Slashdot Mirror
Congress Asks Universities To Curb Piracy
The Illegal Subset of the Integers writes "According to Ars Technica, Congress has sent letters to 19 universities identified by the RIAA and MPAA as havens for copyright infringement. In it, they not only seek to discover what these universities are doing to dissuade students from infringing activities, but give the implied threat. House Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'
One wonders, though, what the universities are supposed to do when international disrespect for imaginary property rights is so widespread that there are currently over two million hits on Google for a certain oft-posted illegal number, up from the three hundred thousand hits from sometime yesterday."
To curb the bullshit. (And they seem to be off to a good start during the past few months, except for this.)
I mean, as long as we're asking for stuff we're not going to get...
I just searched on DC++ for "Spider-Man 3" and the results gave me "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
/. and click the link to this article, and I got a page saying "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
Then I come to
They're out to get me. *huddles in a corner, grasping at his tinfoil hat*
I believe that a number of universities have taken this approach and left it at that. There are a number of things that are done in a university setting that would be considered illegal anywhere else. From what I understand, the general consensus is that this should fall under the same protection. After all, isn't college a collection of curious students trying to learn?
TFA isn't clear if the letters were sent by Congress as a whole (unlikely, that would take a joint resolution of both houses), by a particular Committee, or by a handful of members of Congress. The only member clearly involved is a member of the minority party who isn't even in the minority leadership on the Committee mentioned, who is also, apparently, the source of threats of action.
University students ask Congress to shorten copyright terms.
If Congress is forced to "act" by re-evaluating the entire copyright system, discovering the unfairness and complete futility of the DMCA, defining fair use, and shifting the balance of power back to the citizens (not "consumers"), then that could be a good thing...
...but I'm not holding my breath.
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
The students at University will often end up in Software Development, Law, Arts etc.. they know what they are doing. Students don't have the spare cash that employed people have.
there is nothing imaginery about the fact that if you work for years producing some digital content, you have the right to decide what to charge for it. The fact that a lot of people willfully ignore the law and take what isn't there's anyway does not make the property rights 'imaginery' any mroe than the preponderence of people breaking the speed limit makes the speed limit imaginery either.
I guess the submitter would prefer it if the whole concept of copyright and IP did not exist, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for any new movies, TV, music, softwre or games in that case.
I wish all the people moaning about the fact that 99% of entertainment content is commercially produced and requires payment would stop moaning and just produce some free content instead. Could it be that its way easier to complain about the content produced by other people than it is to actually contribute anything yourself?
On behalf of universities everywhere, I'd like to ask Congress to stop being the RIAA and MPAA's bitch.
Last time I was stopped at a light on the perimeter road of my local university a vessel approached me and demanded all the tea and spices in my hull. When I told them I didn't know what they were talking about, they shot a canonball at the side of my car.
It's about time Congress stepped up to protect the people from these pirates! I had to miss class that day (that's my story and I'm sticking to it.)
More Twoson than Cupertino
Several high level members of the RIAA and MPAA were reported coming out of the offices of Lamar Smith and several other congress members, smiling and waving, along with an odd white frosting on their lips.
Internet Whack-a-Mole is a game that you can not win, not even if congress tries to help you. The problem is that when the **AA tries to play IWaM(TM) they don't have enough hammers, and never will. Colleges are one of those places where people who want to share music can and will share music. Refer back to the sneaker-net theory of file sharing:
One student and 25 of their best friends join a pool. The pool members make a list of the music they would like to have a copy of. Each of the pool members buys a music CD from the list and 25 blank CDs. After making the requisite 25 copies, they all get together for some beer and a CD swap party. If done with discretion, nobody at the RIAA will ever know. The quality of the music is high, there is no record of the transaction that the school or ISP can hand over to the RIAA, there is no way to detect this copyright infringement. BTW, 26 x 25 = a loss of 650 CD sales in one night, in one location.
If the RIAA continues on their path to destitution, this is how music will be shared in the future, the same as it was shared in the past. IWaM is stupid, stupid, STUPID.
If the RIAA member companies were to do something that would make their product (distribution of someone else's content) more desirable, or valuable then they would again see rising revenues. Their business is outdated, and dying. Congress can't save them. God himself (if he exists) couldn't even save that business model.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The HJC has no business being a mouthpiece of the MAFIAA.
The fact that such corruption is now being done so openly highlights how bankrupt our public institutions have become. This is going to end in civil war.
I personally think they should go for option (2). I mean, many universities are already going that route. For example, MIT course material is being made avaiable via Open CourseWare. Also, many academics are pushing for open access to all academic publications.
