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!

University of Kansas Adopts 'One Strike' Copyright Infringement Policy

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the hope-you-really-liked-that-cher-album dept.

397

NewmanKU writes "Eric Bangeman at Ars Technica writes that the University of Kansas has adopted a new, and very strict, copyright infringement policy for the students on the residential network. The university's ResNet website states that, 'Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is against the law. If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever. No second notices, no excuses, no refunds. One violation and your ResNet internet access is gone for as long as you reside on campus.' According to a KU spokesperson, KU has received 345 notices in the past year from organizations and businesses regarding complaints about copyrighted material downloading."

cancel ×

397 comments

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

Due Process (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936433)

Is there any clause to protect the due process rights of students?

Re:Due Process (5, Insightful)

SamP2 (1097897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936477)

Tough luck pal, due process only applies in court. They'd have to follow it if they decided to sue you, throw you in jail for whatever, or something like that.

Cutting you off the campus net is an entirely private decision, no due process required by law.

Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.

Re:Due Process (4, Insightful)

Darkon (206829) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936527)

Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.
On a free forum to which you have paid nothing this makes sense, but I'd imagine the students pay some quite hefty fees to the university in the expectation of receiving full access to all services for their money.

Re:Due Process (1, Informative)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936587)

Sure, as agreed upon and detailed in the plethora of documents they sign - which now include this notice.

Re:Due Process (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936641)

Sure, as agreed upon and detailed in the plethora of documents they sign - which now include this notice.

Just because you put something in your TOS does not make it legal or enforceable. IANAL, but I am an admin on a university network and we are frequently reminded that the students are paying customers with rights and as such we cannot arbitrarily ban them from using the system. Without some kind of watertight right of appeal someone probably will get caught as a false positive by this policy, sue, and win.

Re:Due Process (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936733)

On top of that, this rule is new. So I guess it was not in any of the TOS that have been signed so far.
Even assuming the new rules are legal, I suspect (IANAL) that they cannot be retroactively applied to existing service contracts. So the university would have to cancel the existing contracts and probably refund or wait out any pre-paid access times.

Re:Due Process (2, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936817)

Nearly all contracts contain wording to the effect of 'We reserve the right to make changes to this contract at any time' so yes they can make it apply retroactively.

Re:Due Process (1)

Durandal64 (658649) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936871)

I'm guessing that the service contracts are renewed from year to year. So they can change the terms at their leisure.

Re:Due Process (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936745)

"I am an admin on a university network and we are frequently reminded that the students are paying customers with rights"

You can stop right there.

YOU are a nobody. A network admin. THEY, the people who want this rule enforced, are record companies with IMMENSE capital and an army of lawyers. They can do what they please and the college "authorities" WILL obey because MONEY TALKS.

Get over it.

Re:Due Process (0, Flamebait)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936955)

Any guesses whether or not this new policy applies to the legacy-admit son or daughter of a wealthy alumnus donor?

Re:Due Process (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937079)

Any guesses whether or not this new policy applies to the legacy-admit son or daughter of a wealthy alumnus donor?
It doesn't, or, if it does, it'll be a poster child case for some legacy-admit who decided eight months ago that they were going to transfer anyway.

This rule is only used in the (dreadful) event that one of those base middle or lower class students starts acing their wealthy legacy-admit "betters" in classes and hurts their fragile ego...

It's also a Plan B. Plan A, in the (dreadful) event that the middle or lower classes begin to produce students who perform better than their wealthy legacy-admit "betters", has always been to throw the goose-egging psycho girlfriend at the would-be usurper.

Re:Due Process (3)

The_Fire_Horse (552422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936643)

Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.


Well, I'm posting at -1, so I hear you loud and clear (no one else will though)

Re:Due Process (0, Offtopic)

NeilTheStupidHead (963719) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937035)

After looking at your previous comments, you deserve a -1. If someone with an axe to grind flagged you unfairly every time you made a post, then you'd have a legitmate complaint, but making inflamitory posts and getting labelled appropriately is rather reasonable I think.

Re:Due Process (2, Insightful)

mbulge (1004558) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936875)

The University of Kansas is a public school, which means that this is not and should not be an entirely private decision. This decision goes too far, seeing as how other Kansas schools and government facilities are not bound by the same restrictions.

Re:Due Process (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937097)

In my opinion, I don't think so.

In my opinion, even if someone signs a contract stating that evidence, not a conviction, is needed to terminate a service, that doesn't necessarily mean that is lawful.

If they cut off someone's Internet access before conviction, so be it. But if they go to court and they are NOT found guilty, don't you think the school may have a lawsuit on their hands if they fail to re-enable the student's access?

Sure, I can understand temporarily suspending (or limiting bandwidth) of someone's Internet account to begin with, but after a verdict is reached, further action needs to be taken by the college. If found not guilty, the Internet access should be re-enabled fully.

Yeah, it's titled, Thou Shall Not STEAL !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936533)

Sometimes, you have to wonder about those bleeding heart liberal peado lovers

Re:Yeah, it's titled, Thou Shall Not STEAL !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936647)

Do you mean one of these

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the Load thy God.

ONE: 'Thou shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'Thou shall not make for thyself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'Thou shall not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (that goez for you too ozzy).'

FIVE: 'Honor thy father and thy mother.'

SIX: 'Thou shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'Thou shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'Thou shall not steal.'

NINE: 'Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.'

TEN: 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house; Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.'

Now, go forth and multiply, but not thy living in trailer parks, nor thy commmunists."

