Slashdot Log In
Congress Asks Universities To Curb Piracy
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri May 04, 2007 12:21 PM
from the hey-cut-that-out dept.
from the hey-cut-that-out dept.
The Illegal Subset of the Integers writes "According to Ars Technica, Congress has sent letters to 19 universities identified by the RIAA and MPAA as havens for copyright infringement. In it, they not only seek to discover what these universities are doing to dissuade students from infringing activities, but give the implied threat. House Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'
One wonders, though, what the universities are supposed to do when international disrespect for imaginary property rights is so widespread that there are currently over two million hits on Google for a certain oft-posted illegal number, up from the three hundred thousand hits from sometime yesterday."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Proposed Bill in Tennessee Penalizes Schools for Allowing Piracy 129 comments
An anonymous reader brings us an Ars Technica report about a proposed bill in Tennessee which would require state-funded universities to enforce anti-piracy standards. The universities would be forced to "track down and stop infringing activity" or risk losing their funding. The U.S. Congress requested last year that certain universities do this voluntarily. Quoting:
"Efforts taken by universities thus far to deter and prevent piracy have had mixed results. The University of Utah, for instance, claims that it has reduced MPAA and RIAA complaints by 90 percent and saved $1.2 million in bandwidth costs by instituting anti-piracy filtering mechanisms. However, the school revealed that their filtering system hasn't been able to stop encrypted P2P traffic and noted that students will find ways to circumvent any system. The end result, some say, will be a costly arms race as students perpetually work to circumvent anti-piracy systems put in place by universities."
This discussion has been archived.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.
I would like to ask Congress... (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, as long as we're asking for stuff we're not going to get...
Investigate HJC's Lamar Smith for corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that such corruption is now being done so openly highlights how bankrupt our public institutions have become. This is going to end in civil war.
Re:I would like to ask Congress... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would like to ask Congress... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Dealing the the Iraq war
2) Dealing with the Afghanistan war
3) Dealing the the swelling public debt
4) Dealing with poverty in america
5) Dealing with the issue of healthcare
and so on...
Parent
Lamar Smith (R-RIAA) (Score:5, Informative)
That said, I think the Military Industrial Complex [wikipedia.org] is a far more insidious and dangerous entity and poses a much stronger threat to Democracy in the United States. The problem is that they have infested many of the congressional districts and states so that no lawmaker will deny their spending (as it means jobs and constituent happyness for the politico).
Parent
Re:I would like to ask Congress... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I did. Lacking the wherewithal to contribute thousands of dollars to PACs and candidates however, I think my requests largely fall on deaf ears.
Parent
Congress... isn't what you think it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress is a product of a process controlled by the political parties. The political parties are in turn controlled by monied and powerful interests who let the parties know who they will back, and who they will not. The parties pick from candidates that can get backing, of course, otherwise they will be picking candidates who cannot advertise, campaign and travel freely - in other words, losing candidates. Once acceptable candidates are chosen, then they let the people vote on which one of these hand-picked people is to continue in the (very, very expensive) process. Once elected, carrying out any promises made during the political campaign is strictly optional.
In this way, congress (and the senate, and the presidency) end up being 100% made up of people selected by those same monied and powerful interests. "the people" do not control the type of person, or the obligations of that person. Once in power, the usual currency of politics - being supported to run again by the party, junkets, "fact-finding" trips, dinners, appointments to powerful committees, visits to the white house, campaign contributions, rubbing elbows with the powerful, pork for their district, commitments for speaking engagements, returning as a lobbyist, employment at a think tank, tips on everything from stocks to escorts - these, and more, are the "currency" of "elected" government service. It also doesn't hurt to remember Orwell's assertion that "the purpose of power - is power."
Aside from those people, there is a vast army of unelected, but very powerful individuals who manipulate our daily lives with absolutely no requirement to, or evidence of electing to, pay any attention to public input. Not that such input is lacking; they just don't listen. Examples abound; the FCC with its censorship and pandering to the rich for broadcast (broadcast speech belongs to the rich - period), the FDA with its holding back of therapies even to those who are about to die, the US park service which takes homes from people by force (eminent domain), the Supreme Court, with its topsy-turvy interpretation of the commerce clause, disingenuous support for ex post facto laws, craven ducking of the religion issue, and of course, just generally trampling the constitution left and right. And of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
So when you talk about the government - any of it - as being "the people" - you're speaking of a situation that doesn't exist in the United States of America. Our federal and state governments are operating broadly outside the bounds of its constituting authority, within a cycle that is entirely controlled by special interests who have money and power. There are absolutely no signs that this situation is going to change. In the specific case of music and video, the people have already made it quite clear what they want, and they are being roundly ignored by government. Business is showing some movement because their hand is being forced, but legislatively speaking, it is only getting worse on all fronts - patents, copyrights and IP law in general. These laws are not made to benefit the people, and sure enough, they generally don't. As soon as you look to see how they benefit industry, however, the light will begin to dawn.
