Slashdot Mirror
Congress Asks Universities To Enforce Copyrights
Wes Felter writes "In CNet, Declan McCullagh writes that members of Congress are concerned that universities are not enforcing the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act which made simple copyright violations into a federal crime. Should universities be responsible for tracking down illegal sharing on their networks? Will ISPs be next?"
Dont most universities already have a policy
that internet access can only be used for academoc purposes? Ours does.
that said, no one tried enforcing this yet.
And now instead of not getting to graduate because of thousands of dollars in library fines, students get to be ousted for copyright infringement.
Ironic, however, this connection between P2P and a Library. Wha?
Create a P2P *wireless* sharing device. Just load it up with stuff and go cruise around at your favorite public sharing area... I'm sure that we'll see this in campus yards as soon as students lose the right to steal their music and other stuff. They'll just create their own network to share stuff on...
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
If the government wants Universities to start cracking down on Copyright infringement, or ISP's for that matter. They should either give them money/grants to fund the resources necessary to do this or send them a couple of people trained on how to do this.
I always thought it was the governments job to enforce the laws - not public/private organizations.
At our school, we seem to have someone that carefully watches everything. This man must spend hours a day trying to stop people from using Kazaa and other P2P programs. Everyonce in a while he'll get an e-mail from the MPAA stating that someone has been sharing a movie that's not even in the theater yet and they'll sue the school if it's not stopped. As long as you have an open network, people are going to find ways to share files. Putting pressure on the University is just going to make life a lot more difficult for administration and for students.
i got to a smaller university in Pennsylvania having an on campus sharing network is a help to our campus networking, now they would never personally announce that but before the sharing the network was constantly bogged down because under some policy they are not allow to block "entertainment" from the internet so having the p2p on campus helps out outbound traffic substantally allowing for greater bandwith for it acutal purpose
Under a 1997 law called the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), it is a federal crime to willfully share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies or music with anyone if the value of the work exceeds $1,000 or if the person hopes to receive files in return. Violations are punishable by one year in prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in prison.
I hope they mean 'value' as in 'sticker price' and not 'value' as in 'worth money' because Mozilla alone has saved me **AT** **LEAST** $1000 in therapy and counseling over pop-up ads, spyware and stupid-ass animations so its overall value is probably much higher than $0.
What about other OSS like Enterprise RedHat? Can't you install that on a bunch of boxen for the after you pay the $1500 price tag?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Well, given that, according to the article, you can get 5 years in prison for sharing files, I'd say the law considers it pretty serious.
I wonder what would happen when a college student is jailed for 5 years for sharing his cd-collection over the internet. Would there be massive demonstrations, and public outrage, or would everyone still be either indifferent, or posting about it on Slashdot?
According to a recent article in the newspaper at my former college, they've already recieved letters from Peachnet (keepers of the 'net connection). I heard rumors for years about FBI raids in the dorms, and almost yearly people would go in a panic backing up harddrives and taking their computers home for the week. Looks like the threat is finally real. Not that I'm saying anyone was actually guilty...I'm just saying :)
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
every time there's a story like this, someone will
come in and say that filesharing has legitimate
purposes as well etc etc..
BUT.. fact is.. the vast majority of, and I mean vast, files
on p2p are illegal.
Now.. consider this.. say there was this little bar.. where 5% drank beer and were jolly happy.. and the rest, 95%, were trading illegally stolen properties like furniture and microwave ovens and whatever.. and they were doing it casually, and everyone in the entire city knew about it.. it was widely known in every media like internet, tv etc.. so what do you think the police would have done? Exactly.. and it would have hurt those 5% who actually did what you're supposed to do in a bar.
Would this imply that all bars should be shut down because people could do illegal stuff there? Hardly.. BUT.. if there is a place that is known for illegal stuff, even though it also has legal uses, shold it not be shut down?
So basically.. it is easy to observe p2p networks.. those who are legal, should be let alone.. those which are mostly illegal, should be shut down.. it doesn't matter..
and in fact, the vast majority of p2p networks are mostly illegal in their contents. Because let's face it, there is simply NO WAY the majority of files on big p2p networks WON'T be illegal.. you could say it's the right thing to do to give humans the benefit of doubt, but it is a simple facet of human nature that if people can share illegal digital files on p2p networks, they WILL do so.. and it is also so in real life.