Re:Yeah, it's titled, Thou Shall Not STEAL !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936839)

ONE: 'Thou shall have no other gods before Me.'
How 'bout no god at all then?

TWO: 'Thou shall not make for thyself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
Obligatory nonsense?

THREE: 'Thou shall not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.'
Goddamnit why god damn hell not?

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (that goez for you too ozzy).'
Friday? Saturday? Sunday? God! I hate Mondays. Wednesdays are not so great, either.

FIVE: 'Honor thy father and thy mother.'
I win one!

SIX: 'Thou shall not murder.'
I take it you don't like George Bush much? Or hell, millions of your children.

SEVEN: 'Thou shall not commit adultery.'
How about I do but become catholic, confess my sin, and move on?

EIGHT: 'Thou shall not steal.'
Riiiight. Big corporations are all corporationy anyway so I am justified. Strike me dead now if you disagree.

NINE: 'Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.'
Why would I? I'm doing his wife AND daughters, and plus, I have all his power tools.

TEN: 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house; Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.'
Send me to hell now then, because I'm a bad, bad boy.

Re:Yeah, it's titled, Thou Shall Not STEAL !! (2, Funny)

VagaStorm (691999) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936899)

>> EIGHT: 'Thou shall not steal.'
>> Riiiight. Big corporations are all corporationy anyway so I am justified. Strike me dead now if you disagree.


Gues we won't be hearing from him again :p

Re:Yeah, it's titled, Thou Shall Not STEAL !! (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936867)

OK. Theft is defined as unlawfully taking something that belongs to another person, with intent permanently to deprive them of it. The important words being "deprive" and "permanently" (which is why it's a valid defence if you knew or had reason to believe that the person intended to destroy the article, since in effect you are only temporarily depriving them of it for the time it would have taken them to destroy it, after which they wouldn't have it anyway).

Now we've got the definition out of the way, please tell me: What is it that someone will not have after you download a copy of a piece of music, that they did have before you downloaded it (the "deprive" bit) and there is no way for them to get back (the "permanent" bit)?

JUST 1 More reason... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936543)

Not to go to Kansas first the Kansas baptist church Than the board of ed. Now this??? Kansas you are like the red headed stepchild

Oh crap... (5, Interesting)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936443)

From the universities page: (which I downloaded into my browser...)

If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever

And further down, on the same page! (Which my browser downloaded, remember)...

Copyright © 2005 by the University of Kansas

Wow, that is harsh! I guess that's me banned then :-)

Re:Oh crap... (5, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936617)

Yep. In fact, as a signatory to the Berne Convention, in the US copyright exists in every work not explicitly released into the publci domain. Which makes it a particularly stupid thing to say. I mean it is fairly obvious that they mean "no unauthorised downloading of copyright material", but if they really plan to implement a "no excuses, no appeal" policy, you'd think they'd take the 30 seconds or so it needed to phrase the thing correctly.

Even then, it's still way OTT. Half the papers on Citeseer (for instance) are there in technical violation of the copyright of the journals where they were first published. The journals turn a blind eye, which is why the site can keep on, but I can see a lot of sudents getting banned, which considering how widely used citeseer is as an academic resource, is a but ridiculous.

I suppose the only other way they could implement the policy as expressed is to rely on the word "caught". That way, if they don't look for downloaders, they don't find them, and selective enforcement becomes the order of the day. I suppose it might be useful if the they forsee needing a pretext to silence unruly students.

You aren't banned, the owner is distributing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936653)

They are "distributing" or making available to you to make a copy of something they own the copyright on. Whats wrong with that? Just don't start serving your copy of that page to others without permission.

When you copy music from someone that doesn't own the copyright, then theres a problem too.

You are right that if you take their wording literally then its funny, but there is either implicit consent to copy from the owner because they are distributing it or it can be explicitly given in a license e.g. GPL software.

Re:You aren't banned, the owner is distributing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936769)

I think the whole point that the GP poster was making though was that the way the policy is written(at least the quoted part if is is in context which I think it is), downloading of any copyright material is grounds for termination of network connection.
Doesn't mater that you have permission, you download copyright material, you loose privileges.

Yes, it is stupid, but let them make rules, and hopefully they will learn that it should be (I think at least, I'm no lawyer, ect)

If you are caught distributing copyrighted material(that has not yet entered the public domain) without permission of the owner(or their agent) via your ResNet connection, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever

Re:Oh crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936665)

Things like this remind me of places(net cafes I think) that offer web browsing but say "no file downloading".

Aren't you downloading the page (and images, and style sheets, and flash, and ....) to display it?

And most pages are likely copyrighted... (I think all US residents whose page doesn't say otherwise I believe it is copyrighted 75(95?) years post death, no registration required, no marks, anything, although I am not sure about the markings, I am sure on the no registration, consult local lawyer to see what is correct).

Hmm, combine this with someone else's comment about people you don't like. Just put up a web server, convince people on the network to view it, and then complain to the administration that the following people violated your copyright by viewing your page.
Although I am not exactly sure you could do to make sure the school actually enforces what they say.

Re:Oh crap... (4, Informative)

Karellen (104380) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936739)

No, someone isn't violating copyright by viewing your page, but the rule doesn't talk about *violating* copyright, it talks about *downloading copyrighted materials*.

*All* works, unless they carry a notice explicitly putting them into the public domain, are automatically copyrighted by the author[0]. They do not need a copyright notice for them to be copyrighted.

Now, as the author, you may make your work (web page) available for people to download for free; that is your right. And because you, as the copyright holder, are the one who has made the work available, the end users aren't breaking copyright by downloading it.

