RIAA mass mailings

[The Beatles]

This message is being sent to all students with approval from the Office
of the Vice Provost for Student Life.
_____


Dear Student:

      I am writing to inform you of a development that could become a
serious issue for some of our students--the law governing downloading and
sharing of music and video from the internet. Under copyright law, it is
illegal to download or share copyrighted materials such as music or movies
without the permission of the copyright owner.  The Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) in recent years has taken an aggressive
approach to stopping this illegal downloading and file sharing. This has
put many students at the nation's colleges and universities at some legal
risk.  I write first to caution you against illegally downloading or
sharing files. Your actions when you do so are traceable and could result
in a significant financial penalty to you. Second, I want to inform you
about a new process the RIAA has initiated and the University's role in
this process.

      The RIAA is now sending colleges and universities a letter for
each instance they find of a student illegally downloading material from
the internet and requesting the university to identify the individual
student and forward the letter to him or her.  The letter, called an
"Early Settlement Letter" notifies the student that he or she has 20 days
to settle with the RIAA by going to a designated website, entering
identifying information, and paying a set amount, usually between $3,000
and $5,000, but sometimes considerably more. If the recipient chooses not
to settle, the RIAA will file a lawsuit and the offer to settle for the
amount stipulated is no longer an option.

      The University has been notified by the RIAA that we will be
receiving a number of these early settlement letters. After careful
consideration, we have decided to forward the letters to the alleged
copyright violators. We do so primarily because we believe students should
have the opportunity to avail themselves of the settlement option if they
so choose. Not forwarding the RIAA letter to students could result in
their being served with a lawsuit, with no chance to settle it beforehand.

      The University is unable to provide legal services to students who
have violated copyright law through illegal downloading or sharing. If you
receive a letter from the RIAA, we encourage you to engage a personal
attorney. If you have questions, please let us know.

      We know how tempting it is to download music or movies and share
files with your friends. But you need to know that it is illegal to do so
and that the consequences can be severe. Please inform yourself of the
requirements of the law and please obey it. Otherwise, it may prove costly
for you and your family.

Sincerely yours,


Eric S. Godfrey
Vice Provost for Student Life
OVPSL@u.washington.edu

How thankful I am that I never infringe American copyright.

[Freenhult]

xD

I download Bleach on a weekly basis. Hope my college doesn't attack me for that. Seeing as how its the stub'd version from Japan. Most certainly legal.

[Yoman82]

...Is this just spam, or really a threat?

[The Beatles]

Considering just spam doesn't make them money (if everyone stopped copyright infringement, their revenue would probably decrease rather than increase), most probably a real threat.

[Kraken]

well, it is ligit and i am wondering where you stand on it beatles? others?

[windhound]

its legit what the RIAA is doing?
not so much
their end goal may be alright, to stop people from stealing their stuff, but their methods are questionable at best,

there's many a story about how the RIAA have sued people who dont know what an .mp3 (et. all) is, at least one 11 year old girl, and various other people who probably did not cause the thousands worth of damages that the RIAA is pinning on them

*shrug*
they just seem to sue everyone they can while doing very little investigation into whether the infringement actually occurred.. and seem very reluctant to admit that infringement did not occur should the evidence point to the contrary
and really, the punishment does not fit the crime
if they catch you downloading a $12 album or an $18 movie they'll ask you $3-5k for a settlement?
donnit make sense to me, and it doesnt really appear to be making much of a dent in the amount of content downloaded, but eh. time will tell I guess

[Keke]

I'd be in big trouble if they would catch. Well. I'm not even american. I have 53,3Gt of downloaded anime and 12,2Gt manga on my pc. And I have some more anime on DVD's.

[Freenhult]

Personally, I think artists should be able to decide whether their music is free or not like that. Once it hits the CD, enough people buy it that the downloading doesn't even matter.

[The Beatles]

The complaint is of course legit, but as windy said, they sue without even rudimentary evidence. Setting up settlement websites where you can pay with credit card is just now how lawsuits are meant to work.

That said, given how prevalent nonprofit copyright infringement is, and the fact that some respectable countries don't consider it an offense, I'm really on the fence. The problem is partly 1. copyright law being taken to ridiculous lengths in US and UK, 2. the fact that middlemen (not even engineers, just businessmen) profit off the law (basically government aid to business) far, far, far more than the creators of the works, and that 3. the digital medium really is different from other media, and is soon becoming "infinitely" cheap -- really make me think that the law is at least as much to fault as the millions of casual infringers.

If the law were revised and this huge class of average-citizens-cum-petty-thieves disappeared, then I would not reserve condemnation for those who continued to do it -- the situation would be much like it was until the 90s.

In a word: yes, it's stealing, and yes it's legally reprehensible, but with the current legal situation, I wouldn't call it morally reprehensible. To provide a bit more depth to that short answer, read these great 1841 debates in the House of Commons (pretty short):
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm

[Kraken]

In a word: yes, it's stealing, and yes it's legally reprehensible, but with the current legal situation, I wouldn't call it morally reprehensible

dear me...thats quite backwards...
you see, there is nothing morally wholesome or un-reprehensible about stealing beatles, even when its bread for your starving hungarian babies.
as for the "current legal situation" care to explain?

[The Beatles]

I spent the previous three paragraphs explaining it. Get a dictionary or something.

[windhound]

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/06/25/2310205.shtml

I just read through the filing. The RIAA is in big trouble here.

Most of the facts in the case have already been litigated, and the RIAA lost. The counterclaims arise from facts already on the record. The RIAA's actions are a matter of public record. And they did a whole range of things ranging from really dumb to possibly criminal.

First, their investigation unit, SafeNet/MediaSentry, isn't a licensed private investigator. So they don't have any of the immunities a private investigator does. Normally, law firms use licensed private investigators for their investigations, but the RIAA didn't bother. Bad move.

Second, there's a clear case for fraudulent debt collection. It's already been established in court that the RIAA's claims were false, and that they knew they were false, yet they continued collection efforts.

On the harassment front, the RIAA's representatives apparently attempted to contact a 10 year old child's elementary school under false pretenses, pretending to be a grandparent. The court had to issue a protective order prohibiting the RIAA from contacting the kid. That's going to be tough to explain to a jury.

There's more, but the RIAA is going to have a very tough time in court on this one.

- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid ... d=19644345

[Kraken]

pah! fine, i read it: but it doesnt excuse or give excuse for stealing.

[The Beatles]

No, OTOH copyright isn't a natural right. It's a contract between the public and the private. Therefore it has a moral claim, but only in proportion to its reasonableness.

[The Beatles]

So downloading the latest album of an artist is condemnable to a far greater degree than downloading an album released, say, 40 years ago.