Bill Would Tie Financial Aid To Anti-Piracy Plans

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.'"

But don't worry ... the democrats are in control

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So no worries right ? After all they're socialists. Using the governments power to mandate good behavior is very un-social right ? And forcing centrally made decisions upon everyone in the country is very unlike the democrats, right ? Oh wait ...

Don't worry democrats won't let you down (*cough*)

The United States is throughly corrupt.

[Ckwop]

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.

That's why they are politicians and you are not

[Anonymous Coward]

They find ways to cut education spending and make it look like it's someone else's fault.

Not that big a deal.

[WK2]

We already knew that the MPAA would want something like this, and that they are willing to draft congressional bills. We also knew that plenty of politicians, including democrats, are owned by them.

This is only a proposal.

Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro

[pallmall1]

Looks like we've been fooled again [thewho.net].

Re:The United States is throughly corrupt.

[Hognoxious]

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.

It means nothing of the sort. And the UK system isn't much like the US one either. Where's the UK electoral college, for one?

Re:The United States is throughly corrupt.

[Daimanta]

Politicians ARE practical. It is very practical to line your pockets with money when you have some power.

Ideology is what makes a society better(or worse, depending on your pov).

Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro

[jellomizer]

Well in reality Bush is more Democrat then Republican... The reasons Democrats hate him is the majority of Democrats are Liberal Bias too. But Bush is Neo-Conservative, So it is all the big Government of the Democrats with the Neo-Conservative values. You listen to the rants some of the people do like on Digg, about Bush and you read what they should do. It is almost like reading from the Republican Guideline book... They just don't realize it because hatred of Bushes "Ethical Views".
Republicans can be Against Big Business, Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Anti-War, Against Dethpenality... It is just that most of them arn't.

haha

[ramul]

So it sounds like a lobby group is bribing politicians to blackmail universities to catch students who are copying songs. am i interpreting this properly?

Re:As to be expected...

[abirdman]

From the office of naming-things-for-exactly-the-opposite-of-what-they-do:

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.

Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro

[aurispector]

Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss...

Open Letter

[Kris_J]

Dear America,
Keep it up!

Love,
Your competitors in the rest of the world.

I wonder if this is how the British Empire collapsed too.

File sharing: the new "weed"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's official now: file sharing is the new "weed." The penalties for file sharing are rapidly growing, with small impact on how many people actually do it. This should sound familiar, as it is pretty much the same historical track taken by marijuana laws. File sharing isn't quite as far along in the process, but there will be a "War on Piracy" soon enough.

Marijuana laws are generally an easier sell, though, since you can directly see the effect of drug abuse on a person. (Especially if you trot out some of the worst potheads for shock value...) Copying files from other people doesn't turn you into a slack-jawed idiot, unless you count some of those fools who wear an iPod all the time.

Second amendment

[boristdog]

It's times like these when I am REALLY glad the second amendment to our constitution is still fully in force.

Re:747 pages?

[Palpitations]

For those keeping track, the PATRIOT Act was only 342 pages [epic.org] (PDF warning) - and wasn't really read by anyone who signed off on it because it was long, had a nice name, and there was a sense of urgency to pass it.

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.

Collective Guilt Calls for Collective Punishment

[DingerX]

Isn't that how it works?

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?

Democrats are socialists?

[SmallFurryCreature]

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).

Carrot and Stick

[15Bit]

Its the same approach western countries have been applying to overseas aid for decades. "We'll give you this heap of money every year IF you do some stuff that we want". The stuff they want of course, is trade concessions. And, after a few years continuation of the yearly aid involves some inflation of the "IF" clause. Pretty standard, even though its thinly veiled extortion.

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.

Re:As to be expected...

[arethuza]

"rings vaguely of 1984 newspeak"

Vaguely? The only thing that was inaccurate about 1984 was the date.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Re:As to be expected...

[canUbeleiveIT]

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.

Re:As to be expected...

[A beautiful mind]

The problem is that the reason they can name things like this is because the media does not call their bluff.

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.

Democracy?

