Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EPIC Response To RIAA Letters

Posted by timothy on from the open-stacks-are-better-than-closed dept.

Mephie writes "News.com is reporting that, in response to letters the RIAA sent to universities warning about P2P file sharing, the Eletronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is sending letters to universities warning against cracking down on file swapping. EPIC calls attempts to do so "fundamentally incompatable with the mission" of "foster[ing] critical thinking.""

6 of 16 comments (clear)

  1. Err... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have to say that while I'm not a tremendous fan of monitoring, and the RIAA/MPAA have definitely been pulling dirty stunts before, EPIC's claim about them damaging "critical thinking" is kind of bogus. The "chilling effect" bit is kind of silly, as is the attempt to squeeze in fair use (which is quite important, and is even relevant to some of the things the RIAA/MPAA has done, but has nothing to do with Britney Spears music bootlegging on a campus connection).

    Also, I suspect that most univ. administrators couldn't care less about potential "security" or "privacy" issues that EPIC is calling "purported risks of P2P". They care about massive bandwidth usage, though.

    Frankly, EPIC would be better off going after legislation (which *is* an issue) that our *AA friends are trying to push through.

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:Err... by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EPIC's claim about them damaging "critical thinking" is kind of bogus. The "chilling effect" bit is kind of silly...

      I don't think you understand their position. They are claiming that once electronic surveillance measures that "read" the contents of file transfers is installed to thwart trading of copyrighted materials, that same technology could be easily modified in the near future to block the transmission of ny other digital information. Knowing that the university is reading every single thing you send or receive is likely to put a chill into most people, even if what they are "saying" over computer networks is relatively benign.

      GMD

      --
      watch this
    2. Re:Err... by octalgirl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Read closer - it clearly states monitoring for bandwidth usage and security is appropriate, it's peeking into the content that is not. That's where the line is crossed between managing a network resource, and invading ones privacy and freedom of speech. The RIAA and such clearly want them to monitor the content too.

      "While network monitoring is appropriate for certain purposes such as security and bandwidth management, the surveillance of individuals' Internet communications implicates important rights, and raises questions about the appropriate role of higher education institutions in policing private behavior."

  2. missing the point? by imsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is this response missing the point, or is it just me? I mean, the issue is really whether the colleges are responsible for the behavior of the users of their networks, and whether they have to be proactive in that policing. Like it or not, as it currently stands, P2P files sharing is a form of re-distribution, and copyright exists to prevent re-distribution. Like it or not, as long as the case-law supports the application of analog media rights to both the digital form of analog works and wholly digital works, the copyright holders are entitled to reparations. The issue is who is responsible for the police work required to cite and punish offenders. The government doesn't want to do it. The copyright holders would like to, but that amounts to vigilantism, so no one thinks that is a good idea. The ISP's and GSP's are common-carriers, so can't be held responsible for the behavior of users. So, of course, corporate and educational WANs, with their many users and fat-pipe connections are logical targets. The argument against imposing such responsibilities upon these institutions aren't so much about privacy, its about not having to be proactive. Being proactive incurs expense without return, and these Institutions are only liable for the behavior of members when they act in the name of the Institution, not when they abuse internal resources to engage in private activities. There is little incentive to crack down on these internal abuses because the cost of enforcement is, in the big picture, greater than the return. They should say to the copyright holder, "Without violating the integrity of my network, bring me the hardware address of the suspect, and we will grant them due process, and if we believe they are in violation of the law, we will give the appropriate logs to the civil prosecutor in our jurisdiction." If the technology isn't available for the grieved party to identify their aggressor, then perhaps they should not release their digitized-analog and wholly-digital works into the wild. (Shepherds are not compensated for sending their flocks into the domain of the lion and wolf without protection, they are chastised.)

  3. Its too late by ninthbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pandoras box has already been opened. All monitoring will do is have the P2P traders just encrypt the connections, thus adding more overhead. In addition the personel the Univ. is going to hire is going to be the same students that are transfering the files.

    The only way they will stop it is to get involved in the file sharing and start going after people. People have the 'I won't get caught' mentality.... actully is it even illegal yet? Since no one is charging and all.

  4. Re:sheesh by fmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a big stinkin' pile. The universities aren't stifling "critical thinking", they are rescuing their bandwidth from the pr0n-swappers.

    Since when did the RIAA give a damn about porn swapping? The letter from EPIC was a direct response to an RIAA letter which encouraged universities to become enforcers for the RIAA's copyrights. If universities were having such horrible bandwidth usage by porn-swappers, then they would not need the RIAA to encourage them to shut off P2P services, would they?