If 9 out of 10 people in a place are doing criminal stuff, surely that should be enough to shut down the place, even if it would hurt the rest 10%.. this is how it works elsewhere, why shouldn't it be the same for p2p?
Actually, there are cases before the courts (in Canada anyway) that are challenging this. If a person gets into an acident when drinking and driving, it is being argued that the place that provided the drinks is at fault. That is, it becomes the responsibility of the bar, the restaurant, the host of a private party, whatever, to take away your keys.
So, by extension, if you provide the means to make illegal file sharing possible, you also have the responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with this except for the fact that it can't be done. The whole debate around illegal file sharing (note the word "illegal") isn't whether or not it should be legal, but how to stop it. I can't look at an mp3 file and tell whether or not it is a legal copy. I don't expect universities can either.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
Any filesharing servers that were on our networks protected them selves with heavy logging. The computing department became surprisingly lenient when faced with evidence that the largest downloaders were on their staff. Of course our esteemed leader was less than competent, not even know which official servers were running. Foxes guarding hen houses is not such a bad idea. They will protect them for their own and they will know best how to. Not only that but i imagine that they are heavy net users and will throttle filesharing during normal hours for their benefit as well as other users. The best person to see if a system is vulnerable is a good cracker... employ them instead of fighting them.
Colleges will generally go as far as possible to avoid bringing in the police. Cynically, it's bad public relations to be connected with crime. It's only been in recent years that most campuses have been shamed into encouraging rapes to be reported. Rapes are the obvious case where we should want the police in. But what about gay sex in the states where that's still illegal? What about kids having a beer? Smoking a joint?
The law is traditionally less restrictive on the privileged - trusts them to have a native sense of good that may be more refined that that in the code books. Thus Geo. Bush Jr., faced with a law that said he had to serve in the military, got into the National Guard and got away with skipping duty - didn't even show up for that - for a year. Okay, so there are times where this exception is regrettable. But his grandfather stole the skull of an Indian child from a cemetary as a Skull & Bones prank. There are pretty serious laws about this, but they weren't applied - he was a privileged student.
Still, the law is a regrettable intrusion that should only be applied when human beings are not behaving themselves - when real harm is being done to someone other than themselves. Busting a student for drinking a beer or sharing a song does more harm than good to people. Beer and songs are both positive things, on the whole. And anyone who has behaved and studied well enough to get into college should be trusted to be not as in need of supervision by the law as someone who had neither the internal discipline nor intelligence to get there.
A society overly concerned with enforcing laws - especially laws which serve business but not human interests - is violating the fundamental right of humans to live a good life as they see fit. Policing, in itself, is not a virtue, and is a value only to dictators.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
They wanted to define "sharing copyrighted material with the purpose of recieveing copyrighted material" as having commerical interest in sharing, in short making all illegal P2P sharing criminal offenses. Anyone know if they succeeded, sounded like a pretty cheap shot to me, but that's not exactly a surprise.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Your right the Uni's do have enough to be doing without policing thier networks - but then perhaps no one would mind a law enforcement agency monitoring the network......but then the privacy argument starts and "Help help my rights are being infringed upon blah blah blah".
At the end of the day if people can get away with it they will some one must enforce the law - you have two choices:
1) Do it in house
2) Have the government/police do it for you
What would you prefer?
.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
The people sending these notices have no idea whether the files are there on your student's system or not.
How do I know? I'm a security technician / systems admin for a research institution. We don't have many people trying to use bootleg file sharing programs -- and our networks guys block some of the more common ones. We still get these notices from MPAA and BSA claiming that we have everything from movies to office software up for download on KaZaA.
No, that's not the funny part. The funny part is that the IP addresses given in these threats, 80% of the time, are IP addresses that do not have computers on them ... and never have. We have a few subnets still reserved for future expansion, never been used ... and these are where the copyright terrorists claim we have bootleg files. (The other 20% of the time, the addresses exist, but they still don't have any files on them.)
As far as I can tell, somewhere out there is a glitch in a KaZaA implementation that is listing our disused addresses as hot places to get movies ... and the terrorists are believing it, without even checking. That's right. They don't download the file from your student's system and then send the threat. They see a link to that system, do nothing whatsoever to verify it, and send the terrorist threat.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what it is: a terrorist threat, a threat of harm (specifically, abuse of the legal system, spurious prosecution), by a non-governmental group, in order to scare people into going along with a radical political movement.
If you bust your students, the terrorists have already won.
I have yet to find a relationship or family that was killed by a smoking driver. (sure it's happened but not every 3 minutes like a DUI) I have yet to see a family torn apart and divorce because of Malboro. I know a lot that have personally because of Jack Daniel's.
The point is. The RIAA has a lot of liberal friends. Both parties have cigarette but lately more alcohol friends. It's not what's best in politics and lawmaking, it's what's best for me. (ME = Senator/Representative/Lawyer)
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
So where do you put the 100s of CS majors who spend hours coding over that useless internet connection? how many computers are in the lab at your school? Do you want to have to sleep in line for a week to use one?
Has anyone in Congress considered the fact that enforcing such strictures will likely soon be impossible? Even now, the act of policing how people are using their computer would involve invading their privacy.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the natural evolution of this technology will be to add encryption. On top of that, perhaps use mix-net or other anonymizing technology. Run all the traffic over port 443. How do you police that? Bet you can't wait to tell your boss that the $50,000 you spent on a Packeteer is down the toilet. We read recently how Microsoft is collecting information about your computer every time you do an update. Perhaps we should pass legislation which mandates that people disclose the contents of their hard drives without warrent? Give me a break.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
What my uni does is this: They ignore everything until you go over an unknown bandwith cap (best estimate's > 10 GB per month). Then they fine you fifty quid (~75USD).
My uni is tiny by UK standards but even so our ITS department is overstretched and underfunded. Fortunately, Congress can't reach us directly... yet.
-Mark
This doesn't make sense. If your institution allows students to connect personal equipment to provided networks they must have made them agree to some sort of acceptable use policy which places the legal burden of the contents of the system on student. In a similar way students will have to agree to rules when using institutional systems. If someone steps outside those rules then they are responsible not the institution. As an employee of the institution you don't have that responsibility.
Illegal activity performed by an individual is the responsibility of the individual unless it is being carried out on behalf of an institution in which case they share liability. The only way that you could be made liable would be if you knowingly ignored such illegal acts.
If you have been told that you are responsible then you need to press the institution to either a) issue a ban on connecting equipment to your network, or b) get the students to sign a document absolving the institution and thereby yourself for the contents of their system and their use of the network.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Unfortunately I don't have the list with me but someone posted a good list on /. awhile ago. IT's a pretty comprehensive list of all the IPs used by all the scanning companies (private companies that have magically become cops) for the media industry. Just deny any any for all those IP addressess. At this point, you are under no legal obligation to let them look at your network, so why allow them to?
How abuo
.
Just write a quick reply to them stating that something like.
Dear xxx,
We would be happy to process your request for case #xxxxxx
However, due to the recent number of erroneous claims by various organisations you will need to provide us with the IP address that you used to determine this illegal fileshare. As soon as we confirm from our traffic logs a transfer of illegal material from that address to your address we will deactive the account of that student.
You prompt response is requested.
Network admin xxxxxxx
If we all do this and share out the IP's we get back, we can soon find out where these people are operating from and block there IP's at our firewall.
I don't know about the US, but here a recent study showed that 70% of the pupils here in Norway pirate music. Crossreference that with the number of broadband users and you realize that many of them download off dial-up connections (ISDN dial-up is common though). *When* everyone has broadband (and it's no doubt in my mind it'll become a commodity fairly fast), I think that will be pushing damn close to 100%.
It's about as common as going 5 over the speed limit, and you're not a threat to your own, your passengers or public safety either. Sure, it's still illegal and you'll get a fine if they pull you over, but noone *cares*. Give it a few years and those'll be the voters and the ones in power. Somehow I don't think they'd want to do anything *effective* to stop it.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
As bad as the position is (I think it's repugnant), it's become fully legal (no case of it, afaik, has been overturned, despite several challenges). The first example of this, that I can think of, was the 1980's, when the Congress made continued receipt of Interstate highway funds contingent on raising the drinking age to 21 (it was this that finally forced the last few holdouts (like New York, Vermont, etc.) to raise their ages).
The justness of a law hangs on a lot more than enforcability.
