Slashdot Mirror


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."

49 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. What a concept! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, in summary, people should take responsibility for their own actions. What a concept!

    1. Re:What a concept! by paganizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are you, some sort of commie or something? this is obviously a mistake, the people of america DEMAND to be led and taken care of!

      I wonder if this will have any effect on MIT? they already decided that mafIIA subpoena's didn't apply to them, right?

      Besides, the students should be using Freenet, anyway.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    2. Re:What a concept! by gerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, in summary, people should take responsibility for their own actions. What a concept!

      What it also infers is that you take responsibility for others' actions as well. I have a friend who is running a server on a campus (please, anonymity here) running Direct Connect. He shares about 60 gigs of data himself, all legal, such as 'nix ISOs, and free videos, clips, and the such. But, i know, and he knows, that there is a lot of copywright infringing going on.

      How can a person like this host a network such as this? He has neither the time nor resources to monitor everything, nor the money to pay for lawyers, or a program to do it for him. What can someone like this do to protect themselves? Encryption, limiting users?

    3. Re:What a concept! by Arandir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a concept the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon knew. The Greeks and Romans new it. The Saxons and Normans knew it. Even the founders of the US knew it. But somehow that concept has been lost in the modern US. It's truly sad.

      I just wish I knew exactly where to place the blame. Is it the lawsuit culture, where you are promised (but can never collect) millions of dollars by being a victim? Is it the modern welfare state where you are taken care of from cradle to grave? Is it the university professors who teach students that they can change the world by whining? How the heck are you supposed to learn responsibility as a child when your parents think dropping you off at school is the extent of their parenting obligations?

      Unless the culture of the US makes an about-face, it is doomed. I am not a European making cracks at the US. I am a proudly patriotic US citizen. Which is why I am distressed that the whining mediocrity has taken over.

      The solution won't come from the Democrats or Republicans. It won't come from any one politician, no matter how spiffy their website or fiery their oration. Instead it has to come from the bottom foundations of society. People from every walk of life need to stand up and say "I will be responsible for every action I take!" When the lawyer urges you to sue, spit on his shoes. When the politician promises you money if you vote for him, walk away. When you professor tells you that your condition is the result of evil meat-eating while male Europeans, drop the class.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:What a concept! by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I believe it is probably the corporate welfare culture where fictitious legal entities have they mistaken belief they have all the rights of person, and expect the government to take care of them no matter how inept they are. Rather than creating new works, these entities wants to create laws that force persons to buy the same product over and over again. The hypocrisy is that the entities do not take responsibility for their damage they cause. The pass laws that makes the damage legal and forces the persons to pay the consequence.

      And, of course lets not forget that these fictitious entities collect millions from lawsuits, while complaining when real persons try to do the same thing.

      How can a person possible learn responsibility when the most powerful entities in the world do not take a responsibility? How can we be patriotic American that believe in democracy and capitalism, when some of the largest economies in the world are non-transparent command economies?

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:What a concept! by axxackall · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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).

      --

      Less is more !
    6. Re:What a concept! by jonbrewer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I reluctantly quote the parent troll:

      "It's a concept the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon knew. The Greeks and Romans new it. The Saxons and Normans knew it. Even the founders of the US knew it. But somehow that concept has been lost in the modern US. It's truly sad."

      Please don't tell me that robbery is a recent invention, or that it hasn't been practiced by every generation of humans since the advent of personal property. It's not something new, evil, or at all confined to the United States.

      Yeah, I said that robbery isn't evil. It's just a fact of life. Individuals and corporations rob the people of the world all the time. Mining and timber rights, defence department contracts, indefinite copyright - it's all robbery.

      Get off your high and mighty horse. The culture of the US is not doomed. Hell, it was built by Carnige and the likes that history remembers as the "Robber Barrons". GWB is known throughout the world as a tool of modern-day robber barrons - just look at how much money private corporations (such as Halliburton) have made from the war in Iraq!

      Take your complaints about the "whining mediocrity" back to Mom's basement and go lose yourself in some nice, pulpy Ayn Rand.

    7. Re:What a concept! by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 2, Insightful


      "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.

      No, but ISPs should definitely be responsible for policing their networks. And this includes not just P2P, but spammers and hackers as well. You can't have it both ways.

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

      Easy:

      1. Don't provide free services for people, unless you know and trust them.
      2. Allow users to share files, but don't let them use anonymous services. Keep some logs so you can comply with a subpoena.

