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!

RIAA Campaign Against Students Hits Stormier Seas

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the get-out-of-the-pool dept.

The Courts 296

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "It's been astutely observed that the RIAA's "ex parte" campaign against "John Doe" college students seems to have run into much stormier waters than its campaign against regular folks. Discovery motions were thrown out by the judges in cases involving the University of New Mexico and the College of William and Mary, and motions to quash have been made by students at Boston University, Oklahoma State University, and the University of South Florida. The RIAA might find it particularly troubling that the students are coming in armed with substantial expert witness declarations attacking the entire underpinning of the RIAA's case, that the students are finding each other and banding together, and that the Chairman of Boston University's Computer Science Department went to bat — as an expert witness — for the BU students."

cancel ×

296 comments

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

Now there's education (5, Insightful)

kalpol (714519) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174489)

Can't beat that for practical life experience.

RIAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20174495)

i love them, I can i engage in sexual activity with them?

please type the word in this image: reefer

Re:RIAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20174709)

Yes: their collective cock, your arse. All you have to do is download a bunch of shitty chart songs from one of their fake servers and their lawyers will be round your gaffe, giving you a good seeing to, in no time.

Re:RIAA (2, Funny)

thc69 (98798) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175325)

i love them, I can i engage in sexual activity with them?
Yes. Fuck the RIAA!

The flywheel is spinning (-1, Offtopic)

cecil36 (104730) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174513)

Once more people realize what the RIAA is up to, all this insanity will stop.

On a side noe, don't we do 'First Post!' around here anymore?

Re:The flywheel is spinning (0, Offtopic)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174537)

On a side noe, don't we do 'First Post!' around here anymore?

No, were on to something far better.

First "Reply To This"! Who wants first flame?

Re:The flywheel is spinning (2, Informative)

mc2thaH (920212) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174565)

You think it will stop? I don't see that happening anytime soon... there will always be Grandma's and little kids to go after.

Re:The flywheel is spinning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20174581)

"Once more people realize what the RIAA is up to, all this insanity will stop.

On a side noe, don't we do 'First Post!' around here anymore?"

Maybe in the first one.

Re:The flywheel is spinning (1)

andphi (899406) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174601)

I think the ACs got tired of being down-modded into oblivion.

Re:The flywheel is spinning (1)

ajenteks (943860) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174607)

On a side noe, don't we do 'First Post!' around here anymore?
Nope, and I for one welcome our linux-on-blender-happy overlords who have discovered that "First Posters" will blend even if they are wearing tinfoil hats!

Re:The flywheel is spinning (1)

garnetlion (786722) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174613)

People occasionally do the whole "first post" thing, but they usually get modded into oblivion, which prevents most folks from trying.

I did see a clever one once where the poster linked to something and added "first%20post" to the get information.

Scoob (5, Funny)

chub_mackerel (911522) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174633)

RIAA: "...and I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those MEDDLING KIDS!!!"

good (5, Informative)

batray (257663) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174519)

The resources available at a university should help counter the RIAA's unconscionable tactics.

in defense of the RIAA: (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174555)

you people think you have reason, science, fairness, morality, justice, and freedom on your side

ha!

we have LAWYERS

lots and lots of LAWYERS

platoons of them!

fact: there is no problem we the RIAA have faced that couldn't be solved just by throwing LAWYERS at it. a problem? sue someone! PROBLEM SOLVED! don't you people get it?

in fact, the entirety of human technological progress, in the form of the internet ruining our business model, means nothing. we can stop progress itself by just suing people

sue! sue! sue! there: it's all gold and honey again, no more problems

don't you silly college students get it yet?

You forgot... (4, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174965)

...lots of Universities also have a Law Faculty as well, and these are the guys who taught those lawyers.

Re:You forgot... (5, Funny)

The Fourth (846163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175619)

Yes, and here at universities... we MAKE our own lawyers.

Re:in defense of the RIAA: (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174991)

Don't worry, the Lawyers will be rounded up and sent hurtling into the sun in 2017 during the Great Awakening. Microsoft will be able to keep a few hidden away though.

Re:So do we (5, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175083)

That's the thing. Universities have lawyers too... they're called the FACULTY. There's tons of them, and given that they probably taught the RIAA lawyers, they're pretty dangerous.

They're also academic in their understanding of the law, which means that given the shaky ground RIAA lawsuits are standing on, they are unlikely to win.

Re:So do we (4, Insightful)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175645)

Yeah, and for every Alan Dershowitz there are 1,000 law school professors who have only ever seen a courtroom when watching Law & Order.

Re:in defense of the RIAA: (2, Funny)

Spacepup (695354) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175129)

So if the schools are the ones that put out the lawyers. And the RIAA takes on the schools. Doesn't it follow that they are then automatically outgunned in their own game?

Re:in defense of the RIAA: (-1, Troll)

trewornan (608722) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175527)

Those who can do, those who can't teach.

Students are the biggest activist demographic (5, Insightful)

athloi (1075845) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174569)

Few people have the time that students do, or the drive, toward activism of many types. They're such a powerful demographic that presidential candidates solicit them. Attacking them aggressively is risky but if the RIAA wins this one, everyone else is going to be gravy.