*However*, they are still *downloading copyrighted materials*. They may be doing so legally, but that is not what the rule cares about. The rule states that merely downloading copyrighted materials is grounds for account termination.

[0] Or, if it is a work-for-hire or similar, the work might be copyrighted by an entity other than the author. But it is still copyrighted.

Re:Oh crap... (1)

NeilTheStupidHead (963719) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937067)

They may be doing so legally, but that is not what the rule cares about.
Then that is what the rule should have said.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, the intent of the rule is quite clear, but (un)intentional poor wording can lead to a big mess later on if someone decides it means something different than the authors thought it did.

Re:Oh crap... (1)

hpavc (129350) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936921)

I'll be waiting at the staff copier pool, ready to remove the violators.

Lack of Caring (4, Interesting)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936447)

If the students care enough, they will all cancel their accounts. When the University sees a drop in revenue, they will have to decide.

Pulling authoritarian crap like this in a place where people are naturally rebelling against everything and anything is a good way to get egg on your face.

Re:Lack of Caring (4, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936529)

Nah, students wont cancel the accounts because they need them, instead what needs to be done is someone file copyright infringement claims against *every* student, and since this rule applies to claims and convictions they will all be required to lose their accounts.. showing how stupid this sort of rule is.

Re:Lack of Caring (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936621)

Everybody who buys a "class notes" book from the bookstore should write down the publisher of every work copied in the books, and confirm that the school indeed obtained permission from the publisher to make the copies, as well as noting how many people are in the class to see how many copies were made. Ditto all class handouts.

Re:Lack of Caring (1)

dondelelcaro (81997) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936685)

Everybody who buys a "class notes" book from the bookstore should write down the publisher of every work copied in the books, and confirm that the school indeed obtained permission from the publisher to make the copies, as well as noting how many people are in the class to see how many copies were made.
At least at my university [ucr.edu] , the need to obtain permission and license the copyrighted works appropriately is one of the reasons why course readers can be so unbelievably expensive. [I've seen 200 page readers which cost $40.00, purely because of the copyrighted content contained within them. (They're found sitting next to some of the $8.00 readers of equivalent length which contains stuff written by the instructors of the course.)]

Re:Lack of Caring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936721)

You go to UCR? I am so sorry.

So very, very sorry.

Re:Lack of Caring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936781)

It's tied with the University of Kansas at number 88 in US News rankings. It's also located near both LA and OC. Nothing to brag about, but nothing to be sorry about.

Re:Lack of Caring (1, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936563)

If the students care enough, they will all cancel their accounts. When the University sees a drop in revenue, they will have to decide.

Pulling authoritarian crap like this in a place where people are naturally rebelling against everything and anything is a good way to get egg on your face.


You know a better solution? Don't download copywritten material.

Re:Lack of Caring (-1, Offtopic)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936579)

Please moderators, do tell me what was inflammatory about my post? If you follow the law, you will have no problems with this policy. If you violate the law, then you lose your privileges.

Just because you don't agree with my views, does not make my post flamebait.

Re:Lack of Caring (3, Interesting)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936735)

I think the slashdot needs similar policy to the uni of kansas:

One stupid moderation of a valid point gets your moderation privelidges removed forever.

But lets face it, if you were too stupid to make a valid poitn wouldnt you just hide behind the moderation system by using it to disagree with other people too?

Re:Lack of Caring (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19937033)

>One stupid moderation of a valid point gets your moderation privelidges removed forever.

I'd like to see this take one step further: Being stupid in general should be a cause to have one's Slashdot account revoked forever.

So, for example: Someone that can't spell "privileges" and is too lazy to use a dictionary? Gone.

Or, calling someone else stupid, a moron or an idiot in a sentence replete with errors, such as this: "too stupid to make a valid poitn wouldnt"? Buh-bye, Bubba.

Hell, I figure we could weed out three-quarters of the Slashdot population in a short time, and probably very nearly all of those with UIDs over one million.

Re:Lack of Caring (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937107)

One stupid moderation of a valid point gets your moderation privelidges removed forever.
Must be what happens, since the last 5-6 years, my IP has been repeatedly "banned" for a few days after I have reposted downmodded tro^h^h^hposts, and I haven't seen any moderator points for the last 3-4 years or so...

Like if I care...

Re:Lack of Caring (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936981)

First off, downloading is not illegal. Uploading is the problem.

Second, not everyone who was charged actually shared copyrighted content. There have been several cases where people were charged and didn't even have an internet connection.

Re:Lack of Caring (2, Funny)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937059)

do tell me what was inflammatory about my post

"Don't download copywritten material." We're actually talking about copyrights, not copywriters (i.e. the guys who write advertisements). So I would have modded it down as "malapropism".

Re:Lack of Caring (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936627)

If you check the wording properly you'll notice a rather large problem. Almost every web page you visit has copyrighted material in it that you automatically download just by visiting the site. So by definition what you're saying is basically "Don't use the Internet".

Downloading copyrighted material is perfectly legal, it's distributing it without permission is what is illegal. The DMCA have made matters rather odd over there in the U.S though. I'm glad I live here in Sweden where I don't have to worry about that crap.

Re:Lack of Caring (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936673)

If you check the wording properly you'll notice a rather large problem. Almost every web page you visit has copyrighted material in it that you automatically download just by visiting the site. So by definition what you're saying is basically "Don't use the Internet".

