours to tell them so, and you're still golden. Does the DMCA make false accusations easy and annoying? Yes. Does it need to be repealed or fixed so that copyright holders need to meet some burden of proof before placing any burden on innocent defendants? Yes. Does Stanford have an obligation to judge who's innocent and who's guilty, or to fix the DMCA? No. The only thing they care about is whether students get the complaint off Stanford's plate and deal with it themselves in a timely manner, because it's their problem, not Stanford's.

So be careful how you characterize things. Stanford is not network dropping and extorting money from innocent students. If you get a DMCA notice and ignore it, it doesn't matter whether you're infringing or not: You're not innocent, you're lazy, and you're costing Stanford money. If you take care of your own legal responsibilities, Stanford will leave you alone.

Is this the solution? (3, Interesting)

Adam Zweimiller (710977) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163327)

At my University, they took to blocking BitTorrent traffic, and the traffic of most popular P2P apps. This was pretty effective at stopping 99.9% of students from using the aforementioned services. So, with far more effective methods of counteracting this, why resort to billing students for what may or may not be a legitimate DMCA complaint? Seems like they are just inviting **AA to abuse this.

Re:Is this the solution? (1)

TheGreatHegemon (956058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163513)

The one thing I've discovered while working at UCI (As student staff) is that each department is greedy. For instance, one year a bus had to be redirected from its normal route due to construction. When we requested them to move it back, the transport service wanted us to pay them for the extra maintenance fees, employee hours, etc. the old route would cost. (Note, the route was about a minute or two longer). Both were university departments, and I'd not be surprised if some departments instead try to leech the money off students (Not like they won't already have enough money problems after the RIAA sues them)

Re:Is this the solution? (1)

Disallowed (928349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164095)

The problem with blocking BitTorrent is that there are a lot of legitimate uses for it. For example, most (all?) Linux distributions are available via BitTorrent.

This would be akin to blocking all port 80 traffic as a measure to stop pornography. Sure, you would reduce the visits to www.raunchyporndomain.com, but you'd get in the way of a lot of legitimate traffic as well.

"Reconnect fee"? (0)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163345)

Does it really cost $100-$1000 to update a routing table?
No, of course it doesn't. This goes right up there with my U's $100 "administrative fee" they charge for forwarding you an email complaining about file sharing.

Re:"Reconnect fee"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163721)

Does it really cost $100-$1000 to update a routing table?

yes it does. abuse@stanford.edu may goto a System administrator, but the public IP address is almost without a doubt not mapped directly to a computer. Even if it is, the school still needs to investigate that the computer was on during the accused time and identifiy the student. Once they change the routing table which, depending on the procedures, may require some authorization, they have to update the students records. Then, when the student comes and explains themselves, they have to re-enable it.

During all of that time, they could of been doing something else. So... It is not a 5 minute change and is a distraction that takes the IT/NetEng person away from other tasks. I don't exactly agree with the variable pricing, it does cost money.

Re:"Reconnect fee"? (1)

r3m0t (626466) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163725)

This isn't cloaked as an administrative fee; the announcement says:

"Although the purpose of these fees is to discourage piracy and compensate the
University for resources spent dealing with DMCA complaints, for the first year of the
program, the affected departments have agreed that these fees will be transferred to
ASSU's general operating budget to enhance Stanford student activities."

What shit.

abuse (4, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163357)

so if someone from Stanford pisses me off i can send a fake DMCA letter and cost them $100?

sweet.

Re:abuse (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163559)

Not that I'm supporting this sort of thing..... BUT it would be damned funny if Stanford suddenly received 2,000,000 DMCA letters from the RIAA or some friends of the RIAA. Does anyone know the IP address range for Stanford?

Re:abuse (2, Informative)

SlayerofGods (682938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163797)

Actually you'd end up costing yourself some money...

(f) Misrepresentations.-- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section--
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html [cornell.edu]

Re:abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164265)

not if it's a fake fuckhead.
WAY 2 COMPREHENDZ

Re:abuse (1)

livewirevoodoo (74316) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164307)

if they spent time verifying each claim they'd be using more than 3 full time employees to deal with the notices.

Good! (0, Flamebait)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163365)

MPAA = loud mouthed arrogant bastards with their heads up their own asses.

Students = loud mouthed arrogant bastards with their heads up their own asses WHO LEECH FROM MY TAXES!

Re:Good! (3, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163649)

You got that the other way around. Students pay tuition and other charges related to their education. The MPAA is sponsored by the extra taxes raised on empty media, 'copyright enforcement' fees and other things you'll have to pay for whenever you see any type of media.

Re:Good! (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164129)

With all respect, while students are having an easy time at university, they are not in employment and therefore not paying taxes. Therefore, as a tax payer, I am subsidising them.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164201)

The general idea is that the students will end up paying those taxes back, plus a bit more, so you're doing yourself a favor by paying their education. But, for experiment's sake, let's stop funding education and see what happens.

Re:Good! (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164379)

The general idea is that the students will end up paying those taxes back, plus a bit more, so you're doing yourself a favor by paying their education.

And that's absolutely fine provided that they all become doctors, scientists, teachers and other useful careers that allow them to put something back into society. We don't need more lawyers, media studies graduates or graphic design people - if private enterprise wants those, then it should fund them themselves through on the job training and experience. But, for experiment's sake, let's stop funding education and see what happens.

Yes, and in your world "2 + 2" makes "57" does it? Where did I even allude to the idea of stopping the funding of education??? What I said was stop funding useless degrees - hell, even give students discounts on tuition fees if they do degrees in subjects where there are skill shortages and which can benefit society as a whole.

Re:Good! (4, Informative)

profplump (309017) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163669)

First, they aren't leeching from your taxes any more than you are for driving on roads in other states -- there are certain things we decided should be publicly funded due to their public benefit. Education is one of those things, and it's probably one of the most important, at least if you believe in self-governance. You may not personally think that education is a worthwhile project to fund, but many people do, and you're not going to convince them otherwise by accusing students of leeching from "your" taxes.

But beyond that, Stanford is not part of the UC system, and is not particularly publicly funded. I'm sure they get some public money, but so do many other institutes, with or without students. For example, road construction companies derive a large amount of their income from public contracts, and very few construction companies enroll non-employee students.

Does your ignorance make you a loud mouth arrogant bastard with your head up your own ass WHO LEECHES FROM MY INTERWEBS, or should I just excuse you as someone that's angry about not going to college?

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164003)

Who is this "we", and who gave them the authority to choose for every individual?

Re:Good! (0, Troll)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164059)

I just don't believe we need that many "Media Studies" graduates, lawyers or people doing "Klingon Language" degrees.

Over here in the UK, I was destined to go to university until there was a family tragedy and I went straight out to work instead. I'm 45 years old now, a well paid IT & security consultant and totally convinced that work experience was far more beneficial to me than a degree.

The graduates I see coming into this field these days only *THINK* they know everything - in reality, they know very little...

Re:Good! (2, Funny)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163789)

YES INDEEDY! The next presidential election will hinge heavily on the pro-student, anti-student issue. Like you I am very anti-student and hope they all go to Mexico or Canadia soon.

Yeah, burn them libraries. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164091)

Society pays more for music and movies than they do for education. To cement their position, it seems that the MPAA/RIAA thinks they can get away with putting people in jail and taking their houses and life savings. The IRS got a little carried away like that back in the 1970's, the result was the election of Ronald Reagan. While society values entertainment, it's unlikely they will put up with this kind of harassment for long and copyright law is about to get a serious re-calibration.

Re:Yeah, burn them libraries. (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164275)

Society pays more for music and movies than they do for education.

Where did you get *that* idea from???

Sure, there is some public subsidy of "The Arts" but most of the music/movie money comes from people buying CDs and DVDs, going to the cinema and going to concerts - plus all the additional merchandising.

To cement their position, it seems that the MPAA/RIAA thinks they can get away with putting people in jail and taking their houses and life savings.

I am in 100% disagreement with what the MPAA/RIAA does - but we're talking about students here, who already leech off society...

Good Faith (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163387)

Enrollment should drop to 0, in good faith that Stanford and other universities will get the message that they shouldn't sign up to be enforcers for the MAFIAA.

Secure transfers (3, Interesting)

farker haiku (883529) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163407)

The solution is of course to use a program like WASTE and create a small network of friends (and by friend I mean non-leech).

Re:Secure transfers (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163699)

WASTE is a great option for darknets. It not only features traffic encryption, but may optionally generate fake random traffic when no files are being transferred. That's a good way to make Stanford spend their $100 fines.

Wow, just wow (3, Interesting)

travdaddy (527149) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163421)

So not only is Stanford graciously enforcing the RIAA's copyrights for the RIAA, but they are also joining in on the payday for the pirates that are caught? Bad Stanford!

Re:Wow, just wow (1)

Grashnak (1003791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163683)

Ya, pretty sad. Its like coming upon someone being raped and instead of calling the police, dropping your pants and waiting your turn. Blech.

Re:Wow, just wow (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163899)

I'm not sure this is even legal. Under the DMCA safe harbor [chillingeffects.org] provisions, network operators are supposed to take down material upon receiving notice from a copyright holder. If the customer disputes this, they can provide a counter-notice that the material does not infringe upon copyright. The ISP is then required by law to reinstate service, unless the copyright holder proceeds with a lawsuit.

I don't see any room in this law giving Stanford discretion to make service contingent on receipt of a fee. Of course, IANAL so YMMV.

Stanford$100FeeTroll says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163433)

Don't forget to pay your $100 reconnect fee you DMCA-violating teabaggers.

Stanford is leading us into the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163479)

Stanford is a guiding light for America. They show how well they can knuckle down and respond to commands to organizations that have zero interest in the welfare for their students or Americans in general.

Unfortunately, not standing up to people is becoming the standard here in America. We have a war which can't be won unless real numbers of troops come in, as even our President doesn't have the guts to do what it really takes to win a war, and that's fire up a draft to get the boots on the ground needed to lock down hostile areas.

Perhaps the American flag should be a concept similar to Germany's, except different colors. Our flag should be gold, yellow, then black. The gold symbolizes our past, freeing Europe from tyranny. The yellow symbolizes the pure cowardice of our actions and the fact that everyone knuckles down to tyrants, and black shows what our future will be if this continues.

Wrong Way (-1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163501)

The reconnect fee is a great idea but it needs to go both ways. Charge the student if he really is in violation, Charge the MPAA/RIAA if they submit a disconnect that turns out to be wrong or bogus!

Why don't the schools charge a processing fee to the MPAA/RIAA for each disconnect as well. They might as well make money both ways and I am sure the MPAA/RIAA would not mind paying to have the request processed. :)

Re:Wrong Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163779)

I like this. If a student says the claim is wrong, the RIAA gets 48 hours to provide proof. If they fail to do so, further DMCA notices will be ignored till they pay $100 to get 'reconnected'.

Re:Wrong Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163983)

Why don't the schools charge a processing fee to the MPAA/RIAA for each disconnect as well.
Because the RIAA has lots and lots of lawyers. If students were all rich kids who's parents didn't mind shelling out a few hundred grand for a legal team, they wouldn't be able to get away with this re-connect fee either.

Re:Wrong Way (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164303)

Are you saying that Stanford (A Law School) does not have enough budding lawyers and pre-grad law students to berry the RIAA in legal paperwork?

What a wonderful learning opportunity the students would have. :)

The short version (3, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163617)

Stanford saw the *AA making sweet money on trumped up charges and decided to cut themselves in for a share.

how is this a big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163689)

Did anyone RTFA?? They're not charging for students getting DMCA notices, they're charging deadbeat students who don't respond within 48 hours. It's not hard to reply within TWO DAYS, and it's very common for universities to have fines for students who don't deal with paperwork on time. This is nothing new.

I didn't see where they had to admit guilt. (1)

Puls4r (724907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163767)

It appears to me that a simple response of "I have no illegal copyrighted material and have never participated in any illegal activities of this nature." is a perfectly valid response folks. Remember, the DCMA allows a response. It doesn't assume guilt.

What is the justification for this fee? (1)

Anarchysoft (1100393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163819)

IT time? Oh, I forgot. Like most college fees, they can just invent a number and charge whatever they want. It is Stanford (the Silver Spoon Ritz) after all!

Re:What is the justification for this fee? (1)

Anarchysoft (1100393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163941)

Keeping up with the number of file-sharing complaints coming in under the DMCA has required almost three full-time Stanford employees. It is an irresponsible waste of Stanford's resources--your tuition dollars--to spend so much staff time responding to copyright violations.
Ah, the problem with not reading the PDF. It is clear that the harrassment by the RIAA is the problem here and not the students however.

Re:What is the justification for this fee? (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164345)

They come right out and say it's a deterrent, and that the money (at least at first) will go to a particular fund. They're not lying and calling it a cost. (At least, not this fee.)

Re:What is the justification for this fee? (1)

Anarchysoft (1100393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164369)

They come right out and say it's a deterrent, and that the money (at least at first) will go to a particular fund. They're not lying and calling it a cost. (At least, not this fee.)
Thanks. I couldn't read the PDF until someone posted it.

1000 bucks is nothing to those kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19163863)

Few, if any, employers will ever ask or care what college you graduated from. They will ask what degree you have, but rarely do they care what college it's from.

The only realistic advantage of the ivy league schools is the faint hope that you get a higher quality education and bragging rights, but few people are impressed with ivy league credentials these days.

The students are rich enough to get their own T1 off campus anyway or just remote in to the server farm back at that parents house or such.

Why doesn't this place just get a napster subscription like all the other universities ? That tends to stop the need of most students to DL music anyway and they offer good deal to universities on bulk/site subscriptions.

Sounds like the biggest problem is their IT department is far behind the curve hence P2p is even possible on the network AND they have no legal music distribution system. Whats up with that. Maybe I should send in my resume :P

I see .... (2, Funny)

thundergeek (808819) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163881)

I see a new western union commercial here!

kid: Mom? Dad? I need some cash, quick, before my webiste goes down.

LA mafia at work (1)

thanksforthecrabs (1037698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163925)

Just because of a letter and no civil or criminal conviction you can lose your connection and have to pay to have it turned back on? The LA mafia shakedown indeed.

More generous than before (5, Insightful)

kscguru (551278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19163935)

Before Slashdot overreacts, I graduated from Stanford two years ago; this policy is more forgiving than what was in place in 2005.

Read it carefully - roughly, after the first notice, it's a $100 fee. After the second notice, it's $500 plus a notice to the residence dean (like a referral to the principle). After the third, it's $1000 plus a referral to Judicial Affairs (which, given Stanford's honor code, is likely to result in a suspension). The previous policy was a network disconnect until a student certifies offending material is removed, the second offense was another disconnect plus a notice to the residence dean, then after the third, referral to Judicial Affairs and a student was PERMENANTLY BANNED from the Stanford network. (Makes it quite difficult to do classwork.) I'm personally bothered with this new policy; makes it too easy for a rich kid to ignore everything.

Stanford's networking folks do look carefully at the notices, protect student privacy unless faced with a court order, and a student can contest the DMCA takedown notice without penalty with the eager assistence of Student Legal Affairs - although doing so waives your privacy. As of two years ago, no student had ever contested a notice - they were all clear-cut DMCA violations. And only well-documented violations ever got passed to students.

Now, let's be honest here ... I have yet to see a single person on Slashdot ever suggest running a file-sharing service from their desktop at work. So exactly why is a university a different story? Regardless of the merits of the DMCA itself (I personally think it's a stupid law, guilty-until-proven-innocent and with punishments far worse than the violation itself), the DMCA is still the law; why should a university be expected to shield individuals engaged in illegal behavior?

Re:More generous than before (1)

dfoulger (1044592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164285)

I suppose I'm glad to hear that none of the RIAA notices were illegitimate while you were a student, the evidence from elsewhere suggests that they may not be. Stanford is exactly the kind of place that would attract the kind of RIAA allegations that Lessig documents at RIT (no real RIAA violation; just a search database that documents web documents on the net). The result in that case, a student settling to avoid the cost and hassle of litigation could easily have happened at Stanford as well. I guess I'd give above average odds that very few students at Stanford had their machines hijacked by file sharing botnets, but the RIAA's track record in getting DMCA notices right is abysmal. I guess I just don't quite believe that your claim is necessarily true across the board.

Re:More generous than before (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164319)

Now, let's be honest here ... I have yet to see a single person on Slashdot ever suggest running a file-sharing service from their desktop at work. So exactly why is a university a different story?

Not that I think doing it at a university is necessarily a good idea, but it *IS* a different story from work.

1) You live there. Its your home. The expectation of privacy etc in your dorm vs your office/cubicle quite different.
2) You own the computer, not them.
3) You pay a fair bit of money for the services you receive. As opposed to it being provided for you to perform your job.

Its clearly very different and its not unreasonable to argue that the university plays the role of your ISP here.

One thing's for sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164011)

This is going to put a great big smile on Craig McCaw's face.

Stereotypical "I submitted this three days ago"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164019)

I really did though. Damn Slashdot, moving at the speed of molasses, even with the Firehose.

To balance things (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19164037)

Perhaps they should block all promotional movie sites associated with the MPAA and charge them $10,000 to $100,000 per site to reconnect.

gahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164119)

Someone should make a new pro-Berkeley, anti-Stanford t-shirt about this one. :)

Stanford where you're (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164121)

guilty until proven inoccent.

Stanford student speaking... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19164189)

First off, I submitted this several days ago.

Second off, they already had a three-strike policy, this basically just adds the fine ("reconnection fee").

Third off, this is disappointing but not surprising, as Stanford (being the "west coast faux ivy") seems to be even more reputation-paranoid than most schools, and really doesn't care at all about the quality of life for students (particularly off campus grad students, but I digress). Mostly this is annoying because they buy into the "stealing" rhetoric in the official announcements, and because it stands in stark contrast to the recent Harvard law professor who said that universities should fight this crap.

The only thing this place has going for it is the actual quality of the academics and most of the professors. Good thing that's the most important part of a school. Well, I guess the architecture is nice too...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?