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174665)

well, the only one that has as much time as the students is the RIAA... aparently...

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (3, Funny)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174797)

"Attacking them aggressively is risky but if the RIAA wins this one, everyone else is going to be gravy."

Soylent green?

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174865)

RIAA can only win, at best, something of a tactical stalemate. In the long run, everything is stacked up against the record companies as they are currently formulated. The digital cat is out of the bag, and the album is dead. Just as bad, for RIAA, is the fact that the generation that they're going after right now will be the legislators that they may be having to deal with in a few years. So even if they manage to keep their crippled and outdated business plan working, eventually they're going to hit the iPod generation head on.

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (4, Interesting)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175097)

Seems more likely that the legislators of tomorrow are the rich kids of today, who can afford as many CDs as they want. Even assuming the downloaders of today do become the legislators of tomorrow, why would a few memories of free Ja Rule make them refuse thousands or millions of dollars from RIAA lobbyists?

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (4, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175337)

Seems more likely that the legislators of tomorrow are the rich kids of today, who can afford as many CDs as they want.
Sure they can afford them, but who wants those clunky old things? They probably have instead 5GB iPods stuffed full of music.

I think we will soon see the day when CD players will go the way of tape decks, and all of your music will be transmitted wirelessly from your online music accounts to your home computer, your portable music player, and your car stereo.

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (3, Insightful)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175341)

You are a democracy, goddamnit! Stop voting for corrupted politicians that only play for the highest bidder!

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (1)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175379)

That's right, we're a democracy, government by the people. And ALL PEOPLE ACT LIKE THAT. There are about 10 people in the world with altruism glands big enough to turn down millions of dollars for no tangible cost, and they've all got better things to do than run for office.

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (1)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175687)

Yeah, most people tends to have flexible morales when enough money is involved, and as long as it isn't illegal, I have no problems with that.
But a government should work for the good of the country and the people whom it represent.
If a politician or a party receives compensations for working for the good of a corporation, and in doing this is neglecting the people or the overall good of the country, they should be voted into the marginals of political influence.
Or, if the compensations has been in the form of bribes or in any other is illegal, they should face jail.

Just because people in general will gladly sell their fellow man of as a sex-slave for money, you shouldn't accept it when your government do.
In a dictatorship or something with equal "people-influence" to that, you haven't got much choice unless you're into revolutions, guerrilla warfare and terrorism.
In a democracy, you do have a choice.

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (2, Interesting)

stinerman (812158) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175549)

But they tell me that voting for a minor party or independent candidate is wasting my vote!

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (2, Informative)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175367)

...eventually they're going to hit the iPod generation head on.

Oh please! We all expected big changes after getting rid of Nixon. What we got was a whole lot of nothing. Once the iPod generation gets a taste of that power, they will just become like the rest already have. What's that saying? "A republican is just a democrat with money." You believe that after 20,000 years, this is the epiphany? I don't think so.

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (1)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175487)

Were in a bit of a time of change here. The legislators of today are the students from they golden age of industrialization and the closed source cold war era types. The people in my generation (I'm 23) have grown up in the beginning of the Information Age and the end of the Industrial. We still have industry and all that, but it isn't as innovative as it used to be now it's all about information. There is unprecedented power at the fingertips of the people and the people in office now never grew up with that and don't understand it. They don't understand the culture, the tech, or the attitude behind it and that's how you get statements such as a series of tubes. If we manage to survive the next twenty years I really think we'll see sweeping changes in how most things regarding government, politics, and information are handled.

Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175647)

Just as bad, for RIAA, is the fact that the generation that they're going after right now will be the legislators that they may be having to deal with in a few years.

Um, you do realize how useless that is, right? Most of them have tried drugs and manged to go on to serve in public office, showing them to be harmless, yet continue to vote to make them even more illegal. Legislators base votes off money and getting re-elected, and not personal experience. If you aren't a sell-out, what are you doing in politics?

out of date marketing methods (2, Insightful)

sleekware (1109351) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174595)

The RIAA has to grow up and realize that DRM free music is a great marketing tool!

Re:out of date marketing methods (4, Insightful)

drhamad (868567) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174765)

There's a major problem with that logic. If DRM free music is a great marketing tool, that means it's a great marketing tool because people will pirate it. And if people are pirating it, you're now giving away what you want to market, for free.

I don't like DRM because of all the compatibility issues and ease of use issues, but if it stops people from pirating (it doesn't, really), then it may be worth it.

Also, that's THEIR decision to make. They own the rights to distribute the content. It isn't my decision, it isn't your decision. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I primarily buy music on iTunes that is in iTunes Plus (DRM free 256kbps), thereby saying that yes, I like DRM free music. But I don't pirate music just because it has DRM and I'm opposed to DRM. I'll buy the CD in that case.

Re:out of date marketing methods (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175103)

It isn't their choice.

DRM violates the social contract that allows them to control distribution of creative works.

DRM should void any copyright protection.

If the Librarian of Congress can't archive it, then the FBI shouldn't be used to prosecute those that pirate the work and the US Courts should not be used by corporations to sue those that the FBI won't prosecute.

