October 5, 2007
Pre-Litigation Letters Put Colleges Between a Rock and a Hard Place
This week The Badger Herald, the University of Wisconsin at Madison’s student newspaper, profiles “Elizabeth,” one of the growing number of college students who have received pre-litigation notices from the Recording Industry Association of America. The piece is well worth reading: It sheds a lot of light on how the notices, which encourage students to settle file-sharing claims out of court, are putting colleges in sticky situations.
In Elizabeth’s case, the university seemed to be doing everything right. In March, Wisconsin received 16 of the pre-litigation notices, each intended for a different student. Instead of just forwarding the letters to the students, campus officials convened a small meeting during which they encouraged the students to seek legal counsel (made available free through an affiliate of the university’s law school) instead of settling quickly out of court.
According to many IT-policy experts, that was exactly what colleges should be telling their students. But Elizabeth says the advice backfired. By the time she had consulted with lawyers and decided to settle anyway, the RIAA had taken its offer of a “discounted” settlement, made in the pre-litigation notices, off the table. The student says she ended up having to pay $1,000 more than if she’d just settled right off the bat, and she’s not thrilled about the money she lost.
“I felt like the university was trying to fight with the RIAA,” she told the Herald, “and I was what they used to fight them.”
It’s understandable that Elizabeth feels frustrated. But for Wisconsin officials, this is precisely the sort of no-win situation that some campus administrators envisioned at the onset of the RIAA’s pre-litigation campaign. Few colleges will feel comfortable pushing students toward out-of-court settlements. But if those institutions urge students to explore all their options before settling, and the advice doesn’t pan out, they run the risk of upsetting students caught in the crossfire. Now that the RIAA has made clear that its discounted settlement offers really are short-term deals, what should colleges be saying to students who receive pre-litigation letters? —Brock Read
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Educators Are Split About the Viability of Second Life
Next: Lessons From Children and 'TV Guide'
Why can students just buy music instead of stealing it?
— Matt Martin Oct 5, 05:03 PM #
Seems like the RIAA’s “short-term deal” is really meant to get students to settle before they have time to consider other options. She didn’t even have time to consult with legal counsel?
— Carlo Oct 5, 05:06 PM #
@Matt If you’re going to be a self-righteous twat, at least use the right terms. Copyright infringement is not theft.
And why do you think they “steal” it? Because they don’t find the published media to be worth the going rate; they don’t have enough money to purchase the selection of music to which they wish to listen; services like iTunes and Urge offer DRM-entangled files and no lossless formats, forcing students to go through the hassle of circumventing DRM and transcoding to another lossy format to put their music on their mp3 players; they wish to listen to wide selections of music before deciding to purchase it.
— Chris Oct 6, 08:56 AM #
This is just a shakedown, pure and simple. RIAA are engaging in extortion. This is pretty much their business model, as cd sales continue to disintegrate. Sue your customers. That’s a great strategy.
— aghast Oct 6, 02:12 PM #
“They don’t have enough money to purchase the selection of music to which they wish to listen.”
Wow. We have now reached the bottom of the excuses barrel.
I guess the guy who robbed me didn’t have enough money to pursue his lifestyle of choice either. I forgive him.
— Graham Oct 6, 07:03 PM #
Carlo,
Nope, by the time UW had arranged the meeting, the letters had been out for several weeks; there was really no time to consult a lawyer because students were constantly told to wait until the meeting and that there was no rush.
Graham,
You’re correct. However, what if the cops caught this robber, got your stuff back, and kept it for themselves instead of returning it to it’s rightful owner? That’s all the RIAA does.
— Madeline Oct 7, 12:47 AM #
Anyone who has access to a Borders bookstore or Amazon.com can listen to music before they purchase it. It’s been that way for years. Illegal file sharing is theft and students/faculty/staff who engage in it should expect to pay the consequences.
— Pat A. Oct 8, 08:06 AM #
Interesting discourse.
First demonize an action (call copyright infirgement “theft”)
Then because stealing is bad and immoral, ask for punishment of the copyright infiringers.
It makes the whole conversaation very boring if every instance of “theft” in the discussion above is replaced with “copyright infringement.” Society has not come to grips yet with the concept of “Intellectual Property”. There is a big difference between the theft of a piece of physical property and copyright infrigment of a piece of intellectual property. People who deny that there is no difference and try to equate the two are disingenous
It may be wrong to infringe on copyright but please do not call it theft.
— Civil Libertarian Oct 8, 09:59 AM #
Note that this kind of ‘theft’ does not involve violence or the threat of it (no weapons are involved) nor does it involve illegal breaking and entering—in fact, in most cases the material being shared is aquired legally (i.e. bought and ripped). For the industry to call this theft is to make metaphoric assumptions that need real arguments to back them up. And note also that the penalties for this kind of theft, if the industry gets its way, will be far greater than ‘real’ theft, such as shoplifting.
— Libertarian in general Oct 8, 10:34 AM #
People people people… Let’s keep the volume down in here… If you really want to listen to music you don’t have to buy it — just check it out of your local public library (but remember not to tear it or rip it…)
— Civil Librarian Oct 8, 01:04 PM #
Let me see if I got this straight: Universities are responsible for my copying music from their Internet service?
