Katherine Mangu-Ward | November 14, 2007
Tired of suing deceased West Virginia grandmas and 12-year-old girls one at a time, Hollywood copyright hawks are looking into wholesale options, including rewriting higher education legislation:
A U.S. House of Representatives committee plans to vote Wednesday afternoon on a Hollywood-backed higher education bill that would deprive colleges and universities of their financial aid funding if they don't agree to provide deterrents and "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy.
A provision buried in the 747-page College Opportunity and Affordability Act (PDF) requires schools to devise a plan for providing "alternatives" to unlawful downloading--as well as "a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity." Those requirements would be added to an existing list of conditions for receiving federal student financial aid.
Universities full of little copyright criminals are nervous:
University officials have voiced alarm at the prospect of losing a combined total of some $100 billion in federal financial aid if their plans don't pass muster. The Association of American Universities has voiced its disapproval to committee leaders through a letter last week, and Educause, a non-profit organization that focuses on technology use in education, has issued an action alert urging the requirements to be dropped.
More on the perils of stolen music here and here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I'm not against copyright per se, but I don't feel guilty downloading an MP3 that is merely a copy of a song that I already bought on vinyl, on 8-track, and on CD. How many times should the record company get paid for the same fargin' song?
Looks like that writers strike has made for at least one set too many of idle hands.
I don't get it. How would universities stop p2p piracy? are they just talking about on-campus piracy?
I'm awaiting the lawsuits that's gonna come when the recipe publishing industry discovers that my grandma's been making copies of her recipe box for years.
I think this is a devious plan by the government to extend its
reach over "the children". They pretty much have kids
dead-to-rights all through public school, but start to lose
day-to-day control once they hit college. They're working to
correct that. So...be involved in drugs, lose your financial aid,
download mp3s, lose your financial aid, have sex out of
wedlock...well, I'm sure they're working on that.
On the other hand, if you take the government's money, you're the
government's beeyach. Deal with it.
Hollywood-backed higher education bill
Am I alone in thinking that phrase is funny as hell?
Am I alone in thinking peer to peer file sharing just ain't gonna
go away?
Lastly, am I alone in thinking that this would grant a passel of
otherwise unemployable bureaucrats lifetime sinecure?
I don't get it. How would universities stop p2p piracy? are
they just talking about on-campus piracy?
Many campuses are the ISP for the vast majority of students,
basically for every student on-campus or in university
housing.
They'd have to get very, very involved in monitoring what
students were doing. The kind of involved that makes people very,
very angry, is invasive as hell, and takes lots of money and
effort.
In other words, Hollywood wants to outsource enforcement to the
universities.
What happened to the Conservative chick and the one who survived
roe v. wade?
My Reason experience is being degraded.
How many times should the record company get paid for the
same fargin' song?
The question is: why don't you continue to listen to the track on
scratchy vinyl? Because digital sounds better? And it's convenient
and transportable? Aren't you willing to pay a few cents for a far
better listening experience? Seems fair to me.
I'm against federal funds going to collages
period.
Me too. Only individual pictures should get federal funds.
I'm against federal funds going to collages period.
What about montages?
I'm down with OPP cuz they never harassed me once on the many Buffalo-Toronto trips I took in college.
747-page PDF? Lame. Read the
110th Congress's H.R.4137 here. Or here. Or
here.
SEC. 487. INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE INFORMATION FOR
STUDENTS.
(a) Disclosure of Policies and Sanctions Related to Copyright
Infringement- Section 485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is
amended--
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(P) institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright
infringement, including--
`(i) an annual disclosure that explicitly informs students that
unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including
unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to
civil and criminal liabilities;
`(ii) a summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright
laws;
`(iii) a description of the institution's policies with respect to
unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary
actions that are taken against students who engage in unauthorized
distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution's
information technology system; and
`(iv) a description of actions that the institution takes to
prevent and detect unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
material on the institution's information technology
system.'.
`SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.
`(a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any
program under this title shall to the extent practicable--
`(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal
downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property
as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent
such illegal activity.
