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."

Comments

Due Process

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any clause to protect the due process rights of students?

Re:Due Process

[SamP2]

Tough luck pal, due process only applies in court. They'd have to follow it if they decided to sue you, throw you in jail for whatever, or something like that.

Cutting you off the campus net is an entirely private decision, no due process required by law.

Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.

Re:Due Process

[Darkon]

Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.

On a free forum to which you have paid nothing this makes sense, but I'd imagine the students pay some quite hefty fees to the university in the expectation of receiving full access to all services for their money.

Re:Due Process

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, as agreed upon and detailed in the plethora of documents they sign - which now include this notice.

Just because you put something in your TOS does not make it legal or enforceable. IANAL, but I am an admin on a university network and we are frequently reminded that the students are paying customers with rights and as such we cannot arbitrarily ban them from using the system. Without some kind of watertight right of appeal someone probably will get caught as a false positive by this policy, sue, and win.

Re:Due Process

[Tony Hoyle]

Nearly all contracts contain wording to the effect of 'We reserve the right to make changes to this contract at any time' so yes they can make it apply retroactively.

Re:Due Process

[mbulge]

The University of Kansas is a public school, which means that this is not and should not be an entirely private decision. This decision goes too far, seeing as how other Kansas schools and government facilities are not bound by the same restrictions.

Re:Due Process

[vertinox]

Cutting you off the campus net is an entirely private decision, no due process required by law.

I dunno... Let's say I have this jock room mate that I hate because he always gets the girls (and brings them to the top bunk when I'm trying to get a good nights sleep) so lets just say I theoretically put P2P software on his unpassworded computer and share out some Boy George songs.

Not only will he get booted off ResNet without recourse, but all the girls will think he's gay now when they look at his MP3 collection.

Re:Due Process

[Evilest Doer]

This is just a first draft. The University's policy is still evolving.

Well, this policy certainly wasn't intelligently designed.

Re:Due Process

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you put something in your TOS does not make it legal or enforceable. True, but "Don't do anything on our network that is AGAINST THE LAW or you will be banned" is just the kinda of condition that is entirely enforceable. Don't like it? Then work to get the law changed, because there is nothing wrong with a university demanding you dont break the law with their network.

Re:Due Process

[ShieldW0lf]

Clearly, this is a great place to begin a multi-year commitment towards higher education.

They clearly place the interests of their customers first and foremost.

I'm going to send that university a letter telling them I'm not hiring any of their graduates because of their asinine behavior.

Re:Due Process

[I'm Don Giovanni]

The rule is new, but it's summertime. Students will be well aware of this rule before paying tuition for the fall term, so you can thow that excuse out. It was smart of KU to announce this policy during the summer, when only those few students taking summer classes will be able to use the "you changed the rules after I paid" excuse.

We've seen articles like this on slashdot regading Stanford, U. of Washington, etc (those KU's looks to be the harshest), and slashdotters say, "boycott the school, attend colleget elsewhere; that'll teach them a lesson when their enrollment plummets!!". The fact is, colleges are tired of students using the college network (paid for by tax payers, in the case of public schools) for piracy by spoiled brats. Then risk of enrollment decrease is insignificant (and those that think otherwise are living in a fantasy land).

Re:Due Process

[Khaed]

So you're planning on punishing the students for the University being dicks?

Seems like you're just adding to the pile of crap the students have to put up with.

Re:Due Process

[mdmkolbe]

I am a recent graduate of KU. They pay around $75 or $150 per semester for the network connection. (I don't remember the exact figure.) Far worse than the money is that if you live in the dorms, there are no other Internet options. (Well maybe dial-up, but you roommates wouldn't be to happy about you tying up the phone.)

This is just the latest in ResNet's abuse of students. They have consistently treated students as either the enemy to be assaulted or their employee to be ordered around. They have yet to learn that students are their customers.

They've blocked outgoing port 25. They say it is intended to block spam, but it prevented me from using my departmental or work e-mail accounts. They won't let you on the network unless you run their setup program that fiddles with who knows what configurations in your system (unless I can look at the source it is a security risk). Finish that all up with a little bit of traffic shaping and we have a monopoly abusing it's powers. They claim all these are necessary, but their ISP friends in the real seem to manage without such draconian measures.