Then why aren’t broadcasters and cable servers responsible when I copy movies from their service?
RIAA is just shooting messengers because they can’t catch the real miscreants.
— darrell in dallas Oct 8, 02:02 PM #
(but remember not to tear it or rip it…)
Civil Librarian, is that a pun? Some students may know that they can check out most popular music from their library and “rip” a copy onto another CD, or their hard drive, or whatever. Of course this takes a little longer, but is probably not monitored by the RIAA police.
But if it were … could the RIAA send letters to the Small Town public library and demand that they stop allowing Joe Student to check out CDs because Joe is burning copies in his basement. Could the RIAA sue the local libraries?
Will nobody think of the musicians!? They’ve got Hummer’s to feed.
— dam Oct 8, 02:26 PM #
Since when is copyright infringement NOT theft?Let’s try some other euphemisms…“She didn’t steal his book, she plagiarized it; it’s not the same thing!” If someone steals your property, intellectual or otherwise “Chris” and “Civil Libertarian”, it’s theft.
— Libertarians respect property. Oct 8, 06:24 PM #
The problem in this case is the University of Wisconsin. She was offered a deal and she should have taken it. Instead, the univeristy tried to find ways around this opportunity for a thief to make amends. . .and it cost her more.
The smartest thing for all institutions to do is forbid the conduct and sanction those who engage in it. And they do in fact have obligations because they provide the access to the internet. When notified, they are obliged to stop the behavior or face liaibility.
And it is in fact stealing, Chris and others. If you take without permission something that doesn’t belong to you, it’s stealing. Violence or no violence, it’s stealing. To suggest anything else is a rather pathetic attempt to justify or excuse illicit conduct. If you don’t think particular songs or CDs are worth what is charged, feel free not to purchase, but don’t feel free to steal. And for Dam, who the heck are you to judge how much a musician has or doesn’t have? That’s probably the worst thing I’ve yet seen written on this topic. Regardless of how much a person has or doesn’t have, in a civilized society, their property should be respected. Or do you really wish to live in a socieity where stealing is defined not by the taking, but by the affluence of the victim?
— Bill Oct 9, 07:20 AM #
In my opinion, people that do it try to excuse their behavior by not wanting to compare music piracy to actual theft. The reality is that it is the same thing as stealing because you know that you are obtaining something illegal. You are not paying for the music period.
— Carlos Oct 9, 10:45 AM #
The author, Brock Reed, writes, “Now that the RIAA has made clear that its discounted settlement offers really are short-term deals, what should colleges be saying to students who receive pre-litigation letters?”
I’m baffled at this phrasing. I doubt that RIAA’s pre-litigation letter failed to indicate the offer had a time limit.
The story concludes with a curious question: “what should colleges be saying to students who receive pre-litigation notices?” I don’t know or care. I’m more interested to know why university officials, their legal counsel, and adult students think they can take property (or facilitate its taking) without consequence.
— wm Oct 9, 11:06 AM #
Does anyone ever tape TV shows (or, for the fancy-pants, DVR/Tivo them), then watch them later, skipping over the commercials? Does anybody tape sports events and watch the highlights late at night after all the kids are in bed?
This is copyright infringement. Is it theft?
In the case of sports, we are told explicitly during every event “recording and rebroadcast without the express written consent of MLB/NFL is forbidden;” I forget the exact wording, but even disclosing the results of such a game without permission is forbidden (I assume this extends to talking about a game; it would certainly include discussing a game on something like a blog, yes?)
For the “Theft-shouters,” do all of the above count as stealing? Do none of you do any of these? Perhaps not. Perhaps my morals have been weakened by technology (albeit a 13 inch tv/vcr combo).
— dam Oct 9, 12:37 PM #
A key point is being missed here – the RIAA does not go after people who have a handful of songs on their computer – it is people who have downloaded thousands of songs and are sharing these songs with others, further perpetuating the availability of illegally downloaded music. Comparing all sectors of entertainment is apples to oranges – there IS a difference between a VHS tape with your favorite episode of Friends and downloading songs through shareware and helping others do the same. The argument of students not having enough money is simply an excuse – you’re privleged enough to own a computer and to attend college, you can budget your money wisely and use the appropriate avenues to attain it. Many musicians via Myspace, Facebook, Ruckus, etc. make entire tracks of music available for free.
However, the issue with the University and its legal counsel is a whole other one. The fact is that one person is going to complain because they didn’t get what they wanted but no one forced them to wait to take legal action. If this student was so concerned, then they could have paid money to receive legal advice on their clock and on their time-line. But clearly people who would not want to pay for their music probably don’t want to pay for much else as well. Ultimately, UW’s legal counsel helped that student to settle out of court, and for that she should be grateful instead of point the blame.
— Renee Oct 9, 01:51 PM #
You should read the entire Badger Herald article. She said she WAS thankful that UW helped her; she just wished that they would have researched the issue a little more. The settlement letter specified that it must be done in a certain number of days. This girl specifically told UW she wanted to settle, and they told her not to, assuring her that the cost would not go up. For that, they were wrong.
— - Oct 9, 04:00 PM #