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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: due process, law school
Companies: brooklyn law school
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As an offensive weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't think they were cannibals, but...
Voila!
And I really should have known they were cannibals... what was I thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not in this country, man...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violating their own terms of service
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violating their own terms of service
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
a TOS doesn't stop legal action, or provide a shield or protection past the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
That must be the case here - otherwise those notifications would have gone to the actual ISP not to the school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
"This semester we have received several warnings from our Internet service provider"
The school appears to be just an end client.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violating their own terms of service
It seems that BLS has every right to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violating their own terms of service
Unfortunately, there's that little piece in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note to self
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Challenge this violation of basic law and order, and you get an A!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
You're right. A gross violation of "due process" (which really only applies to court proceedings, which this isn't).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
read updates!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: read 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: read updates!
Um, updates, maybe. You can't really bitch about facts that didn't exist when the article was posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you really know their network?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you really know their network?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you really know their network?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope they get their own
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law School Ethics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth of the matter...
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.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]