I love the school and the campus, but I'm glad I don't have to deal with ResNet any more.

Re:Due Process

[Travelsonic]

prob all ready clauses in the contract that prevent them from downloading copyrighted material...

Only illegally obtained copyrighted material, you mean? I'd sure hate to get in trouble for downloading copyrighted stuff that is legally free/available...

HINT:Generalizations = fail

Re:Due Process

[sumdumass]

The candidate is always more qualified. It just might not be the level of schooling that makes them qualified. In the example I gave, the morals and ethics the school taught and how they taught the students it was proper to treat people under their control was insufficient or improper for the job I offer and where the other guy prevailed.

In this case, the education of stopping an activity in favor of just a claim and showing the students that this behavior is acceptable isn't the same values of ethics I want working at my firm. If everyone at my firm has a change to defend their actions first, this type of learning would clash with the system in place. Before you know it Unions would be there and they would be driving me out of business just like with every other company going overseas to escape.

Ok, maybe not unions but it wouldn't be run like I wanted it to be run. And what the owners want is more important then where someone got educated at.

Re:Due Process

[Anonymous Coward]

"paid for by tax payers, in the case of public schools"

I didn't realize tuition was free.

No seriously, I wonder why copyright infringement was singled out. If you park illegally on campus, do they remove your parking privileges forever? If you take more than your fair share in the dorm cafeteria, can you no longer eat on campus?

Sounds just alleging copyright violations at KU carries one of the harshest penalties. I wonder if you don't properly attribute your sources in a paper if they break your fingers? Anyway, if I was on the internet at KU, I'd try to encrypt all my traffic. Some idiotic letter comes from an RIAA lawyer, and the next thing you know, you might as well leave school.

Oh crap...

[FrostedWheat]

From the universities page: (which I downloaded into my browser...)

If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever

And further down, on the same page! (Which my browser downloaded, remember)...

Copyright © 2005 by the University of Kansas

Wow, that is harsh! I guess that's me banned then :-)

Re:Oh crap...

[NickFortune]

Yep. In fact, as a signatory to the Berne Convention, in the US copyright exists in every work not explicitly released into the publci domain. Which makes it a particularly stupid thing to say. I mean it is fairly obvious that they mean "no unauthorised downloading of copyright material", but if they really plan to implement a "no excuses, no appeal" policy, you'd think they'd take the 30 seconds or so it needed to phrase the thing correctly.

Even then, it's still way OTT. Half the papers on Citeseer (for instance) are there in technical violation of the copyright of the journals where they were first published. The journals turn a blind eye, which is why the site can keep on, but I can see a lot of sudents getting banned, which considering how widely used citeseer is as an academic resource, is a but ridiculous.

I suppose the only other way they could implement the policy as expressed is to rely on the word "caught". That way, if they don't look for downloaders, they don't find them, and selective enforcement becomes the order of the day. I suppose it might be useful if the they forsee needing a pretext to silence unruly students.

Re:Oh crap...

[Karellen]

No, someone isn't violating copyright by viewing your page, but the rule doesn't talk about *violating* copyright, it talks about *downloading copyrighted materials*.

*All* works, unless they carry a notice explicitly putting them into the public domain, are automatically copyrighted by the author[0]. They do not need a copyright notice for them to be copyrighted.

Now, as the author, you may make your work (web page) available for people to download for free; that is your right. And because you, as the copyright holder, are the one who has made the work available, the end users aren't breaking copyright by downloading it.

*However*, they are still *downloading copyrighted materials*. They may be doing so legally, but that is not what the rule cares about. The rule states that merely downloading copyrighted materials is grounds for account termination.

[0] Or, if it is a work-for-hire or similar, the work might be copyrighted by an entity other than the author. But it is still copyrighted.

Lack of Caring

[Bios_Hakr]

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.

Re:Lack of Caring

[neoform]

Nah, students wont cancel the accounts because they need them, instead what needs to be done is someone file copyright infringement claims against *every* student, and since this rule applies to claims and convictions they will all be required to lose their accounts.. showing how stupid this sort of rule is.

