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)
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, seriously, I could deal with it if it was just "crack down on piracy harder", but mandating alternatives?? What the FUCK.
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (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
Re:{sigh} (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (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 situati
Re: (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: (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 w
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The problem is getting enough people in any given district to complain about this. If it's just a drop in the bucket, which it very likely would be, even if every Slashdotter called tomorrow, then it won't have any impact. Too many people are ignorant of what is happening. You think this is getting any kind of coverage in the mainstream news?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, everyone stops buying their stuff and they'll just use it to prove that piracy is that bad and they should get paid by the government.
While that is true to some extent (such as the media tax on blank CDs in Canada), at some point, they are going to run into a wall—another business cartel/union as large and powerful as themselves. Right now, they are fighting against individual (suspected) copyright violators and occasional universities that refuse to bend over to their demand. When they tick off a larger industry, such as ISPs, with some unreasonable demand of profit-sharing, they will have a real fight then, and, eventually, after
Re: (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.
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:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re:{sigh} (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One would think that
"Develop a plan" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Develop a plan" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Develop a plan" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
These 4-Letter Trade Groups... (Score:5, Funny)
They need to learn another 4-letter term: RICO.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Industry associations declare war on youth - again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag (Score:2)
The simple solution is simply not to consume what they produce. If nobody buys / downloads / watches what they output, they will go away.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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.
That may be true, but in the absence of federal subsidies, they will still go away.
Businesses cannot survive without money. It may certainly take quite some time before they finally keel over, but if people stop buying their products, RIAA/MPAA member companies will eventually die off.
It's a priority call (Score:4, Insightful)
We're on the road!
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it's simply more important to protect ??AA profits than it is to have an open and freethinking educational system. Signs of this are all over the place, from both parties. Evolution, anyone? Anyone wonder how soon teaching that the universe is older than 6000 years will be challenged, or Galileo will rejoin the ranks of heretics?
We're on the road!
Okay, did you skip contemporary history in school? There is very little going on in the manipulation of Colleges and universitys that isn't the same as was being done 35-40 years ago, in America. Hell some of the topics are even the same.
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.
Old News (Score:3, Informative)
Nope.. (Score:2, Informative)
Segment of the article (Score:5, Informative)
(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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like they have to go far to find bands to sign up, and sure most of them are utter crap. Still most signed artists are.
If they want to have fun they could take technological measure to stop peer to peer of RIAA music.
Then sit back an watch RIA
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials
to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property
1. which is it, copyrighted materials or intellectual property? Are they trying to suggest the two are synonymous?
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?
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: (Score:2)
Not quite. The idea is to curtail the rights that we don't use much in order for increased security. In the case of the government, it's at least directly for our own protection. No-one actually believes that everyone on Earth is a terrorist. OTOH, I can imagine some deranged person believing that everyone with an internet connection ha
Re: (Score:2)
Higher Learn (come on, EDITors) (Score:2, Interesting)
The Amish Method. (Score:5, Funny)
1) Buy everyone in the school music accounts to download music thus rasing the tutition, Which enrages students and punishes students who prefer going to buy their music at music stores, and will ultimetly result in retention levels dropping in an already competitive market as it is.
Or
2) The Amish Method. Cut the internet cable since there's nothing on the market that can assure 100% piracy free internet, ban all computers since they can make MP3's using a line in jack and a CD player, and ultimely ban electric power from everywhere on campus, since they could possibly use electricy to copy a tape with a boombox or operate an electric guitar.
At least the english, math and history professors would be happy with #2, since calculators would be banned and people would have to be forced to write their thesis's on parchment. Of course, Victrolas would have to be banned too, but it's hard finding a wind up one these days. Maybe they'll come back in vogue.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked at a tech for a residential network at a large university. Let the students contract with private providers, some of the students were doing this anyway after the guys in charge of the connection implemented a hare-brained QoS scheme. The cost per student may actually go down, liability is erased, and the students get better service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sooner everyone is participating in the "buy one, share with the planet" strategy and coordinating media purchases to ensure one and only one copy is sold, then we will finally be free of advertising, promotion and the RIAA.
Pity about all the jobs, but they are all just leeches anyway, right?
I agree with this... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Universities Answer; (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Countries actually do take actions against countries like that if a local industry is threatened. They impose trade tariffs to balance out the difference, so as to encourage back the local industry and help the economy. However, it's been shown time and again that free trade works even better. As for Linus and Stallman, that would be il
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Protecting the rights of artists was the original excuse that distributors had for implementing the law, and it may even have been a good excuse in its time. It even made itself into the US constitution in a slightly edited form. Although to the US forefathe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not true. We don't need total surveillance to monitor You can selectively monitor piracy hotspots, like P2P networks, or illegal websites (think a US version of allofmp3.com, or something akin to that). If people want privacy, it would encourage them to find a network that successfully discourages piracy, or just to stop using the P2
Re: (Score:2)
* Going with the people that provide what you with legal DRM-free music (sometimes dollars free as well)
* Going with the DRM-encumbered music that comes at a dollar price.
If DRM and free music isn't that important to you, you should pay for what you want. Otherwise support those that give you want you want you jackass.
Proper Outlets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To: Mitch Bainwall <chairman-at-riaa.com>; Dan Glickmann <president-at-mpaa.org>
From: president-at-eff.org
Subject: Thanks again!
Thankyou RIAA & MPAA, keep up the good work. Every time you make one of these moves, we get a little extra money.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't generally get worked up about the music issue because I believe there IS a lot of copyright infringement. I get worked up by the claim, quickly retracted, that ripping your own CDs for your own use is illegal or otherwise wrong. I appreciated the EFF pointing out that the "making available" argument holds water as well as a bucket with no bottom, though. Busting p
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: (Score:2)
Or we could just deal with the individuals responsible for breaking the law on an individual basis. What a concept.
Re: (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,
University Money (Score:2, Insightful)
write or call you representative and tell them what a crock this is.
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
Re: (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
Special Place (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How does this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine, but add another provision (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If nobody wanted their products and they were buying government support for their business, that would be different. But obviously there is a market for music the RIAA is empowered to seek e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if the government isn't funding schools, who is?
The states? Big Business? with one i don't see any difference, while the other is 10 times worse than Federal funding, and i'm sure you agree.
I'm curious.. what's your answer to this? Or am i missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are, by your own admission, a smart and personally responsible individual, right? Your dad worked hard to get you to college, and you obviously value it and are making the most of it.. That's good to see, as a lot of kids aren't these days.
However.. i'm not talking about college.. I'm talking about education. If your dad had been forced to pay your full tuition in grade school, middle school and high school,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe me? The Democrats created the DMCA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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... bu
Re: (Score:2)
Truth.
>you threaten the very livelihood of the industry and the artists
Wrong. I threaten the livelihood of RIAA companies like EMI, BMG, SONY etc. The artistes already have lost money from digital sales.
None of the money i pay to iTunes goes to the artist. It is shared between Apple and RIAA company.
So when the real copyright holder gets nothing as a result of a contract which is lopsided, what does he/she have to lose?
If i steal zero dollars from you, does i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 m