Higher Education Committee Releases Report on P2P

djeaux writes "The Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities has released a "Background Discussion of Copyright Law and Potential Liability for Students Engaged in P2P File Sharing on University Networks." The Joint Committee includes representatives from a number of universities, education groups, entertainment industry representatives, and the presidents of RIAA & MPAA. The paper provides an overview of copyright law relating to on-campus P2P file sharing and concludes that "(c)olleges and universities generally do not have a legal duty to control students' private conduct. Students therefore should not assume that their college or university will accept liability for them or provide them with legal representation." The report was distributed to presidents of all institutions that are members of the American Council on Education on Friday, August 8."

Comments

All fine and good

[Lane.exe]

...until an *AA bot nails a student in the music or computer science departments for sharing files legally. Then this little philosophy goes right out the window.

Re:Wait, what the Hell.

[finkployd]

As a counter question, why should Universities act as legal council and protection for their students when their students do illegal things? My University is not going to bail me out if I kill someone or steal a car, so i don't expect them to protect me if I violate someone else's copyright.

This report makes perfect sense, what doesn't is the fact that it took so many high paid people so many hours to do it.

Finkployd

Compromise?

[anubi]

Let copyright be valid for seven years.. A Biblical number, no less...

And enforce the hell out of it during that time.

And at the end of that time, it becomes public domain.

So if you want the latest stuff, pay. We are trying to reward the guys that actually *do* something, not guys that sit on their arse milking work they did seven years ago. Would you hire an employee who expects to remain on the payroll because he did something seven years ago? I thought copyright was to reward the artist for creating, not reward some bozo for sitting on things so nobody else can use it. Excessive copyright time limits only encourage monopolies and extortion, not creativity.

I think a lot of this civil disobedience we are seeing today is a result of this one-sided law we are seeing passed - and a lot of people are getting pissed. They will take it for only so long before we have another Boston Tea Party.

Re:What a concept!

[axxackall]

If you can't afford to police a network you're responsible for, shut it down.

I guess we should shut the whole Internet down - just to be sure.

If you really want to distribute legal files, use another method - FTP server, web server, whatever.

What if he wants to let other users to share their legal files? He just don't have a chance to check everyone.

What if I want to invite to my child's birthday party other classmates with their parents, should I ask them to bring the papers from the police that they are not criminals or should I just shut the whole party down?

You are wrong. Everyone is responsible only for own actions. If there is a law making me responsible for the other's actions - that law is anti-constitutional and can be defeated. If some organization is abusing such laws - that can be defeated. And if I cannot defeat myself against anti-constitutaional laws and actions - I should leave the country where the constitution is not more than a piece of paper.

BTW, it's exactly what I did right after 9/11. The Canadian winter might be colder, but at least my constitutional rights are protected better. Even if I am not a Canadian (yet).