You may wonder why free speech is allowed with a government gone so catastrophically wrong. The answer is simple: It is far better for them to let you vent than it is have you smolder and suddenly show up on some politician's doorstep with what used to be your second amendment rights in hand. Between that and making sure you achieve a general level of complacency, while being distracted by the current round of boogymen (Terrorists! Pedophiles! Immigrants! Global Warming!), they can keep the population from getting out of hand, even as they trample constitutional rights, engage in broad repression of personal, victimless choices, and pursue military adventures on sovereign foreign soil for the benefit of industry.
Parent
Re:I would like to ask Congress... (Score:5, Insightful)
lemme ask you, if you're downloading the movie, what the heck do you need a key for? the movie you download will be an DivX or XviD file, not an encrypted disc image.
the keys are for those of us who still like to exercise our fair use/fair dealing rights and want to watch our legally purchased HiDef movies on whatever device(s) we want.
Parent
Re:I would like to ask Congress... (Score:4, Insightful)
FUD. Once movies have been ripped they can be downloaded and played by anyone without needing the AACS keys. The only people who need the decryption keys already have a physical copy of the movie (presumably they bought or rented it, or received it as a gift). The spread of AACS keys is specifically for being able to play movies on non-windows boxes, rip movies to media servers, or make backup copies for kids who can't watch a movie without scratching the hell out of it. Real pirates keep the keys they extract secret so that their players won't be revoked by the MAFIAA.
Parent
DC++ (Score:5, Funny)
Then I come to
They're out to get me. *huddles in a corner, grasping at his tinfoil hat*
"Please don't download" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Please don't download" (Score:5, Interesting)
That's more of a "don't ask, don't tell, and don't abuse the privilege", and it doesn't make the activity legal. For example, underage drinking, recreational drugs... many colleges don't want to police it on a room-to-room level, but will if parties are spiraling out of control or it comes to media attention. And this issue has media attention.
Parent
Re:"Please don't download" (Score:5, Interesting)
I think someone is confused about what copyright infringement is. Copyright infringement isn't theft, has nothing to do with drugs or underage drinking, and while it might have to do with partying as people may play the infringed music during, I won't put it in the same ballpark and neither should you.
Parent
Re:"Please don't download" (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I would, because I find laws on drinking age and (certain) recreational drugs as unjust as current copyright laws, as do many in acadamia and acadamia admin. All of these issues are a matter of separating "fair/reasonable/moderate" use from abuse. The analogy from a university standpoint is quite apt (I am involved in such institutions and have seen many cycles of this go though).
Parent
Re:"Please don't download" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Who sent the lettters? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who sent the lettters? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it looks like this a bi-partisan effort to do the MPAA/RIAA bidding. Gee, isn't it great when the representatives of the two parties can put aside their ideological differences and work together being complete whores to monied interests?
Parent
Re:Who sent the lettters? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Response (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Response (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Response (Score:5, Insightful)
If copyright expired after 5 or 10 years, they could download legal movies and TV shows made recently enough to be culturally relevent. In that world, asking them not to download the most recent episode of 24 or the chinese CAM release of Spiderman 3 is much more defensible.
Parent
Re:Response (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Depends on how they "act" (Score:5, Interesting)
If Congress is forced to "act" by re-evaluating the entire copyright system, discovering the unfairness and complete futility of the DMCA, defining fair use, and shifting the balance of power back to the citizens (not "consumers"), then that could be a good thing...
...but I'm not holding my breath.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"imaginary property rights" (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess the submitter would prefer it if the whole concept of copyright and IP did not exist, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for any new movies, TV, music, softwre or games in that case.
I wish all the people moaning about the fact that 99% of entertainment content is commercially produced and requires payment would stop moaning and just produce some free content instead. Could it be that its way easier to complain about the content produced by other people than it is to actually contribute anything yourself?
Re:"imaginary property rights" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, fair point.
But consider this: if a number can be illegal to distribute, how do you know your post was legal? Maybe some part of that post is some part of the key to something. It's impossible to know until someone accuses you. Maybe some bit of information in your post facilitates the cracking of some form of protection on some content. Or maybe someone just *thinks* it does. Maybe your post is actually the encrypted version of some illegal data -- can you *prove* it isn't? (that last one is UK-only)
See the problem with indiscriminately criminalizing more and more simple actions in order to enforce existing (and justified, though sometimes abused) rights?
I think it's that, rather than the fact that some things are copyrighted and you have to pay for them, which is bothering people.