Re:Lack of Caring

[OverlordQ]

If you check the wording properly you'll notice a rather large problem. Almost every web page you visit has copyrighted material in it that you automatically download just by visiting the site. So by definition what you're saying is basically "Don't use the Internet".

This is typical slashdot behavior. Take everything out of context so everybody can get riled up about it. Sure the front page says 'copyrighted material', you think they'd put the full legalese on the frontpage or just a blurb saying "Its Bad, mkay"?

But if anybody would take the time to actually *READ* the subject at hand, you would find this paragraph:

If the University of Kansas receives notice of a copyright violation (downloading or uploading copyrighted material including music, movies, games, software, etc.) tied to the IP address registered in your name, you will receive an email and written notice that your access to the ResNet Network has been temporarily suspended for 5 business days, during which time you may appeal if you believe the copyright infringement notice was received in error. You have 5 business days from the date of notice to provide written documentation supporting your appeal to the Office of the Vice Provost for Student Success, describing the nature of the error. If your appeal is denied, your ResNet service will be permanently deactivated for the remainder of the time you live in KU's residential housing facilities. The ResNet fee is primarily a connection fee and not a usage fee. If your service is permanently terminated, there will be no subsequent refund of the ResNet activation fee, regardless of when the violation occurred.

And even if you fail your appeal, you just lose your ResNet access, you can still use computer labs on campus.

Re:Lack of Caring

[Ash Vince]

I think the slashdot needs similar policy to the uni of kansas:

One stupid moderation of a valid point gets your moderation privelidges removed forever.

But lets face it, if you were too stupid to make a valid poitn wouldnt you just hide behind the moderation system by using it to disagree with other people too?

Re:Lack of Caring

[Volante3192]

Ahh yes, because somewhere along the line "guilty until proven innocent" became the de facto standard.

We get riled up because of all the kneejerk reactions that create more problems than they solve. Sure, it might superficially seem ok, but the potential for abuse is so high, it's patently absurd.

Re:Lack of Caring

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the students care enough, they will all cancel their accounts. When the University sees a drop in revenue, they will have to decide."

You wish. Students NEED those accounts and the "drop in revenue" is NOTHING compared to what record companies may sue for.

Instead the students will behave. If they're in University, it's because they don't want to be burger flippers or janitors. Their future is at stake. They will suck it down and deal with it.

Corporate America has them by the balls.

Re:Lack of Caring

[1u3hr]

do tell me what was inflammatory about my post

"Don't download copywritten material." We're actually talking about copyrights, not copywriters (i.e. the guys who write advertisements). So I would have modded it down as "malapropism".

Re:Lack of Caring

[Chandon Seldon]

Protest all you want. Just don't download stuff to which you're not entitled. How hard is that?

The extent to which students should be downloading pirate content on a university residential network would make for an interesting discussion. I'd love to have that discussion at some point.

This story has nothing to do with that question though. This story is 100% about due process and appropriate penalties. Even if we assume that students should be downloading zero pirate content, the school IT department shouldn't be interfering with the primary goals of the school (education and research) with an unreasonable zero tolerance policy. That's like expelling a student for stealing a whiteboard marker.

Baby Meet Bathwater

[iluvcapra]

TFA mentions that Stanford and other schools charge high "Reconnection" fees after they block your MAC for sharing files. Why don't they just do something like that and make a load of money?

"Zero-tolerance" is all about moralism, and rarely about correcting behavior, or "teaching" people anything. It'll have a good effect statistically, but the people who get their privileges pulled won't have their attitude changed, they'll just conclude the "RIAA-Nazis" blackmailed his school into screwing with his education.

It doesn't matter how true it is, rules must give the appearance of fairness in order to be respected.

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater

[SamP2]

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*

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater

[iluvcapra]

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

We aren't talking about violent robbery, we're talking about copyright infringement. You can't equate a crime against intellectual property with violence. People who copy Content without paying for it are pretty far down the ladder of malfeasance, and spending a little effort to correct them might be worth it, compared to a violent felon. Most states don't deprive someone of their freedom forever after one violent offense, they, as a matter of fact, often have a three-strikes policy (excepting violence that is heinous, murderous, or pre-meditated). People who commit violent crimes often don't plan too, and thus aren't afraid of the punishment.

Let's not get start on the whole "copyright infringement is not a crime" stuff, OK?