So, really, given that universities are supposed to be (and frequently are) institutions dedicated to dissemination of information, free speech, intellectual progress, and radical ideas... isn't it entirely consistent with the ethos (even their mandate) to not act as enforcers of copyright law? (Note: I'm not claiming that the universities have to actively encourage copyright infringement, merely suggesting that it is not their role in society to enforce those laws, even on their own campuses.)
From the blurb: ... there are currently over two million hits on Google for a certain oft-posted illegal number...
Tell me: how can a number be illegal? What if they had used a normal word as the key, would that word then suddenly be illegal?
-- Cheers!
While congress ensures that the rich don't stop getting richer anytime soon, we still have pressing social issues with which to deal.
The fact that copyright infringement, no matter how widespread, seems to regularly top news feeds lately is just further evidence we as a society are losing sight of our real threats: Further absolution of previously vaunted personal liberties, the lower class continuing their gradual attempts to topple society, and every special interest group out there with their pet right they're trying to get removed.
Thank you congress, for accomplishing nothing beyond the placation of your idiot single-issue voter bases and largest campaign contributors.
I attend one of these universities. I don't think I should name which one, but I like their anti-piracy policy.
The university does not monitor student activity. If the RIAA or MPAA determines that a student's activities are possibly illegal, they must formally request the information from my university. Following this, the university will begin an internal investigation to ensure that wrong-doing was going on. If it was, only then will anything be turned over.
It's not the job of a university to police its students. The job of the university is to educate.
--Thomas J. Owens
Really it's a privledge granted by the people.
It can be taken away by the people as well.
There are a lot of very good and strong arguments for not ahving copyright.
Personally, I thin a limited copyright is a good thing, but for about 14 yaers. Longer then that then you give power to corporations to dictate your culture.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm so tired of watching congress protect the corporations from the people. It's supposed to be the other way around!
It's wonderful to know that what with nuclear proliferation, thousands of Americans dead in Iraq (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), a President that insists on a millitary "carte blanche" despite his downwardly spiraled track record, international tension at its highest levels since the Cold War, and the highest fuel prices the world has ever seen (with no alternative in sight), it's wonderful to know that the US government has time for the really IMPORTANT issues.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Haven for piracy?
Did that mean they didn't volunteer to hand over private data of their students to the RIAA when asked?
If that is the definition of a haven for piracy, then I want to attend those schools.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
And thats that. And apparently RIAA rules united states, not "the people".
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Read radical news here
"Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'"
What the schools should say:
'Here's what we're doing to curb piracy: we respond to subpoenas signed by a judge to their full extent. We remove infringing content that has been identified by its owner in full compliance with the DMCA.
Oh, you wanted us to do your job for you? Don't think so.
Unspoken is the fact that up to a generation ago, universities did just that. Universities have recently seen an opportunity to monetize their innovation and defray growing costs. There still has not been sufficient public debate about the law and ethics surrounding publicly-financed institutions patenting, licensing and in some cases directly capitalizing IP developed with public funds, often explicitly funded by DAPRA, NIH, etc.
illegitimii non ingravare
add this to the list of ways the RIAA/MPAA try to stop P2P but actually end up pissing off its own customers. You know, if they spent half the time and resources they do in their witch hunts on a education/PR campaign they would have much better results. Instead of using FUD, educated the people on what they are doing and what it constitutes. Downloading a CD from thePirateBay is stealing, but copying a CD you bought is not. Draw some lines, let them be known, and maintain your image while still fighting your fight. Probably to late for that now though... oh well...
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Yes, it is imaginary because they don't own anything. Copyright is attempted theft with government backing. It exists for the sole benefit of an industry of entrenched interests. The artist is frequently left holding the bag. They shall get paid when they perform, just like the rest of us peons. They deserve no special privileges. They are welcome to use their organizations to promote their work and upcoming events, not to make law and claim authority they wouldn't have without the bribing of government officials and the might of the police and the military.
What?
in one corner, grumpy old men who simply don't understand the full ramifications of the internet, issuing law after law after law
in another corner, technically astute, highly motivated, media loving, and most of all, poor teenagers
it doesn't matter what some corporation thinks is right and wrong. it doesn't matter what out of touch with reality laws a bought and sold congress passes. it doesn't matter how huge their financial war chest. it doesn't matter how large their army of lawyer whores. it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter
what matters is what is going to happen, and what is already happening. events now surrounding media and the law and internet seem to have an air of inevitability about them to me. time will simply take care of the details, but the ending in sight seems fixed and immutable: unenforceable and universally ignored and shortcircuited intellectual property laws. a colossal joke. for better? for worse? who knows. but inevitably so
riaa, mpaa, dmca, etc. used to infuriate me. now i am more sanguine about events. because i don't see how history can be changed, how the genie can go back in the bottle. some old grumpy men simply do not get what is happening, and never will. and the only solution is to let them die off. and so they will. and so time will take care of this problem
people who get into legal incriminations and moral hysterics about the inevitable unstoppable alterations the internet is making to media and the law just put me to sleep now: they simply don't matter anymore, and they are the only ones who don't realize that. let the dinosaurs die, and simply avoid the swings of the old dumb lizard's faltering weakening tail. let time take it's toll on those with minds too brittle and sight too dim to adapt to the new reality. the new reality: the full ramifications of media on the internet and what it fully means for society and companies and how media is produced and consumed
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Can it be any clearer to average Americans; Government will allow all your hands-on, technical, dirty, manual, but well-paying jobs go to other countries without hardly a gasp, but fight tooth-and-nail to protect an elite few who own, run, and work in the movie industry. An industry that cannot possibly own all mindshare as globalization continues, a pointless industry that actually produces nothing long-lasting, bankable, and advanced(like a pyramid or a profitable niche industry; just fake sets and technology), an industry that captures, monopolizes, and narrows popular culture draining away money and attention from local venues and real talent, an industry that simply cannot support all Americans.
Ownership of a thing is nothing more than a legally enforceable power to control what other people do with regard to something. Ownership of a copyright is no more "imaginary" than ownership of a stock, ownership of land, or ownership of a hand tool.
The same argument has been made of property more generally, and is no more true in the narrower case of copyright than the more general case.
No, it doesn't. Though, of course, many of the details of copyright law serve various industries of entrenched interests.
The university administrations should say a polite "Thank you for your letter" and file it in the round filing cabinet.
> Tell me: how can a number be illegal?
:(
Under the DMCA "trafficking" provisions, they're claiming that the 09 F9 number you've seen if you read Slashdot is part of an illegal circumvention device. Never mind the fact that it's totally useless without some complex software I doubt most of us have a copy of (I sure don't). The one bit of good news is that the DMCA is a US law. The bad news is that the US has a bad habit of "exporting" bad laws and enforcing them against people like Dmitri Skylarov who aren't even US nationals when they get the chance.
> What if they had used a normal word as the key, would that word then suddenly be illegal?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the law has to make sense. I sincerely wish that were true, but we live in a world where courts have declared that tomatoes are vegetables, even though botanists insist they are technically fruits.
My non-lawyer, uninformed guess would be that they wouldn't sue you for using the word itself, but for letting people know that it happened to be the key to whatever, just like they've nailed people for posting links to sites if it was clear they knew there was illegal content there, even though the people in question weren't distributing anything illegal. The irony being that they most likely included the very same "illegal" links in their own legal filings and on the court records.
No sir, I'm sorry, but I think you'll find that the laws are written by highly imperfect beings and interpreted by judges who do their best to make due with a lot of self-contradictory rules and flawed legal principles.
In short, yes, they really can write laws and make rulings that make no sense whatsoever, that contradict incontrovertible facts, and which are self-contradictory. It doesn't make sense. It never has made sense. But, alas, it does happen
I believe the "imaginary" substitution is somewhat warranted. What is it, exactly that you believe these "artists" own? Is it the chords and how the song is played on an instrument? Because being a guitarist/psuedo-pianist/instrumentalist myself, I find the idea highly objectionable that anyone, that's right anyone can own chords or combinations of chords (known as chord progressions). If it's not the chords they own, is it the lyrics? Because as I've seen it, lyrics often contain information such as cliches and phrases borrowed from other sources. I find it difficult to believe that someone can "own" phrases.
Is it the chords combined with the lyrics? What exactly do they own?
The truth is that "intellectual" property is imaginary. It was only until I read that phrase in this very article that the issue had been nailed home so clearly in my head.
Nobody owns the plot that everyone uses in modern movies, popular culture, or "folk songs" and things were never before subject to such legislation. They were never "property" before. Myths and tales permeated the countryside. That was until plays could be captured forever as "movies", and music could be stowed away on "records." The truth is that media provided these now hugely successful recording artists with a brief window in which to make millions. That window was only provided by the fact that recorded media could be scarce. That limitation is now gone. Records don't require media anymore and are now as free as they were via word of mouth or through strolling minstrels. The truth is that it was a very small amount of time and their business model should *not* be protected. The reason why people say that artists ripping off other artists makes for great artistry is because it's true. Artists for centuries simply innovated and were free to do so by the free society of culture which has been cut off with records and movies. Well, gentlemen, welcome to the other side of the mountain. If you give something out to the free air that can be copied and played again, it will be. You have no power to stop the echo of your voice once you've used it to scream something from atop a mountain, it is then no longer yours to contain. And as such you have no power to stop the spread of your content. Culture is now back in the hands of the people, where it belonged to begin with. All your justifications and ideas of "intellectual property" are now gone. Get used to tightening your belt and practicing your craft...or find a new trade.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Dear Congress,
As requested by the MPAA we are currently doing everything we can to ban the numbers 0, 9, 11, 2, 9, 74, 5, 8, 41, 56, 5, 63, 56, 88 and the letters f, d, e, b, and c from our campus. The math and english departments are giving us some resistance, but we should have them under control soon.
--The University
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Step 1: Create broken legislation
Step 2: Appeal to government funded institutions to provide free customer service
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!!!
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
That said, I think the Military Industrial Complex is a far more insidious and dangerous entity and poses a much stronger threat to Democracy in the United States. The problem is that they have infested many of the congressional districts and states so that no lawmaker will deny their spending (as it means jobs and constituent happyness for the politico).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I think he means the imaginary rights to imaginary property.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
Actually, the difference is facility and complete duplication. In taping music from the radio, and recording TV programs, you get a tape or VHS of reduced quality than the original. However, in downloading a song, you get a complete bit to bit transcription of the original song. Not only that, it's considerably easier, as you can do it remotely while someone else hosts it. All you have to do is download it. Compare that to the method of waiting for a good song to come on the radio, hitting the Play + Record button, and then hoping that you got a good selection. Or even doing it via VHS. However, that isn't to say I disagree with you. Until the music / movie industries are willing to accept the fact that people are going to download, and they try and charge people more for a broken product, people will continue to download. And yes, DRM is broken. You're giving the user the locked chest and the key. Even if you tell people they can only unlock it for reasons a, b, and c, people will still unlock it for d - z, simply because they can.
Cynical Idealist
"No, it doesn't. Though, of course, many of the details of copyright law serve various industries of entrenched interests."
Yes it does and it always has.
It happend in Britain, which is why Franklin wanted it forbidden in the constitution.
Did you know that music wasn't even copyrightable in the US until the 1970's? Yet we managed to have a whole music revolution before that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...to extend copyright every time Mickey Mouse is at risk of becoming public domain.
Blar.
Most pirated copies do not equal lost sales!
Most pirated copies do not equal lost sales!
Most pirated copies do not equal lost sales!
Piracy is just free advertising!
Piracy is just free advertising!
Piracy is just free advertising!
Piracy is not the same as counterfitting!
Piracy is not the same as counterfitting!
Piracy is not the same as counterfitting!
I went to college not so long ago, back when MP3s were first becoming the rage (before Napster). We all downloaded and shared pirates MP3s and built up large MP3 collections.
Did any of those copied MP3s result in lost sales for the record companies? No, hardly any did. We were poor college students. If we couldn't have pirated copies for free, we would have simply gone without.
This is true of every form of content piracy I've ever witnessed. I know someone who modded a PS2 and loaded it up with hundreds of pirated games. Would he have bought most of those games if he couldn't have pirated them? Of course not -- he couldn't afford to. He would have simply not had the games.
Piracy does not have much real impact on sales, and most stats citing "industry losses due to piracy" are fabricated bullshit. All piracy does is allow people who can't afford the product still get access to it. And that's not a bad thing, as it's free advertising.
As an college degree-holding adult who can now afford things, I bought many CDs by bands I only knew about because I had pirated their early stuff back in college. Had I not done that, I wouldn't have bought their CDs years later, because I wouldn't have even known about them. Similarly, I can now afford to purchase software like Photoshop that I wouldn't know how to use (and wouldn't have any reason to buy) today if I hadn't pirated the software back in college so that I could learn how to use it. Just more evidence that piracy is the strongest form of free advertising, and companies should learn to leverage that instead of trying to stomp it out.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Um, I can. Property rights exist in things that are tangible physical objects (tangible personal property and realty) and in things that are not (stocks, debts, etc., as well as the subjects of intellectual property.)
Property rights are merely legally enforceable powers. Exactly what parameters they have vary based on the subject of the rights, to be sure, but that doesn't make property rights in any one class of subject any more "imaginary" than any other.
And no one is arguing against that position, either, so why are you bringing it up?
There are certainly definitions of "stealing" for which that is true, and ones for which it isn't. So?
Everything which is illegal is only illegal because of the specific law which prohibits it. That's pretty much true by definition. So what?
You seem to be partially correct. The court did rule in SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) that manufacturers of VCRs could not be held accountable for copyright infringement due to the actions of their customers.
But this was included in the ruling as well:
Recording programmes for the purposes of time-shifting qualifies as fair use in the United States according to this decision.
I don't care why you're posting AC
The rest of society doesn't feel sorry for you because the rest of society has to work day in and day out to put food on the table. Working for a day, recording the output, and then expecting a lifetime's compensation for that single day's output isn't the way society functions. Get over it. You want to make money as a musician? Perform concerts, work every day, just like the rest of do. The idea of the record as a profit center for primadonna artists is dead. Welcome back to the real world.
Congress is a product of a process controlled by the political parties. The political parties are in turn controlled by monied and powerful interests who let the parties know who they will back, and who they will not. The parties pick from candidates that can get backing, of course, otherwise they will be picking candidates who cannot advertise, campaign and travel freely - in other words, losing candidates. Once acceptable candidates are chosen, then they let the people vote on which one of these hand-picked people is to continue in the (very, very expensive) process. Once elected, carrying out any promises made during the political campaign is strictly optional.
In this way, congress (and the senate, and the presidency) end up being 100% made up of people selected by those same monied and powerful interests. "the people" do not control the type of person, or the obligations of that person. Once in power, the usual currency of politics - being supported to run again by the party, junkets, "fact-finding" trips, dinners, appointments to powerful committees, visits to the white house, campaign contributions, rubbing elbows with the powerful, pork for their district, commitments for speaking engagements, returning as a lobbyist, employment at a think tank, tips on everything from stocks to escorts - these, and more, are the "currency" of "elected" government service. It also doesn't hurt to remember Orwell's assertion that "the purpose of power - is power."
Aside from those people, there is a vast army of unelected, but very powerful individuals who manipulate our daily lives with absolutely no requirement to, or evidence of electing to, pay any attention to public input. Not that such input is lacking; they just don't listen. Examples abound; the FCC with its censorship and pandering to the rich for broadcast (broadcast speech belongs to the rich - period), the FDA with its holding back of therapies even to those who are about to die, the US park service which takes homes from people by force (eminent domain), the Supreme Court, with its topsy-turvy interpretation of the commerce clause, disingenuous support for ex post facto laws, craven ducking of the religion issue, and of course, just generally trampling the constitution left and right. And of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
So when you talk about the government - any of it - as being "the people" - you're speaking of a situation that doesn't exist in the United States of America. Our federal and state governments are operating broadly outside the bounds of its constituting authority, within a cycle that is entirely controlled by special interests who have money and power. There are absolutely no signs that this situation is going to change. In the specific case of music and video, the people have already made it quite clear what they want, and they are being roundly ignored by government. Business is showing some movement because their hand is being forced, but legislatively speaking, it is only getting worse on all fronts - patents, copyrights and IP law in general. These laws are not made to benefit the people, and sure enough, they generally don't. As soon as you look to see how they benefit industry, however, the light will begin to dawn.
You may wonder why free speech is allowed with a government gone so catastrophically wrong. The answer is simple: It is far better for them to let you vent than it is have you smolder and suddenly show up on some politician's doorstep with what used to be your second amendment rights in hand. Between that and making sure you achieve a general level of complacency, while being distracted by the current round of boogymen (Terrorists! Pedophiles! Immigrants! Global Warming!), they can keep the population from getting out of hand, even as they trample constitutional rights, engage in broad repression of personal, victimless choices, and pursue military adventures on sovereign foreign soil for the benefit of industry.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
signature pending slashdot approval
When I was in college working towards a performance degree, I spent 8 hours a day just practicing, generating no income, simply to prepare myself to begin making money from my craft. This was on top of a part-time job and classes. And it's not like when you hit a professional level, suddenly every note you play generates a paycheck. If you think doing anything on a professional level musically takes a 'day of work for a lifetime of returns' you're a fucking idiot. It take a LOT of time and a LOT of hard work, and unless you're some POS pop star blessed by a label, it's crappy income.
Is the system broken? Yes. Copyright reform is sorely needed. Expecting artists to work for free isn't the answer. You aren't entitled to shit.