      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 should try to avoid clouding the argument with far-flung analogies.

      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.

      No, you are wrong. There are plenty of exceptions to this rule. Some examples: companies are responsible for the actions of their employees, parents are responsible for the actions of their children, if you hold a party where you serve alcohol then you may be responsible if your guests drink & drive.

      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).

      The main difference is that Canadians don't have a completely distorted view of the rest of the world.

      -a

  2. Wow by zarthrag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe it takes all of those people just to come up with one common sense solution....As if I was gonna march to the Provost's office and demand a lawyer because I'm a pirate...Geez

    --
    Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
  3. Not unresonable by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Students therefore should not assume that their college or university will accept liability for them or provide them with legal representation.

    Well, that doesn't seem unreasonable. Although, given some of the complaining you hear ("Dear Ask Slashdot. My university network throttles Kazaa traffic. Don't they know the whole point of college is to provide faster warez downloads? Is this a violation of my civil rights?") I'm sure this will be met with outrage, too.

    1. Re:Not unresonable by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Universities are one of the most heavily *subsidized* insitutions around. Even as expensive as tuition is, it doesn't come close to covering the cost of delivering the services students get.

      Actually, as a university researcher, I don't agree with that, espececially at private schools. It's only true in the sense that universities consider everything from a supercollider to sexual harassment settlements to be somehow necessary for undergraduate education.

      If you just consider the direct costs of housing, feeding and teaching undergraduates, I'm sure in most cases it would turn out that undergrads are subsidizing everyone else on campus.

  4. Finger pointing by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Notice that a meeting of everybody involved in this other than the students have declared that the only one who possiby could be liable are the students?

    1. Re:Finger pointing by finkployd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Notice that a meeting of everybody involved in this other than the students have declared that the only one who possiby could be liable are the students?

      Maybe because they are the ones breaking the law? As much as I do not agree with the state of copyright laws as they stand now, it only makes sense to hold the people who are actually breaking them liable. Who would you prefer be liable? And why?

      Finkployd

    2. Re:Finger pointing by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, us and the terrorists....

  5. State funded college or university by David+Hume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Students therefore should not assume that their college or university will accept liability for them or provide them with legal representation.


    This is particularly true at a state funded college or university. Why should tax-payers bear the burden to defend or indemnify students who are accused of copyright infringement?

  6. Common Carrier by AltImage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It sounds like the *AA are basically trying to extend an informal common carrier status to the universities. Probably in exchange for continued future cooperation. That way the *AA avoids lawsuits from anybody with the money/clout to put up a fight (universities) and they still get to intimidate students through litigation.

    1. Re:Common Carrier by Jonboy+X · · Score: 2, Funny

      It sounds like the *AA are basically trying to extend an informal common carrier status to the universities.

      I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, who are the FAA to tell me that I can't fly an unlicensed airplane in the privacy of my own dorm room? It's not even like it's keeping my from buying plane tickets!

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
  7. Why would one assume by Microsofts+slave · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why would one assume that your university is going to give you legal representation. The only way i can see someone being represented by their university for somthing like this would be to hand the case over to their law department and let the stdents chew on it.

    --

    Tragek

  8. wtf by lostinchicago · · Score: 2, Funny

    why did this story turn into spambait

  9. "Releases Report on P2P" by H0NGK0NGPH00EY · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dang. Here I was thinking that some big name committee was getting all tech-saavy and releasing their latest report via a p2p network. But it's just a report about p2p. Why can't the headlines be more clear? I would hate to have to waste my time actually reading the article, after all.

    --
    Do not read this sig.
  10. All fine and good by Lane.exe · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ...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.

    --
    IAALS.
  11. Two ways to read this by Chalst · · Score: 3, Insightful
    First, it means the RIAA etc. have to go after many small fish rather than a few large fish. But, second, it simplifies the case for the RIAA when they do take these actions.

    Vital background reading on this is Larry Solum's posts on "Copynorms", especially his analysis of the RIAA strategy.

  12. A point to ponder by Thatmushroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this was made with both media and university interests in mind, then will universities drop any measures beyond throttling bandwidth?

    --
    You zap the moderators with a wand of humor! The moderators resist!
  13. many universities by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Informative

    have legal services available to students. UT-Austin, for example, will represent students in civil matters for no charge.

    --

    -

  14. Unsummarized issues that we're all wondering... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't provide legal representation. Duh. Why would they?

