To: Campus Community
First problem: Not even a technicality, but explicit fact, everything that can be copyrighted automatically is copyrighted. Therefore, this statement can not be true, because it will have just criminalized the sharing of our own work. Not to mention, that creative commons/copyleft relies on copyright, and that there is such a thing as legally free copyrighted content. It isn't as simple as "copyright on the work = infringement to share," there are far more variables than that. This is a blatant generalization that misrepresents facts, and misleads those who create, and want to / need to learn about the laws regarding copyright.
And to call it unethical acts like an imposition of ethics on others, which is especially unappreciated only because of the erroneous nature of the above statements and not much more... not to mention that laws and ethics are not one, and one's ethical nuances will vary from person to person.
To have an ethical opinion is sane, to impose it as the law of the land is erroneous (as only the laws made and enforced are laws), and to believe what you impose is hubris of the most dangerous kind.
"Over the last few years the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing services has increased dramatically, nationwide. Purchase College has taken steps to limit (without prohibiting) the impact of these services on our network. However, every year, and with increasing frequency, violations are reported to the College that often result in disciplinary and/or legal action against students illegally sharing files.
Upon receiving a report of a violation from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) or the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) or their designees, the reported violation is documented, the materials are “taken down” from our network (P2P service to the host PC is disabled), and the student is referred to Student Affairs and the campus judicial process. The use of college systems and network services is a privilege provided to students to support their academic endeavors, and the loss of this privilege could adversely impact academic or professional activities. "
Violations, or ACCUSED violations? The distinction is VERY important. Just like a traffic camera can only be tagged to the car and not the driver, one's I.P address can only be attached to a computer, and not the person using it. Not to mention the RIAA/MPAA/BSA's continual track record of allegedly finding and going against people to find themselves in error (suing people without a computer, who weren't infringing at all, even the deceased aren't safe).
It isn't enough to just get a notice and blindly deal with it. IF Purchase ACTUALLY gave a damn about protecting their students, they would do a little homework, and make sure the information is accurate given the above is documented truth. Don't just cave in, make sure their facts are straight first, and make sure they are actually holding themselves to getting information correct, and getting it legally. Given how they have relied often on groups like MediaSentry and other bullshit groups that have actually been taken to court over hacking, and other illegal means of data mining.
"Recent studies show that the majority of files shared on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks such as Bit-Torrent are also infected with worms, viruses and spyware. Downloading anything onto your machine from untrustworthy P2P sources exposes you to cyber-threats, and often violates the Copyright laws."
And more recent studies... by chance do they have any citations? I can bet you $100 (with incredible odds of winning) that they are biased sources of information. The mechanisms are far from perfect yes, but it is not as much as a crap shoot as people are being lead to believe. File names and extentions, or of torrenting looking at the quality and comments left on it can be a good indicator. Biggest part of it is this: Don't be a fucking idiot and download MP3name.mp3.exe, or something with an obviously incorrect file name, or file size (unrealistically high or low).
This I like. emusic, iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, etc are all good, but don't forget, you can use P2P and torrenting legally too.
Ok, so you just proved to me, CTS, that you are legally inept, and incapable of making a logical argument..
Copyright infringement is a crime, and/or civil tort depending on severity.
Theft is a crime.
That doesn't mean you can call infringing on copyright theft, say it is a crime, and expect the equation to fly.
For one, not only is that 100% WRONG, as any legal expert (read::NOT CTS) would prove just by looking at the penal codes and what they actually say, as well as cases like Dowling v. U.S and Grokster/Napster, where the difference was not only made, but ENFORCED (to the point of lawyers being accused by the JUDGE of using abusive language.
And the LOGIC (or lack therefore) - ever hear of proof by absurdity?
To quote an internet dweller who taught this to viewers of a message board debate on the topic:
If A=B, then B=A. Equality is symmetric. Got that? With me so far?
- Therefore, if copyright infringement is theft, then theft is copyright infringement.
- Therefore, if I reach into your bag and take your lunch and run away, I have infringed the copyright you hold in your lunch.
As a proof by absurdity, if Murder=Crime then Crime=Murder and therefore if I have jaywalked I am a murderer.
Not that I don't get what CTS is trying to say, but 100% misleading and lying to students is absolutely the worst way to do it.
"In June 2009 a woman in Minnesota was convicted and fined $1.9m for illegally sharing 24 songs – a whopping $80,000 for each song! "
So the RIAA likes extortion and constitutionally dubious tactics against file-sharing, what else is new? Really?
Current Mood: pissed off