Copyright Lobbies Threaten Federal College Funding 277
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.
{sigh} (Score:4, Insightful)
It's Free Money!!! w00t! (Score:1, Insightful)
When you come to rely on the government for handouts, don't be surprised when you're bitten by politics.
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Insightful)
Industry associations declare war on youth - again (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a priority call (Score:4, Insightful)
We're on the road!
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:{sigh} (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t! (Score:1, Insightful)
No, it's much better to leave school to the elite like in past centuries, that way when the feudal system returns all our schooling will end once we learn how to say "yes me lord, very well!" Genius.
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Insightful)
We could vote 'em out of office, but that didn't work too well either last year. The new ones quickly became just as evil and corrupt as the old ones.
Sigh.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree with this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Insightful)
Since When Is This Our Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright violations is a problem that affects a group of companies and an industry. Why should we be forced to collectively pay for their outdated business model/practices? How does this benefit the rest of us? If you don't think we'll end up paying for this, imagine what happens when universities don't get their Federal funding and our students don't get their education. Higher education is an absolute necessity for a productive country.
Proper Outlets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, we don't have to buy them, we already pay for them. We just have to act like it. Money does not keep them in office we do.
A group of voters from their district in any significant number scares the sh!t out of most Congressmen. Especially when they have petitions, signs and a few soccer moms.
no illegal activity (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, no one under 21 is supposed to drink. Most students at colleges are under 21, so clearly colleges should do more to make sure that alcohol is not available to the majority of the students.
I would also certainly think the software distributors would want the same protections, and representatives like the BSA has a zero tolerance policy. If one piece of pirated software is found on one computer on the campus, revoke all the funding.
i also know from pretty good sources that our college campuses are swarming with stolen calculators. Underage kids steal them, and then sell to college kids for half price. It is hard to prosecute the college kids for receiving stolen property, btu easy enough to revoke funding if the school does not put into place a program to teach the kids that stealing is wrong. Because, obviously, the problem is not that the temptation of cheap calcultors, but that they students were never taught right from wrong.
Re:It's easy to be against - solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second of all, no one is necessarily opposed to cracking down on piracy, we're opposed to the bullshit "you must offer an alternative" clause. Why don't we have all businesses making doing business with them mandatory while we're at it?
Re:"Develop a plan" (Score:1, Insightful)
The DMCA says point blank its provisions should not infringe on fair use, but judges have since ruled to eliminate it.
You are still correct, but only in the sense that the conservative appointed judges who rule the court system will side with whoever has the most money--E.G. Corporations--when it comes down to a court battle over rights.
private companies get eminent domain over private citizens when it's "for the betterment of the community", for instance.
University Money (Score:2, Insightful)
write or call you representative and tell them what a crock this is.
Special Place (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's easy to be against - solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, freedom of choice, that's new. And they're already bankrupt. Wouldn't it be great if it were in dollars too? Then we'd be rid of these distractions that waste our physical and financial lives.
"I don't know about you but most of my favorite movies weren't made in someones garage with a new mac. It's nice when people do that... but no I don't want to see professional art disappear in favor of someones amateur attempts."
Everyone was an amateur once. Amateurs existed before there was an industry and they will after it is gone. Professional art, the tastes of the arrogant running roughshod over the tastes of everyone else.
I'm sorry, but this is an all-time grammatical low (Score:5, Insightful)
"These new provision"
"institutions of higher learn"
"We've previous discussed"
(At least) Three gross errors in one posted article. And to think that this is about federal funding for public colleges and universities. I humbly submit we need more.
There's no such things as free money. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I'm interested.. a ballpark figure is fine, i don't expect you to divulge your yearly earnings for everyone to see.. I mean, sure if you feel like boasting..
Point is.. You and I (and most people on this site, i imagine) earn more than the average person. Hell, I earn more than the average American, and i do it in a foreign currency with a lower value. For you and I, picking a school for our kids is a matter of choice. But we're relatively big fish... what about all those people who can't afford private schooling? Don't their kids deserve to be (at least potentially) useful, educated and productive members of society? I mean, there's only one alternative to that, and it's being a constant drain on welfare... Frankly, i'd rather have a bunch of rich people complaining about paying taxes so that poor kids can get educated than a bunch of rich people complaining because they were repeatedly mobbed by beggars just outside their door.
Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the (Score:1, Insightful)
How does this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true.
If no one is buying their product, they will claim that it is due to the illegal copying of their product - proving that they need more stringent laws.
Ad infinitum.
Re:It's a priority call (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares? The next generation won't need a college education unless they want to move to a technology leader country such as Japan or China. The US will simply move down the ladder to 3rd world status. When the out of work Americans can't afford iPods and high speed internet anymore, the problem will go away.
(end rant)
It is important to have universities teach. This attack on education (it isn't support in any way) is outside the scope of what a university is all about. I hope this doesn't get traction and stuff that helps higher learning instead of attacking it gets traction.