I specifically tried to avoid addressing the merits of the "RIAA-Nazi blackmail" argument , but you seem to have read a conclusion into my statements that does not exist. FWIW, I doubt the school would have a zero-tolerance policy if not for the constant threat of lawsuits.

I am curious how this policy compares with their "Academic Integrity" (ie plagiarism) policy. Those generally are "one strike," though there is extensive student and faculty review and juridical proceedings before someone is expelled. I don't see any of that here.

Rules must be *fair* to be *respected*, but being *tough* is fine if all you care is about them being *effective*

You can't let "effectiveness" be the only metric. We could take every male between the age of 16 and 26 and keep them in prison, and it'd be EXTREMELY effective in reducing violent crime (something like 90%). Of course, such a solution punishes people who have no mens rea, who intend no ill to anyone or thing, and when you punish people who others can see are not guilty, the law suffers.

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater

[ajs318]

Bollocks. Rule by fear always breaks down, sooner or later, because fear can be overcome. This is something that authoritarians don't seem to get. Fear of getting caught is not what demotivates the majority of people from committing crime. That's just a Tory oversimplification. If someone is really determined, they will analyse the balance of probabilities purely in terms of a favourable vs. unfavourable outcome with a cool head.

Once you force someone into a corner, where the choice is "do something that you fear or die", they will choose to live, because they're more afraid of dying than of whatever you were going to do to them. In fact, the whole "overcoming fear" thing is how cave-men evolved into us. Oh, wait, you said Kansas .....

Re:Baby Meet Bathwater

[PaintyThePirate]

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.

sounds crap

[joe 155]

I'm not American, nor a lawyer, so I could be wrong... but as far as I know the DMCA contains many crazy rules which would be insanely easy to break - even breaking DRM to get access to a file which you have bought. Would this mean that they could get banned from the internet (which would effectively force them out of the halls they are in, because of how essential the internet is at uni) for just converting a protected WMA file so you can play it on linux? what about installing ntfs-3g? what about using an unlicenced mp3 codec? any unlincenced codec? just using linux (assuming they believe MS's claims about infringement)? Using any computer (hell, there are that many patents flying around that all computers violate; GUI ones, for example)...

Wouldn't all/most of these innocent things violate the DMCA? wouldn't that be enough to get you royally screwed?

How will they know?

[taxevader]

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.

Re:How will they know?

[Lewisham]

When I worked for a ResNet that shall go unnamed, almost all students would admit to copyright infringement when asked in a formal setting. There was not a single case where the MPAA/RIAA fired off an email where the student was not guilty. I know it's terribly fashionable around these parts to protest that universities should be standing up for students and such, but it is one thing to be the university that won't hand over names with IP addresses, and quite another to be the one that the MPAA/RIAA decides to take to court over the issue. The legal grey area, at least in the UK, had my ResNet worried, and felt they had to be seen doing something. Whether that is true in the US is another matter, and I can't comment on it. Honestly, I don't blame Kansas for their stance, and I don't think they are doing the students a disservice. Presuming they have some way of verifying claims made against students, why shouldn't they attempt to crack down on illegal uses of their bandwidth?

Typical Slashdot Sensationalism

[OverlordQ]

Typical Slashdot sensationalist story about the DMCA and people get all uppity before checking the facts of the case.

Let's take a look shall we:

If the University of Kansas receives notice of a copyright violation (downloading or uploading copyrighted material including music, movies, games, software, etc.) tied to the IP address registered in your name, you will receive an email and written notice that your access to the ResNet Network has been temporarily suspended for 5 business days, during which time you may appeal if you believe the copyright infringement notice was received in error. You have 5 business days from the date of notice to provide written documentation supporting your appeal to the Office of the Vice Provost for Student Success, describing the nature of the error. If your appeal is denied, your ResNet service will be permanently deactivated for the remainder of the time you live in KU's residential housing facilities. The ResNet fee is primarily a connection fee and not a usage fee. If your service is permanently terminated, there will be no subsequent refund of the ResNet activation fee, regardless of when the violation occurred.

1) You get a notice
2) You get a 5 day suspension
3) You have those 5 business days to submit an appeal if it was erroneous
4) If your appeal is denied (or you didn't submit one) your ResNet access is terminated.

It's the end of the world . . . oh wait . . .what's this?

You will still be able to use computer labs on campus and will retain the use of your KU email account.

So you lose your dorm access, but can walk down to a computer lab . . .

So I guess the moral of the story is, don't get caught, or don't use the schools network to download your movies

Re:Typical Slashdot Sensationalism

[argStyopa]

Generally I'm with you on the Slashdot sensationalism thing, but in this case, it's somewhat justified.

So, if I understand their system, the merest COMPLAINT will get you a suspension that will turn perma-ban if you don't appeal?

Simple, people (including students, since the source of the ban doesn't have to be particularly valid) can FLOOD the U with complaints and allegations. They don't have to be PROVEN, merely asserted. Don't like the people in that dorm? A couple of hours with a computer and printer and voila! you've just ginned up 350 complaint letters.

Then the burden is on THEM to appeal. THEN the university has to investigate/adjudicate every one.

See how dumb that is?

No, this is as stupid as holding phone companies responsible for the conversations over their lines. That was determined a long time ago to be ridiculous, yet today apparently the powers-that-be are too ball-less to actually SET a precedent that might make the RIAA/MPAA angry.

Did they think this through?

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> 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.

We've already seen that anyone outside the U.S can send a bogus DMCA takedown notice without penalty. Not often the US passes laws that prosecute Americans and give non-Americans free reign but there you go. Here are two recent cases showing how easy it is:

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897, 21563838-27317,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_200 70329_001882.html

Now Kansas University has said they'll shut down students account if *anyone* sends a DMCA notice, with right of appeal. So if someone outside the US was to take the University's mailing list and generate a bogus DMCA notice for each one, the
entire University would voluntarily shut itself down. This hole in DMCA has been suggested before, so it's hardly new.

Who dreamed up this nonsense? Didn't they think it through to its logical conclusion? Don't Universities teach critical thinking? I mean, Double Duh.

Re:Did they think this through?

[TheGreatHegemon]

Which is why we should all send the University DMCA notices for the University of Kansas RESNET staff.

Policy could affect research and study

[Cheesey]

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".

Re:Stop using that argument

[Aladrin]

You seem to have confused downloading with uploading. Who said ANYTHING about sharing the file with others? There's plenty of ways to download without uploading.

But that's immaterial, anyhow, as you have NO idea if the other person is doing it legally or not. I don't stop everyone I see on the street and verify that they are not an escaped criminal before I let them continue down the sidewalk, right? Even if that's not my duty, a police officer doesn't do that, either. Just because someone COULD be doing something illegal doesn't mean you should give a shit.

So tell me again why I shouldn't use the internet to replace that $50 game CD I lost? As a perfect example, I lost my Persona disc for PSX. On EBay, that disc goes for anywhere from $50 to $100. I think I only paid $40 originally, and I don't think I should have to pay that much to replace it. The company won't replace it, as the game is out of print. I'll be damned if I'll just suck it up and accept the loss. That's one of my favorite games of all time.

Re:Yeah, it's titled, Thou Shall Not STEAL !!

[VagaStorm]

>> EIGHT: 'Thou shall not steal.'
>> Riiiight. Big corporations are all corporationy anyway so I am justified. Strike me dead now if you disagree.


Gues we won't be hearing from him again :p

IT policy at U of Kansas is generally clueless

[ibn_khaldun]

The IT "services" at KU are clueless in general, not just with this, and they consistently appear to have mistaken their windowless cubicles for Olympus/Valhalla. Over the last ten years they have periodically gone through phases of issuing draconian policies, only to find them unenforceable. My favorite (though by no means only) example was a policy that anyone caught writing down a password (passwords, of course, were required to be changed every 42 minutes, contain Mayan glyphs, etc) could be fired. Never enforced, much to the disappointment of local lawyers. They went through another phase of barging into faculty offices and imaging disks, except they would get the office numbers incorrect and leave the faculty member with an inoperable machine. And sometimes really picked the wrong office... The individuals involved are no longer in our employ, as the saying goes (and were last seen staked to the ground near an anthill, I believe...)

Two or three mistaken enforcements of this -- yes, that will happen with near certainty given past experience -- and the effect of this will be simply to drive students out of the dorms. Someone with an ounce of clue (necessarily, outside of ITS) will figure that it is a whole lot cheaper to stonewall the RIAA on most cases than to deal with the cost of empty rooms, the policy will be quietly dropped, and IT will go in search of something else they can screw up.

Reversed burden of proof?

[smurfsurf]

So *you* have to proof you did nothing wrong? What will they considered sufficient "documentation supporting your appeal"? What *can* you write? "During that time, I was surfing the web, reading news sites, I have no idea why they would accuse me of downloading X"? What use does it have anyway?

If you say you did the claimed things, you will get your access suspended and later sued by the copyright holder.
If you say you did not do the claimed things (if true or not), you will get your access back and later sued by the copyright holder nonetheless.

This provision is still open for a DOS on all the students. File reports on all of them, and the whole student body has their boxes disconnected for five days. Or stack it over a period of time to create "disconnection waves" for parts of the student. Keeps them frightend about who will not be able to work from their computer this week.

This is just stupid.

Re:Stop using that argument

[LinuxIsRetarded]

So tell me again why I shouldn't use the internet to replace that $50 game CD I lost? As a perfect example, I lost my Persona disc for PSX. On EBay, that disc goes for anywhere from $50 to $100. I think I only paid $40 originally, and I don't think I should have to pay that much to replace it. The company won't replace it, as the game is out of print. I'll be damned if I'll just suck it up and accept the loss. That's one of my favorite games of all time.

What a socially irresponsible attitude! What would you do if your $1000 Akita puppy ran away and never returned? Would you simply steal another one? After all, no one would replace him free of charge for you. And don't complain about the analogy, either. You are arguing in favor of stealing something to replace something you lost.

Just bite the bullet and accept that you lost your Persona disc and you can't get another one without paying for it. Then maybe next time you'll be a bit more careful with your possessions (or better yet, you'll simply realize that there are far more important things in life than material possessions).

Easy Solution

[Rhyas]

Don't go to KU. Several things influence decisions on what schools to go to, this one would rank very highly on my list of reasons NOT to attend KU.

Re:Yeah, it's titled, Thou Shall Not STEAL !!

[brassman]

"What is it that someone will not have after you download a copy of a piece of music, that they did have before you downloaded it (the "deprive" bit) and there is no way for them to get back (the "permanent" bit)?"

Your money.

Okay, they didn't have your money yet, but you didn't have the music -- and you obviously want it, else you wouldn't have downloaded it.

So "your money" is a shorthand way of saying "A legitimate expectation that you would either buy from them or do without, which you have circumvented by illicit means that disregard a lawful copyright."

TFA is still f-cked up, though; if they're citing DMCA then 's/download/upload/' surely? Downloading is not a DMCA violation. Uploading might be.

Warning: Comment by Catholic Saint below.

[CowboyCapo]

"An unjust law is no law at all."

Quote care of St. Augustine.

"An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

Quote care of St. Thomas Aquinas.

In short, I would say that KU will find either that this 'law' will be unenforceable, or that their supposed cure will be far worse than the supposed problem, causing the IT department to make the ultimate sanction available to them vis a vis ResNet on everyone who uses the web for anything whatsoever.

It aught to make for interesting watching for anyone that is not a student at KU.

Too much credit to RMS and not enough to MIT.

[argent]

It's not really different from what happened to RMS at MIT! He too felt so harassed in his freedom to share information that he finally came up with a fantastic alternative. There would be no OSS today, had they been more liberal at MIT AI-lab back then.

Open Source Software owes at least as much to Berkeley's liberal attitude, *and* MIT's liberal attitude, as to RMS. RMS has effectively and unfairly demonized the AI lab, and he's been given too much credit for being one of the more visible rocks in an avalanche of open source software that was already in motion well before he penned the GNU manifesto.

The idea that MIT-AI, MIT-MC, and the rest... running an OS that let any user be "root" and giving accounts to outsiders (including Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle)... were insufficiently "liberal", or that there would be no FOSS without RMS... is distressingly common today, and completely at odds with what the growing open-systems and free-source software community was actually like at the time.

Re:This is SO Kansas!!

[toddestan]

You've obviously never been to Texas.