Comment Re:I too know Joe Nievelt... (Score 1) 827
Putting files available for sharing is not illegal. If I leave a CD on a public park bench and someone walks up and copies it, I am not guilty of copyright infringement. The person who makes the copy is guilty, if you feel the need to assign guilt.
Here is a hypothetical. I set up "public park benches" en masse, on which there are CDs sitting around. These CDs may or may not belong to me. People walk by and copy and these CDs. The only people who could be committing an illegal act are the people who grabbed those CDs and copied them. So whoever set up the "benches" for this to take place, could in fact be _contributing_ to the illegal acts. Perhaps Joe should be charged with contributing to the illegal acts. But still, how can Joe be responsible for what other people do. But even with this, it is slippery slope. Is Tech liable because they supplied the infrastructure to let this happen and didn't "police" it well enough?
And as far as Tech not standing up to him, I ask you to read this (linked in the parent comment): "Part of me says, how could somebody so smart be so dumb?" said Dean Woodbeck, director of news and information for MTU." Having the director of news at MTU call you dumb is certainly actionable on a legal level. And while I agree the President Curt Tompkins was cool in saying, talk to us first before you sue our kids, he is also in agreement with Dean Woodbeck and just about everybody else that Joe is the boogeyman (to the tune of 98 billion) of copyright infringement. He installed a program on a LAN!
The RIAA is taking their scare tactics to another level and losing any allies they might had (Universities who buy what they say).
I will leave MTU when I have my degree. I DEFINATELY will not be donating as an alum, when and if I can find a job someday.
And yes, Joe has the most potential, limitless. At this point his name is being blacklisted at a rapid rate. People need to stand up for him. Analyze the situation and fight back harder than the RIAA has attacked him.
Here is a hypothetical. I set up "public park benches" en masse, on which there are CDs sitting around. These CDs may or may not belong to me. People walk by and copy and these CDs. The only people who could be committing an illegal act are the people who grabbed those CDs and copied them. So whoever set up the "benches" for this to take place, could in fact be _contributing_ to the illegal acts. Perhaps Joe should be charged with contributing to the illegal acts. But still, how can Joe be responsible for what other people do. But even with this, it is slippery slope. Is Tech liable because they supplied the infrastructure to let this happen and didn't "police" it well enough?
And as far as Tech not standing up to him, I ask you to read this (linked in the parent comment): "Part of me says, how could somebody so smart be so dumb?" said Dean Woodbeck, director of news and information for MTU." Having the director of news at MTU call you dumb is certainly actionable on a legal level. And while I agree the President Curt Tompkins was cool in saying, talk to us first before you sue our kids, he is also in agreement with Dean Woodbeck and just about everybody else that Joe is the boogeyman (to the tune of 98 billion) of copyright infringement. He installed a program on a LAN!
The RIAA is taking their scare tactics to another level and losing any allies they might had (Universities who buy what they say).
I will leave MTU when I have my degree. I DEFINATELY will not be donating as an alum, when and if I can find a job someday.
And yes, Joe has the most potential, limitless. At this point his name is being blacklisted at a rapid rate. People need to stand up for him. Analyze the situation and fight back harder than the RIAA has attacked him.
