Duke University to RIAA: put up or shut up
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- Duke University has joined the growing list of schools balking at following Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA sue ‘em all instructions.
Put up or shut up, Duke University for VP for student affairs Larry Moneta (right) has told Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA, in effect.
And the same goes for Hollywood’s MPAA.
Duke will now require agencies like the aforementioned entertainment cartel enforcement organisations, “to provide evidence of copyright infringement before forwarding pre-litigation notices to students,” says the school’s Duke Chronicle.
“The University has stepped up its support for students with the new policy, scheduled to go into effect before the end of the semester,” says the story, continuing:
“In the past, the University did not provide student information to the RIAA without a subpoena, but forwarded all pre-litigation notices to students without evaluating the validity of the infringement claims.”
But at least one student isn’t impressed, saying the new P2P policy is as, “frustrating than having to pay thousands of dollars in fines” in the first place.
“So basically what they’re saying now is that before this they didn’t have proof?” – the unnamed student is quoted as saying. “They allowed for ‘not good proof’ to be shown beforehand, or just not shown at all?” he said.
“So now Duke is requiring evidence — so what? It’s still not going to change anything.”
And, “While it is good news that a university is requiring the RIAA to put up or shut up, the forwarding — or not forwarding — of letters is pretty insignificant,” says Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman.
“What I want to know is: When the RIAA comes knocking with its Star Chamber, ex parte, ‘John Doe’ litigation to get the students’ identities, is the University going to go to bat for the students and fight the litigation on the ground that it’s based on zero evidence, and on the ground that the students weren’t given prior notice and an opportunity to be heard?”
‘The RIAA polices peer-to-peer networks’
Meanwhile, “What we’re saying is that in order for us to pass on a settlement letter to a student, we’re going to start requiring evidence that someone actually downloaded from that student,” Moneta says. “If the RIAA can’t prove that actual illegal behavior occurred, then we’re not going to comply.”
Individuals cited for copyright infringement by the RIAA, “are known only by an IP address that has been flagged for uploading one or more illegal files,” says the Duke Chronicle, continuing:
“The RIAA polices peer-to-peer networks and collects evidence of infringement against certain IP addresses, forwarding infringement letters to universities that then follow up with the individuals.
“In the past year, the RIAA has sent more than 1,000 infringement notices to Duke students, including more than 40 pre-litigation notices, 21 settlement offers and eight subpoenas. Over the past three months, the RIAA has filed three civil lawsuits against Duke students for sharing copyrighted material over P2P networks like Limewire and Kazaa.”
It goes on »»»
Shawn, a junior whose name has been changed to protect his identity, settled with the RIAA for $3,000 but said the playing field would have been more level if he had had access to a lawyer when he received a pre-litigation notice from the University.
“Nothing is going to be solved until Duke gets a student lawyer to contest this in a joint case,” he said. “When you get the e-mail from the RIAA, you have no idea what to do, or who to go to. Most kids can’t afford a lawyer, but if one lawyer is at Duke to file a joint case they could probably get [the RIAA] to drop it.”
Without a University policy requiring the RIAA to supply evidence of alleged illegal activity, students may have been at risk for erroneous claims of infringement. Many experts have disputed the soundness of the RIAA’s methods of detecting copyright infringement, said Owen Astrachan, professor of the practice of computer science and co-director of undergraduate studies for the department.
The RIAA’s current policing software can generate false positives that wrongly implicate users for illegal downloads, he explained, the story adds.
Stay tuned.
Did you enjoy this story, or find it interesting/useful? Help keep the posts coming by donating. No amount is too small. Cheers! And thanks.
Duke Chronicle – P2P policy to require RIAA proof, November 14, 2008
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
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
All that will most likely happen is the RIAA will change gears and continue by adding pressure to the Uni. I would imagine it will go something like this.
Instead of sending pre-litigation letters, they will go to court for a pile of John Doe requests for the Uni to give up IP addresses on. If they can find them, they would in my opinion wait until there are a hundred or so to send at one time to the Uni, knowing full well that it will eat into the Uni staff’s time to come up with identification. It will be done with the shortest possible time frame allowed to add to the pressure. If and when the Uni complains about their business being interrupted to fill this court request, the RIAA will come back with something along the lines of “You could have passed on the re-litigation letters”.
They are after bucks from both ends as usual. From the victims of the re-litigation letters and from the Uni in hopes that it will come in the form of them purchasing some of that snakeoil, Audible magic.
They are doing their best to make sure there is not another generation of music listeners that wish anything from the major labels. Continuing at this rate, later in the decade they won’t be able to give their music away. Anyone that listens, buys, deals with, or has such music, begins to stand the chance of being in a law suit. Today it is file sharing, who knows what it will be tomorrow, other than it will in some way involve their product. Who needs their product under these conditions? Why would anyone in their right minds pay for the privilege of being in a lottery where they could be the next victim?
November 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I would love to receive a pres litigation letter.
Why?
Because it is intelligence information.
With the “pres-litigation” letter you know who to attack back and a devastating counter attack could be conducted within few days. This will take care of few parasites.
If enought people do this this pres-litigation BS will not last very long.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
If you receve a pres litigation letter All you have to do is post on line the name and business address of the author of the letter and someone will take care of the rest for you.
We can stop this crap!
November 16th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I was falsely accused by these turkey’s of sharing a specific movie from one of my computers. This accusation obviously happened solely because I was running a P2P software program. The movie I was accused of sharing was not on any computer in my possession. Also the hard drive of the P2P sharing computer had been purged using Acronis shortly before the accusation was made; so there was no chance of there being any residual image of the movie in question. I wrote to my ISP, the Producers of the movie, and the so called investigators, pointing out the facts and their error; demanding an apology. I received NO RESPONCE. The humorous part of this episode is that I didn’t even know the movie they accused me of sharing existed; until I was accused of sharing it. By the way I also tested all files on the P2P computer (there were not that many) and none of them where mislabeled or corrupted. So now that I know one person was falsely accused; how many others are being falsely accused, but do not have the skill or the good luck to be able to prove it!