[Midnight Thunder]

For a while now I have gotten the feeling that the united states is less of a democracy of the masses and more democracy of the rich. Laws such as these further help create an underclass serving the needs to of those with the money an influence. It also helps to further decimate an already fragile and poorly funded education system. Its hardly surprising that there are so many immigrant researchers, since with the education system with they way it is from K12 to university we don't have much better to offer. More money is channeled into the symptoms of the a badly run education system and society, that into what cause the problem.

Re:So don't Pirate Materials?

[berashith]

The relevancy lies in who is committing an action, and who is being punished for it. The assumption that all students are stealing is absolutely absurd. All students will lose their loans and aid because some are downloading perceived stolen music. The math doesn't add up. As soon as some universities started pointing out flaws in finding the exact student by IP in the shotgun approach, the laws suddenly shift to the entire campus.

Re:Democrats are socialists?

[Hognoxious]

The french LIKE their huge goverment system.

Incorrect. A lot of them - in particular, the unemployed who get paid for doing nothing and large numbers of public sector workers who get paid for doing very little - like the system.

Far right is NOT extreme right, it is the difference between being loving your country, and hating foreigners.

Far or extreme right are subjective terms depending largely on what your own views are. To a communist, the centre appears extreme right.

It Really IS NOT that big a deal.

[ubuwalker31]

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-- ....
"[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 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.".

---

So, basically, the way I read this, the legislation is a hat-tip to the MPAA...but it has absolutely no teeth. It requires colleges to basically hand out a pamphlet about the "evils of file-sharing" and to have some sort of INTERNAL system up to punish file sharers and an INTERNAL technological system to prevent unauthorized file sharing. Effectively, if the MPAA comes to the University saying "give us the names of the students", the college can say "we have disciplined the student internally, and it won't go on his record, and now go away, so we can finish educating our student without the interruption of a lawsuit."

Of course, this proposed bill (which hasn't even hit THOMAS yet) completely ignores the fact that the university might use peer to peer file sharing to exchange free software for classes, for students to exchange pictures of extra-curricular activities, scholarly collaboration, or use of bittorrent or file sharing technologies for medical doctors to be able to help isolated Tibetan doctors perform complicated surgeries, etc.

Re:The United States is throughly corrupt.

[darjen]

That sounds all well and good, but IMO the only real way to fight them is to hit em where it hurts - their pocketbook. In other words, stop paying taxes to the federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance [wikipedia.org] The more people who resist, the more they will have to change their utterly, completely corrupt policies. How can you honestly say it's working when crap like this story keep coming up? Don't get me wrong, I love Ron Paul, and contributed to his campaign, but I still don't think it's possible to place any faith in honest politicians to really change things.

Good point

[Cheesey]

The parallels are striking:
(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".

Re:The United States is throughly corrupt.

[Daimanta]

Revolution is a nasty and bloody business that only needs to be used as a last resort. Simply vote out the old parties and vote in new parties. If that doesn't happen people are so lazy tata even a revolution won't help.

Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro

[spud603]

Political parties change. If most Republicans are neo-cons, then the Republican party is a neo-conservative party. The sooner people realize and accept this, the sooner we'll stop electing fascists (yes, look it up) like GW Bush simply because of his party. "I've always voted Republican" is not a reason to do so again.

Re:The United States is throughly corrupt.

[garbletext]

Come on. Tax resisters are way out on the lunatic fringe. No appreciable percentage of the population is going to resist paying taxes as long as there's serious penalties for it, like jail time. And your argument about "hitting them where it hurts," only makes sense if a large number of people do this. how can you say that a method for changing the system is "the only real way," if it has never worked and has no prospects of doing so soon?

If you honestly believe in, support, and practice tax resistance, would you be willing to send a petition, signed by you and other supporters, stating that you do not pay federal taxes to congress, and CC it to the IRS?

Re:Second amendment

[XiX36]

Because you can take out a carrier battle group with a deer rifle? Good luck with that.

Re:The United States media is throughly corrupt.

[CustomDesigned]

Nobody in congress is serving the interests of the people.

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.

That's because the fourth branch of US government is a one party system. (Although the internet has a chance of changing that if it doesn't get locked down soon.)

Re:Instead of bitching about this...

