Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Tie Financial Aid To Anti-Piracy Plans
theodp writes "The MPAA is applauding top Democratic politicians for introducing an anti-piracy bill that threatens the nation's colleges with the loss of a $100B a year in federal financial aid should they fail to have a technology plan to combat illegal file sharing. The proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page bill, has alarmed university officials. 'Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid — including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy,' said university officials in a letter to Congress. 'Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal.'"
George.Miller@mail.house.gov
The Bull-Moose party had a pretty good showing of 27% of the vote, but then that was 1912. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
Here are talking points issued by EDUCAUSE on this matter. If you are unsure of what to say when you call your representatives, these may come in handy.
Talking Points
Concerning changes to the House "College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007" as introduced November 9, 2007.
The House bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA), "College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007," addresses the problem of copyright infringement on campus networks in two parts. The higher education community supports the first part that deals with disclosure of institutional policies and opposes the second part that requires campuses to develop new institutional plans for addressing infringement on their networks.
Part one occurs in Sec. 485, DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RELATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.--Section 485(a)(1) requires institutions to report to their students annually on their policies and practices with respect to copyright infringement on campus networks. This is the same provision included in the Senate HEA bill and the higher education community supports this provision.
Part two occurs in a new SEC. 494 (A), CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION, which requires that all institutions eligible for financial aid under Title IV "(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity." These requirements are unacceptable and the higher education community urges that this section be removed from the bill.
Campuses that offer legal downloading services typically must charge a student fee to cover the expense. Taken across all campuses, this practice could represent a transfer of over $400 million annually from higher education to the entertainment industry while raising the cost of higher education.
Most colleges and universities have already considered offering legal, online music or movie services. Their students, however, have often told them they do not want to use or pay for these services because they do not carry musicians that the students want, do not work with Apple iPods, etc. The failure of industry to create and offer attractive downloading services should not lead to a federal solution in which colleges and universities must bear an additional financial burden so that industry can sell more of these services.
Today's technologies to deter copyright infringement on college and university networks are expensive, do not solve the problem, and fail to meet basic requirements identified by higher education community experts in a workshop of the Joint Committee of Higher Education and the Entertainment Community on April 19-20, 2007. Installing deterrent technology now at every campus would require an even larger increase in the cost of higher education.
The higher education community is already working with the entertainment industry to explore technology-based deterrents as planned in the next steps of this workshop.
Campus networks are a small fraction of the copyright infringement problem. The MPAA estimates that 18.4% of copyright infringers are college students and that they are responsible for 44% of revenue lost to copyright infringement. These figures are inaccurate and overstate the case. Yet even by these figures, since less than 20% of college students live on campus and use the residence hall networks, this means that less than 4% of the infringers are using campus networks, and they are responsible for less than 9% of the losses. Over 91% of the claimed losses are on commercial networks. While solving this small part of the problem on campus networks would be desirable, any solutions will be partial, difficult, and expensive, and will only move the problem elsewhere. Campus networks should not be singled out with respect to commercial networks when addressing copyright infringement.
We oppose the provision in part (2) of section 494 (A) and urge that it be eliminated.
Students would just transfer to a school that did filter internet content and thus one that could offer financial aide. I was in university when napster was first released. I really wished they would have blocked it. All of the network band width disappeared overnight. I used to send data from the physics lab back to my dorm room file server. That became almost impossible after napster. IF illegal activities are preventing legitimate learning from taking place, it should be blocked. Now, I'm not looking forward to stupid filters ala comcast that cant tell the difference between a linux iso and Britteny spears albumn. I fear thats what everyone would end up with. But you really have to blame the pirates for that.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Section 494:
I'd love to see the Electoral College phased out, but with all the screaming about voting machines here in the States, I really don't know what to replace it with.
Back in The Day, states used to pick their senators based on the laws of that state. Didn't necessarily mean by popular vote. Maybe we should just have ballots marked Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Lunatic Fringe instead of a candidate's name, have the parties post and advertise their platforms, and just vote by party, then let the party bigwigs decide who's going to be the meatpuppet when it's done. How much worse for things could it get?
Good thing you still have your First Amendment right of Free Speech. Oh, wait...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I also reject your claim that "most of us would prefer a more European system." Citations or it's just your desires being projected onto everyone else to bolster your internal support for your ideology. Also, "statistics showing the US falling behind everyone else in terms of education, healthcare and standard of living" is the result of government meddling, not the result of too little government interference. Each of those standards have steadily decreased as government interference increased.
Stop Koolaid Politics
If all federal funds were cut to my university, I would lose my grants. Being that I do not have a rich mommy and daddy to pay my way, that would mean that I would need a full-time job to go along with my part-time job, just to have any possible chance of paying my tuition in full. Somehow, I think that working 55 hours a week would cut into my GPA a bit.
I don't know exactly what your definition of "liberty" is, but it sounds rather like slavery to me; and if someone needs to work 55 hours a week and somehow balance a course-load along with that in order to be "responsible," then they obviously aren't mature enough in the first place. I certainly have no trouble being responsible, even with my "snout" in the Federal government's "feeding trough," as you put it.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
The most disturbing part here is that the arrests may not be illegal. The debates some how manage to be privately-operated events.