I'm not sure I agree. Please give an example of a just law that can only be enforced if people squeal on one another. For example, murder, would not qualify, because its enforcement does not rely on the fact that someone must report "I saw John kill Mary." But anything that you do in the privacy of your home that does not produce a victim would pretty much fit the unjust laws we're talking about. The only means of enforcement is to invade my privacy.
They'll get the ISP to enforce it, so I'll just start encrypting my filesharing. Etc. It will just escalate. It will ultimately depend on one party reporting that they observed another party doing it. Like photocopying from a library book for a report to get you thrown in the slammer.
The justness of a law hangs on a lot more than enforcability.
I don't agree. The enforcability hangs on the justness. Any just law can be enforced. Many unjust laws can be enforced. But there are, IMHO, my whole argument here, NO just laws that cannot be enforced.
We're going to make it illegal to have oral sex in your own bedroom. To protect public morality, of course. How can such a law be enforced?
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Not just those. Everyone should be vigilant. Big Brother is watching, but he needs your help. Turn in your neighbours, your brothers, your sisters, your parents. They are a plague on society and must be re-educated.
Oh, and your chocolate ration has been increased from 10 grams to 5 grams.
Yes. Its is against the law to infringe copyrights.
But, so what?
It was illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus.
It's illegal to exceed the speed limit.
Its illegal to have a radar detector.
Its illegal to drink when you're twenty
In fact, in many states, its illegal to have oral sex. (crimes against god and nature).
So what?
The truth is at any given time, there are laws which are senseless because they protect some monied contituent. You probably have broken 10 laws in the last week alone.
Its pretty clear that a majority of the citizens of the world think copyright laws as they exist today are just another "SPEED LIMIT 55" signs.
Yeah. They're there. They're illegal. But so what.
I don't feel bad if every last RIAA member goes bankrupt. It won't bother me for 30 seconds if April Lavnigne (or whatever) never makes another record.
They simply are silly laws that everybody (well, except "perfect" you) ignores because they are silly laws.
Yes, I should contact my congressman to get the law changed, but I've got a life. I'll do what needs to get done and take care of the big things, and that's that.
I just don't care about your alleged use of P2P networks. I just don't care that people with something to lose are claiming copying a song is the equivalent of murder. I'm not going to fight, I'm going to ignore.
Thought crime is being defined as we watch. Witness this horror:
Members of the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees copyright law said at a hearing that peer-to-peer piracy was a crime under a 1997 federal law, but universities continued to treat file-swapping as a minor infraction of campus disciplinary codes.
"If on your campus you had an assault and battery or a murder, you'd go down to the district attorney's office and deal with it that way," said Rep. William Jenkins, R-Tenn.
Yes, Mr. Jenkins really compared sharing music to murder as moral equivalents requiring similar responses. This is a large step above the usual loaded language of "piracy". Equating the two actions morally represents the destruction of morals and replaces them with laws guided by self interest rather than moral sense. The punishments are equivalent too. The average murder or rape conviction gets you five year in jail. Violating the oxymoronically named NET act will get you five yars as well. That is the essence of thoughtcrime. Orwel's nightmare society had no laws, as all that was demanded was strict obedience in word, thought and deed. The punishment for violating the one law in any way was, of course, the same. This is very distrubing.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Ummm, NO. A citizen has absolutely -NO- legal obligation to report a crime. If you believe otherwise, please state your sources.
It seems to me that universities are not in a position to determine all by themselves exactly what consitutes "illegal" sharing. The universities may very well have self-authorized enforcement rights over their own AUP, as they truly do own the campus network. Such an AUP might reasonably restrict P2P (mostly due to resource consumption), but that's a far cry from notifying law enforcement and/or the gods of copyright.
I used to work in higher ed. If I was dealing with this issue today, I would include resource-wasting language in the AUP, naming P2P as an example. But tossing the resource squanderers would be as far as it goes until there are court orders, warrants, and/or subpeonas that specify precisely what to do and to whom. Appeasement of the copyright industry means the students all get pro bono lawyers from ACLU, and the universities get buried in lawsuits as well as a boatload of bad press. Higher education is the same as any other industry: take care of your customer or someone else will. RIAA is not a customer, so they are to be handled as a nuisance -- bare minimum legal cooperation.
Universities (or other network owners for that matter) are in no position to determine the copyright validity of every file fragment in transit across their network. No one really is, which is why the music industry must adapt or die.