This is typical slashdot behavior. Take everything out of context so everybody can get riled up about it. Sure the front page says 'copyrighted material', you think they'd put the full legalese on the frontpage or just a blurb saying "Its Bad, mkay"?

But if anybody would take the time to actually *READ* the subject at hand, you would find this paragraph:

If the University of Kansas receives notice of a copyright violation (downloading or uploading copyrighted material including music, movies, games, software, etc.) tied to the IP address registered in your name, you will receive an email and written notice that your access to the ResNet Network has been temporarily suspended for 5 business days, during which time you may appeal if you believe the copyright infringement notice was received in error. You have 5 business days from the date of notice to provide written documentation supporting your appeal to the Office of the Vice Provost for Student Success, describing the nature of the error. If your appeal is denied, your ResNet service will be permanently deactivated for the remainder of the time you live in KU's residential housing facilities. The ResNet fee is primarily a connection fee and not a usage fee. If your service is permanently terminated, there will be no subsequent refund of the ResNet activation fee, regardless of when the violation occurred.


And even if you fail your appeal, you just lose your ResNet access, you can still use computer labs on campus.

Re:Lack of Caring (4, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936755)

Ahh yes, because somewhere along the line "guilty until proven innocent" became the de facto standard.

We get riled up because of all the kneejerk reactions that create more problems than they solve. Sure, it might superficially seem ok, but the potential for abuse is so high, it's patently absurd.

Re:Lack of Caring (1)

echucker (570962) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937073)

Guilty until proven innocent works for them, because they're providing the service. It pushes back on the user to provide proof they're not guilty. Perhaps draconian in your view, but a good use of whatever IT and legal limited resources U Kansas may have.

Re:Lack of Caring (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936795)

"If the students care enough, they will all cancel their accounts. When the University sees a drop in revenue, they will have to decide."

You wish. Students NEED those accounts and the "drop in revenue" is NOTHING compared to what record companies may sue for.

Instead the students will behave. If they're in University, it's because they don't want to be burger flippers or janitors. Their future is at stake. They will suck it down and deal with it.

Corporate America has them by the balls.

Re:Lack of Caring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19937083)

It will not happen. Students today are the sheep their parents are. Gone are the "you are not trampling my rights activists" from the 60's and 70's. students now roll over and play dead for the administration like good puppies.

The young today are incredibly passive and esay to control. Exactly what the Government has been molding you to be.

Conform, do what the overlord says, we have always been at war with eurasia.

first ps0t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936455)

Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is against the law.

Translation: Violation of [a law] is against the law. Accordingly, violation of the law stating that violation of a law is against the law, is against the law. Furthermore, violation of the law stating...

Was this announcement composed by Kansas University of Kansas' Department of Redundancy Department?

Re:first ps0t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936501)

Aw crap, six minutes late... But FrostedWheat earlier/abowe had a really nice catch (and me laughing out loud) so I'm not complaining ;-)

Crack Pot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936465)

Who is setting up the pot on when the KU president's computer is going to be filled with Britney Spears music and child pornography?

Congress, RIAA and Uni prep for Arms Race (1)

DontScotty (978874) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936475)

So - Congress is after the schools to conform to the RIAA

The RIAA wants the schools to conform to the laws passed by Congress.

The schools will be graduating the future leaders who will take RIAA jobs and seats in Congress.

Wash-Rinse-Repeat.

And in the end, the winner will be decided by follow-the-dollars.

Re:Congress, RIAA and Uni prep for Arms Race (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936759)

Heh. It's bad enough they've managed to piss off all their real customers, now they're in the process of pissing off future Congresscritters. 9_9

Baby Meet Bathwater (4, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936485)

TFA mentions that Stanford and other schools charge high "Reconnection" fees after they block your MAC for sharing files. Why don't they just do something like that and make a load of money?

"Zero-tolerance" is all about moralism, and rarely about correcting behavior, or "teaching" people anything. It'll have a good effect statistically, but the people who get their privileges pulled won't have their attitude changed, they'll just conclude the "RIAA-Nazis" blackmailed his school into screwing with his education.

It doesn't matter how true it is, rules must give the appearance of fairness in order to be respected.

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater (2, Interesting)

SamP2 (1097897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936521)

It's not that I support RIAA or anything, but your argument is invalid.

Saying "The measure changes statistics but not attitude" does not mean the measure is bad.

For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid, and thus less robberies are committed.

Let's not get start on the whole "copyright infringement is not a crime" stuff, OK? Crime or no crime, it's something RIAA and co. want to root out. You can have an entirely unrelated argument whether it's morally right or not, but you do have to admit that it does work to that end -- sometimes making people afraid of doing something is the best way to ensure it doesn't get done.

Rules must be *fair* to be *respected*, but being *tough* is fine if all you care is about them being *effective*

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater (2, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936585)

For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid

We aren't talking about violent robbery, we're talking about copyright infringement. You can't equate a crime against intellectual property with violence. People who copy Content without paying for it are pretty far down the ladder of malfeasance, and spending a little effort to correct them might be worth it, compared to a violent felon. Most states don't deprive someone of their freedom forever after one violent offense, they, as a matter of fact, often have a three-strikes policy (excepting violence that is heinous, murderous, or pre-meditated). People who commit violent crimes often don't plan too, and thus aren't afraid of the punishment.

Let's not get start on the whole "copyright infringement is not a crime" stuff, OK?

I specifically tried to avoid addressing the merits of the "RIAA-Nazi blackmail" argument , but you seem to have read a conclusion into my statements that does not exist. FWIW, I doubt the school would have a zero-tolerance policy if not for the constant threat of lawsuits.