Re:out of date marketing methods (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175491)

The product is the performance. By the talented musicians.

If you don't play guitar, you have no place in the equation.

People and organizations can assert their rights all they want. I won't conform to them.

If I could do so without risk, I would set about having them burned at the stake for daring to make the attempt, starting this very moment.

If any group ever sticks their nose into what I'm doing and try to enforce their so called rights with enough effectiveness to screw up what I've got going on here in my personal life, I will dedicate what is left of my life to destroying them. Preferably with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers.

Clear enough statement of my position I think. No laws or assertions mitigate it in the slightest.

Re:out of date marketing methods (1)

*weasel (174362) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174785)

They already know that -- that's why they seed the networks with new albums from time to time.
Trick is: DRM-free music obviates everything that the labels provide to musicians.
The manufacturing, the distribution, the guaranteed shelf-space, etc.

If swapping DRM-free music became the legal, accepted industry standard - they'd be cut out of the loop. They'd die.
Why do you think they're fighting so hard?

Guess University of Washington is one .. (3, Informative)

f0dder (570496) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174603)

Re:Guess University of Washington is one .. (1)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175443)

school without a backbone.
Isn't it about time to install a backbone then? 8-D

Perhaps a bad move (4, Interesting)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174621)

The problem the RIAA is facing is that college students - as a demographic - have a combination of passionate beliefs, raging idealism, little to lose, and nothing but time. I saw this one coming a mile away.

Re:Perhaps a bad move (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174733)

The problem colleges are facing is a government who doesn't like snarky little asshats and is willing to allow lobbyists to assist in writing laws to close loopholes they missed the first time around or when something alters the playing field.

bad move or smart one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20174817)

They are also inexperienced, naive, and generally don't understand how the "real" world works; you know, just the kind to fall into a trap, do something stupid and set themselves and others up for failure.

FYI, idealism means nothing to the legal system.

Re:Perhaps a bad move (4, Interesting)

apt142 (574425) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174879)

Add into that a solid understanding of technology that the RIAA doesn't seem to grasp. We're talking about an age group that had the internet available since they were toddlers. They know better than the average Joe how it works and where it breaks.

From a technological evidence stand point, the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on. Us techies have known that for a while. But, I think it's the first group to really have the confidence to stand up, the know how to contradict and the desire to stick it to them.

If this group can keep banding together, I think the RIAA's legal tactics may hit a sudden and disastrous roadblock.

I don't agree. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20175643)

Aside from CS students and a few geek-types, most people know very little about how teh Intarwebs work.

All they know is that they can create documents in Microsoft Word, presentations with Microsft Powerpoint, spreadsheets with Microsoft Excel and party invitations with Microsoft Publisher, send and receive email with Microsoft Outlook Express, chat with Microsoft Messenger, download stuff with Microsoft Internet Explorer and play music and videos with Microsoft's Windows Media Player. (Games are played on Microsft's XBox...)

Very few of them know anything beyond the basic concepts and the right key combos and mouse clicks.

Most of them are usually wrong about the concepts they think they have grasped.

How many long-term computer users have you heard, people who consider themselves to be "tech-savvy", saying variations of things like "Everything on the internet is free"?

Just because most young westerners know how to use a computer doesn't mean they kno how it works, and their ideas about the internet are almost always incorrect.

Just because most of them think something doesn't make it so.

A judge doesn't care that most 19-year-old students want to download stuff free of charge. If somebody owns the rights to that stuff and wish to be paid for it, a judge will rightly support them.

Re:Perhaps a bad move (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174925)

The last two are the key. A working person actual loses money for every day they spend in court, has family that they need to provide for, and plans to do thing like buy a house in a the near term.

OTOH, most people will work around a students schedule. A student will not respond to threats that his or her family is going starve, or they will contact his or her boss and get him fired, or that he or she will have a ruined credit rating and never buy a house.

OF course, it could just be that most college student are just kids, with their innocent belief that any law that limits personal convenience is unjust. But this logic, unlicensed music download must be just because otherwise it would be more difficult to get thier music. As as the action is just, though perhaps illegal, it must be fought.

Re:Perhaps a bad move (4, Insightful)

N7DR (536428) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174957)

The problem the RIAA is facing is that college students - as a demographic - have a combination of passionate beliefs, raging idealism, little to lose, and nothing but time.

And it's a fair bet that they actually understand how the Internet works, or at least have access to people who do, which ultimately is probably the thing that the MAFIAA should fear more than anything else.

And following that observation, it's never been clear to me whether the MAFIAA purposely hire clueless "experts" for deposition or whether they honestly don't understand the technology.

Re:Perhaps a bad move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20175377)

...and nothing but time.


Arts students today perhaps, but as a pure science student 15 years ago I had virtually zero free time. Between labs, tutorials, humongous heaps of difficult homework, at least two hours on the bus every day, an honours thesis, part time work and working all summer to pay for my degree it was the busiest time in my life. I have had far more free time in my work after graduation. During my entire academic career I longed for the day when I could leave work at work and have some time to myself at home.

Raging idealism, absolutely. Nothing but time? For serious students who pay their own way, no way.

