PDA

View Full Version : Democrats: Colleges must police copyright, or else


S14DB
11-11-2007, 07:33 AM
New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

The U.S. House of Representatives bill (PDF), which was introduced late Friday by top Democratic politicians, could give the movie and music industries a new revenue stream by pressuring schools into signing up for monthly subscription services such as Ruckus and Napster. Ruckus is advertising-supported, and Napster charges a monthly fee per student.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) applauded the proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page spending and financial aid bill. "We very much support the language in the bill, which requires universities to provide evidence that they have a plan for implementing a technology to address illegal file sharing," said Angela Martinez, a spokeswoman for the MPAA.

According to the bill, if universities did not agree to test "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity," all of their students--even ones who don't own a computer--would lose federal financial aid.

The prospect of losing a combined total of nearly $100 billion a year in federal financial aid, coupled with the possibility of overzealous copyright-bots limiting the sharing of legitimate content, has alarmed university officials.

"Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid--including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," a letter from university officials to Congress written on Wednesday said. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

The letter was signed by the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, the president of Stanford University, the general counsel of Yale University, and the president of Penn State.

They stress that the "higher education community recognizes the seriousness of the problem of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing and has long been committed to working with the entertainment industry to find a workable solution to the problem." In addition, the letter says that colleges and universities are responsible for "only a small fraction of illegal file sharing."

The MPAA says the university presidents are overreacting. An MPAA representative sent CNET News.com a list of campuses that have begun filtering files transferred on their networks, including the University of Florida (Red Lambda technology); the University of Utah (network monitoring and Audible Magic); and Ohio's Wittenberg University (Audible Magic).

For each school taking such steps, the MPAA says, copyright complaints dramatically decreased, in some cases going from 50 a month to none.

The MPAA's Martinez did warn that the consequences of violating the proposed rules would be stiff: "Because it is added to the current reporting requirements that universities already have through the Secretary of Education, it would have the same penalties for noncompliance as any of the others requirements under current law."

Neither the Recording Industry Association of America nor the Association of American Universities was available for comment on Friday.

Expanding on an earlier anti-P2P plan
The two Democratic politicians behind Friday's bill are Reps. George Miller from California and Ruben Hinojosa of Texas. Miller is chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and Hinojosa is chairman of the higher education subcommittee.

They said in a press release that the legislation, called the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, or COAA, will be voted on by the full committee next week.

The peer-to-peer sections of COAA appear to be a revision of an amendment originally proposed over the summer by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to his chamber's sweeping higher education reauthorization bill.

Groups like the American Association of Universities and Educause attacked Reid's proposal at the time, saying it was incredibly worrisome because it would have yanked federal grants and loans from students who attend schools that don't do enough to prevent illegal file sharing.
Now on News.com
Microsoft puts new Windows on old PC Quick jailbreak for iPhone update Photos: Dissecting a hard drive Extra: I want my iTV

The old language over the summer required schools to develop "a plan for implementing a technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property." The new language requires "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."

Reid's bill also would have required the Secretary of Education to devise a list of the 25 schools with the highest levels of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, based on entertainment industry statistics. That's not in the new COAA legislation.

On the Senate side, after universities raised a fuss, the contentious amendment was eventually diluted to a requirement that higher education institutions merely advise their students, in writing, of the legal consequences of "unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material" and what steps the school was taking to combat such activities.

http://www.news.com/Democrats-Colleges-must-police-copyright%2C-or-else/2100-1028_3-6217943.html?tag=item

Dirty Habit
11-11-2007, 08:28 AM
Fuck that. If the industry could produce some good music again, I would pay for it.

I gladly pay for music I like, but if Im just downloading random bullshit to see if its any good, im sure as fuck not paying for it. One out of a hundred songs I download actually stay on my computer for more than two days. If they make it that far, I usually check out the rest of the cd then purchase it.

B Love
11-11-2007, 09:40 AM
Thats lame they would take away Financial aid because people are downloading music. Yea it helps out the industry, but thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard

BustedS13
11-11-2007, 11:23 AM
i like how this includes "democrats" in the title, as though this is negative, and it's the democrats' fault.

FILESHARING (COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL) IS ILLEGAL. IT IS CALLED PIRACY, AND IT IS A CRIME.

now, i have 2.3 terabytes of storage in my desktop. and i have a shelf stuffed with Case Logic products. but i'm not going to convince myself that i'm in the right.

and i think it's awesome that they want universities to provide students with free music.

S14DB
11-11-2007, 11:35 AM
You are punishing the majority for crimes of the minority.

Get convicted of a drug crime and You and only you lose your student aid. This is your whole school losing their student aid if one person commits a crime.

unwed_transient
11-11-2007, 11:37 AM
Fuck that. If the industry could produce some good music again, I would pay for it.

I gladly pay for music I like, but if Im just downloading random bullshit to see if its any good, im sure as fuck not paying for it. One out of a hundred songs I download actually stay on my computer for more than two days. If they make it that far, I usually check out the rest of the cd then purchase it.

you know, i'm not sure about this new car. i think i'll steal it, use it for a few days and if i like it i'll go back and buy it and if i don't i'll take it back.

and i think it's awesome that they want universities to provide students with free music.

i read that the bill requires stepped-up efforts on behalf of the university to stop illegal file sharing. how is that the same as providing free music?

BustedS13
11-11-2007, 11:39 AM
i read that the bill requires stepped-up efforts on behalf of the university to stop illegal file sharing. how is that the same as providing free music?


New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students
first line of the article. now, whether or not that ever comes to fruition, we'll see, but it's a good idea.

B Love
11-11-2007, 11:49 AM
I think it sucks. Good idea that they are showing students the legit way to do it. Bad idea they are punishing everyone for the mistakes of others. I mean think about all those people who need financial aid to get a decent education. They can lose that because "some" people want to illegally download music. I bet some students who need financial aid might not even have a computer.

mrmephistopheles
11-11-2007, 11:58 AM
i like how this includes "democrats" in the title, as though this is negative, and it's the democrats' fault.

FILESHARING IS ILLEGAL. IT IS CALLED PIRACY, AND IT IS A CRIME.

now, i have 2.3 terabytes of storage in my desktop. and i have a shelf stuffed with Case Logic products. but i'm not going to convince myself that i'm in the right.

and i think it's awesome that they want universities to provide students with free music.

Filesharing itself is not illegal. That's like saying burning CD's is illegal because you can pirate music that way. If I generate a 1GB video file of some drifting out here, and choose to distribute it freely, the most efficient way for MANY people to get it is via filesharing/torrents.

PIRACY / Intellectual Property infringement is a crime. Learn the difference between piracy and filesharing.

I don't understand your point regarding your storage space and Case Logic products....

I'm against the forcing of universities to pay for services because there's a chance someone *MIGHT* break a law. Tuitions are high enough as it is. A measure like that is akin to making the university pay for non-mandatory gun control training because a student *might* flip out and kill people.

This bill is just a way for the MPAA/RIAA and their clients to make more bucks from an easily exploitable source. Stupid people will support this bill because they think that college kids are up to no good and should learn right from wrong, when it's not about that at all.

While I'm generally against piracy, I feel no support for such measures. All I see it as is an attempt to get universities to cow to unnecessary measures and let the recording/movie industries make a fast buck.

You are punishing the majority for crimes of the minority.

Get convicted of a drug crime and You and only you lose your student aid. This is your whole school losing their student aid if one person commits a crime.

Indeed.
How can anyone in their right mind support this? They want uni's to pay a fee for each student for music downloads? What about deaf students? What if you're not into music? What if you're into older music that you can't find online? The RIAA still wants to be paid, because regardless of who you are and what you believe, there's a CHANCE that you could illegally download/share music.

you know, i'm not sure about this new car. i think i'll steal it, use it for a few days and if i like it i'll go back and buy it and if i don't i'll take it back.


That's a bullshit argument and you know it.

Find a dealership that WON'T let you test-drive a new model vehicle (providing you have sufficient credit to purchase said vehicle), I'd love to see how their sales are.

Most popular music is broadcast freely over radio waves, so there's a free opportunity to try out a band's new music. Sometimes you can get track samples on websites. I haven't been in a record store in a few years, but I imagine they still have stations you can go and listen to selected albums on, to determine if you like it or not. Is that stealing? NO.


In the end, bullshit bills like this will do NOTHING to alleviate piracy.

There are people who won't pirate, people who might, and people who always will. By and large, the won'ts and always-will's will stay the same, it's the 'mights' who change.
The always-will's will ALWAYS find a way to pirate.

If Joe College can't download his Pearl Jam inside his dorm, what's stopping him from getting an apartment off-campus where his internet won't be filtered?

KA24DESOneThree
11-11-2007, 01:18 PM
... as if tuition fees weren't high enough.

If I want to hear new music, I turn on the radio (either in my car or on WinAmp) or listen on Amazon.com. I haven't downloaded music in literally years.

Yet another thing glossed over by CNN, NBC, etc because of who did it. I wonder how many of the university staff affected donated to re-election campaigns?

unwed_transient
11-11-2007, 01:51 PM
first line of the article. now, whether or not that ever comes to fruition, we'll see, but it's a good idea.

i agree. it won't happen though. universities won't stop attracting the top talent because they don't subsidize someone's music fetish.

That's a bullshit argument and you know it.

Find a dealership that WON'T let you test-drive a new model vehicle (providing you have sufficient credit to purchase said vehicle), I'd love to see how their sales are.

not necessarily. test drives are performed under a pretense of an intent to buy. there is no intent to buy with illegal downloads, that's kind of the point of doing it.


If Joe College can't download his Pearl Jam inside his dorm, what's stopping him from getting an apartment off-campus where his internet won't be filtered?

if my college experience was anywhere near the average, he won't be able to afford it. i don't think most colleges will subsidize off-campus housing.


we're arguing over something that will soon become moot anyway.

revat619
11-11-2007, 02:39 PM
Piracy cant be stopped. Period. Its like trying to turn off the internet.

Artists need to stop bitching and make quality music thats worth buying. People arent gonna pay $12.00 plus for MAYBE 3 good songs and like 10 filler tracks.

Regardless, this wont happen though. You cant penalize a group of people for one person's actions. Just add this to the ridiculously long list of instances that proves that our government is run by ass clowns.

KA24DESOneThree
11-11-2007, 03:26 PM
Dragonforce has nothing but good songs.

revat619
11-11-2007, 04:17 PM
Dragonforce has nothing but good songs.

Yes they do and i bought their CD. Its amazing.


"Cryyyyyy for eeeeeeeeeternityyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!" hahahaha

all their lyrics are about battles and flames and like sword fighting and stuff. its hilarious. I love it.

Farzam
11-11-2007, 04:54 PM
Dragonforce has nothing but good songs.

I like Dragonforce

I can't tell 1 song from another though

pwhitersxs
11-11-2007, 07:01 PM
You know if the universities have to pay for music downloads who pays for that in the end? Students. Like all big business, the cost increase will get passed down to the consumer...which in this case is students.

This is not good, just another way for the music/movie industry to capitalize on a "market" and for politicians to get pay outs.

Big business and government should not mix. This is a classic example of where the government needs to not be involved.

eastcoastS14
11-11-2007, 08:20 PM
You are punishing the majority for crimes of the minority.

Get convicted of a drug crime and You and only you lose your student aid. This is your whole school losing their student aid if one person commits a crime.

this bill is stupid....but dont even tempt me to pull up some of the bullshit the republicans have passed or at least tried to

articdragon192
11-11-2007, 08:31 PM
You know if the universities have to pay for music downloads who pays for that in the end? Students. Like all big business, the cost increase will get passed down to the consumer...which in this case is students.

This is not good, just another way for the music/movie industry to capitalize on a "market" and for politicians to get pay outs.

Big business and government should not mix. This is a classic example of where the government needs to not be involved.

Which is why smaller government is better.

StaticX27
11-11-2007, 08:41 PM
Well... Unfortunately, alot of schools have become a business, not an education plant, which is how I can see this bill passing. And whoever said it is right, if the school has to pay this service now, our tuition rates will go up. I'm glad I graduate in December.

Dirty Habit
11-12-2007, 07:48 AM
you know, i'm not sure about this new car. i think i'll steal it, use it for a few days and if i like it i'll go back and buy it and if i don't i'll take it back.

Thats why they have test drives...

Its hard to tell the difference between $26,000.00 and $2.60 isn't it?

ronmcdon
11-12-2007, 09:41 AM
Lol, what a scam! I doubt this will go through, but if it does it will set a very bad precedent. whats to say other media companies wont do the same. i could see porno companies following suit. now everyone has to fork more $$$. crap like this is laughable on one lvl but a totally serious on another.

ronmcdon
11-12-2007, 09:46 AM
Well... Unfortunately, alot of schools have become a business, not an education plant, which is how I can see this bill passing. And whoever said it is right, if the school has to pay this service now, our tuition rates will go up. I'm glad I graduate in December.

You know that is very true. Whats to say schools arnt also in on this to get more $$$ out of their students? I wouldnt be suprised if the schools took a percentage. I dont care about private school for rich kids like USC, but it would be distasteful if public schools (for ppl who can barely afford education) also got into this scam.