Parent
Re:"imaginary property rights" (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the majority here will agree that a ROI is important. No ROI, no creation. If I can't make what I invest into a piece of work, I won't make it. Simple as that. No more movies, no more commercial music (...ok, that might not be the worst development, but...), and most of all no more commercial software. Yes, OSS is very cool, but I doubt the gamers here would be too happy with that development.
Someone who creates work, someone who comes up with some ingenious design or a really cool invention should get his dues.
But the point of balance between consumer and producer has been left years ago. When the producer dictates how, when and why you may use his creation, things get out of balance. I do agree that a movie maker should have the right to get his money from me watching and enjoying it. But I do not agree that I should only be allowed to watch it where and how HE decides. I do gladly pay him the amoung of money he deems right for the movie, if I do the same (but, frankly, most movies ain't worth the 10 bucks you pay now in cinemas here). What I don't agree with is the kind of restriction imposed on me. I can't use some music in my portable player. I can't watch new videos off my computer. I have to insert CDs or even plug in pieces of hardware to my machine, or allow the installation of spyware, to use computer programs.
This has nothing to do with a ROI. It's imposing limitations and actual damage to your customer in the name of "protecting" your rights. If I protected my consumer rights the same way the content industry "protects" its content, I'd be in jail because the laws are biased way past any sensible point towards the industry.
Parent
On behalf of universities everywhere ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy definitely needs to be stopped! (Score:5, Funny)
It's about time Congress stepped up to protect the people from these pirates! I had to miss class that day (that's my story and I'm sticking to it.)
Here we go again (Score:5, Interesting)
One student and 25 of their best friends join a pool. The pool members make a list of the music they would like to have a copy of. Each of the pool members buys a music CD from the list and 25 blank CDs. After making the requisite 25 copies, they all get together for some beer and a CD swap party. If done with discretion, nobody at the RIAA will ever know. The quality of the music is high, there is no record of the transaction that the school or ISP can hand over to the RIAA, there is no way to detect this copyright infringement. BTW, 26 x 25 = a loss of 650 CD sales in one night, in one location.
If the RIAA continues on their path to destitution, this is how music will be shared in the future, the same as it was shared in the past. IWaM is stupid, stupid, STUPID.
If the RIAA member companies were to do something that would make their product (distribution of someone else's content) more desirable, or valuable then they would again see rising revenues. Their business is outdated, and dying. Congress can't save them. God himself (if he exists) couldn't even save that business model.
I have a better idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think they should go for option (2). I mean, many universities are already going that route. For example, MIT course material is being made avaiable via Open CourseWare [mit.edu]. Also, many academics are pushing for open access [wikipedia.org] to all academic publications.
So, really, given that universities are supposed to be (and frequently are) institutions dedicated to dissemination of information, free speech, intellectual progress, and radical ideas... isn't it entirely consistent with the ethos (even their mandate) to not act as enforcers of copyright law? (Note: I'm not claiming that the universities have to actively encourage copyright infringement, merely suggesting that it is not their role in society to enforce those laws, even on their own campuses.)
option 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Unspoken is the fact that up to a generation ago, universities did just that. Universities have recently seen an opportunity to monetize their innovation and defray growing costs. There still has not been sufficient public debate about the law and ethics surrounding publicly-financed institutions patenting, licensing and in some cases directly capitalizing IP developed with public funds, often explicitly funded by DAPRA, NIH, etc.
Parent
Illegal numbers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me: how can a number be illegal? What if they had used a normal word as the key, would that word then suddenly be illegal?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ugh. (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that copyright infringement, no matter how widespread, seems to regularly top news feeds lately is just further evidence we as a society are losing sight of our real threats: Further absolution of previously vaunted personal liberties, the lower class continuing their gradual attempts to topple society, and every special interest group out there with their pet right they're trying to get removed.
Thank you congress, for accomplishing nothing beyond the placation of your idiot single-issue voter bases and largest campaign contributors.
Just for the record... (Score:5, Informative)
The university does not monitor student activity. If the RIAA or MPAA determines that a student's activities are possibly illegal, they must formally request the information from my university. Following this, the university will begin an internal investigation to ensure that wrong-doing was going on. If it was, only then will anything be turned over.
It's not the job of a university to police its students. The job of the university is to educate.
Why do we keep letting Congress shill for corps? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice to know (Score:4, Insightful)
Haven? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did that mean they didn't volunteer to hand over private data of their students to the RIAA when asked?
If that is the definition of a haven for piracy, then I want to attend those schools.
Proof that RIAA bribes Congressmen (Score:5, Insightful)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
What their response should be (Score:5, Insightful)
"Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'"
What the schools should say:
'Here's what we're doing to curb piracy: we respond to subpoenas signed by a judge to their full extent. We remove infringing content that has been identified by its owner in full compliance with the DMCA.
