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.
"Develop a plan" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:{sigh} (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Develop a plan" (Score:5, Interesting)
We are all criminals in their eyes! (Score:5, Interesting)
In the eyes of the federal government, we are all terrorists, so our Constitutional rights should be taken away.
In the eyes of Comcast and Verizon, we all use our Internet connections that we pay for to do illegal stuff, so we should have our Internet connections regulated, censored, and spied on.
In the eyes of the MPAA and RIAA, we are all illegal software pirates that deserve to be sued for millions of dollars.
And in the eyes of collages and universities across the United States, we are all criminals who are plotting school shootings and bombings, and deserve to have the FBI raid our dorms, be arrested, and be kicked out of collage.
See the picture here? Everyone thinks that if they label every single person on Earth as a criminal, it will make all our problems go away. But they are wrong. They are all wrong.
The federal government thinks they are keeping us safe by treating every single American as a terrorist plotting to blow up the country, but what about the people who actually are plotting something like that? They would never catch them because they would be too bush prosecuting innocent people to notice!
With airports locked down tightly thesse days, travelers are annoyed by all the security checks and security stuff to make sure people don't have weapons. But the people who actually want to do harm could probably easily smuggle that kind of stuff by them.
And for all the piracy bullshit, they think that shoving the DMCA and RIAA lawyers in everyone's faces will stop the 1% of people who ACTUALLY steal software, movies, and music, while the other 99% of us suffer. But it WON'T! Hell, I'm getting very tempted to start illegally putting brand new movies on BitTorrent just to stick it to the RIAA, MPAA, etc. If we're all criminals in these people's eyes, what would it matter? Personally I don't agree with downloading movies and music (with music sucking with that rap crap, what is there to download?), but I don't think it should be a federal crime punishable with million dollar fines and stuff.
When will they learn, the government and RIAA can't solve all their problems like this!
Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as the MPAA goes, perhaps they also need to be reminded what happens when they bite the hand that feeds them. (Of course, if the writer's strike lasts long enough, it will leave them very economically vulnerable. What better time to boycott the bastards?)
I agree with this... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War [wikipedia.org]
Re:Segment of the article (Score:1, Interesting)
The only thing the colleges are legally obligated to do under the DMCA is provide identities if they are capable.
Through that lense, I call censoring the internet connections of college students and making their moral decisions for them pretty "over the line" myself.
Why not put a pro-life clause into the bill too... require universities to make publicly available their policies and procedures related to abortion and explore technology based deterrents to such immoral activity.
Re:"Develop a plan" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because we didn't vote the corrupt ones out of office, we voted already corrupt ones in to office. What should have happened is that we should have talked to our party chairperson (on whatever party that we wanted someone out of) and explained that they had 2 choices- make that guy not run for re-election and we'd stick with that party or let that guy run and we'd switch. Party chairs have far more influence than any lobby rep. Believe me these guys will listen when their phones start ringing.
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter what kind of laws they write—if we stop buying their stuff, they will eventually go out of business, fascist laws and draconian enforcements notwithstanding.
Ever since I found out more about the copyright industry vs. the public struggle, I made sure I spent absolutely nothing on what's produced by MPAA and RIAA members—no music sold through a major record label, and no movies (I used to go to theater once every month or so—not anymore). Of course, one man not handing money over to MPAA and RIAA may not make a difference, but if you and I stop making them a profit and tell everyone we know not to, one day we just might.
Not a bad idea?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is the beginnings of one such plan...
2.a. When it comes to music, music that does not have a Free License is not allowed on the campus networks. Net even legally purchased music if it doesn't have a Free License.
2.b. The University has set up a server at freemusic.university.edu where we host music with licenses as described in 2.a.
all the best,
drew
At some point, we're going to have to shoot them.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Show me the candidate that wants to ban credit cards, reduce the terms of patents, or do any structural thing designed to break up the current moneyed class. There isn't one. There's no political party seeking to benefit the American people, merely, a set of dueling soulless juggernaughts, jousting, half drunk with power, over whose lords will crush the masses the most.
