Letters to the Editor - Dec. 11, 2007

RIAA clarifications

Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007):

A letter to the editor contends that the University has "caved in" to the RIAA by forwarding the association's pre-litigation settlement letters to students who may later be sued for copyright infringement. The letter disregards the benefit such notification provides to our students by giving them the option of quietly settling claims the RIAA may otherwise decide to litigate in federal court. The University's practice of forwarding these settlement letters does not in any way dignify the allegations of the RIAA or compromise the rights or legal options of the alleged infringers, who remain free to fight the claims if they choose.

It is also important to note that the University, in forwarding these settlement letters, does not disclose the recipients' identity to the RIAA and would not do so unless served with an enforceable subpoena. The letter to the editor closes by recommending that the University provide legal assistance to students facing RIAA claims. The University is not a party to these lawsuits and, as a general matter, has no cause to defend or indemnify the student defendants. Still, the University undertakes numerous efforts to raise awareness regarding copyright law and the responsible use of file-sharing technology. The Office of General Counsel's website also identifies two outside attorneys who are specifically available to represent students in RIAA litigations and provides information regarding copyright law that students may find useful. Clayton Marsh University Counsel, Office of General Counsel

Going green and vegan

Regarding 'Going green' (Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007):

Ben Chen '09's proposals to green Princeton are appealing in their simplicity. As he said, they don't require us to revamp buildings or devise new technologies. Chen, however, overlooks a simpler, yet more effective way to reduce Princeton's carbon footprint: decreasing our meat consumption. A recent U.N. report found that the production of livestock is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to 13.5 percent for transportation. These emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels during production, from the digestive processes of the unnaturally high number of animals raised, and from the inherent inefficiencies in meat production (it takes 6 kg of feed protein, on average, to produce 1 kg of meat protein).

A pair of University of Chicago geoscientists concluded that the most environmentally friendly diet is a vegan diet. According to their study, a typical American switching to a vegan diet saves 1.5 tons of CO2 per year, half a ton more than making the switch from the typical American car to a hybrid one. The marginal benefits we would reap from turning off lights or putting caps on printing pale in comparison to the effects changes in our diet could have. While many may hear the word "vegan" and immediately shut themselves off to making a change, there are intermediate steps that can be taken to reduce emissions. Going vegetarian or eating less meat could reduce one's carbon footprint more than changing all the light bulbs in a dorm to fluorescent ones, more than not doing laundry, and more than limiting showers to once a week. And you'll smell better. Samantha Pergadia '11

Calendars too similar

Regarding 'U. to keep its current calendar' (Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2007):

Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel said there was no majority on any one calendar choice based on the student survey. This, I believe, is largely a result of the choices we have been presented with. I remember taking the survey last year and being struck by the fact that so few of the proposed calendars included finals before Winter Break, and that when they did, they also included some unattractive element like getting rid of Fall Break or cutting down reading period and winter break. It's not surprising at all then that students have not come to a consensus since we have not been given any reasonable option. Specifically, the possibility of simply moving the schedule up and starting classes earlier than mid-September has not been put forward. If we agreed on that, we could then move on to discussing specifics of Thanksgiving break, Fall Break and a 13-week semester. Since the student body has never been presented with a simple and logical calendar that both moves exams before break and retains the good elements of our current calendar, we have almost been led into the lack of consensus that the administration cites as the reason behind the slow changes. We would do well for ourselves to take a cue from the rest of the Ivy League and make some quick changes.

In addition, changes should be made in a timely manner. By already approving the 2011-12 calendar, the administration has ensured that changes can only begin to be seen in five years, long after every undergraduate student on this campus will (hopefully) have graduated. This severe delay leads, of course, to a lack of interest among the campus community and is laughable considering that Harvard's revised calendar will go into effect in the fall of 2009. A professor put it best when he exclaimed in frustration, "It took us less time to mobilize and fight World War II!" Jonathan Yehuda '08