    I'm just wondering why they're caving constantly to the RIAA. It would be one thing if the way the RIAA worked with the legal system required the RIAA to do a little more work to prove their case before they could file subpoenas, but with the way they are allowed to send subpoenas (without initially warning with cease-and-desists) is stupid.

    A club that I am a member of (25 person science fiction club) had a logo that had been designed before I joined. the problem is that the guy who designed it, who had left the club, was too similar to another logo that was copyrighted and trademarked. So, the organization who owned the original image sent us a polite letter asking us to please use up any consumables with the logo and change the logo. They didn't even get so formal as to do a cease-and-desist, a secretary from that organization sent us the letter. We politely complied.

    Personally, if I was sharing data illegally and received a letter from the RIAA asking me to stop it, after some rather unpleasant bodily functions I would bring myself into compliance. Immediately. I suspsect that anyone else doing this would do the same, at least in the short-term. And if the RIAA knew who I was enough to be able to tell me to cut it out, I'd be damn sure that I kept out of trouble there on out.

    By sending out legal subpoenas and filing for financial damages, they've ensured that they get no sympathy from anyone who has ever used an mp3 codec. I'd be a helluva lot more sympathetic if they were more polite initially, with letters first, cease-and-desists second, and court filings third, than my feelings right now, which are summarized as "fuck 'em".

    Back to the inital point though, with colleges frequently bending to give the RIAA what they want, if the RIAA would ask the universities to deal with the filesharers who have been detected with X information on Y ip address, the colleges would probably handle it internally, the courts wouldn't have to get involved, and the offenders would stop. Much more neat and tidy.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Unsummarized issues that we're all wondering... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The way the RIAA is treating the music-consuming public would be considered insane by any ordinary corporate measure, if that public were actually their customers. In fact they are not ... the RIAA is an industry group and they are doing what they believe will keep their customers happy. The goal of this effort has very little to do with copyright infringement. It has to do with keeping the RIAA relevant, at least in the eyes of the big publishers. It does have to do with money: after all sales are down. As soon as it becomes apparent to the big boys (as it is to pretty much everyone else) that the RIAA is a liability and is in large part responsible for the decline in music sales, they will become irrelevant. The question in my mind is, how much damage to our economic system should they be allowed to wreak before they are finally taken down? The long term effects of the laws they have purchased have not been fully felt, but they will be significant.

      Personally, I'm proud to be able to say that the last CD I purchased was in 1988. 45's I liked ... got the song I wanted for a reasonable price. The cost/benefit ratio of compact discs, as they have always been marketed, is very poor. People accepted that because there was no alternative (ah, the wonders of monopolism) and the RIAA pronouced it good.

      The popularity of the CD burner, followed by the meteoric rise of P2P, tells me that a lot of other people feel exactly the same way about music that I do. The RIAA is now, always has been, and always will be a brain-damaged group of vampirical Luddites that should be exposed to the sunlight and allowed to gracefully expire. They will not be missed.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Unsummarized issues that we're all wondering... by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Personally, I'm proud to be able to say that the last CD I purchased was in 1988. 45's I liked ... got the song I wanted for a reasonable price. The cost/benefit ratio of compact discs, as they have always been marketed, is very poor. People accepted that because there was no alternative (ah, the wonders of monopolism) and the RIAA pronouced it good."

      That's what's really funny in my opinion. The 3" CD standard exists to provide a sort of throwback to the 45, a small, low capacity medium to record on to that can be used to sell singles. I think that the very few CD singles that I've seen, all on 4.5" CDs, is silly. Of course, since the music industry doesn't want you to buy one song from them for $2.00, they want you to buy two songs that you really want and nine that you dislike for $16.99, I understand why they aren't using the format, but one would think that if they released $2.00 CD singles on the small sized CDs that people might actually buy them, rather than spend $70/month for high speed internet with the sole idea of music exchange...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  15. This is the last straw by GillBates0 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Students therefore should not assume that their college or university will accept liability for them or provide them with legal representation.

    I've been thinkin' abuut droping out of colege for the past 9 ears. This really doez it, and I mean REALLY. I hereby quit school in furm protest against RAA, DMCA, and all that stuff.
    *hic*

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  16. You would have thought... by Osrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that any academic council looking at P2P and "thinking" about the implications would have had the good sense to break this into two parts.

    a) The issues of sharing somebody elses copyrighted material and guidelines for what to do and what not to do.

    and MORE importantly...

    b) The academic benefits of using P2P to share research, essays and other related material between students and the faculty. Imagine the possibilities if EVERYTHING that a university produced was available and indexed in one or more P2P applications.