Oh, you wanted us to do your job for you? Don't think so.
Another thing that just wont work... (Score:3, Insightful)
it doesn't matter what congress or universities do (Score:5, Insightful)
in another corner, technically astute, highly motivated, media loving, and most of all, poor teenagers
it doesn't matter what some corporation thinks is right and wrong. it doesn't matter what out of touch with reality laws a bought and sold congress passes. it doesn't matter how huge their financial war chest. it doesn't matter how large their army of lawyer whores. it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter
what matters is what is going to happen, and what is already happening. events now surrounding media and the law and internet seem to have an air of inevitability about them to me. time will simply take care of the details, but the ending in sight seems fixed and immutable: unenforceable and universally ignored and shortcircuited intellectual property laws. a colossal joke. for better? for worse? who knows. but inevitably so
riaa, mpaa, dmca, etc. used to infuriate me. now i am more sanguine about events. because i don't see how history can be changed, how the genie can go back in the bottle. some old grumpy men simply do not get what is happening, and never will. and the only solution is to let them die off. and so they will. and so time will take care of this problem
people who get into legal incriminations and moral hysterics about the inevitable unstoppable alterations the internet is making to media and the law just put me to sleep now: they simply don't matter anymore, and they are the only ones who don't realize that. let the dinosaurs die, and simply avoid the swings of the old dumb lizard's faltering weakening tail. let time take it's toll on those with minds too brittle and sight too dim to adapt to the new reality. the new reality: the full ramifications of media on the internet and what it fully means for society and companies and how media is produced and consumed
Does this clarify Congress' priorities? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their reply (Score:4, Funny)
As requested by the MPAA we are currently doing everything we can to ban the numbers 0, 9, 11, 2, 9, 74, 5, 8, 41, 56, 5, 63, 56, 88 and the letters f, d, e, b, and c from our campus. The math and english departments are giving us some resistance, but we should have them under control soon.
--The University
Re:"Imaginary property rights"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be taken away by the people as well.
There are a lot of very good and strong arguments for not ahving copyright.
Personally, I thin a limited copyright is a good thing, but for about 14 yaers. Longer then that then you give power to corporations to dictate your culture.
Parent
Re:"Imaginary property rights"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe the "imaginary" substitution is somewhat warranted. What is it, exactly that you believe these "artists" own? Is it the chords [olga.net] and how the song is played on an instrument? Because being a guitarist/psuedo-pianist/instrumentalist myself, I find the idea highly objectionable that anyone, that's right anyone can own chords or combinations of chords (known as chord progressions). If it's not the chords they own, is it the lyrics? Because as I've seen it, lyrics often contain information such as cliches and phrases borrowed from other sources. I find it difficult to believe that someone can "own" phrases.
Is it the chords combined with the lyrics? What exactly do they own?
The truth is that "intellectual" property is imaginary. It was only until I read that phrase in this very article that the issue had been nailed home so clearly in my head.
Nobody owns the plot that everyone [towson.edu] uses in modern movies, popular culture, or "folk songs" and things were never before subject to such legislation. They were never "property" before. Myths and tales permeated the countryside. That was until plays could be captured forever as "movies", and music could be stowed away on "records." The truth is that media provided these now hugely successful recording artists with a brief window in which to make millions. That window was only provided by the fact that recorded media could be scarce. That limitation is now gone. Records don't require media anymore and are now as free as they were via word of mouth or through strolling minstrels. The truth is that it was a very small amount of time and their business model should *not* be protected. The reason why people say that artists ripping off other artists makes for great artistry is because it's true. Artists for centuries simply innovated and were free to do so by the free society of culture which has been cut off with records and movies. Well, gentlemen, welcome to the other side of the mountain. If you give something out to the free air that can be copied and played again, it will be. You have no power to stop the echo of your voice once you've used it to scream something from atop a mountain, it is then no longer yours to contain. And as such you have no power to stop the spread of your content. Culture is now back in the hands of the people, where it belonged to begin with. All your justifications and ideas of "intellectual property" are now gone. Get used to tightening your belt and practicing your craft...or find a new trade.
Parent
Re:"Imaginary property rights"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ownership of a thing is nothing more than a legally enforceable power to control what other people do with regard to something. Ownership of a copyright is no more "imaginary" than ownership of a stock, ownership of land, or ownership of a hand tool.
The same argument has been made of property more generally, and is no more true in the narrower case of copyright than the more general case.
No, it doesn't. Though, of course, many of the details of copyright law serve various industries of entrenched interests.
Parent
Re:"Imaginary property rights"? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent