Slashdot Log In
Bill Would Tie Financial Aid To Anti-Piracy Plans
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Nov 11, 2007 07:56 AM
from the finest-congress-money-can-buy dept.
from the finest-congress-money-can-buy dept.
theodp writes "The MPAA is applauding top Democratic politicians for introducing an anti-piracy bill that threatens the nation's colleges with the loss of a $100B a year in federal financial aid should they fail to have a technology plan to combat illegal file sharing. The proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page bill, 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,' said university officials in a letter to Congress. 'Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Senate Passes Bill Targeting College Piracy 157 comments
An anonymous reader brings news that the College Opportunity and Affordability Act has passed in the US Senate and now awaits only the President's signature before becoming law. Hidden away in the lengthy bill are sections which tie college funding to "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." The EFF issued a statement expressing concern over the bill earlier this year, shortly before the House of Representatives approved it. We discussed the introduction of the bill last November. The Senate vote was 83-8, with 9 not voting. The full text of the bill is available. The relevant section is 494, at the end of the general provisions.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
But don't worry ... the democrats are in control (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry democrats won't let you down (*cough*)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Democrats are socialists? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think democrats are socialists, you have some really screwed up vision of what it means to be a socialist. From a european view, the democrats are right wing, just a bit shy of being extreme right wing (neo-nazi). Republicans would come dangerously close to extreme right wing.
The most liberal democrat would still be considered a right-winger.
A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor.
Not exactly stuff the democrats seem to care about. No, not even hillary.
To be fair, the US is a totally different culture then western europe. You made your system work, we made our system work. One of the biggest culture clashes is that neither side seems capable of understanding that the other side LIKES their system.
If you tell the swedes that they are insane that they have their working population support a segment that could work but doesn't, they wouldn't understand what you are on about. They think their welfare system makes for a nice place to live in. If you told a working american that X% of his taxes went to a career student the ceiling would hit the roof.
The french LIKE their huge goverment system.
One of the most serious errors you can make in the world is to try and force your countries system on another (Oh yeah, Iraq is a very definite example of this.)
But even so, allowing democrats to be called socialists is going to far, just because they make up the US political left, does not make then socialist. By european standards they would definitly be on the right end of the spectrum and be dangerously close to the far right.
Far right is NOT extreme right, it is the difference between being loving your country, and hating foreigners.
IF the US has a problem (IF, it is kinda like saying, Oh Bill Gates is no longer number 1, he is in trouble, I would like to have his troubles) it is that its two party system has resulted in people having a choice between a moderate right winger who leans a bit to the left and a moderate right winger who leans a bit to the right. The end result is that whichever you pick, you get a compromise candidate who is always a rightwinger trying to appeal to both leftish right wingers and right wing right wingers.
That doesn't leave a lot of room for trying a new direction. The dems can't go to the center, for fear of alienating the right wing, and the republicans can't go to far too the right for fear of alienating the moderates on their side.
From a EU perspective it is often very hard to spot the difference between US presidential candidates.
But make no mistake, none of them is a socialist. Read up on what it means and you might see why the US can never go for it. It ain't in your countries culture. An american would recoil at the state providing for him from grib to grave. In the EU, we thing that is nice and exactly what we have goverment for.
(Please note I am being very generic here, so please don't tear my head off because you live in the US and are a communist or you live in the EU and want bushes baby).
Parent
Re:Democrats are socialists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether it's Kuninich or Gravel on the left (both of whom are bat-shit insane if you believe the hype - and both of who are probably the best thing that could happen to America), or Ron Paul (the closest thing to a true Republican running, instead of the neo-con asshats that dominate the party).
I hate the two-party system we have, and would love to see proportional representation and a condorcet voting system put in place nation-wide... But really, I think even if we just went from a 2-party system to a 4-party sytem (Democrats and Republicans as they are generally accepted, plus "progressive democrats" like Kucinich and Gravel, as well as a more Libertarian party like what Paul represents), and if all parties were given the same attention my the main stream media and voters in general, a lot of people would be surprised at the results.
Voting in America is viewed by so many as choosing the lesser of two evils... And when the two evils have so much in common, well, it's not much of a choice unfortunately. A little diversity in the field would do wonders, and I have a feeling it would drastically change the political scene. Of course, that's exactly why those who are entrenched in the system as it stands will never allow a change in the status quo.