Re:{sigh} (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not a bad idea?" (Score:3, Interesting)
2.a A single, purchased copy (at educational discount prices) of all copyrighted works (music and movies) shall be placed in the university library. Additional federal funding will be required to purchase these works, however such funds could be covered by an additional tax on the record labels.
2.b Students will have 24hr online streaming access to the university library, so long as they play/view one work at a time.
After all, turnabout is fair play.
Higher Learn (come on, EDITors) (Score:2, Interesting)
Strange but true (Score:3, Interesting)
How I see it is that RIAA and MPAA are failing to provide their content in a way that is easy, free of silly encumbrances, and are guilty of product tying. In other words, their bleetings are a product of their outmoded and protectionist practices, not because they actually add any value.
Put another way, if RIAA and MPAA are allowed to seek injunctions against receiving their products in a way they don't approve, I'd like to seek injunctions against every power company that provides electricity because it cuts into my profits in selling whale oil and whale oil lamps. Out moded business models should die because of market pressure, not thrive due to political contributions, rigged laws, or "The Disney Copyright Protection Act".
That said, Intellictual property is property, and depriving those that own it of legitimate compensation is theft. There are many inequities in movies, even more in music. But one cannot legitimately usurp agreed contracts of the creators of that IP, no matter how unfair it is to the creators. They agreed to it, after all.
I do not have any
If you don't like the people or the circumstances the work is made available under, the simple solution is to avoid the work. Don't buy it. Don't download it. Don't view it, and don't support them in any way. This is why I've not see a Sony move, bought a Sony CD, or purchsed a PC with Sony chips that I could avoid. (Not always possible, but you can TRY.)
For the same reason, I do not own Blue-Ray. I have HD-DVD. I may have to go to Blue-Ray as it displaces HD-DVD, but I'll only go there once HD-DVD is a thing of the past.
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Interesting)
The real solution is to vote for third parties.. What really scares mainstream politicians is losing votes to someone who isn't well known, because that means that people are beginning to notice that the mainstream parties are two sides of the same coin and rejecting that coin.
Of course, before every election you will hear how you should vote for one of the big candidates, because other votes don't matter. In actuality it is the opposite. Votes for big candidates don't matter since they are all votes for the same coin. They simply reinforce the opinions that the current politicians in power have.
There are of course times when voting for the lesser of two evils has its purpose, but it is far less often than most people would think. To avoid this completly it would of course be better to have a system where you could rank your candidates, but try getting that into the law.
Re:Since When Is This Our Problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Segment of the article (Score:3, Interesting)
2. what illegal downloading are they talking about? Can they state which laws exactly make downloading illegal? Cause if they're talking about the No Electronic Theft act, sorry, that's not relevant to downloading.
3. haha, your stupid country has laws that deal with civil matters with criminal laws.. how fucked are you?
Re:{sigh} (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:{sigh} (Score:3, Interesting)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.- E. Debs
As I live in Texas, for both Senatorial and Presidential elections at least, the way I figure it, voting third party is the only way my vote will count at all. For those that don't know, Texas is a republican state. At the senate and presidential level, the republican candidate will win no matter what. The presidential republican nominee could take a whiz on the Alamo (a major insult to Texas!) with cameras rolling and still win the state.
The republicans know this and the democrats know this. So neither party really cares about the state other than for fund raising. The republicans can take Texas for granted and the democrats know money and time spent here is wasted. Therefore voting for either party doesn't matter. That leaves third party and independent candidates.
Let third party and independent candidates start getting enough votes, and they qualify for federal campaign funds. Now their message and presence will reach more people. In the meantime, it just might rattle the 2 parties enough to throw the people a few scraps to try and win back the voters who have left them.
For those in states whether either party has a lock, voting third party is the only way to make a difference. For those in toss-up states, you have to weigh you choices more carefully.
It has to start somewhere. I'm reminded of a story. A woman was walking along a beach after a big storm. The sun was coming out and the beach was covered with starfish that had washed ashore in the storm, dying because they could not get back in the water. She picked one up and tossed it back into the ocean. A man watching her yelled out, "That won't make any difference!" to which the woman replied, "It made a difference to that starfish."
Re:The Universities Answer; (Score:2, Interesting)