p2pnet - rss feed: Fight the RIAA! MIT student
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Vanderbilt University’s Cindy Frank believes ‘playing nice’ with Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) the way go.
And the policy has so far cost the university [read taxpayers and state and federal authorities, not to mention parents] half a million dollars.
But Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer science major Erek Speed doesn’t agree.
In fact, it’s time to fight back, he says.
“Even if the RIAA was really the poor victim it claims to be, MIT probably should not be so quick to fall into its role as RIAA lapdog,” he posts in The Tech Online, going on:
“The reason pre-litigation letters are sent is because real lawsuits are expensive. It is not an act of clemency or a new well of kindness suddenly sprung up in the previously evil RIAA.”
But nowhere in MIT’s charter, “does it demand the safeguarding of corporate coffers,” says Speed, going on, “It might be a stretch but I think it is more true to our charter that MIT take a stance that opposes anything the RIAA does to stifle the free flow of information and should only cooperate where legally mandated.”
MIT should think about students as a whole who benefit from an institute, “which cares more about their education than indulging the RIAA,” he says.
But perhaps even more troubling is MIT’s belief that the RIAA has the law on its side, states Speed continuing:
It doesn’t. What the RIAA is really doing is more akin to extortion; in fact, the letters sent explicitly tell poor students (and others) that settling is cheaper than challenging the RIAA in court. I don’t really blame the RIAA for that; if I had the legal standing the RIAA has, I wouldn’t want to go to court either.
The RIAA groups unrelated defendants in John Doe lawsuits and uses its billion dollar industry to crush them. You can check the case law yourself, but the RIAA’s motions are actually ridiculous. Unfortunately, that doesn’t matter because the RIAA uses legal tricks to ensure nobody is around to oppose it. The District Court of New Mexico denied such a subpoena, saying that it would require a “Coleridgian ’suspension of disbelief’ ” to accept such anonymous lawsuits.
He adds:
“Of course, if all this is true (and it is), why does MIT let it happen? [Dean for Student Life Larry G.] Benedict says, ‘MIT is legally required to provide the information sought by the valid subpoenas. This is simply factually incorrect. That such an error was included in his letter (several times) might be a indication that MIT needs new lawyers. MIT can, in fact, serve a motion to essentially reject the subpoena. There is (specific) precedent for this.
“Currently, students at George Washington University are in the midst of doing this right now. I have read one student’s (John Doe #3) motion and some of it is almost tautological. The University of Oregon, along with the attorney general of the same state, has also filed a similar motion, just like MIT could do. Instead, MIT is washing its hands of all of it, once again throwing its students to the dogs. MIT should stand up for its students and either use its legal team to oppose the RIAA or create a legal defense fund so that poor students can defend themselves.
“Other schools have walked the path MIT is currently moving down, and the only results have been further restriction of the free flow of information. Ohio State University even installed exceptionally expensive peer-to-peer blocking software in its attempt to placate the RIAA and where are we? The RIAA is still lobbying Congress for federally mandated university restriction of the Internet, and it is still suing students.
“Clearly the strategy of appeasing the RIAA has not worked. It is time to fight back.”
Stay tuned, as always.
Also See:
Cindy Frank - Vanderbilt ‘plays nice’ with the RIAA, December 5, 2007
The Tech Online - Appeasing the RIAA Is Getting Us Nowhere, December 7, 2007
Want to help p2pnet stay online? Please click here.
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
December 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
“The reason pre-litigation letters are sent is because real lawsuits are expensive.”
Also because they have jack shit on anyone as far as real evidence is concerned. All they have are a number that could potentially have been used by anyone, and a list of files being shared, which may never have been distributed to anyone. Ever. They have no proof that any sort of illegal activities ever took place, which is why they attempt to extort internet users into admission of guilt.