[Reverend528]

How do I find who to write to in congress about what my representative is doing on this matter?

Unless you can afford to outbid the MPAA, you probably don't have a representative in this matter.

Re:Democrats are socialists?

[bmajik]

The real meat of your _very_ long diatribe is the claim that most Europeans prefer a more socialized system than most Americans.

Trying to posit any of these terms as absolutes is kind of silly. When an American talks about how such and such person is socialist, it's assinine of you to correct them based on some universal dipstick of "socialismness". It's sufficient for the assumed context to be "more socialist than I prefer" or "most socialist than the contextually relevant alternative".

Now it's interesting that you go on about what "real" or european socialists are for and how no democrats are for that. As pointed out in some other responses -- you should pay more attention. The 2008 Democratic field have all promised to raise taxes and to further socialize the US healthcare industry. Most democrats are pro-Union, pro minimum wage increase, etc.

Relative to the American center, most democrats _are_ more socialist than our own national history, and ARE more socialist than "the other guys".

I think that both the democans and republicrats are far too socialist _and_ facist for my tastes, but I consider myself a libertarian.. a concept totally unfathomable to much of Europe, apparently.

It's not like Americans are against people being able to support their families, or unemployed people not dying in the streets, or people being able to better educate themselves. It's more like... as individuals we all want some say in to what extent we support those aims or in what manner we implement them. Libertarians especially find that government sucks at pretty much everything worthwhile and exceeds at pretty much everything reprehensible, and so the answer is always some variation of "less government, more individual choice".

I hope you're right about socialism "just not working" in our country, but to many of us, at least half of the politicians are pushing us strongly in that direction, and many citizens are following along. My own personal opinion is that the US is the last stronghold for free thought and individual liberty left in the world, and that it's slipping away more and more each day.

It's not like other places are bad to live.. it's that other societies have already decided to have fewer individual freedoms (at least, theoretically) to "gain" other things. At least in the case of Germany, it looks like the germans got a lot for what they gave up... i really enjoyed my time there and its not like people walked around sulking over their high taxes or lack of firearms ownership :)

Re:Democrats are socialists?

[Smallpond]

Hillary gave up on on universal health care and is back to an insurance-company based plan, just as corporate America requested.

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 human nature. The Episcopal Church is about to split over election of a gay bishop. Too bad there isn't a religion based on tolerance and love of others.

Taxing the rich. That 35% tax bracket on the income over $350,000 a year is probably putting a real crimp in their lifestyle. Of cource, if all their earnings are in capital gains, it's just 15% - lower than most wage earners.

Finally, you called Hillary a "hard core Democrat". Check your talking points, you are supposed to be claiming that she has no consistent views.

Re:Democrats are socialists?

[Hognoxious]

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. 51 wolves and 49 sheep deciding what to have for lunch.

Though it's debatable whether a majority in France do favour the current system. Even when governments have been elected with a mandate to reform the public sector, they've been blocked by strikes and violent protests. That's mob rule, not democracy.

Re:As to be expected...

[abirdman]

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!

Re:The United States is throughly corrupt.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I'm tired of visionaries; I want someone practical.

Then vote for one.

That's why Fed subsidies are a poisoned gift

[ericferris]

That story is a very good example of why Federal subsidies are a poisoned gift. An entity starts accepting money from Washington. It starts living above its means. Then D.C. can force the entity to toe the line on whatever matter the lobbyists du jour have sold to Congress, otherwise, no more free money!

Federalization of education is not a good idea. Power should be closer to the universities. Tuitions should reflect actual costs.

Besides, providing more funds to the universities has only resulted in jacking up tuition costs. I don't see an increase in degree quality or research results.

We need the universities to get their snout out of the Fed feeding trough. If all Fed funds were cut, more liberty and responsibility would result, which is always a good thing.

Re:The United States is throughly corrupt.

[ceoyoyo]

Voting might help too. If enough people do it....

Re:Democrats are socialists?

[goldspider]

But of course, both major parties have engineered the system to neatly exclude any serious opponent to their way of rule. It isn't random circumstances that got the Libertarian and Green candidates in the 2004 election ARRESTED FOR TRYING TO PARTICIPATE IN A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.