About time for a revolution if you ask me.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to my daydreams of a Kucinich vs. Paul election.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current minimum wage is $5.85 per hour. I can't see that supporting a family.
Maximum work week and state funded education are, of course, both under assault from the Conservatives, but likely to remain in place for the next few years.
No government fully supports unions, too much danger of losing power to them.
Equality is a meaningless concept. I don't believe that it is within
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States is throughly corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is shocking. I really mean that in the full sense of the word. This has completely and totally shocked me. It's not necessarily the actions the media-industry that have disappointed me; that was no surprise and this sort of behaviour is totally expected of them.
It's the out-and-out corruption of the people who hold office. They don't even try to conceal the fact they're bought and paid for. It's completely obscene. There is no way that any rational politician would draft such a proposal.
What the hell do you do about it? Like the United Kingdom [1] you have a first-past-the-post system of electing government. What this means is that you have two parties who exchange power at regular intervals with very little prospect of a third, forth or fifth party getting in to the running.
In my view, this is no improvement whatsoever on the aristocratic feudal system that the whole American enterprise was meant to fix. In the United Kingdom the Catholic aristocracy and the Protestant aristocracy fought for political supremacy down a number of centuries.
You might have different names for them, "Republican" and "Democrat", and their values are different to our aristocrats but the mechanics are fundamentally the same. I mean, you're on your second aristocrat from the Bush family and you're likely to get your second helping of from the Clinton family. Without wanting to flame-bate: Does that sound like the American dream to you?
Once you have accepted the difficult fact that you are under the thumb of two aristocratic bodies then corruption is essentially impossible to eliminate without a revolution. Corruption just comes at twice the price.
How we fight them? I am not an expert on the political structure of the United States, but could the recent Real ID rebellion be expanded in to a more protracted battle? I broadly think that the threatening the cut of funds to a state to ram through some policy decision from Washington offends the nature of the Constitution. If the forefathers wanted an Omnipotent Congress they would have adopted a Parliamentary system like our own.
In a sense, Congress has exploited a hole in the Constitution via a broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause and using the stick of withholding funds to pressure state legislatures.
I think the states are the solution to this problem but it will require radical swift action to succeed.
Simon
[1] - I want to preface it with this comment with this - our country is no better and everything I say here can be said of the United Kingdom.
Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. (Score:5, Interesting)
The only difference between the crap going on now and in previous eras is that all the easy ways of cheating have been used up, so congress has to push the envelope in order to serve their corporate masters.
Nobody in congress is serving the interests of the people. Even Ron Paul is more interested in ideology. I'm tired of visionaries; I want someone practical.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideology is what makes a society better(or worse, depending on your pov).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The United States media is throughly corrupt. (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite true, and it's annoying that the media do not address this side of things. They either talk about Republicans or Democrats but never the issue that neither really serve the peoples interests.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you honestly believe in, support, and practice tax resistance
Not that big a deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is only a proposal.
It Really IS NOT that big a deal. (Score:3, Insightful)
(a) DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RELATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
--Section 485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended--
"[incorporate] institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement
(i) including--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
Yep, take the internet away from US control! (Score:5, Funny)
As to be expected... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is part of the "College Opportunity and Affordability Act". Mmhmmm. Because the rising cost of higher education, coupled with a failing economy, additional costs for universities, and a chance to deny students financial aid really gives more people opportunities and certainly makes it more affordable.
The United States is in a race to the bottom. Every great empire falls - I just wish I wasn't stuck in the middle of this one. I'm just glad I'm about to start learning a second language (I know a bit of Spanish, but not enough to call it my second language). Hopefully I'll be able to jump ship before it goes under.
For many years, I've heard the chants of the "if you don't like it, leave!" crowd. For a long time, I fought back. I believed that the right thing to do if you loved America was to not leave, but to fight for a better nation. I'm afraid I've lost that faith. Unless things drastically change over the next few years, as a freedom loving individual, I'm sad to say I'll have no choice but to leave and watch the country implode from the sidelines.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After WW2, my home country was destroyed. Economically, socially, politically. But we had one thing we lack severely today: Top grade politicians. Many of them returning from concentration camps (and there finding out that their political opponent ain't so bad after all, he was there with them). Our president gave a stirring speech for Christmas 45 which still gives you shivers when you hear it. Basically, he said he got nothing to give. There ain't an
Re:As to be expected... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clear out your headgear, this isn't about GWB. For that matter it not really about any particular political party. It's about a corrupt system where rich people are allowed to buy politicians.