  17. who do they think they're kidding? by Dogun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly, they're depressed that MIT and BC (was it BC?) defeated their subpoenas in Boston, so they're trying to convince as many universities as possible that they shouldn't spend any money fighting on behalf of their students, and just give in.

    I applaud schools and ISPs that have been fighting these subpoenas. It's the right thing to do.

    And they don't need a report to tell themselves that they don't need to defend their students. They're just doing what any good institution would do that cared about it's students/employees/whatever.

  18. Change the Law by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Informative
    Copyright is not a constitutional right like freedom of speech. While the constitution empowers congress to enact copyright laws, congress is not required to actually do so.

    Copyright could be abolished tomorrow, in the US at least, if you could just get enough votes in congress to pass a bill to repeal copyright. That's not as difficult as it may sound, if you consider that more people share files with p2p apps in the US than voted for george bush.

    Change the Law, a section from my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads discusses this in more detail, and suggests several specific steps you can take to reform the copyright laws and make filesharing legal:

    • Speak Out
    • Vote
    • Write to Your Elected Representatives
    • Donate Money to Political Campaigns
    • Support Campaign Finance Reform
    • Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    • Practice Civil Disobedience
    Thank you for your attention.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Change the Law by penguinlust · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually that was a pretty moronic thing to say. Copyright when not abused is about the best thing that can happen to anything that can be stored electronically. It gives the creator / owner some power to control its distribution. Without it no body would make any money on software, music or writing for that matter.

      I do believe that software patents are a bad thing. At any time as the state of the art advances a software solution to a problem is bound to be created by more than one person within a limited amount of time. Software is created with a bit of inspiration and a lot of work. Software patents often stick in middle of a project and cripple it if rights to use the patent are not quired.

      As for my elected representatives, I write to them occastionally. So far no reaction. I'm not financing their campaign.

  19. Wait, what the Hell. by JessLeah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since when are the Universities themselves (and/or their "umbrella groups") supposed to act as unpaid representatives of the RIAA and MPAA?!

    1. Re:Wait, what the Hell. by finkployd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

  20. Attention Slashdot Users by anaesthesis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Allowing others to make digital copies of music, pictures, movies, books, or any other form of data for which you do not hold the copyright to is illegal.

    If you had respected this from the beginning, the DMCA, et al. would have never even been conceived.

    Food for thought.

  21. Question by chazzf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now, if the universities aren't liabe for the actions of their students, are they still obligated to provide information about the actions of said students? I don't know if the article covered that or not.

    --
    No statement is true, not even this one.
  22. money by joejg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No wonder my tuition is up 7% from last year. We are paying these fools to realize that people should take responsibility for there own actions!

  23. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Students therefore should not assume that their college or university will accept liability for them or provide them with legal representation."

    Did anyone assume they would? My university already says they own all of my software projects from that time period, who would expect them to actually help me out?

  24. Re:University = ISP by SubjunctiveSam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I sell you a gun, and you shoot your wife, should I be held responsible?

    Now, if I sell you bandwidth, and you use it to download copyrighted material, should I be held responsible?

  25. The lawyer has a sense of humor! by laird · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are some wonderful bits of understatement in this document:

    "Although debate already rages about whether there is a digital first sale defense for the transmission of a copyrighted work when the sender's work disappears, any argument that a bona fide purchaser of a copyrighted work (such as a CD) can share P2P copies of that work with many others is not likely to be successful."

    "Given recent press coverage, congressional hearings, and Internet chat, students could find it difficult to prove that they were unaware that file sharing was infringement."

    "Colleges 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."

    And of course the footnote on the first page: "Paper prepared by Michael J. Remington, Esq., Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP, Washington, DC, for the Education Task Force of the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities. It may be reproduced, distributed, and shared without permission for personal and noncommercial use."

    Man, what a wit!

  26. No! by Cyno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't do that. How will we make the RIAA and MPAA spend all their money and go bankrupt if we get rid of these laws that make them want to sue everyone and their kitten?

    Make more copyright laws like the DMCA and more encrypted P2P nets.. encourage sharing large amount of data, its even better if the data contains nothing usable but tip off any type of automated crawling system, and play the RIAA/MPAA's game until they lose. They can't sue everyone, but I wanna see them try.

  27. Not much of a solution by MunchMunch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem with this sort of report, aside from the fact that its committee is stacked to the eyeballs with all of the entertainment ghoulies, is that it really doesn't put much thought into the problem beyond what the letter of the law says.

    The real problem is, of course, a resounding imbalance and unreasonable threats of punishment in the copyright laws themselves. It may sound like I'm preaching to the choir, but the copyright laws are pretty clearly well beyond reason. Clearly there must be some protection for copyright, but the fact is, when jailtime and a $150,000 fine are threatened for making a copy of a single song, it goes beyond threatening and becomes absurd. In contrast, I filled up my gas tank today and saw a notice warning drive-offs that if caught they will be fined the price of the gasoline, as well as up to $30 extra for the trouble they caused. That's reasonable law. $150,000 and jail time for an MP3 is just not reasonable law.

    In this case, the law is in fact so unreasonable that I have little patience for those who try to enforce it to its maximum effect, such as the RIAA have been. And instead of asking "Why should the entertainment industries have such a big stick anyways," which I would hope the cream of the academic crop would ask, the colleges seem to be saying with this report, "AIIEEE!!! the entertainment companies have a big stick!"

    But my point is that there's a pretty wide gap between copyright law and intuitive concepts of copyright. Its not a very evenhanded method to simply say "the laws are infallible, and the solution is to inculcate new respect for them." Instead, we should be asking where reasonable middle ground is, and the uncompromising attitude that the RIAA and the MPAA bring to every table that they force their way to is not helping solve things.

  28. copyright was never a good idea by Thinkit3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your web page still doesn't take a solid stance that copyright is always and was always evil. It should be removed through a consitutional amendment, even after the law has been repealed.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  29. I was thinking... by megaversal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It says "(c)olleges and universities generally do not have a legal duty to control students' private conduct."

    So does this mean they should no longer be forced to block ports, monitor traffic, etc with anything relating to p2p activities? Sure the uni could do it if they wanted to, but wasn't there a huge big thing about the *AA's wanting unis to help them stop the p2pers. It sounds like they are no longer obligated to control which ports are open on the firewall, etc.

    --
    Sig!
  30. TV shows by grandmaster_spunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The report mentions TV shows as an example of something that is illegally shared on P2P networks. (pg. 3) However, it also states that courts have held that time shifting of broadcast television constitutes fair use. (pg. 1) It seems to me that, if you left commercials in the recordings (as opposed to removing them), it should be legal to download copies of shows aired on publicly accessible TV. (This would presumably not hold true for premium channels like HBO.)

  31. Compromise? by anubi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    1. Re:Compromise? by anubi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      oops.. I did not link to what I was referring to. I don't know if they still cover American History in schools since this Patriot Act stuff started becoming all the rage. So I better point it out.

      Boston Tea Party

      Well, it was taxes and tea in those days that had the people all miffed... could it be things like copyrights and DMCA, coupled with the frustration of not being able to enforce your needs that push people over the edge these days?

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  32. So what about private boarding high schools? by zmq503o1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are underage students who are living on a high school campus doing P2P responsible for their own actions or does that responsibility / liability fall to the school?

  33. the best way to make this idiocy irrelevant by alizard · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Boycott the RIAA and get everyone you know on board the boycott. Cut the fuckers off at the bank accounts and they'll cease to bother us, and their 0wn3d politicians will look for new masters.

    They've declared war on the entire high tech community, whether we share files or not. Fuck 'em... or more to the point, let's fuck them up.

    If you must have your Britney fix, buy from used record stores.

    However, to make the point that the RIAA label declining sales is due to their own behavior and the crap they are putting out, better buy from independent artists. That's one place to find some, check my sig for another.

    If it isn't played on FM and not available in record stores, it's probably from non-RIAA label sources, to make sure, check any artist you're thinking of buying at RIAA Radar.

    If RIAA label sales drop by 5% and indie label and musician sales double, it's all over for the labels... the excuses about PIRACY!!! will no longer play with. . . the people in the multinationals major label CEOs report to.

    If being on a RIAA label is shown to be a negative as far as making money goes... the rush for the exits will start and the RIAA won't be able to afford lobbyist teams anymore.

    Leaving the MPAA out there all by itself, given that the RIAA won't be around to play bad cop anymore. That's the next war.