Copyright Lobbies Threaten Federal College Funding

plasmacutter writes "The EFF is raising the alarm regarding provisions injected into a bill to renew federal funding for universities. These new provisions call for institutions of higher learning to filter their internet connections and twist student's arms over 'approved' digital media distribution services. 'Under said provision: Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable — (2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity. Similar provisions in last year's bill did not survive committee, it appears however that this bill is headed toward the full house for vote.' Responding to recriminations over this threat to university funding, an MPAA representative claims federal funds should be at risk when copyright infringement happens on campus networks." We've previously discussed this topic, as well as similar issues.

Old News

[techno-vampire]

The story links to an article that was posted on November 19, 2007! From what it says, the bill's already been debated. Isn't this just a tad out of date?

Segment of the article

[cbart387]

Here is the segment in question. It doesn't look as dire as what the summary makes it out to be ... at least to me

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.
            (a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--

                        (1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and

                        (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.

Nope..

[Anonymous Coward]

The main story [eff.org] from the EFF blog is dated jan 14th '08

Re:These 4-Letter Trade Groups...

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.

Re:Here is a nvel idea. Stop Stealing!

[skeeto]

Well bucko's, I hate to tell you this, you dont! The law makes it quite clear that you DO NOT have any right to do so and in point of fact doing so is a violation of said LAW and in knowingly violating said LAW you damn well deserve whatever happens to you either as a result of a criminal case or civil case brought against you.

Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. For example, in countries that have more unjust laws than the US, such as China, do the journalists who break the law when they make negative reports about the government "deserve whatever happens" to them?

The purpose of copyright is not to make anyone money. It is to expand the public domain for the good of the public. Copyright law is meant to serve the public. The constitution says nothing about artists deserving to make any kind of money. It is all about benefitting the public. Current copyright law actually does the opposite of its original purpose: as copyright gets stretched, works never fall into public domain. It is an unjust law that should be broken. As long as politicians are paid off, this unjust law will only get worse. Because of this, I would even argue that it may even be our duty to break copyright law.

Sharing our own culture is our right. This has been taken away from us.

You can whine and snivel all you want, but the law is the law. You don't like the law? Then form a group, a coalition, raise money to hire the best K's streeters you can afford to lobby congress to get it changed, That is how the system works, use it.

This group is called the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org].

Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[Dragonslicer]

Don't believe me? The Democrats created the DMCA.

If Wikipedia is to believed on this, that's not quite true.

Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) on July 29, 1997

It was proposed by a Republican to a Republican-controlled Congress. Sure, all the Democrats voted for it, and Clinton signed it (not that he had much of a choice anyway), but we should try to be as accurate as possible.