Re:Segment of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
Ok, what do you mean it doesn't look dire?
Number 1 is already borderline in my books, number 2 is right over the top.
Number 2 says the university must both actively promote some sort of legal alternative, while simultaneously seek technology to filter illegal activity. In order to qualify for federal funding.
Don't let the 'develop a plan' phrasing lull you. They want a strategy, with a timeframe, and deadline for implementation. You aren't getting off the hook with: "My plan for curbing torrents: 'put a port block on XXX'. To be implemented by the year 2058. The end."
There is no simply justification for federal funding to hinge on pandering to an industry lobby group. Not ever.
What's next? MADD gets to ram through some legislation where the university will have to develop a plan to prevent drinking and driving, including instituting technological measures to prevent it [just imagine what that would look like!], if they want federal funding.
And then the religious right wingnuts get theirs... the university has to develop a plan to ensure illegal sexual behaviour* is technologically prevented...
(*in some states anal and oral sex are illegal, but hey this could be expanded to cover anything remotely indecent or other riske mischief that students are particularly famous for...)
Bottom line, the university is not responsible for policing students. The police are. This is pure and utter bullshit. I sure hope there is some way of challenging the legality of this law itself.
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Insightful)
One would think that debt-ridden students should be the last target on an RIAA hit-list.
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if this does not happen, eventually, the public will get sick and tired of their gradually unreasonable demands, and we can hope that something like what happened with DRM in music will happen in the entire content industry.
Perhaps all this is just a pipe dream, but even so, it still feels good not to support an immoral cartel myself.
Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know anything about McCarthyism? He basically labeled anyone who opposed his beliefs a communist. If you read the parent's post carefully, you'd see that he actually speaks for productivity, trade, and competition - hardly communist ideals.
Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite what some people would have you believe, there's more to the world that just black and white partisan politics; there are middle grounds. You can have a mixed system to promote the general well being and the common good without becoming ruthless or authoritarian, which, coincidentally, is what can happen to capitalist societies if left alone. A good example is the political corruption of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. It wasn't the free market that fixed those problems, is was (the now called) socialist policies, and without those policies, life would generally suck.
Communism doesn't work (at least, it hasn't in the past), but plutocracy ain't too hot either. Think of economic policies like salt. Salt is made up of an explosive metal and a poisonous gas, but without salt, you die. Pure communism and capitalism are very bad things; we need a mixture, and sometimes the mixture needs to be adjusted. If it wasn't for having a mixture, we'd both probably be working in sweatshops right now.
Re:Segment of the article (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Provide the students, faculty, etc, the boilerplate in the student handbook -- link from the front page of the school site to the same.
2) Limit all on campus networks to Comcast cable. The FCC already knows they filter traffic, and it is "technology-based" so that should meet the requirements of #2
Requirements met.
Now, once the FCC slams Comcast for violating net neutrality, well, back to square one.
Question: What would it take for universities to gain protection under net neutrality?
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, voting for one of the 'big-guns' rather than the candidate you actually support would be throwing your vote away. Backing your guy, even knowing they will not win, is using your vote exactly as you are supposed to.
Re:{sigh} (Score:2, Insightful)
Information is priceless: http://opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org] - http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do [cq.com]
Re:no illegal activity (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that a government should be able to deny access to social services to any citizen/permanent resident is ridiculous. Education is something that should be encouraged, and not denied to anyone.
I am from Australia---we've had a system of government-funded university tuition for many years, though, in the last 20 years or so, students have been required to pay a contribution (loaned by the government, and repaid through the tax system). An engineering degree currently costs the student AU$7118/year, for instance. This is available to all citizens, permanent residents, and New Zealand citizens, among others (though non-citizens must pay their contribution up-front). Disqualifying any citizen (see Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for more information) would be a rather unpopular move.
What does one have to do to be disqualified from receiving funding in the US? I have heard that a criminal record was sufficient, but I have trouble believing that.
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Insightful)
Mathematically this is provable to be incorrect. The rational choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils, provide that the evils are at least somewhat distinguishable. As long as one or the other of the "evils" prevails, neither has much motivation to change the status quo, so voting for a non-viable third party actually reinforces the marginally greater of the evils, both in its evil tendencies, and in keeping the status quo intact.
Basically, the situation drives the parties to create an arbitrary dividing line, then huddle up against each other on either side of the line. There is incentive to make sure the territory on your side of the line is unambiguously claimed as yours, but there is also disincentive to stray far from that line (unless everybody else seems to be doing it, which means the line is moving).
The "real solution" is to choose a system of government and voting in which parties have influence that roughly reflects their support among the voters. No system is perfect, but many would be better than what we have. This is actually a prerequisite to making dramatic improvements in the governance of of the country. But marginal differences do often matter. Marginal differences got us into Iraq; the problem is that they aren't enough to get us out.