Not surprising... (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174631)

These students have an entire university's worth of experts just waiting for a new game to play at. Honestly, universities are one of those things you just don't mess with unless you're REAAAAALY sure of yourself.

Ents (4, Interesting)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174637)

Saruman didn't factor in the ents....

At some point, decent people get riled up over injustice and finally do something about it. These RIAA lawyers have been bullying pre-schoolers long enough. "I'm telling my big brother" is coming home to them.

Use the market RIAA. Learn to compete. Give up on old technology and old ways of distributing music. Nobody wants to buy your 5 cent disk with 9 bad songs for highway robbery prices just to listen to one song you should allow to be downloaded at a cheap enough rate so that folks will stop bothering to pirate (not steal; remember, pirates are simply a form of entrepeneurs).

I wish it was true (1)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175057)

For the RIAA, winning cases is not the objective.

-Right of resale? Ignore it and litigate
-Personal use freedoms? Ignore them and litigate.

It's a "risk premium" attached to entertainment media. The only way to get the discount is to cede control of your media. A pejorative term for "risk premium" is a "terrorism tax."

Sadly, righteous indignation is the only thing that I see in these discussions.

From a link in the article... (5, Insightful)

do_kev (1086225) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174641)

"...In addition, Shutovsky is directed to provide the names and addresses of all people who have used his PC in the three years prior to his being sued. According to his response to the RIAA's requests, those who may have used the computer include his wife, an unspecified list of "short-term house guests," and eight other people who live in Russia, Ukraine, or the UK. The RIAA says that it would like to contact the Shutovsky's houseguests to see if it would be "reasonable" to take depositions..."

And so continues the witch-hunt for dear ol' 162.83.177.207.

I hope the new generation of musicians refuse to sign record labels with major companies. Considering how powerful a home studio can now be, it's a whole lot more feasible than it was 30 years ago..

Re:From a link in the article... (2, Interesting)

mc2thaH (920212) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174697)

This is the way my band is doing it. We're recording our new CD ourselves in our home studios, and the wonders of online distribution (MySpace, Purevolume, etc) allow us to sell the tracks. We're still going to print up some CD's to sell at shows though (for old times sake)

Re:From a link in the article... (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174761)

I hope the new generation of musicians refuse to sign record labels with major companies. Considering how powerful a home studio can now be, it's a whole lot more feasible than it was 30 years ago..
Yeah, that would be nice. But I'm not that optimistic. Given how many bands there are out there these days, you know there's going to be some that take the bait.

Re:From a link in the article... (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175005)

Musicians are going to have to go back fifty years and relearn everything. We've had a couple of generations that have been raised on the album being the ultimate musical expression. Singles became some increasingly dimly understood entity to many of the people that started buying music in the mid-60s and later. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, all these guys were album artists, and from them sprung the record industry as we know it, at first selling long plays aplenty and then moving on to CDs.

Now, it's songs again that rule. The ease of obtaining (legally or illegally) single songs means the death of the album as a major profit center. The fact is that Phil Spector was right when he called the album "two hits and ten pieces of junk". The vast majority of long play vinyl and CDs are populated by junk. Is there some reason that people like Britney Spears or Madonna have to release twelve song collections? Let's face it, in the vast jungle of albums out there since the LP took off in the late 1950s, there are perhaps a few dozen genuine masterpieces in any given genre of music.

I think the smart artists and studios will realize that there is a golden opportunity here to shed the 800 lb. gorilla of the record company and its distribution networks. For decades, these guys have been robbing artists blind, while they made untold millions. That's okay for the upper echelon of artists like U2 or the Beach Boys, whose volume of sales is such that even a fraction means big bucks. But there's all those middle tier and Indie guys who don't sell that number, and for them, being able to direct sell, or hell, even just give away the music and make their money off of the gigs and the merchandising that this new era could mean prosperity.

Re:From a link in the article... (1, Interesting)

bar-agent (698856) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175235)

But don't artists need the album? In order to do the one or two hits, they have to throw a lot of things on the wall and see which ones stick and which ones don't. In other words, to develop their skills as an artist, they need to make mistakes and see that they are mistakes. How else can they do this but by releasing songs and seeing which ones get panned by critics, and which get played?

And radio stations and critics would rather deal with an album at a time instead of a single every few weeks. It could be that albums turn into delivery vehicles to critics, stations, and DJs, and no longer become something that the public gets hold of, but I wonder if the economics would support that model.

Anyway, classical music and soundtracks will always be delivered in album form.

Re:From a link in the article... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175289)

Do artists need albums? I doubt it. Good Vibrations began its life as a single and sold a million copies before ending up on a ton of Beach Boys' compilations.

Re:From a link in the article... (2, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175567)

I think the smart artists and studios will realize that there is a golden opportunity here to shed the 800 lb. gorilla of the record company and its distribution networks. For decades, these guys have been robbing artists blind, while they made untold millions.
I have been wating for this to happen, but it has not yet. Perhaps there are contractual relationships and copyright ownership issues that prevents it.