I am curious how this policy compares with their "Academic Integrity" (ie plagiarism) policy. Those generally are "one strike," though there is extensive student and faculty review and juridical proceedings before someone is expelled. I don't see any of that here.

Rules must be *fair* to be *respected*, but being *tough* is fine if all you care is about them being *effective*

You can't let "effectiveness" be the only metric. We could take every male between the age of 16 and 26 and keep them in prison, and it'd be EXTREMELY effective in reducing violent crime (something like 90%). Of course, such a solution punishes people who have no mens rea, who intend no ill to anyone or thing, and when you punish people who others can see are not guilty, the law suffers.

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936589)

Has that ever been proven? From my understanding there is no connection between the punishment and crime ratio. Americas high crime rate + Large jail sentences/death penalty vs countries like Sweden's lower crime rates and much milder punishments. Most people committing a crime doesn't count on getting caught. So far I've never seen any "effective" result from being "tough".

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater (5, Insightful)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936903)

Bollocks. Rule by fear always breaks down, sooner or later, because fear can be overcome. This is something that authoritarians don't seem to get. Fear of getting caught is not what demotivates the majority of people from committing crime. That's just a Tory oversimplification. If someone is really determined, they will analyse the balance of probabilities purely in terms of a favourable vs. unfavourable outcome with a cool head.

Once you force someone into a corner, where the choice is "do something that you fear or die", they will choose to live, because they're more afraid of dying than of whatever you were going to do to them. In fact, the whole "overcoming fear" thing is how cave-men evolved into us. Oh, wait, you said Kansas .....

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater (1)

slash.duncan (1103465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937019)

TFA mentions that Stanford and other schools charge high "Reconnection" fees after they block your MAC for sharing files. Why don't they just do something like that and make a load of money?


No, TFA does NOT talk about blocking MACs, because that would be fscking stupid. Every time I reboot and reconnect to my ISP, I use a new MAC and therefore get a new IP (privacy... sure, the ISP can trace it, but anyone else has a bit tougher time without the ISPs cooperation), due to a little program called macchanger integrated into my bootscripts. Its site http://www.alobbs.com/macchanger [alobbs.com] says there's a similar program, SMAC, for MSWormOS. Even without that, a $5 new NIC is a new MAC.

Rather, presumably, these schools use some form of authenticated login, with school accounts. All they have to do is shut down the account and refuse to open a new one for that student (tracked after all by student ID, they change that, they lose all their credits and get to pay all sorts of new money to the school to start over), either at all (KS) or until the hefty graduated reconnect fee is paid.

Of course, there's always logging in with someone else's auth, but if they get caught doing that without permission, in most cases it'd be expulsion for cracking, and pretty much rightly so, IMO. If they have permission, then at minimum, the one lending them that permission is risking /their/ account, for the same reasons.

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, and whether they change the wording to /unauthorized/ copyrighted content before they get sued on that wording or not. As TFA states, however (and this it /does/ state), the practical effect as already being seen elsewhere is likely to simply be the widespread popularization of darknets. Sure, some will get caught, but kids have a way of believing they are almost invincible and being willing to play the odds, so it'll keep happening, because it simply isn't practical for them to bust and enforce on 75% of their student body.

Duncan

sounds crap (2, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936497)

I'm not American, nor a lawyer, so I could be wrong... but as far as I know the DMCA contains many crazy rules which would be insanely easy to break - even breaking DRM to get access to a file which you have bought. Would this mean that they could get banned from the internet (which would effectively force them out of the halls they are in, because of how essential the internet is at uni) for just converting a protected WMA file so you can play it on linux? what about installing ntfs-3g? what about using an unlicenced mp3 codec? any unlincenced codec? just using linux (assuming they believe MS's claims about infringement)? Using any computer (hell, there are that many patents flying around that all computers violate; GUI ones, for example)...

Wouldn't all/most of these innocent things violate the DMCA? wouldn't that be enough to get you royally screwed?

RIAA - KU Chapter (1)

DodgeRules (854165) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936503)

So, is this the University of Kansas Chapter of the RIAA, or will the student only lose his/her use of the network AFTER being convicted in a court? We all know that the RIAA's view of things would have the students losing their rights as soon as an unverified complaint is registered.

How will they know? (4, Interesting)

taxevader (612422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936525)

Will they kick out students simply because the MAFIAA sent them a strongly worded letter? It would be the simplest and cheapest thing for them to do, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Even if they are 'guilty'.. what if someone downloaded a ROM of a NES game he has in his basement at home? A track from a CD that doesn't play anymore? A no-cd patch for a game so he can play it on his laptop wherever he goes? According to their draconian proposal, all of these would mean you are cut off from the internet.. forever. Is it me or is that f&*king crazy?

A University should be fighting the powers that be, not aiding and abetting them.

Re:How will they know? (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936599)

A University should be fighting the powers that be, not aiding and abetting them.
A University should be *teaching*. No more no less. What is this crap about morality, fighting, powers that be etc? It's a plcae where you go to *study*. Everything else is BS.

Re:How will they know? (1)

toQDuj (806112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936635)

Nope. A university should be a bastion of wisdom. They should correct, where others have accepted.
Incidentally, it also teaches, but that's in room 3b, which doesn't exist.

B.

Re:How will they know? (1)

DavidpFitz (136265) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936833)

A University should be *teaching*. No more no less. What is this crap about morality, fighting, powers that be etc? It's a plcae where you go to *study*. Everything else is BS.

