RSS
Twitter
Brooklyn Law School No Fan Of Due Process; Apparently Handing Names Over To MPAA [Updated]
from the what-are-they-teaching-students dept
You have to wonder what the Brooklyn Law School is teaching its students about due process, since it recently sent an email to all students saying that after receiving complaints from copyright holders about file sharing movies and TV shows, it was going to associate the IP addresses with names and hand them over to the copyright holders. Of course, this is based solely on an IP address, which is not particularly accurate or reliable as a unique identifier of an individual, so what Brooklyn Law School is basically telling its students is that it doesn't care if they falsely accuse them of file sharing, and the students should work it out with someone else. Not exactly the sort of lesson that you would think a law school wants to teach its students. Update: Ah, the power of a little attention. Apparently the school has already backed down and said that it will only do what is legally required by the DMCA, which does not include simply handing over names.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Actually, I'd say that was a pretty good lesson in how most of their future employers will expect them to use the law.
As an offensive weapon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Cant really care where the whores learn their trade, as long as they are around when i need their services.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I didn't think they were cannibals, but...
more legal actions = larger market for legal professionals. Larger market for legal pros = greater opportunity for law schools.
Voila!
And I really should have known they were cannibals... what was I thinking.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I expect better from a law school. Shouldn't law schools be teaching students to use the law for the good and that due process is a good thing and that people have rights and the purpose of the law is to ensure this sort of thing. But now this law school is setting a bad example for law students by implying that it's OK to circumvent these important processes that have been built into our justice system. What kind of lesson does this teach law students and lawyers? It seems to give them the wrong message.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
> Shouldn't law schools be teaching students to use the law for the good and that due process is a good thing and that people have rights and the purpose of the law is to ensure this sort of thing.
Not in this country, man...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Violating their own terms of service
The letter points to the terms of service (TOS) for using the network at the school. However, they are violating their own TOS at least twice:
"You will not allow access to your account, including revealing user names, passwords, and other identifiers, to any unauthorized person." - I'd say the MPAA investigator is an unauthorized person
"Privacy Notice:
Brooklyn Law School takes privacy seriously. In general, we will not disclose or sell your data to third parties, except as required by law or judicial action, or as explicitly given permission by you. Brooklyn Law School is a not-for-profit educational institution; therefore, the disclosure of most of your data is governed by Federal Law."
There is no law or judicial action here, so they are prevented by federal law from disclosing the information to the MPAA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Violating their own terms of service
The school has probably been presented with DMCA notices. They have few options at that point, they need to take down the material. Now, if the material doesn't come down, they can be liable.
So rather than get caught in the middle of it, they are doing what they need to do to limit their own liability. Specifically, they are saying "it isn't the school, it is this individual".
As for "There is no law or judicial action here:, umm, last time I looked copyright and DMCA were laws. NEXT!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
"...umm, last time I looked copyright and DMCA were laws. NEXT!"
Yes, but since the term "judicial" refers to action from a judge, that does not really help them. DMCA is a takedown notice from a private party, where the school is required to work within their power to remove a copyrighted file. It is a takedown request from a third party. It is not a subpoena, and it is definitely not a court order. Therefore, no judicial action is present.
Besides, there is no mention of DMCA in the story. That is a falsehood that you claimed at the beginning of your own paragraph. It does not even make sense for the DMCA to apply here. Nice job of failing to even blow over your own strawman.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
The school has probably been presented with DMCA notices. They have few options at that point, they need to take down the material. Now, if the material doesn't come down, they can be liable.
Um... this makes no sense. The school itself isn't storing anything, merely having its networks used to obtain the content.
DMCA can't cover this, so if it is being used, it's done so illegally. One would think a *law school* would note this, but obviously, some schools are about revenue, not education.
Personally, I think this is a scare tactic knowing full well the school can't stop it unless it can trace the user to the account, and block the account.
The school would be better off stating "We've received several notices of copyright infringement violations and if the actions of our students does not cease, we'll have no choice but to block student access outside our schools without supervision. We don't want this. You don't want this. File share on your own network. Thank you."
It'll be interesting to see if Techdirt does a follow-up on this story.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
"The school has probably been presented with DMCA notices. They have few options at that point, they need to take down the material. Now, if the material doesn't come down, they can be liable."
Did I miss something? Where does it say anything about hosting infringing files? I got the impression that they were going after downloaders/uploaders to bit torrent. Where would a DMCA come into play here?
"So rather than get caught in the middle of it, they are doing what they need to do to limit their own liability. Specifically, they are saying "it isn't the school, it is this individual"."
Sure, I assume they can do that...unless of course they specifically state in their own TOS that they won't. As we know, violations of TOS are akin to criminally hacking the DOD database of our hidden spooks, so I assume this entire schools will be going to jail post haste...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
Sorry, basic error there. You cannot by a TOS overrule law. The ISP has notified them, likely that the ISP was notified, and unlike an "innocent provider", the school is just an end user who has no "230" protection. So they have fewer options.
a TOS doesn't stop legal action, or provide a shield or protection past the law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
Larger Educational establishments usually act as their own ISP.
That must be the case here - otherwise those notifications would have gone to the actual ISP not to the school
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
Richard, I think you missed it:
"This semester we have received several warnings from our Internet service provider"
The school appears to be just an end client.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Violating their own terms of service
Actually, the students are violating the terms of service:
It seems that BLS has every right to do this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
'Any violation of these terms will immediately terminate your license to use the computer system, and may subject you to discipline or other law enforcement action as set forth in the Student Handbook. BLS shall have the final right to determine whether a violation of the Terms of Service has occurred.'