However, imagine a scenario where an established band dumps the traditional publishers and elects to publish exclusively through iTunes. Instead of getting a tiny fraction of that 99c, the band would get 79c for each track sold. How much does a band net from a CD sale? It is still quite small, so the number of tracks sold on iTunes would probably be less than the number of full CDs sold for the band to make more money.

Why has no-one done this? Risk? Laziness?

Does this have broader implications? (2, Interesting)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174659)

Forgive my near-total ignorance on matters of copyright law and my failure to RTFA, but if these college kids' cases are attacking the basic underpinings of the RIAA's case, is there a chance that this will benefit the regular folks who are under attack? It'd be nice if those darn kids did something productive for a change, instead of spending all their time at the Woolworth's drinking malteds, or whatever they do nowadays.

Re:Does this have broader implications? (5, Interesting)

Shambly (1075137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174715)

They are arguing that an IP is not a unique identifier especially on university networks. Also that the discovery process can only occur after the people have been identified and not before so that looking at the IP traces cannot be done before they are notified. The first part may be of some help if you are using a router or sharing your connections but the second part could be very interresting as it would imply that the RIAA has no right to check your IP until you are notified so they would lose their enforcement power and have to rely on the police to do the work.

Re:Does this have broader implications? (1)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175265)

they [the RIAA] would lose their enforcement power and have to rely on the police to do the work.

The police? But what if the police don't give a rat's ass if someone is downloading MP3s, because there are real crimes being committed? (By real crimes, I mean black people driving cars, of course.)

But seriously, this is akin to what just happened in Germany, with the high court saying "sorry, but we can't be bothered with the petty offense of MP3 downloaders. Find another stooge."

No, I don't think the police will be much help. The RIAA is going to have to call in the big guns. Soon those trolling weirdos from "To Catch A Predator" will start doing their dirty work.

Re:Does this have broader implications? (1)

GodCandy (1132301) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174813)

Todays kids seem to have a bit of free time on there hands. Take a look at todays video. I guess when there not drinking they have to do something productive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1OvgEXgSQo [youtube.com]

Re:Does this have broader implications? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175121)

Forgive my near-total ignorance on matters of copyright law and my failure to RTFA, but if these college kids' cases are attacking the basic underpinings of the RIAA's case, is there a chance that this will benefit the regular folks who are under attack?
Yes.

Absolutely.

Defeating the RIAA != Supporting Piracy (5, Insightful)

Shambly (1075137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174673)

The problem with the RIAA is that it has very questionable practices in regards to its sending subpeona's and when it sues people not that piracy is right.

The problem is that it believes itself to be a police force with powers to investigate and aprehend criminals. It does not.

However that does not mean that piracy is ok. It only means that evil corporations are evil. While you may argue that information wants to be free and copyrights are badly flawed that does not mean your piracy is not against the law. It's the practice of the RIAA that are unlawful not its intent.

Re:Defeating the RIAA != Supporting Piracy (1)

sycomonkey (666153) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175149)

A) There is a difference between legal, and right. Something can be illegal and perfectly morally sound.
B) Piracy's morality or imorality is still being debated. Many people think it's wrong because of the potential to harm the income of the artists, but many people also think purchasing music legitimately is immoral because it powers a corrupt system, i.e. the RIAA. And most people (like me) are somewhere in between.

I'm going to get crucified, but... (4, Interesting)

drhamad (868567) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174689)

I've always been a huge supporter of the rights of these people that the RIAA is attacking - and I still am. But I'm realizing lately that I can't think of a better way for them to protect their rights, either. I was in a conversation the other day where somebody was asking someone to send them a copy of limewire, because they couldn't get it themselves for some reason. I made a joking comment about how ya know, installing Limewire on a work computer probably wasn't the smartest idea, and he could always *gasp* actually purchase his music (his stated goal was pirating music). Somebody else then said "why would anyone do that anymore"?

Now, I'm sure most people have music that isn't theirs on their computer. But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people. I think that people shouldn't be crucified for having some songs that aren't theirs on their systems, if they also buy plenty of music. But if you never or almost never buy music, and your entire collection is pirated, then by all means, the RIAA should go after you.

I oppose the RIAA on privacy grounds, and because the logic used (downloading is NOT piracy, if you own it, I believe), but if peoples attitudes really now is that they should pirate rather than buy, then I think the RIAA is between a rock and a hard place, and they can't simply ignore that.

And please, keep the arguments about RIAA music being not worth the money out of this - if you don't think it's worth the money, then you don't have a right to have it. You've made that choice.

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (2, Insightful)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174915)

But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people.

You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime.

It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition. It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped. It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs. It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?). It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire.

Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music? As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention....

Re:You aren't wrong, but it depends (2, Insightful)

drhamad (868567) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175469)

But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people. You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime. It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition. Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc. It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped. Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing. It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs. This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not an essential life necessity. It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?). I in no way think that the RIAA is perfect, or that it does things the right way. I made no statement to that effect. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should be pirating music. It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire. Well, I disagree that the CD is worthless or spent. I see no better hard media out there? Digital downloads are nice, but they don't replace the CD. Regardless, that is not in any way a crime. It's their choice to release their music that way - they have the right to do that. Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music? Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating? As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention.... I never mentioned an artist. And yet again, I never claimed to like the RIAA or their methods - but again, it is their (distribution) rights.

Re:You aren't wrong, but it depends (1)

drhamad (868567) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175629)

Sorry guys, forgot to put the formatting in. See my other response.

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (4, Insightful)

drhamad (868567) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175531)

Dammit, forgot to put in the breaks.

But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people.

You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime. It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition.
Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc.

It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped.
Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing.

It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs.
This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not a life necessity.

It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?).
I in no way think that the RIAA is perfect, or that it does things the right way. I made no statement to that effect. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should be pirating music.

It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire.
Well, I disagree that the CD is worthless or spent. I see no better hard media out there? Digital downloads are nice, but they don't replace the CD. Regardless, that is not in any way a crime. It's their choice to release their music that way - they have the right to do that.

Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music?
Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating?

As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention....
I never mentioned an artist. And yet again, I never claimed to like the RIAA or their methods - but again, it is their (distribution) rights.

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20174931)

But if you never or almost never buy music, and your entire collection is pirated, then by all means, the RIAA should go after you.
I should certainly hope they don't go after people just because they "pirate" music.

The reason being that if local music stores (or even iTunes for that matter) don't sell the kinds of music I'm interested in for less than $40 because it's imported, I have no other reasonable alternative to seek the music that I like.

I don't listen to anything that the RIAA encompasses, but that is not to say that one of my roommates does not (housing with fellow university students) and I may be dragged into the fire for their wrong doing because they decided to download some hit pop album and then I get a subpoena letter months later after they are long gone.

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (1)

SomeGuyTyping (751195) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174993)

iTunes has shown that if you make it easy and affordable to purchase downloads, people will. I think the price should (and could) be even lower. I think amazon's new investment (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/08/16592 23 [slashdot.org] ) is a great idea.

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20175215)

I suppose you have followed the debate and know the kind of penalties that are thrown about. If you expect that most people occasionally break copyright law, why would you suggest people should buy music at all? If a handful of files can ruin you, even in cases where you own the original, what's the point?

I've been following this since the MP3 craze began and the music industry consistently goes after the easiest targets, regardless of collateral damage. The industry knowingly misrepresents the rights that consumers have under copyright law. The industry uses bogus math to inflate damages. The industry uses manipulative language to turn copyright infringement into an emotional issue. Industry lobbyists push laws which reduce consumer rights and civil rights. Why would anyone support these people?

The RIAA had more than 10 years to use the net to their advantage and they ignored it. While the "scene" showed people how technology can be used, the RIAA kept discussing how much more they want to earn from online music compared to CDs. It's a better product after all, so it should sell for more even though it costs a fraction to make, right? The RIAA is going down because they can't look beyond their own greed. People who have seen the light don't go back to the crappified offerings that the RIAA can muster between DRM and label infighting.

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (2, Insightful)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175225)

The whole copyright debate needs to move to a more fundamental level, theres never going to be any workable way for RIAA to keep their old model.
The fact theyre allowed to ruin peoples lives over some songs is crazy, it goes against common sense and will never be accepted no matter what laws they buy.

Ill gladly support musicians via concerts or even taxes, theres no way Im supporting all the evil crap around them tho.

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (1, Interesting)

sampson7 (536545) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175309)

I actually agree with this. Perhaps my idealism is fading as I hit the wrong side of 30, but I don't understand why anyone would feel they have the right to wholesale steal music. It's not that expensive to buy mainstream music off the internet. Even stores provide some added value.

Moreover, there are so many wonderful low cost sources of unusual hard-to-find music these days that I really no longer buy into the it's-too-hard-to-find-so-I-must-pirate argument. Certainly, the music by the garage band formed by your best friend in kindergarden who you then lost touch with may not be available on iTunes.... but he's also not going to sue you. He's also probably not trying to make a living off his music.

One thing that gets me is the argument that a musician isn't being harmed by music piracy. This is simply false. You can argue about the degree of harm, but so what?* Every song that's sold results at the very least in more publicity and bargaining power for the artist -- even in the rare case they don't receive any actual $ for their music. Stealing music from an independent struggling musician is just unconscionable. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over Brittany Spears losing out on a few sales; but where do you draw the line? These days, artists have a choice whether or not to sign a big label deal -- this is not 20 years ago where it's play ball with the big boys or go home.

Finally, just to add something of value to this post -- I recently came across a website called http://amiestreet.com/ [amiestreet.com] . This is an amazing example of what indie music can be. Looking around on this site, I came across obscure little bands that I swore I would never hear from again, and yet here they are, trying to make a few bucks. What possible excuse do I have of stealing from these folks? Look at the prices -- I think I paid as much as 75 cents for one song and as little as $1.12 for an album.

Really folks, don't you think piracy is so 1999?

* My favorite story is from Jill Sobule, who is a truly gifted singer/song-writer. http://www.jillsobule.com/home.html [jillsobule.com] She had one breakthrough hit many moons ago -- you may remember "I Kissed A Girl". That was hers. She's on record as not having made a penny from that song because of a bad record deal. Sure, they exist. But because of that one silly little song I found someone who's become one of my favorite artists and I've supported directly for years. The studio system is icky at its worst, but it also plays a role.

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175631)

but I don't understand why anyone would feel they have the right to wholesale steal music

I "steal" music/videos/software because my government charges a tax on blank media that they give to someone because said media could be used to "steal" stuff. So I'm paying for something, thus I download as much as possible to get my money's worth.

Again, to those who insist on saying "it's a levy, not a tax", I say "eat shit".

Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (1)

justinlindh (1016121) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175389)

The answer is for the RIAA to just be more adaptable to their situation. Instead of fighting the futile battle against consumers, they should spend their time on figuring out ways to give people what they want for what they're willing to pay.

Music is a HUGE part of my life. I rarely buy CDs anymore, and I don't pirate. My solution is to pay the $15/month for Rhapsody, which gives me immediate access to millions of tracks that I can even load on my portable MP3 player. Rhapsody may not be ideal for everyone, but since I'm in front of a computer all day for work and have a compatible portable player it's ideal for me.

This is an example of a filled niche. If the RIAA focused their efforts on providing similar solutions for people in other situations then they could have their cake and eat it too. They need to focus more on WHY people pirate, and provide an alternative that's reasonable for themselves AND the consumers.

Reading Your Blog (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174719)

Ray, Maybe the students are reading Slashdot, and your blog.

Re:Reading Your Blog (3, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175183)

Ray, Maybe the students are reading Slashdot, and your blog.
Even more importantly, it seems some of the judges are starting to actually read the RIAA's papers [slashdot.org] .

History lesson (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174781)

It's been astutely observed that the RIAA's "ex parte" campaign against "John Doe" college students seems to have run into much stormier waters than its campaign against regular folks.

"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant."

Re:History lesson (4, Informative)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175575)

Another history lesson to top it off..

RIAA's then-prez Rosen got into a Debate with The Oxford Union and she got a serious shellacking. This was 2002.

"The Oxford Union debated the proposition that "the free music mentality is a threat to the future of music" (via The Reg and NTK). Final scores: 72 ayes, 256 noes. A pretty resounding defeat. The report notes that a few of the more memorable bits of the debate include Hilary Rosen lying about copy-protected CDs in the US (or at the very least being deliberately ingenuous about it), Rosen also getting shocked at how many people said that they do buy music because of filesharing, and a few unsupported assertions about the importance of the music industry which no-one was allowed to contest. For more background on this debate, see the Campaign for Digital Rights."

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/26/21 53231 [slashdot.org]

Do ya think they learned from that? ....

Naw.

Song Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20174831)

Come on ya'll... sing with me...

Fuck the RIAA! Fuck fuck fuck... Fuck the RIAA!

I want to be the first... (0, Flamebait)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174843)

...to thank all you "information wants to be free" asshats when the shit hits the fan and anonymity on the internet is eliminated. I don't know what part about unauthorized distribution of intellectual property you find so difficult to comprehend. And don't come back to me with bullshit arguments about the length of copyright, blah, blah, blah, blah. You know as well as I do that most of the files on P2P networks are well within even the original 14 year protection terms. You've already killed network TV. I'd love to kick a couple of you asshats right in the nuts for those stupid ads that take up the lower third of the screen I now have to deal with because you wanted to illegally distribute TV shows on P2P networks sans ads (there's a pretty thick fucking line between time-shifting for personal use and unauthorized distribution). Please, for the love of god, quit now before anonymity is on the internet is dead.

Re:I want to be the first... (2, Insightful)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174979)

Ahhh, but that's the whole point. Privacy is important, thus the RIAA must be defeated. Nobody wants to *steal* music, but everybody wants the *freedom* to steal music.

Re:I want to be the first... (2, Funny)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175411)

What makes you think we give a toss about either the entertainment industry or it's consumers? Our gift economy will destroy your way of life.

Your tears are like milk.

Re:I want to be the first... (1)

linuxrocks123 (905424) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175571)

umm ... network TV isn't dead, dude ... I watch it at least once a week. It's not dead. Seriously, get a TV and check yourself...

stupid yankees (1)

Jah Shaka (562375) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174883)

i cant beleive you stupid yankees let the RIAA do this to you and to your children... when you are the ones who pay their bills! every time someone buys a CD or a song the RIAA makes money to go screw everyone else. you need to campaign against the people who pay the RIAA's bills if you want to make a difference.

if every university in the USA stopped buying music for 1 week it would cost the record labels millions of dollars (probably put some of them on the edge as their cashflow cant afford such a hit) and would force them to listen...

just set a week and pass the word you dont even need a website to hurt them. the millionaire artists are supported by the kids who buy their cd's they will listed as well.

money makes the world turn the only way to make a difference is to hit them all where it hurts

RIAA promoting piracy? (2)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174885)

With all the animosity RIAA creates and contempt they have duly earned I would not be surprised if some people pirate just to spite RIAA.

The Internet Changes Everything (4, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#20174905)

Perhaps this is all evidence of a new trend in law: How The Internet Changes Everything!