Of course the Democrats are going to be in on this one--they are owned by the electronic media [opensecrets.org], as the Republicans are owned by big oil [opensecrets.org]. So, don't get on ole George; he's just doing what his masters want, just as the Democrats will do what their masters want.
Parent
Re:As to be expected... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a deep observation. I've been noticing this more and more lately, and also something else which is related. By giving the bill a false name, when the vote comes to the floor the media can accuse the people who vote against it of voting against "College Opportunity and Affordability." They did the same with the SCHIP bill-- vote against the bill and you're automatically tagged as "against health insurance for poor children," even though you may have been voting against it because it would hurt the current health insurance system (or the economy) in general. This is so blatantly cynical it is sickening, and it rings vaguely of 1984 newspeak.
Parent
Re:As to be expected... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:As to be expected... (Score:5, Insightful)
Media is only 'title-deep', as it seems. What the politicians are doing is a cost/benefit analysis. When the media is so broken, that a blatantly obvious example of Orwellian doublespeak does not get immediately called out as such, with all the consequences, public shaming, carrier-ending weight of a media shitstorm then the media is terribly broken and generally the people shouldn't rely on the media as much as to receive a single, simple factual information like yesterday's date. When the media is so bent that the elephant in the room does not get called out by definition it HAS TO resort to falsifying and lying to cover up the fact that the elephant is in the room.
Parent
Re:As to be expected... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're spot on about the media caving in. In this case there's an interesting twist-- the major US media outlets are all parts of conglomerates that also own record and movie companies. They are all aware that reporting this kind of shenanigans would be against their other business interests. C|Net can report it, and Slashdot can bring it to people's attention, but you won't see it on cable or the networks or in the major city newspapers, because they're all paying into the MPAA and RIAA.
This makes Ron Paul's proposal to abolish the Department of Education seem very wise indeed!
Parent
I Hope They Pass It! (Score:4, Interesting)
I know, I know. Fat chance. One can dream, though.
Cheers!
Strat
Quoting Lewis Black (Score:5, Funny)
and the democrat stands up after him and says 'AND I CAN MAKE IT SHITTIER!!
This is GOOD, and while we're at it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Abstinence-only approach to sex education, STDs, and birth control.
Just say NO! to drugs.
O heck, that's enough. It's not worth trying to think up any more.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, worked great with drugs and sex, right?
Email the bill's sponsor - George Miller (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Email the bill's sponsor - George Miller (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Open Letter (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep it up!
Love,
Your competitors in the rest of the world.
I wonder if this is how the British Empire collapsed too.
Re:Open Letter (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, in that case there were third parties involved - we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot (though arguably we may have assisted in the act). In this case the US is implementing a divide and conquer approach on itself - its purely a domestic issue. However, for those of us who live abroad, i would like to recollect the wise words of Napolean - "Never interrupt your enemy whilst he is making a mistake."
Parent
Collective Guilt Calls for Collective Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I hear some congressmen are taking bribes. The next time that happens, let's seize the assets of every congressman and garner their wages for ten years to come.
Ooh, and all this can go away if the Universities pay Audible Magic. Now, they wouldn't have anything to do [blogspot.com] with the current RIAA shakedowns, would they?
Carrot and Stick (Score:5, Insightful)
In all cases the problem is how government and business mixes, because they should at least try to maintain some semblance of separation. For foreign stuff they will usually try to claim its for the benefit of both local and american "industry" in a general sense, rather than for the benefit of just one specific company (even if its a lie people don't tend to notice cos it happens abroad, or they ignore it cos they get cheap products as a result). In this case though, the extortion is domestic, with a specific private industry leveraging their business goals onto public institutions via manipulation of federal legislation. Having industry write the laws they want in this way doesn't just undermine the basic concepts of democracy and accountability, it leads long term to a stagnant and non-competitive economy (cos the big industries write laws to stifle competition). In that sense it is actually not in the general interests of industry to be able to write their own laws, because it will lead to even the law-writing industry being uncompetitive on the international stage.
Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as they apply shotgun punishments equally! (Score:3, Interesting)
Talking points for calling your reps (Score:4, Informative)
Talking Points
Concerning changes to the House "College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007" as introduced November 9, 2007.
The House bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA), "College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007," addresses the problem of copyright infringement on campus networks in two parts. The higher education community supports the first part that deals with disclosure of institutional policies and opposes the second part that requires campuses to develop new institutional plans for addressing infringement on their networks.
Part one occurs in Sec. 485, DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RELATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.--Section 485(a)(1) requires institutions to report to their students annually on their policies and practices with respect to copyright infringement on campus networks. This is the same provision included in the Senate HEA bill and the higher education community supports this provision.
Part two occurs in a new SEC. 494 (A), CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION, which requires that all institutions eligible for financial aid under Title IV "(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." These requirements are unacceptable and the higher education community urges that this section be removed from the bill.
Campuses that offer legal downloading services typically must charge a student fee to cover the expense. Taken across all campuses, this practice could represent a transfer of over $400 million annually from higher education to the entertainment industry while raising the cost of higher education.
Most colleges and universities have already considered offering legal, online music or movie services. Their students, however, have often told them they do not want to use or pay for these services because they do not carry musicians that the students want, do not work with Apple iPods, etc. The failure of industry to create and offer attractive downloading services should not lead to a federal solution in which colleges and universities must bear an additional financial burden so that industry can sell more of these services.
Today's technologies to deter copyright infringement on college and university networks are expensive, do not solve the problem, and fail to meet basic requirements identified by higher education community experts in a workshop of the Joint Committee of Higher Education and the Entertainment Community on April 19-20, 2007. Installing deterrent technology now at every campus would require an even larger increase in the cost of higher education.
The higher education community is already working with the entertainment industry to explore technology-based deterrents as planned in the next steps of this workshop.
Campus networks are a small fraction of the copyright infringement problem. The MPAA estimates that 18.4% of copyright infringers are college students and that they are responsible for 44% of revenue lost to copyright infringement. These figures are inaccurate and overstate the case. Yet even by these figures, since less than 20% of college students live on campus and use the residence hall networks, this means that less than 4% of the infringers are using campus networks, and they are responsible for less than 9% of the losses. Over 91% of the claimed losses are on commercial networks. While solving this small part of the problem on campus networks would be desirable, any solutions will be partial, difficult, and expensive, and will only move the problem elsewhere. Campus networks should not be singled out with respect to commercial networks when addressing copyright infringement.
We oppose the provision in part (2) of section 494 (A) and urge that it be eliminated.
The real effect (Score:3, Informative)
Incomprehensible (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't have it both ways.
Re:747 pages? (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the feeling that with more than twice the pages and a nice name attatched to it (College Opportunity and Affordability Act), this will get a similar reception. "Oh, well, it has a nice name - and it's far too long to bother reading and understanding... Plus, if I vote against it I'll be mentioned as voting against opportunity and affordability for students!"
Sad, but true.
Parent
Re:747 pages? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) Both are essentially unenforceable laws,
(2) Which many people are guilty of breaking.
(3) Both are victimless crimes.
(4) They can be used as "catch all" laws in cases where no actual crime has been committed.
(5) Demonisation tactics have been used in both cases, from "Reefer Madness" to the "You wouldn't steal a $PHYSICAL_OBJECT" ads.
(6) There is a massive disparity between the penalties and the harm caused in both cases: a conviction can ruin your life, get you fired or thrown out of college, and unable to get a job.
The only difference is that people choose to be involved with drugs, whereas people can be pirates without even realising it. Evidence of piracy might be a small violation of an EULA, or an MP3 file that your friend sent you and you forgot to delete. Future police forces might be able to arrest, charge and convict almost anyone for piracy, ruining their lives before they can say "police state".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Instead of bitching about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Section 494:
Re:That's why Fed subsidies are a poisoned gift (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know exactly what your definition of "liberty" is, but it sounds rather like slavery to me; and if someone needs to work 55 hours a week and somehow balance a course-load along with that in order to be "responsible," then they obviously aren't mature enough in the first place. I certainly have no trouble being responsible, even with my "snout" in the Federal government's "feeding trough," as you put it.
Parent