Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Targets LAN Filesharing at Universities
segphault writes "The RIAA has sent letters to 40 university presidents in 25 separate states informing them that students are engaging in filesharing on their campuses using the local network. Apparently, the RIAA wants to get universities to use filtering software on their networks to detect student filesharing. The RIAA did not disclose the methodology they used to determine that filesharing is occuring on those local networks, but it probably didn't involve asking permission. The article goes on to predict that the RIAA will eventually try to get the government to require use of anti-filesharing filtering technologies at universities."
Really, what are they going to do to enforce this? It's not as if they have a way to snoop on lan traffic, and if they did it would be illegal. I know that for one, my university has a "don't know, don't want to know" attitude about filesharing, so long as you keep the traffic below about 1.5GB per day. I really don't think they have the muscle to do anything about lan sharing.
When interviewed, the majority of congressmen said point blank that person to person "dormroom" sharing of music was fair use and in no way objectionable.
.. "in the news today the RIAA demanded that automakers comply with new requirements to prevent passers by and non-drivers from "illeagally hearing" music from car stereos which "by law" is only entitled to the owner/operator of the vehicle alone."
Further, the DMCA's notice and takedown only applies to the internet, not local area networks.
Any university complying with these bs "complaints" has to have the stupidest administration ever, and any claims made by the RIAA are now utterly specious.
What next.. "illegal sharing through car radios"?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Gonzales wants to track users on the Internet for the sake of "fighting porn". This in of itself is scary because it's not difficult to imagine the potential for abuse. Now the RIAA wants to monitor college networks for "file sharing". This could easily be manipulated to filter out certain ideas and beliefs as a means to suppress freedom of speech. It could also be used to target students for their beliefs.
First of all, why is the RIAA monitoring colleges' LANs? Is that even legal? Secondly, I fileshare on my LAN all the time. The sharing of my clients' orders and bills is necessary to the survival of my business. Don't flame me for asking this because I honestly don't know the answer: does the RIAA have any authority or legal right to be monitoring students and their actions on private college's LANs? Where does the Recording Industry Association of America get off thinking that they have any authority over the sharing on local networks?
You don't get it. The whole damned point is that it shouldn't be illegal. That the law itself is immoral. Your reactions are themselves disturbing to me.
You think copyright law is immoral? Do you mean the current laws on the books, or the idea itself that people can own the rights to copy things they produce? If it's the first, I (and most here) would agree; if it's the second, you need to do a reality check. You honestly think that if I produce something, through honest means and hard work, you should be able to copy and sell it without my permission? That attitude is damn disturbing to me.
Please note that I don't believe the current system is good. Copyright lasts far too long, has become monopolized by companies like the RIAA, and definately needs an overhaul. But I believe someone who creates something should have their work protected to some degree. If I write a novel, why should anyone with a printing press be able to turn out copies unless I allow them?
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
Correcty me if I'm wrong, but providing a link to a bitTorrent client doesn't really have anything to do with the article. Or the summary. Or the Headline. FTFS - segphault writes "The RIAA has sent letters to 40 university presidents in 25 separate states informing them that students are engaging in filesharing on their campuses using the local network.
I am a student at one of the Universities that had our local DC++ file sharing hubs shut down. The hub was up 24-7, sharing roughly 20TB of pretty much everything. Students loved it because you could get almost any file that was available on BitTorrents with up to 1.5Mbps transfer speeds, and almost always at least 300Kbps. On BitTorrents, similar first release movies on public trackers often peaked at about 30Kbps download speeds. Now students still download the movies, using BitTorrent, it's just much slower because they can't utilize the LAN. As far as "download while you still can," these is no reason universities are going to stop BitTorrent downloads. Additionally, I don't think the RIAA even thinks it is significantly curbing piracy by shuting down LAN networks, it just knows the student have to go out into the more public file sharing arena, and RIAA at least theoretically has the ability to catch them then.
If the RIAA wants the university to filter their network to protect their copyrights and their bottom line then they should pay the university for all of the network equipment, bandwidth, employee/consultant hours, and any other expenses necessary to conduct the filtering. The mission of any university is to provide higher education and policing the student body so that a private industry organization, which is entirely external to the mission of the university, will not suffer from potential loss of profits is NOT the responsibility of the university. The question is not whether file sharing is legal, but rather to what extent the university can be compelled to shoulder the cost of protecting the intellectual property of someone else, especially in the expensive and escalating arms race between the RIAA and the file sharers. If the university makes a good faith effort to inform students in their acceptable use policy what is and is not acceptable use and complies with reasonable and specific subpoenas (subject to reasonable charges for research, copies, and other legal expenses that any other civil plaintiff would have to pay) the I would say that they (the university) have satisfied their obligation under the law. If the RIAA et al wants more extensive monitoring then they can shell out the $100,000+ for extra servers and network monitoring gear along with the consultants to operate it all and the university employees' time (billed at least $100 per hour for interruption of normal university related duties). They cannot compel us to pay to protect THEIR property, only the government has the power to tax. Anyway, no other private business gets anywhere near the cooperation from law enforcement at the expense of the tax paying public and still they complain. The FBI should be traking down the identity thieves, terrorists, serial killers, and other really nasty criminals...not wasting their time busting copyright infringers on behalf of the entertainment industry. The RIAA should get off our campuses and they should take their craptastic "music" with them.
LAN oriented simple VPN that could be shared between known friends .
http://www.hamachi.cc/
Very simple, works well, even clear across the world network neighborhood works
if you tweak your firewall and port forwarding requirements if using NAT .
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Copyright law hasn't existed for much of human history. If I write a novel, why should anyone with a printing press be able to turn out copies unless I allow them? - why shouldn't they? After all, they own the printing press. Copyrighted works are supposed to eventually end up in the public domain, which is where the inspiration for much new work comes from. Human culture - stories, histories, myths and art, in all their many forms - is a shared process. The artist needs the audience as much as the audience needs him. We tell ghost stories round the fire, we discuss our opinions around the watercooler, we listen, watch and read other people's stories. They enrich us. The same with scientific ideas, they are largely small increments built on the progress of those before.
Before copyright, art and written works were created, but it was expensive to make and copy, so the wealthy paid for artists to go round doing their thing, recognising the value of culture. This attitude still survives today, with corporate and foundation grants and government subsidies. Copyright was a way to increase the amount of works produced, by giving the creator a cut of the reproduction money long after the printing press was invented. It was supposed to be a trade, you get to be sole source of your work for a time, so we have more products in the public domain as a result. This was never meant to be a new form of property right, so that wealthy companies could lock up culture in digital prisons, and never release it to the public domain from which its inspiration came.
Yes, artists should be paid something - but to produce new material. The idea that culture can be parceled up into someone or some companies exclusive property, that it can restricted for hundreds of years, that artists get to make one big hit and they and their families get to live on royalty paychecks for ever-more - that's wrong. I don't get paid repeatedly for the work I've already done, why should an artist have a special right? My work is an expression of my skill and knowledge, but I only get paid the once for doing it. Why shouldn't artists? Why should my free speech in sharing what I know, what I've heard, be restricted for someone elses profit? Why shouldn't I have my fair use ability to make my own copies for my own use? At the very least, content creators should have a choice between DRM and copyright, if you use DRM, you also lose copyright protection. DRM'd works will never enter the public domain.
Now, I recognise that copyright is one way to increase the amount of culture and art, when it works (which is another question, now we have DRM). There are others, such as recurring opt-in flat fees to join broadcast streams and collections (online or in the RF spectrum) - e.g. TV licence fees or an addition to your ISPs bill. We can ask that music artists get most of their money from concerts, touring and generally performance work, rather than a tiny percent getting big bucks from exclusive CD contracts. Hell, nobody says that people can't still be a copy-provider of their own works, iTunes and bottled water shows people will pay for convenience and perceived quality.
About the only thing from copyright law I agree with is the moral rights, specifically the ability to be exclusively known as the creator of a work. Passing someone elses ideas off as your own, should still be prevented. Other than that? I see a legal fiction, a government created artificial monopoly that those who've got theirs are trying to codify into a permanent exclusive ownership on our culture that was never intended.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
it's the RIAA. A dinosaur whose right to exist has expired.
In my capitalism books, what is obsolete has to vanish to the market can concentrate on material that is valuable. Now, capitalism has been turned upside down. Obsolete companies and market structures are kept artificially alive with laws.
Roll back about 100 years, when the automobile came into existance and hackney coaches became obsolete. Remember the laws that look so stupid today? The "man waving a red flag that has to walk in front of automobiles" and similar rubbish? Same shit.
What did it serve? It was annoying then, and it's something we can only shake our heads at today. Who'd come up with a STUPID law like that?
Well, now you have it all over again. Instead of traffic laws, now it's copyright laws that come up with harebrained ideas to protect a business that is essentially dead.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.