Guest JHawk Posted April 21, 2003 Report Posted April 21, 2003 I know we've had these conversations before, but what the hell. Credit the Associated Press. STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (April 21) - Penn State deprived 220 students of high-speed Internet connections in their dorms after it found they were sharing copyrighted material, the university said Monday. ``Basically, we received a complaint,'' said Penn State spokesman Tysen Kendig, who said he could not reveal who registered the complaint. ``Upon investigation, we found that the students had publicly listed copyright-infringing materials on their systems to other members of this network,'' he added. Music and movie industry groups have urged universities to curb the sharing of copyrighted files and penalize violators. Students, who often have fast Internet connections and little cash, are seen as the vanguard in a wave of downloading that the entertainment industry claims is cutting into its profits. ``I was kind of surprised at being caught,'' Jason Steiner, a freshman in aerospace engineering, told The Daily Collegian, Penn State's student newspaper. ``I was sitting there online and all of a sudden I wasn't, with no idea why.'' The sanctioned students all live in campus residence halls. They can still access their campus accounts from other computers. The connections to their dorm rooms will be restored once the copyrighted materials have been removed, Kendig said. On March 31, Penn State's executive vice president and provost, Rodney Erickson, sent an e-mail to more than 110,000 students, administrators, faculty and staff reminding them that the university prohibits sharing copyrighted material and warning that such sharing is against the law. Earlier this month, 85 students at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., were disciplined for using the school's network to trade copyrighted music and movies. My immediate questions: 1. Why can't they reveal who filed the complaint? 2. How could they search their computers for the files (even assuming they had a warrant, doesn't the student have to know they're checking their computer)?
Guest stardust Posted April 21, 2003 Report Posted April 21, 2003 Yeah, but under the Patriot Act, officials are only supposed to be able to search someone's electronic files if they're suspected of terrorism. If they find something else that's illegal (like MP3s or child porn), then they can prosecute for that. So were all these students suspected terrorists, because that's the only way what the university did was legal (if it's under the Patriot Act).
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 21, 2003 Report Posted April 21, 2003 Mmm... no catching my illegal downloads here at U-Pitt...
Guest NoCalMike Posted April 22, 2003 Report Posted April 22, 2003 Yeah, but under the Patriot Act, officials are only supposed to be able to search someone's electronic files if they're suspected of terrorism. If they find something else that's illegal (like MP3s or child porn), then they can prosecute for that. So were all these students suspected terrorists, because that's the only way what the university did was legal (if it's under the Patriot Act). Patriot Act does not have to be STRICTLY related to "terrorism" issues. This is exactly why it is pure crap. Not like the measures in the act are just going to vanish with the threat of terrorism. It will be used to the fullest for the highest bidder.
Guest stardust Posted April 22, 2003 Report Posted April 22, 2003 Yeah, but under the Patriot Act, officials are only supposed to be able to search someone's electronic files if they're suspected of terrorism. If they find something else that's illegal (like MP3s or child porn), then they can prosecute for that. So were all these students suspected terrorists, because that's the only way what the university did was legal (if it's under the Patriot Act). Patriot Act does not have to be STRICTLY related to "terrorism" issues. This is exactly why it is pure crap. Not like the measures in the act are just going to vanish with the threat of terrorism. It will be used to the fullest for the highest bidder. Of course it'll end up being used that way, but it's initial, overall intent was to target terrorists. And I could go into a really long diatribe about how it could be considered an invasion of privacy and the potential implications the Patriot Act will have on the workplace and employee monitoring (I just wrote a paper on employee privacy, and the Patriot Act was one issue that came up in my research, so it's taking up about 80% of the space in my brain right now). Honestly, though, I expect to see a few Supreme Course cases come out of this, because the potential effects of the Patriot Act ARE so widespread. And yeah, I agree, it is crap.
Guest NoCalMike Posted April 22, 2003 Report Posted April 22, 2003 Anyone know what the second patriot act was supposed to include. I knew it went a few steps further than the original patriot act. I am not sure if Patriot Act II ever went through, or if it was just being proposed.
Guest Slapnuts00 Posted April 22, 2003 Report Posted April 22, 2003 Is it just me, or couldn't they just save their stuff on disks? That way its not on the computer, they'll have their internet back and they can keep their files.
Guest papacita Posted April 22, 2003 Report Posted April 22, 2003 Ok, I haven't really been paying attention to the debates as of late, but are MP3's actually illegal now?
Guest NoCalMike Posted April 22, 2003 Report Posted April 22, 2003 I thought mp3s were fine, but it was the act of trying to sell your audio files for profit that made it against the law. It is definately NOT against the law to rip your cd and put them on your OWN computer. Beyond that, there is a HUUUGE gray area right now and an ongoing debate/catfight between file-sharing clients and record companies.
Guest DrTom Posted April 22, 2003 Report Posted April 22, 2003 It is definately NOT against the law to rip your cd and put them on your OWN computer. Not yet. But unless groups like the RIAA are stopped in their tracks, it will be. "Fair use," a very important consumer protection in copyright law. has already come under serious attack from the dreadful Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which should be stricken from the books at once. Software companies are trying to argue against the right of consumers to make a copy of the disc for archival and personal use. It's absurd. Instead of changing their business models to fit these very digital, very online times, groups like the RIAA are trying to legislate their way to a consumer-unfriendly solution. And since they have so many Congressmen in their pocket, that might not be too hard to pull off.
Guest NoCalMike Posted April 22, 2003 Report Posted April 22, 2003 ya Dr. Tom, it is awful what could potentially happen if congressmen are making decisions based on the money in their pockets. I thought the home recordings act protected the consumer to allow him/herself to make a backup copy for PERSONAL USE.
Guest Vyce Posted April 23, 2003 Report Posted April 23, 2003 I go to one of the most liberal law schools in all of D.C, and even they have come down recently on students downloading copyrighted materials. None of us pay any attention though. They have broadband, you don't think I'm not going to take advantage of that?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now