There you go. 110th Congress, H.R.4137, an amendment to the 1965
Higher Education Act (and for other purposes), "College Opportunity
and Affordability Act of 2007", SEC.494.(a)(2). Is this too long of
a comment?
If this bill passes, it won't be long before a student is kicked off campus for whistling or humming a favorite tune.
All it does is require universities to develop a plan. If that means requiring them to end file-sharing, then that means the Congress has also "required" Bush to end the war, a couple of times now.
All it does is require universities to develop a
plan.
Sorry, I should've gone on to quote SEC.494.(b)
`(b) Grants-
`(1) PROGRAM AUTHORITY- The Secretary may make grants to
institutions of higher education, [...], and other organizations,
to develop, implement, operate, improve, and disseminate programs
of prevention, education, and cost-effective technological
solutions, to reduce and eliminate the illegal downloading and
distribution of intellectual property. [...]
`(2) AWARDS- Grants and contracts shall be awarded under paragraph
(1) on a competitive basis.
`(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal year 2009 and for each of the 4 succeeding
fiscal years.'.
I've no idea what (2) means, but I bet it doesn't involve a
market.
if you read all the articles on this, you will find that while the RIAA/MPAA is "offering" the opportunity to use the blocking software, what they are really pushing is the "alternative", namely, forcing all universities to sign up for one of the massive napster/rhapsody plans that gives students access to these services for a huge price - essentially telling the universities that if they don't pay the RIAA, lobbyists will see to it that the federal funding dries up. the federal government shouldn't be pumping money into schools anyway, but the RIAA/MPAA shouldn't get away with extortion either. i should lobby to make sure that if universities don't exclusively use my brand of notebook paper, all of their funding will disappear. that's fair, right?
What happened to the Conservative chick and the one who
survived roe v. wade?
Guy, I fucked them to smithereens. Sorry.
""""They'd have to get very, very involved in monitoring what
students were doing. The kind of involved that makes people very,
very angry, is invasive as hell, and takes lots of money and
effort.""""
People don't get that angry with "monitoring" these days. It's
becoming more accepted. The feds have taps that suck up the
Internet, so an ex-AT&T employee says. Few people seem upset
about it and seem not to care that Congress is looking to give the
telcos immunity for doing it.
Big Brother is growing, few care.
This is essentially requiring that universities sell candy bars
because some students have been caught shoplifting. The fact that
(for example at Wayne State) most students don't live on campus,
and do their P2P filesharing through Comcast or some such is
irrelevant.
The RIAA/MPAA doesn't go after commercial ISP's because Comcast and
AT&T have deep pockets and a large and powerful lobbying
operation of their own. While universities do have lobbyists and
some clout, it's nothing compared to Rep. Berman and Hollywood. And
besides, by going after university students they can 'encourager
les autres'.
I attempted to get my university to do some lobbying against this,
and if you follow the links you can find information about who to
call and what to say. And they do listen--they count the
number of calls for and against.
This will cost universities, both public and private, plenty, and
will screw up their networks, just to allow Hollywood to enforce
civil infractions. Grrrr
They'd have to get very, very involved in monitoring what
students were doing.
My knowlege of the inner workings of the inter-tubes is limited,
but since the University is the gateway to the wider internet,
couldn't they block the port(s) the P2P software uses at their
gateway?
They could block those ports, but there are legitimate uses for peer to peer software (including just doing research on the software itself, which is what Computer Scientists do). And I am quite frightened by the idea of universities being required by federal law to use or not use particular protocols, just to enforce private contracts. Shades of Kelo etc.
a plan for providing "alternatives" to unlawful
downloading
Doesn't any decent internet access provide such an alternative but
letting you log onto iTunes and pay for songs?
> On the other hand, if you take the government's money,
you're the government's beeyach. Deal with it.
Too bad it doesn't work the other way around...
The question is: why don't you continue to listen to the
track on scratchy vinyl? Because digital sounds better? And it's
convenient and transportable? Aren't you willing to pay a few cents
for a far better listening experience? Seems fair to me.
Please go back and re-read what I said. I paid more than a few
cents for a better listening experience. To be precise:
I paid about 8 bucks for the vinyl album.
About 12 bucks to replace the vinyl with the 8-track.
Another 10 bucks to replace the obsolete 8 track with a
casette.
And about 16 bucks for the CD.
And, if I don't own the song, then I am happy to pay for it.
But I won't download it from any service now available because it
comes with strings attached. It is way to big of a pain to deal
with that when moving from computer to computer to MP3 player to CD
to my car.
So, what I do is find the CD I want used for three bucks at Amazon
and buy it.
Now, somebody please tell me why it is perfectly okay for me to buy
a used CD from someone who is not paying royalties on the sale, but
it is illegal for me to copy your CD to my HD.
Don't start giving them ideas now, TWC.
Maybe you should copyright that now, before they start suing
resellers of their worthless coasters holding their precious,
precious copyrighted material.
TWC - I believe that copyright law prevents you from making copies, not from transfering legally acquired copies. Hence, copying a CD to your HD is illegal, selling CDs to your friends is not.
Dave B.,
Wrong! You've been brainwashed by the RIAA!. There is a pesky,
nagging little bit of copyright law called "fair use". While the
RIAA, MPAA, et al. would destroy it if they could, it still
exists.
Thanks Dave. I suspected as much, but the end result seems the
same to me. Particularly since you know perfectly well that the
seller copied the songs to his/her HD before the CD was mailed to
you.
Ska, as I said, I am not entirely against copyright law like some
libertarians. However there is something very three-day-old-fish
about this whole arrangement.
If I didn't spend so much time at H&R I could probably learn
how to use that software that alters downloaded songs so they
become ordinary MP3 files without the copyright protection in MP4
files (is that the right term?)
Oh, and btw, where are all these great P2P software programs? I don't seem to be able to find any.
Torrents are one. IRC is an older less user friendly one.
Newsgroups are more like the predecessor of P2P.
Not software as much as systems - the software would be the clients
that allow you to use these protocols (if that's the right word).
I'm no computer master or anything, so my concepts are probably
off. However, you can definitely download any type of media file
using these.
TWC,
Try this. Do a google search for an artist album song and include
the word "blogspot".
You will probably find a blog linking to
a "free" filehosting service with digital rips of all kinds of
music. Takes a little effort to figure it out at first but it is
easy.Some of the links will be dead but most from the past few
months work fine. You can find a lot of stuff that way that you
might not find with P2P programs or torrents.
I don't get it. How would universities stop p2p piracy? are
they just talking about on-campus piracy?
The legislation doesn't specify, I'm sure. But that doesn't matter.
Never underestimate the government to force a policy by sheer force
of will.
But having said that, there are plenty of ways that you can reduce
that type of activity if you have control of a network. You can't
stop it altogether, but you can make a dent in it, and if you own
the network, you can shut down even suspected piracy.
Thanks for the info, ska and SIV, I thought all that stuff went south with the demise of WinMx. Guess not.
The MP3 blogs are nice because there are a lot of obscure vinyl
stuff and CDs ripped by the "owner".
No legal risk that I am aware of as you are just downloading a file
and not "sharing"(uploading) anything.
Try "Totally Fuzzy" or skafunkrastapunk for some links and if you
find something you like the blogroll often links to similar
stuff.
Thanks Dave. I suspected as much, but the end result seems
the same to me. Particularly since you know perfectly well that the
seller copied the songs to his/her HD before the CD was mailed to
you.
I guess the question is, once you rip a CD to your hard drive(which
is legal), is it a violation of copyright to resell it?
David,
I would suspect that under the law you would have to destroy all
your copies as part of the sale.
"Doesn't any decent internet access provide such an alternative
but letting you log onto iTunes and pay for songs?"
You can access emusic.com from anywhere. DRM free songs for, like
20 cents. It's the best thing ever and plus it's, like,
capitalism!
FYI I have no affiliation with 'em except for being a happy
customer.
FWIW I just learned that the provision was actually passed (along with millions of other things--the whole bill is 800 pages). An additional provision requires universities to hire companies to dispose of used computers securely if they have student data on them. Another subsidy...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245