Since the Recording Industry Association of America stopped announcing lawsuits against people suspected of pirating music on campus networks (The Chronicle, January 31), college officials may have been able to take their minds off of the trade group’s aggressive legal campaign. But the Electronic Frontier Foundation—which has consistently opposed the RIAA in court and in public debate—continues to hammer at the recording industry’s legal tactics.
During a conference call yesterday, Ray Beckerman—a lawyer for the foundation who runs a blog called Recording Industry vs. the People—accused the RIAA of waging "a reign of terror" against innocent consumers. Mr. Beckerman argues that the recording industry routinely files suit against suspected pirates without accumulating much evidence or giving potential defendants ample notice about forthcoming subpoenas.
The conference call was organized by Defective By Design, a group that seeks to liberalize digital-copyright regulations. The group is attempting to create a defense fund for people sued by the RIAA, reports NewsForge. —Brock Read
6 Responses to A Digital ‘Reign of Terror’
magyar - February 13, 2012 at 4:38 am
Please tell me this is tongue-in-cheek…
janesdaughter - February 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Never mind whether Murray was convicted rightfully or wrongfully. Never mind whether he is a sadist/masochist, or whether that contributed in any way to his wife’s death. I believe society still has a lot to learn about perpetrators and victims of sexual violence, and a concluding sentence like the one offered in this story seems likely to frighten away serious researchers of sexuality for fear of destroying their own reputations.
dank48 - February 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Hindsight remains 20/20. Scholars may indeed reveal something of their personalities by what they study, but what that something is may not be clear, either at the time or later.
Nietzsche’s notorious “Going to visit a woman? Don’t forget to take your whip.” is revelatory of his personality, but not in any obvious way. Imo the best explanation for why Nietzsche wrote that, ah, aphorism was Rex Stout’s: “Because the poor wretch hadn’t the temerity to touch a woman with a feather.”
Linguists are like other people, aside from their knowing more about linguistics than most other people. Some people are peaceful, law-abiding, “normal” individuals; some are homicidal maniacs. They all look the same.
Guest - February 13, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Or perhaps, the evidence being circumstantial, he didn’t kill his wife, and so conclusions twice removed from “proof” would be presumptuous.
indigodragonfly - February 14, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Thank you, 22089159x! Tom Murray was convicted by the media and public before the murder trial even started. Since there was no hard evidence (including witnesses), only the murderer can speak knowledgeably on the subject.
Allan Metcalf, your analysis does not hold up. I can’t help but wonder if you have criminal leanings, considering the basis of your argument, which is echoed in your “moral to this story”: “Scholars may reveal something of their personalities by what they study.”
You really should play fair and write another set of posts that argue the other side– How Tom Murray’s body of work demonstrates that he was probably NOT a cold-blooded killer. I’m sure that argument would be just as easy to make. Otherwise, your speculation = character assassination.
And RIP Carmin! You were a wonderful, warm, brilliant woman who deserved a long, happy life.
dank48 - February 15, 2012 at 4:23 pm
I don’t see how Tom Murray’s body of work demonstrates anything about whether or not he’s a cold-blooded, or even warm-blooded, killer. The notion that our professional lives say anything about our personal lives or, more specifically, what we may or may not be capable of doing seems to me unsubstantiated.
What did Amy Bishop’s body of work say about her?