I don't think you've thought it through. A University is for far more than teaching - in fact I'd go as far as to say teaching is secondary to research. Schools teach, community colleges teach but a proper University must do far more than teach. It must be a community of teachers and scholars - Universitas.

Re:How will they know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936661)

Will they kick out students simply because the MAFIAA sent them a strongly worded letter? It would be the simplest and cheapest thing for them to do, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

How is it cheap to kick a student out? Don't students pay tuition - aren't they your customers. Your sentence is like saying if people use Starbucks Wi-Fi to infringe on copyright the "simplest and cheapest" thing for Starbucks to do is not allow these people into its stores anymore... Ridiculous.

Re:How will they know? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936683)

Will they kick out students simply because the MAFIAA sent them a strongly worded letter?

No, might try reading [ku.edu] their policies [ku.edu] next time.

Re:How will they know? (2, Insightful)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936705)

When I worked for a ResNet that shall go unnamed, almost all students would admit to copyright infringement when asked in a formal setting. There was not a single case where the MPAA/RIAA fired off an email where the student was not guilty. I know it's terribly fashionable around these parts to protest that universities should be standing up for students and such, but it is one thing to be the university that won't hand over names with IP addresses, and quite another to be the one that the MPAA/RIAA decides to take to court over the issue. The legal grey area, at least in the UK, had my ResNet worried, and felt they had to be seen doing something. Whether that is true in the US is another matter, and I can't comment on it. Honestly, I don't blame Kansas for their stance, and I don't think they are doing the students a disservice. Presuming they have some way of verifying claims made against students, why shouldn't they attempt to crack down on illegal uses of their bandwidth?

Re:How will they know? (1)

FreyarHunter (760978) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936877)

IANAL, however my observations.

..someone downloaded a ROM of a NES game he has in his basement at home?
Is it a copyrighted piece of software? If so it is still illegal despite the individual still owning an original cartridge, doesn't allow him to download a copy of it from another cartridge. The "backup" has to be made from his legally owned one.

A track from a CD that doesn't play anymore?
Is it a copyrighted piece of music? Even then according to the government [copyright.gov] you don't have a right to copy music for archival and backup purposes anyway. Even if you did, the SAME restrictions would still apply as the original NES ROM.

A no-cd patch for a game so he can play it on his laptop wherever he goes?
A no-cd patch is deemed illegal purely due to it's ability to bypass security on a disc according to the DMCA [wikipedia.org] . (Notice a pattern?) Yeah, it's frustrating, and provided the student has his legal liscence (pre-"patched") by all means he should be able to play it where he wants, provided it is also installed on one computer, and one computer only. (Something that pops up in EULAs that no one reads due to the lawyer-garbage text.)


According to their draconian proposal, all of these would mean you are cut off from the internet.. forever.

Nope, according to the proposal, issues number one and two would cause a cut from the network, not the third. The third itself isn't exactly a copyrighted piece of software, despite the legality issues involved.

I find that this proposal is... okay provided that the cut is done after the accused has been found guilty, and not part of some shotgun scheme.

Re:How will they know? (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936943)

..someone downloaded a ROM of a NES game he has in his basement at home?
Is it a copyrighted piece of software? If so it is still illegal despite the individual still owning an original cartridge, doesn't allow him to download a copy of it from another cartridge. The "backup" has to be made from his legally owned one.
Technically, maybe. However, the two are utterly indistinguible and the law demands proof beyond reasonable doubt. The fact of having another copy of the same information somewhere in their possession casts reasonable doubt on whether the copy was obtained illegally, since it's possible -- unlikely, but the business of the courts is not to determine what is more likely, but to establish facts beyond reasonable doubt -- that the copy in question could have been made from that.

the 11th commandment strikes again (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936531)

If you are caught downloading copyrighted material...

By "Caught" (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936537)

Now, I've never known any school official to walk in on someone downloading illegal files, so you cant be caught that way.

The likely hood is that they don't ahve the resources to monitor traffic, so that's pretty much out.

So the two things are left is the RIAA just sending a letter to the school about anyone they like and that person gets their internet access and their career at that university absolutely screwed. Or the university searches your files, hmmmm... time to invest in one of those new fangled MP3 players, store all your music on that and not keep copies on your copmuter (this works only if you have friends who will help you replace your files if they are lost due to theft of the mp3 player or death of the mp3 player)

Abuses? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936553)

Imagine you don't like some students, and send them some mp3s by email and then report them, will they get their account banned?

University of Kansas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936557)

Now free of pr0n, unlicensed copyrighted material and students.

But it is legal to download copyrighted material (1)

SixByNineUK (949320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936581)

If you have the copyright holder's permission. I think they should talk to some real lawyers before writing these notices!

This is SO Kansas!! (0, Troll)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936593)

This doesn't surprise me at all. Kansas is the most backward thinking, Republican, pro big business, conservative state in the USA! I married a Kansan and let me tell you something-you can take the girl off the farm, but you can't take the farm off the girl! Fortunately, it's fixed now.. :)

Re:This is SO Kansas!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936651)

Heh.. no idea why someone thought it was appropriate to mod that as troll..

Re:This is SO Kansas!! (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936909)

you can take the girl off the farm, but you can't take the farm off the girl!

Why does that sound like a commercial for a bestiality site?

NAT U Rally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936613)

Naturally, it won't be long till KU campus students find a way back onto the network.

Aehm, the blurb can't be right ... (1)

Kong the Medium (232629) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936657)

If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever.

If i surf to any website, i start downloading copyrighted material, the moment i hit go. So it must read "downloading copyrighted material without permission of the copyright owner" and how on earth will this be enforced?

Implicit permission? Explicit permission?

How should Admin Eve know, that i phoned Alan Smithee in LA, and he gave me permission to download a 5 min .avi from his upcoming film "Gay Politicans go Hollywood" to include it in my essay about the corrupt politics in enforcing IP-Crimes?

Looks like i should be happy that i'm not in Kansas anymore.

Who Is More Important? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936717)

The students or the cooperations? I kinda would have thought that Universities would do everything in their power to aid thei students en masse. Or do they somehow see a logically connection between aiding the blunt actions of these cooperations and the overall positive development of the students.

It seems inuitive that having zero copyright law would be a bad thing, and rarely is any extreme action a good thing. But unless you are feeding young mouths with the revenue generated by these aggressive tatics, what possible good can come of this? It doesn't help the students, and it doesn't seem to me to help society.

apes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936719)

I think a lot of the problems is caused by asians. These people are not as highly advanced as white people. Sure they can copy stuff but they can't come up with their own ideas. There are few people who could deny that the world would be a better and cleaner place if the asian races were obliterated. Please dont take this as racist it is just fact.
Cheers, Macka

Re:apes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936791)

Unless slashdot removes the quoted post, slashdot is committing a criminal offence by European COE law. Racist posts are a criminal offence in Europe. The owner of the electronic message board has the legal responsibility of everything posted on the board, and an obligation to remove criminal posts. Thus, slashdot is committing a criminal offence in Europe.

It is just a matter of time before someone will file a report with the German or Swedish police and they will move to block slashdot like they are blocking other illegal racist sites.

The US is a signatory of the COE law.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/06/findlaw.analysis .ramasastry.cyberlaw/index.html [cnn.com]

Buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy (1)

rxmd (205533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936741)

Looks like Kansas is finally going bye bye.

Re:Buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937099)

Kind of ironic seeing that while visiting family in Alabama. AL has a constitution that's 2.5 times longer than the federal one, with around 900 amendments... ... and is corrupt as shit.

Why are we fussed about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936751)

It's only happening in America. And I can't think of a better bunch of genocidal murderers for it to happen to.

The world is so happy that Americans are their own worst enemies! Long may it remain so!

Typical Slashdot Sensationalism (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936753)

Typical Slashdot sensationalist story about the DMCA and people get all uppity before checking the facts of the case.

Let's take a look shall we:

If the University of Kansas receives notice of a copyright violation (downloading or uploading copyrighted material including music, movies, games, software, etc.) tied to the IP address registered in your name, you will receive an email and written notice that your access to the ResNet Network has been temporarily suspended for 5 business days, during which time you may appeal if you believe the copyright infringement notice was received in error. You have 5 business days from the date of notice to provide written documentation supporting your appeal to the Office of the Vice Provost for Student Success, describing the nature of the error. If your appeal is denied, your ResNet service will be permanently deactivated for the remainder of the time you live in KU's residential housing facilities. The ResNet fee is primarily a connection fee and not a usage fee. If your service is permanently terminated, there will be no subsequent refund of the ResNet activation fee, regardless of when the violation occurred.


1) You get a notice
2) You get a 5 day suspension
3) You have those 5 business days to submit an appeal if it was erroneous
4) If your appeal is denied (or you didn't submit one) your ResNet access is terminated.

It's the end of the world . . . oh wait . . .what's this?

You will still be able to use computer labs on campus and will retain the use of your KU email account.


So you lose your dorm access, but can walk down to a computer lab . . .

So I guess the moral of the story is, don't get caught, or don't use the schools network to download your movies

Reversed burden of proof? (2, Insightful)

smurfsurf (892933) | more than 7 years ago | (#19937007)

So *you* have to proof you did nothing wrong? What will they considered sufficient "documentation supporting your appeal"? What *can* you write? "During that time, I was surfing the web, reading news sites, I have no idea why they would accuse me of downloading X"? What use does it have anyway?

If you say you did the claimed things, you will get your access suspended and later sued by the copyright holder.
If you say you did not do the claimed things (if true or not), you will get your access back and later sued by the copyright holder nonetheless.

This provision is still open for a DOS on all the students. File reports on all of them, and the whole student body has their boxes disconnected for five days. Or stack it over a period of time to create "disconnection waves" for parts of the student. Keeps them frightend about who will not be able to work from their computer this week.

This is just stupid.

Did they think this through? (4, Informative)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936763)

> The university's ResNet website states that, 'Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is against the law. If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever. No second notices, no excuses, no refunds.

We've already seen that anyone outside the U.S can send a bogus DMCA takedown notice without penalty. Not often the US passes laws that prosecute Americans and give non-Americans free reign but there you go. Here are two recent cases showing how easy it is:

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897, 21563838-27317,00.html [news.com.au]
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_200 70329_001882.html [pbs.org]

Now Kansas University has said they'll shut down students account if *anyone* sends a DMCA notice, with right of appeal. So if someone outside the US was to take the University's mailing list and generate a bogus DMCA notice for each one, the
entire University would voluntarily shut itself down. This hole in DMCA has been suggested before, so it's hardly new.

Who dreamed up this nonsense? Didn't they think it through to its logical conclusion? Don't Universities teach critical thinking? I mean, Double Duh.

Hmm... (1)

KitsuneSoftware (999119) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936773)

I wonder how accurate their identification process is... we all know how easy it is to spoof your MAC address, after all. Also, for some twisted reason, I'm wondering how many banned students would need to make continuous WiFi requests for an effective internal DDOS.

Re:Hmm... (1)

rusty0101 (565565) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936987)

Are you presuming that all resnet connections are wifi? That would be pretty stupid. Site bandwidth would Suck.

Policy could affect research and study (3, Interesting)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936777)

Students often need to download copyrighted material to support their work. I wonder if Kansas U has considered the implications of their policy: if the RIAA can get you disconnected instantly for downloading an MP3, surely other publishers can do the same.

In my own work, I often have to fetch journal and conference papers from digital libraries, e.g. a good one [acm.org] . Often I will find a paper is not available to me because it isn't covered by my University's subscription, like many of the papers here [ieee.org] or here [springerlink.com] . That situation is supposed to force a trip to the brick-and-mortar library (if it has the document), but sometimes you can find the paper online anyway, using a search engine. It might be on the author's website or Citeseer [psu.edu] . Sometimes people seem to "accidentally" leave copies of papers where a search engine can find them. This is extremely helpful for a researcher, saving much time, and it is known that online articles are more likely to be cited [psu.edu] .

However, except in special cases (e.g. the author has retained the copyright and distributed it for free), this is technically copyright infringement. The publishers want you to get everything through their paywall. That would be fine if everything was accessible, but the exhorbitant fees charged for full access by some organisations prevent that. Therefore, copyright infringement actually helps scientific research by allowing information to flow. At my University, nobody seems to notice (or care about) students digging up papers from elsewhere. But if the Kansas U management style spread here, a publisher could presumably get students instantly disconnected for "bypassing the paywall". You might lose your Internet connection -- for studying.

Is this close to a situation where research is actively inhibited by greed [gnu.org] ?

"The content you requested is not part of your subscription, please pay $30 to download this 10 page article".

Re:Policy could affect research and study (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936973)

Hmm..I thought education facilities have larger fair use claims. DMCA doesn't place nice with fair use (practically).

CommonCopyright (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936797)

Copyright was fundamentally broken by the emergence of cheap, efficient, and world-wide broadband information networks. I don't even know where the best place would be to start reforming it. By my own preference I'd like to see a start with the restoration of fair-use rights including the right to modify something I've purchased. Moving your content among your own personal devices, lending your content to others for short periods, and other things such as removing copy protection from your software so you don't have to wear out your media were all legal when I was younger but now many of these actions are restricted or outright banned by legislation such as the DMCA.

Stop using that argument (1)

doyoulikeworms (1094003) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936811)

The argument that illegal downloading is OK if you, say, own the physical CD and it's too scratched to play, own the physical game cart, etc is just plain terrible. The problem with this is that you are aiding other people in their illegal activities by participating in a P2P network. You may very well have the right to download the content, but you certainly don't have the right to distribute it on the P2P network.

Re:Stop using that argument (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936855)

You seem to have confused downloading with uploading. Who said ANYTHING about sharing the file with others? There's plenty of ways to download without uploading.

But that's immaterial, anyhow, as you have NO idea if the other person is doing it legally or not. I don't stop everyone I see on the street and verify that they are not an escaped criminal before I let them continue down the sidewalk, right? Even if that's not my duty, a police officer doesn't do that, either. Just because someone COULD be doing something illegal doesn't mean you should give a shit.

So tell me again why I shouldn't use the internet to replace that $50 game CD I lost? As a perfect example, I lost my Persona disc for PSX. On EBay, that disc goes for anywhere from $50 to $100. I think I only paid $40 originally, and I don't think I should have to pay that much to replace it. The company won't replace it, as the game is out of print. I'll be damned if I'll just suck it up and accept the loss. That's one of my favorite games of all time.

So, the next front in the fight? (1)

DusterBar (881355) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936879)

If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever

So, I guess this is the next step in the fight against open source - make any download of copyrighted material illegal. Given the statement, a literal quote from TFA, there is little that one can do with respect to downloading.



Ok, that was supposed to be funny but now that I look at it, that statement really does seem to say something rather silly...

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19936935)

Kansas University engineering department reports mysterious drop in freshman enrollment for the fall 2008 semester...

IT policy at U of Kansas is generally clueless (3, Informative)

ibn_khaldun (814417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19936947)

The IT "services" at KU are clueless in general, not just with this, and they consistently appear to have mistaken their windowless cubicles for Olympus/Valhalla. Over the last ten years they have periodically gone through phases of issuing draconian policies, only to find them unenforceable. My favorite (though by no means only) example was a policy that anyone caught writing down a password (passwords, of course, were required to be changed every 42 minutes, contain Mayan glyphs, etc) could be fired. Never enforced, much to the disappointment of local lawyers. They went through another phase of barging into faculty offices and imaging disks, except they would get the office numbers incorrect and leave the faculty member with an inoperable machine. And sometimes really picked the wrong office... The individuals involved are no longer in our employ, as the saying goes (and were last seen staked to the ground near an anthill, I believe...)

Two or three mistaken enforcements of this -- yes, that will happen with near certainty given past experience -- and the effect of this will be simply to drive students out of the dorms. Someone with an ounce of clue (necessarily, outside of ITS) will figure that it is a whole lot cheaper to stonewall the RIAA on most cases than to deal with the cost of empty rooms, the policy will be quietly dropped, and IT will go in search of something else they can screw up.

Mush Heads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19937009)

Maybe if the mush headed students who are there to GET AN EDUCATION were to STOP DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL then it wouldn't be an issue? Buy the fucking movie/song/porn/whatever and stop being freeloaders.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>