![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
I like what they've done. You can't disagree with that, it's not a scare tactic, it's a letter basically saying \"you guys messed up, we've got your back, but please stop b/c things might get worse and we might not be able to cover you down the road...\"
Seems to me they just want a way to verify that you have seen these rules and have a documented way that you agree to them. I have set up something similar where I work.
I put a brief version of our electronic communications policy as a pop-up before users log on to their machines. They have to OK it and it acts as if they agree to the terms of our policy. As far as internet access, I have the option to publish the whole policy as a web page and force that to be the start page for their browser.
That way you were provided the policy, instructed to read it and you have to agree to it with your UID and PW. Theoretically you're the only one with that UID and PW so you can only be the one who agreed.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-34627-100x100.png\")
Courts have ruled that employees, and by extension in this circumstance, students, cannot be held responsible for rules or policies if they have not acknowledged in some way that they are aware of them. To me this seems like the University is just making sure that they have the \"documentation\" to prove that all users were warned.
Good for the U of W on this one. Nice to see someone still remembering the laws of the country and following them. \"Innocent until PROVEN guilty.\" I doubt we'll see the RIAA issue subpoenas in this case.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-66939-100x100.png\")
In your face RIAA, I just want to see if these houndogs will actually get a subpoena, as if any reasonable judge would give it to them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-54738-100x100.png\")
UofW has done the right thing. They have/will tell the RIAA to DIAF and warned their students that downloading certain types of music/movies is illegal.
Students have not entitled to abuse the universities network. It is not a free speech issue or lame version of 1984.
I am a system admin for a college here in California and the things students think they can do with our network is amazing.
Looks like Terrorist U, a.k.a. University of South Florida, is all for the RIAA's movement.
http://sptimes.com/2007/03/19/Hillsborough/That_free_song_...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-44370-100x100.png\")
I am glad to see that we are calling this \"attorneys for Sony, Universal, EMI, Warner Music Group and more\" instead of the RIAA. Way to go consumerist. I hope this will start a trend of calling the atrocity for what it is and holding those behind this fiasco publicly responsible. I hope to see other websites follow your example in calling the RIAA by their actual names.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-27519-100x100.png\")
Works for me. Way to go Wis-Mad
Good for the university for not forwarding shake down letters. Sorry but if RIAA has a case they have to go through the trouble and expense of actually suing someone and getting a subpoena, not just sending an email or letter demanding money.
On the other hand, the people doing the sharing/trading would never walk into a record store and stuff a CD in their coat, but on the Internet it gives a false feeling of anonymity so they do these things just because they think nobody will find out.
Yes it's wrong, it's illegal, but the record companies have to take legal action, not just sending threatening letters for the college to enforce. It's like they want the easy way out, skirting the law so they don't have to pay for real legal action.
I wish more colleges would have this policy and tell them that if they want to sue, do it the hard way and maybe you'll break even with legal costs when it's all done. Right now, sending \"demand letters\" and getting the college to look up their IP and send it to the student is ridiculous, a college isn't under obligation to work for RIAA so they don't have to file in court like anyone else who wants to sue someone.
There's no easy answer, wherever time is more valuable than money there's going to be software or music/media piracy. It doesn't justify a thing but only explains why it happens so much. Maybe if the recording industry wasn't so old school, clinging to digital rights management and selling CD's with one or two good songs and the rest fluff \"filler\" written by someone's uncle, then charging $17.99 for the privelege it wouldn't be such a problem.
More artists should sell direct to the public online, that's the future. Many accept contracts just to say they are \"signed\" and then the treadmill begins. They have to sell 10 albums to actually take home what they could selling one or a bunch of single downloads on their own. We'll have to wait a while to see how this plays out.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-44213-100x100.png\")
Wow, exceptionally well played UWM.
Bravo UWM, bravo. I am exceptionally thrilled that the college I am (hopefully) going to be attending next year is taking such a firm stand towards this; while I don't partake in such activities (I don't believe in stealing things just because I can't afford to buy it, don't want to pay for it, whatever. I like having hard copies of stuff I want, as well) this totally makes me happy to be associating myself with them.
UWM - We don't take no shit, even from the RIAA.
I wonder how they'll beat this one next time around.
As other people have posted, the other warning page is not anything for legality, but just so the students understand.
I have worked at a ResNet, and you would be surprised how many students try to pull the \"I didn't know anything about these rules\" tactic.
And, to be fair, the RIAA were not wrong each time they sent us a letter. Obviously, having public IP addresses did not help the students.
It would seem to me this is the University's way of making sure they aren't held liable for the file sharing. I commend them on their resistance to pass on the letters, although to an extent, making this statement comes pretty close but just in a broad way.