MPAA Infiltrating Campus Nets with Software

unassimilatible writes "CNet is reporting that the MPAA is starting to infiltrate college campuses with automated anti-piracy software. Known as the Automated Copyright Notice System (ACNS), the technology promises to make copyright enforcement easier on peer-to-peer networks, saving schools and Internet service providers (ISPs) time and money. ACNS allows them to automatically restrict or cut off Internet access for alleged infringers on notice from a record label or movie studio. Though not specifically ACNS, a similar system is set to go live Monday at the University of California at Los Angeles, one of the nation's largest universities with 37,500 students. UCLA's Copyright Policy page makes no reference of this system being implemented."

Comments

Yeah Right

[eblis]

Why are colleges going to let some outside entity install software on their networks?

Re:Yeah Right

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Because they care more about legal threats from multi-billion dollar megacorps than they do about Joe Freshman's "right" to illegally rip the latest Britney album?

Re:Yeah Right

[zangdesign]

the DMCA protects the school from getting sued over what their students are sharing

Perhaps, but it doesn't protect them from litigation, or the threat of being sued, nor the bad publicity thereof.

Ask a lawyer. A friend of mine is a professional litigator, and I found out that most lawsuits are resolved before ever going to court because it's cheaper to end the claim in the discovery and litigation phase than it is to take it into court. It's not only the cost of the plaintiff's lawyers, but the defendant has to pay their own lawyers to do all sorts of legal hooha behind the scenes, as well. And those lawyer's ain't cheap either - if you've got cheap lawyers, you may get cheap (inadequate) defense. Basically, you have to hire as much lawyer as you can afford. If it means swatting a gnat with a nuclear missile, then at least you're protected when some other gnat has it's own nuclear missile.

In the end, it's probably easier to just go along with it, than it is to fight it. Remember, right and wrong have no place in the modern American courtroom.

(I'm not saying that this is right, just that it is what is.)

At least the MPAA is targeting the right people.

[hal2814]

The MPAA seems to be targeting titles that are not available on video yet. That in itself is ok in my book. My biggest gripe with the RIAA is how do they know that I don't own the song? I obviously don't own a copy of Starsky and Hutch because it hasn't been released on video yet. I don't like the possibility of violating privacy rights, so I am naturally skeptical of the ACNS system. The article did nothing to relieve those fears.

Bring on the sheep...

[DroopyStonx]

With every MPAA story like this, you get all kinds of sheep coming out of the woodwork stating things like, "Good, downloading movies is illegal and this is just!" without realizing a lot of your rights are going down the toilet simply because some cry baby organization/company is claiming "copyright infringment" even though it's been going on for YEARS, long before the internet ever made it popular.

These Universities need to tell them to piss off. They're just gonna get it even worse once anonymous P2P hits the masses.

and if I download music I already own ?

[cats-paw]

Surely the following has been brought up before...

1. If I'm downloading copies of song which I already own on CD, then I'm not infringing, am I? Maybe I'm just too lazy to rip my own disks. I can think of other reasons why I might do that.

2. So if a high percentage (or even not so high percentage) of P2P users are downloading legitimate files, i.e. things they own or are otherwise allowed to access, doesn't this make it darn near impossible for the MPAA/RIAA/NSA/CIA/FBI to decide whose infringing and who is not ?

So basically we're back to the guilty and proven innocent mindset which is becoming all-too-common in the Corporate States of America (TM)

What about non-MPAA

[eyeball]

As a copyright holder (for example, I create an independent film that I want to protect), what do you think would happen if I demand access to this system to do my own enforcement? What if every copyright holder in America had access to the system as well? No, we wouldn't have access to this system. Obviously such a system shouldn't be in place, but it's presence represents an unfairness to everyone except the MPAA.

This is why we (used to) have a thing called due-process, to keep private entities from enforcing what they consider the law. But we all know due-process doesn't contribute to election campaigns.

Lusers get what they deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

As a long term ISP and University network admin, people that let themselves be caught are a pain in my ass to enforce. They cost me money and time in terms of following up on these damn letters from the MPAA/RIAA, and they make me sit in meetings with worried lawyers regarding company or campus policy.

As one who has also run a streaming media server since 2000, has downloaded mp3 since 1996, and ftp'd media around since 1992, all I can say is you people are idiots if you keep getting caught, and you're making my job hard, and I have no problem with laying the smack down.

Figure out how to stay under the radar, AOL'ers and undergrads. That way everybody's happy. Your problem is you've had p2p file sharing handed to you on a platter since Napster and you expect it like a right.

Now all students can be guilty without a trial

[Luminari]

CNS allows them to automatically restrict or cut off Internet access for alleged infringers on notice from a record label or movie studio.

It's nice to see no trial is necessary to make every student guilty. Guess that constitution thing doesn't apply unless your a corporate executive.