Slashdot Mirror
University of Kansas Adopts 'One Strike' Copyright Infringement Policy
NewmanKU writes "Eric Bangeman at Ars Technica writes that the University of Kansas has adopted a new, and very strict, copyright infringement policy for the students on the residential network. The university's ResNet website states that, 'Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is against the law. If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever. No second notices, no excuses, no refunds. One violation and your ResNet internet access is gone for as long as you reside on campus.' According to a KU spokesperson, KU has received 345 notices in the past year from organizations and businesses regarding complaints about copyrighted material downloading."
Is there any clause to protect the due process rights of students?
From the universities page: (which I downloaded into my browser...)
And further down, on the same page! (Which my browser downloaded, remember)...
Wow, that is harsh! I guess that's me banned then :-)
If the students care enough, they will all cancel their accounts. When the University sees a drop in revenue, they will have to decide.
Pulling authoritarian crap like this in a place where people are naturally rebelling against everything and anything is a good way to get egg on your face.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
It's not that I support RIAA or anything, but your argument is invalid.
Saying "The measure changes statistics but not attitude" does not mean the measure is bad.
For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid, and thus less robberies are committed.
Let's not get start on the whole "copyright infringement is not a crime" stuff, OK? Crime or no crime, it's something RIAA and co. want to root out. You can have an entirely unrelated argument whether it's morally right or not, but you do have to admit that it does work to that end -- sometimes making people afraid of doing something is the best way to ensure it doesn't get done.
Rules must be *fair* to be *respected*, but being *tough* is fine if all you care is about them being *effective*
Will they kick out students simply because the MAFIAA sent them a strongly worded letter? It would be the simplest and cheapest thing for them to do, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Even if they are 'guilty'.. what if someone downloaded a ROM of a NES game he has in his basement at home? A track from a CD that doesn't play anymore? A no-cd patch for a game so he can play it on his laptop wherever he goes? According to their draconian proposal, all of these would mean you are cut off from the internet.. forever. Is it me or is that f&*king crazy?
A University should be fighting the powers that be, not aiding and abetting them.
-Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
Imagine you don't like some students, and send them some mp3s by email and then report them, will they get their account banned?
Students often need to download copyrighted material to support their work. I wonder if Kansas U has considered the implications of their policy: if the RIAA can get you disconnected instantly for downloading an MP3, surely other publishers can do the same.
In my own work, I often have to fetch journal and conference papers from digital libraries, e.g. a good one. Often I will find a paper is not available to me because it isn't covered by my University's subscription, like many of the papers here or here. That situation is supposed to force a trip to the brick-and-mortar library (if it has the document), but sometimes you can find the paper online anyway, using a search engine. It might be on the author's website or Citeseer. Sometimes people seem to "accidentally" leave copies of papers where a search engine can find them. This is extremely helpful for a researcher, saving much time, and it is known that online articles are more likely to be cited.
However, except in special cases (e.g. the author has retained the copyright and distributed it for free), this is technically copyright infringement. The publishers want you to get everything through their paywall. That would be fine if everything was accessible, but the exhorbitant fees charged for full access by some organisations prevent that. Therefore, copyright infringement actually helps scientific research by allowing information to flow. At my University, nobody seems to notice (or care about) students digging up papers from elsewhere. But if the Kansas U management style spread here, a publisher could presumably get students instantly disconnected for "bypassing the paywall". You might lose your Internet connection -- for studying.
Is this close to a situation where research is actively inhibited by greed?
"The content you requested is not part of your subscription, please pay $30 to download this 10 page article".
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Actually, while my university has authenticated logins to access the network, the bans for copyright infringement (40 days) and exceeding allocated bandwith are based on MAC addresses. Which, since my school is also very geeky, has the effect of making the ban simply for show, presumably so that it looks like they are doing something about copyright infringement.
eclecti.cc
Which is why we should all send the University DMCA notices for the University of Kansas RESNET staff.