Then terminate their network access. Unless the "copyright holders' have a court order there is no law enforcement action. "it was going to associate the IP addresses with names and hand them over to the copyright holders" goes beyond the quoted TOS
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
it was going to associate the IP addresses with names and hand them over to the copyright holders" goes beyond the quoted TOS
Does it?
And there is "law enforcement action" other than a court order. Neither the linked story or the email it quotes indicates whether there was a DMCA notice sent to the school, but that could be considered an action in enforcing the copyright law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
The school can disable their port, the school can assist law enforcement efforts...
HOWEVER at no point does it say it can just give personal information to a third party that may or may not be affected by actions that you may or may not be doing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Violating their own terms of service
...In general...
Unfortunately, there's that little piece in place.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Note to self
Never hire anyone who went to Brooklyn School of Law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Perhaps this is some sort of grand challenge to the students.
"Challenge this violation of basic law and order, and you get an A!"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Wow, that would be an excellent assignment. And for extra credit, sue the pants off the MPAA and put them out of business.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
If they pulled that one off, the student's masters should instantly turn into a PHD.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just Business.
Lawyering is a business just like any other--and like all business people; they want to make sure there is a market for their services... and I'm going to stop now 'cause I'm scaring myself with this line of thought.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmm...
Law school students are (allegedly) breaking the law; law school (allegedly) takes steps to stop (alleged) illegal activity by its students thereby (allegedly) upholding the law.
You're right. A gross violation of "due process" (which really only applies to court proceedings, which this isn't).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
read updates!
per RIAA vs the people:
This morning, BLS backed off and changed their policy back to a more sane position:
________________________________________
From: Announcements On Behalf Of Phil Allred
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:08 PM
To: All Users
Subject: [BLS] Update on illegal downloads e-mail notice
Yesterday, I sent out an e-mail regarding the recent spate of abuse notices we have received from our Internet service provider. Under our contract, users are prohibited from downloading copyrighted works. If we knowingly allow such activity to continue without taking action, we risk losing access to the Internet. When we can ascertain the people who are responsible for alleged illegal downloads, we will notify them to cease such activity. We will comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 ). Outside of the legal process, we are not obligated to turn over the names of the alleged infringers to copyright holders and will not do so.
AKA they realized how stupid this is.
"we could lose our internet service" sounds quite shady too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: read updates!
this is now on the RIAA vs the people homepage, and was in the comments. Mike, should I wisecrack about fact checking/updates?
it was and is stupid in the first place but nice to see a fast fix.
link to what I said: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/10/brooklyn-law-school-backs-down-will-not.html#l inks
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: read updates!
"Mike, should I wisecrack about fact checking/updates?"
Um, updates, maybe. You can't really bitch about facts that didn't exist when the article was posted.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Do you really know their network?
"Of course, this is based solely on an IP address, which is not particularly accurate or reliable as a unique identifier of an individual,"
How well do you know their network, this is entirely possible.
The TOS do prevent onward connectivity:
"You may not attach to or operate on the Network a) servers (including file, web or peer-to-peer file sharing), or b) routers (including wired or wireless transmitters or base stations) without prior approval by BLS."
So unless the BLS have approved this loophole then you can very necessarily tie IP addresses to people. Do we know that this email went to everyone or just those that never applied for approval?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Do you really know their network?
How would knowledge of their network provide any change to the fact that IP Person. EVER.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Do you really know their network?
I'm curious...how exactly do you tie and IP address to a person?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hope they get their own
Would be nice to see these students all group together and apply their new founded knowledge suing the school for giving out private data, such as their names/etc, without a court order.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Law School Ethics
Law schools teach their students ethics like "innocent until proved guilty"? Or don't manipulate laws and words? Don't work the system? Don't take bribes and call them donations? Give me a break!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Has anyone ....
Has anyone verified that this e-mail actually went out and isnt just spam sent to scare the students or a hoax.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
If the students are learning anything, they know that truth is relative in a court of law. And that all that needs to be proven is reasonable doubt. IP addresses are not like strands of DNA.
They prove only that an IP address was assigned(DHCP) to a particular hardware address(MAC). And then that is compared to the logs on the server to determine whose account was logged in with that address. Yes, yes, it's all academic.
Even IF it was your login account, IP addresses and MAC addresses can be spoofed VERY easily. Mis-configured server software can create log errors, etc.
But then, most of the infringement complaints are coming from the idiot recording industry. And currently, they're getting their false information from THE DUMBEST, MOST CLUELESS organization on the planet.. DtecNet.
;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The truth of the matter...
If the students are learning anything, they know that truth is relative in a court of law. And that all that needs to be proven is reasonable doubt. IP addresses are not like strands of DNA.
They prove only that an IP address was assigned(DHCP) to a particular hardware address(MAC). And then that is compared to the logs on the server to determine whose account was logged in with that address. Yes, yes, it's all academic.
Even IF it was your login account, IP addresses and MAC addresses can be spoofed VERY easily. Mis-configured or poorly implemented server software can create log errors, etc.
But then, most of the infringement complaints are coming from the idiot recording industry. And currently, they're getting their false information from THE DUMBEST, MOST CLUELESS organization on the planet.. DtecNet.
;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment