Cornell Blog: An unofficial blog about Cornell University

According to Students Want Cornell Name Out of Review Title, a number of Cornell University students are upset because of an article published by the almost defunct The Cornell Review, a conservative anti-establishment tabloid publication. The article, What to Expect: The Angry Minority, allegedly contained racially insensitive speech. It’s hard to say whether the speech was indeed racist, as the article has disappeared from the Internet, and offended parties have not produced hardcopy. Another Cornell magazine, Kitsch, has quoted some of it (via indirect citation) in one of their blog posts:

“…it’s impossible to ignore the nasty, ignorant, and bitter members of the minority community who constantly whine about the brutal oppression they suffer at the hands of whitey. Apparently, part of this oppression involves their admittance to an Ivy League institution, likely as a recipient of affirmative action and scholarships.”

Sample 1 of racist speech

“These reapers of racial rage seclude themselves inside their ethnic ghettos (be it [program houses] Ujamaa, Latino Living Center, or Akwe;kon.”

Sample 2 of racist speech

This would be just another matter of one group of students annoyed with another group of student if not for statements from the Cornell University administration, such as this juicy one from Dean of Students Kent Hubble:

“The Review’s journalism, if one dignifies it with that term, creates a climate of intimidation and alienation among the groups that it targets. Must we tolerate this behavior in order to uphold our commitment to free speech and freedom of expression? I would hope not.”

Don’t think that Cornell won’t ask them to change their name–after all, this blog received a cease and desist for including Cornell in its name after publishing unpopular, but well-reasoned (I’d like to think) articles. Unfortunately, whether you agree with it or not, the article in the Cornell Review is protected free speech. And, its use of the Cornell name is clearly within fair-use.

My suggestion that Cornell University isn’t doing enough to fight the RIAA was met with criticism and accusations of trolling; apparently the idea that Universities shouldn’t have to attack their own students is a foreign concept to my readers. So, in stark contract to Cornell let’s take a look at the University of Oregon’s motion to quash an RIAA subpoena:

In Arista v. Does 1-17, a new ex parte case to get discovery from the University of Oregon about the identities of its students, the Oregon Department of Justice has made a motion, on behalf of the University of Oregon, to quash the subpoena obtained by the RIAA. This is the first such motion of which we are aware that has been made by the university itself, rather than by the students. It is also the first instance of which we are aware of a State Attorney General bringing a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena.

The University is represented by the Oregon Attorney General who argues lucidly that the RIAA doesn’t have sufficient evidence to be throwing subpoenas around:

Plaintiffs’ subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the University does not readily possess. In order to attempt to comply with the subpoena, the University would be forced to undertake an investigation to create discovery for Plaintiffs — an obligation not imposed by Rule 45. As the University is unable to identify the alleged infringers with any accuracy, it cannot comply with its federal obligation to notify students potentially affected by the subpoena. Plaintiffs’ subpoena is additionally invalid because Congress intended Plaintiffs to use the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the information they seek, not Rule 45. Lastly, the University should be allowed access to Plaintiffs through interrogatories and depositions to determine whether Plaintiffs have additional information with which to identify
Defendants. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ subpoena should be quashed.

Here’s a link to MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FRCP 45 B(3)(A) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FRCP 45B(3)(A) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON. Note that this is the course of action I advised Cornell to follow in my last RIAA post

Kitsch magazine just put an article called Inside the Hub which no doubt evokes fond memories for all of you. It explores the internal private file sharing network that exists at Cornell as a DC++ hub server, and includes a selected quote from yours truly:

Elliott Bäck, a Cornell alumnus whose once-controversial campus blog I previously profiled in this magazine, collected data on the hub before graduating and last September posted to his blog an analysis. Bäck found over 19 terabytes comprising about 2.5 million different files shared between more than a thousand users at any given moment. (Apple’s popular—and legal—iTunes store currently has more than 6 million songs, but not even close to the over 200 thousand video files on DC++ at any one time.)

Unfortunately, the article is also heavily pro-administration and pro-RIAA, with a few ridiculous statements like:

• “When presented with a court-ordered subpoena, Cornell has little choice but to hand over this information.”
• “[A]ll Cornell can do is step back and stay as uninvolved as possible in the conflict between the entertainment industry and students.”
• “Mitrano says she has processed over 1,000 takedown notices.”

Nowhere in this article do they suggest that these things are in fact bad. For example, Cornell is able to block copyright holders from identifying alleged music pirates by filing a motion to block or quash the subpoena. Cornell also could, like Professor Charles Nesson at Harvard, actively refuse to help the RIAA’s police mission. As he points out, the purpose of a University is to teach, not enforce an archaic notion of copyright.

I’m disappointed that Rob didn’t quote my response to one of questions:

(4) As you acknowledged in your coverage, the RIAA has not sued a Harvard student yet. Is there anything Cornell can do to protect its students?

Fire Tracy Mitrano. Instead of writing memos like www.cit.cornell.edu/policy/memos/dcplus.html when she receives a request to police the Cornell LAN, she could write a letter categorically refusing to do so, as is the University’s right under the safe-harbour provisions of the DMCA.

It was designed to spark a little outrage and to highlight the fact that she’s not doing her job, unless her salary is coming from the RIAA and MPAA. Note that I am not a lawyer, and in no way this post should constitute any sort of legal advice.

Update: Hurray, I’ve been misquoted by Tracy Mitrano who writes in today’s Sun that “a DC++ posting”–hey we call that a blog entry–concludes with the statement “Fire Mitrano”–which as you can see it does not. It actually concluded with “Fire Tracy Mitrano,” an error so severe given the ready access to the source material above, that I’m not surprised the article offers no insight into what happens when Cornell actually receives a subpoena, or what Cornell is doing to protect its students from predatory lawsuits.