In the SCO versus IBM + The Entire Linux Community, Groklaw provided a full-time forum for commentary and suggestions, and Slashdot covered the subject often. Among all the First Posts and other chaff must have been more than a few nuggets of wisdom.

In the fight of The RIAA versus The Entire Civilized World, this is taken yet another step further. While IBM was as technically savvy as its opponent, lawyers (apologies to Ray), Judges (no apologies to too many of them still, but some are getting it finally), and most users aren't very knowledgeable about computers, software, the Internet, the law, and what it all means. Neither is the RIAA knowledgeable in these areas, as they are too often making very evident.

Because of widespread interest in the subject, along with a general dislike of big business in general, there is a collaboration here the likes of which couldn't have ever happened even a few short years ago. The RIAA has thousands more enemies than they've yet sued, all of whom are willing to contribute what bit of knowledge they have to bring that lying (we're only doing this for the poor starving artists) colossus down. And because of their identical, boilerplate cases, they only have to lose on one point to lose them all! And its the Internet that's making all this possible. People communicate in ways they never could before.

Students, among other things, also have a lot of time on their hands, and a great ire when they think they've been wronged. That's a volatile mix that the RIAA may soon wish they'd left alone. Suing grandmothers (unless it happens to be Neville Longbottom's Gram) is safer than motivated students just looking for the next cause celeb.

All in all, I'd say the RIAA has made yet another major misstep. Maybe this will be their last one, since if successful, the students will provide the roadmap to kill all of these cases where they should be killed -- at the illegal, unethical, ex parte stage. If so, the world will be a better place for you and me (lyric used under Fair Use provisions).

Mwuahahahahahahaahahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20175095)

Suck it bitches! The RIAA can kiss our asses. When will they learn that when you try to fight technology YOU LOSE?!?!?

To testify what? (0, Troll)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175105)

Chairman of Boston University's Computer Science Department went to bat -- as an expert witness -- for the BU students

What does some limp-wrist academic [bu.edu] testify to as an expert - 'Yes, students are ok to download copywritten work because I read on the slashdot that Information is Free and it is only taking money from evil labels not from artists. Why, your honor, do CDs cost 12.99 in stores when they cost only pennies to produce!'

You could ask Google. (3, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175617)

If you google you will see that the main arguments are:

* Simply having files containing potentially unauthorized copies of music is not a violation: the entity distributing the music is responsible for any copyright violations.
* That the RIAA has not shown that the defendants were aware they they were even potentially distributing the files.
* The only distribution that the RIAA has shown to have been performed by the defendants was authorized by the RIAA and therefore wasn't a copyright violation.

This is actually pretty solid, and while of course there are several things the RIAA can do to cover these gaping holes in their approach there's not much they can do about the current case if these arguments prevail.

They're going after the wrong crowd... (4, Interesting)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175111)

College students are an inherently problematic target for what the **AA's are doing. One, they are not yet "mature" enough to "conform" to the adult status quo -- that usually takes place later on when paychecks, taxes, and family brings them back to Earth. Two, they are sowing their wild oats and see file-sharing as a minor pecadillo (if they see it as wrong at all) on a par with using their fake ID to drink when they're 19. Finally, they are still much more idealistic and full of that youthful vim and vigor that makes them believe they can change the world -- they haven't yet become jaded enough to just throw up their hands at injustice and take that "well, what can you do/that's the way the world works/you can't fight city hall/etc." attitude. If the "syndicate" were smart, they'd stick to extorting single mothers, low-income workers, children, the sick, and the elderly.

Students banding together (1)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175147)

students are finding each other and banding together

They weren't doing so before? I don't know about the US, I presume it's fairly similar to AUS. We call them student unions, is it really any surprise, that students would organise in such a manner to look out for their interests?

Suing students has never been a good idea (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175153)

Let's looks what students usually are:

-smart. Well, there are those and those, but usually, they got more brains than your average Joe.
-political. Not as much as they used to be, and certainly not "party political" anymore, but they do have agendas they believe in.
-young and thus enthusiastic. They didn't yet grow up into "meh, what can I do?" apathetics.
-free. Yes, there IS stress towards the end of a term, but hey, it's August! Many students still enjoy holidays, and few if any have papers due soon. They got spare time on their hands.

If you look around the world, you'll notice that pretty much every revolution, from political to social, contained students as a key element. Many social revolutions of the 60s have been driven by students, in Germany, in France, in the US.

Now, you're suing smart people who believe strongly in their freedom and their rights and do care about it, with plenty of spare time to defend themselves. Could it be that this wasn't the smartest idea?

Yay for BU and (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20175277)

yay for Chairman of Boston University's Computer Science Department.

It is apparent that BU CS department is not a paid underdog to megacorps, and thats an indicator that real CS is very probably being taught there.

And in the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20175505)

...they are still downloading music, illegally, and the industry and artists aren't getting paid....

Way to go team!

Personally, I think the govt should put in core routers monitoring every connection throughout the US and just deal with it that way.

If they were p2ping Linux or whatever, fine. But piracy is piracy. Fuck em.

mod doWn (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20175535)

users all ov3r the

Welp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20175621)

"I say we just get back to going after the uneducated and 70 year olds who don't know what a computer is."
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>