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.'"
So no worries right ? After all they're socialists. Using the governments power to mandate good behavior is very un-social right ? And forcing centrally made decisions upon everyone in the country is very unlike the democrats, right ? Oh wait ...
Don't worry democrats won't let you down (*cough*)
This is shocking. I really mean that in the full sense of the word. This has completely and totally shocked me. It's not necessarily the actions the media-industry that have disappointed me; that was no surprise and this sort of behaviour is totally expected of them.
It's the out-and-out corruption of the people who hold office. They don't even try to conceal the fact they're bought and paid for. It's completely obscene. There is no way that any rational politician would draft such a proposal.
What the hell do you do about it? Like the United Kingdom [1] you have a first-past-the-post system of electing government. What this means is that you have two parties who exchange power at regular intervals with very little prospect of a third, forth or fifth party getting in to the running.
In my view, this is no improvement whatsoever on the aristocratic feudal system that the whole American enterprise was meant to fix. In the United Kingdom the Catholic aristocracy and the Protestant aristocracy fought for political supremacy down a number of centuries.
You might have different names for them, "Republican" and "Democrat", and their values are different to our aristocrats but the mechanics are fundamentally the same. I mean, you're on your second aristocrat from the Bush family and you're likely to get your second helping of from the Clinton family. Without wanting to flame-bate: Does that sound like the American dream to you?
Once you have accepted the difficult fact that you are under the thumb of two aristocratic bodies then corruption is essentially impossible to eliminate without a revolution. Corruption just comes at twice the price.
How we fight them? I am not an expert on the political structure of the United States, but could the recent Real ID rebellion be expanded in to a more protracted battle? I broadly think that the threatening the cut of funds to a state to ram through some policy decision from Washington offends the nature of the Constitution. If the forefathers wanted an Omnipotent Congress they would have adopted a Parliamentary system like our own.
In a sense, Congress has exploited a hole in the Constitution via a broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause and using the stick of withholding funds to pressure state legislatures.
I think the states are the solution to this problem but it will require radical swift action to succeed.
Simon
[1] - I want to preface it with this comment with this - our country is no better and everything I say here can be said of the United Kingdom.
They find ways to cut education spending and make it look like it's someone else's fault.
We already knew that the MPAA would want something like this, and that they are willing to draft congressional bills. We also knew that plenty of politicians, including democrats, are owned by them.
This is only a proposal.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
If this isn't the perfect example why nations like China and Russia want control of the internet not to be with the US, now you can't even trust them Democrats!
;)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
When in doubt, punish everyone - students guilty of illegal downloading and hardworking students who've never downloaded a thing in their life and need loans and grants to be able to afford to go to school alike. Yeah. Great idea that.
Looks like we've been fooled again.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
From the office of naming-things-for-exactly-the-opposite-of-what-they-do:
This is part of the "College Opportunity and Affordability Act". Mmhmmm. Because the rising cost of higher education, coupled with a failing economy, additional costs for universities, and a chance to deny students financial aid really gives more people opportunities and certainly makes it more affordable.
The United States is in a race to the bottom. Every great empire falls - I just wish I wasn't stuck in the middle of this one. I'm just glad I'm about to start learning a second language (I know a bit of Spanish, but not enough to call it my second language). Hopefully I'll be able to jump ship before it goes under.
For many years, I've heard the chants of the "if you don't like it, leave!" crowd. For a long time, I fought back. I believed that the right thing to do if you loved America was to not leave, but to fight for a better nation. I'm afraid I've lost that faith. Unless things drastically change over the next few years, as a freedom loving individual, I'm sad to say I'll have no choice but to leave and watch the country implode from the sidelines.
I hope they DO pass this, and I hope a large number of colleges and universities refuse to comply, and many thousands of students lose their grants and aid. This is just the sort of wide-reaching, shocking, horribly unjust-seeming PR disaster that needs to happen to wake up Joe Citizen to what the *AAs and their paid-for lackeys in Congress are doing. Hopefully, this will start an upheaval against all laws that appear *AA-influenced, including the insane copyright length extensions.
I know, I know. Fat chance. One can dream, though.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Middle class too! And, WTF, I understand now that any sort of drug offense, you lose your financial aid, student loans are getting harder and harder to pay, and if you have any sort of bad luck and you're stuck with those loans forever - can't get out of them with bankruptcy!
Why don't our politicians just come out and say "No more financial Aid!"
The meritocracy in America is continually being eroded away by special interests.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
.. America destroy itself from within :)'
Easiest victory ever.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Well in reality Bush is more Democrat then Republican... The reasons Democrats hate him is the majority of Democrats are Liberal Bias too. But Bush is Neo-Conservative, So it is all the big Government of the Democrats with the Neo-Conservative values. You listen to the rants some of the people do like on Digg, about Bush and you read what they should do. It is almost like reading from the Republican Guideline book... They just don't realize it because hatred of Bushes "Ethical Views".
Republicans can be Against Big Business, Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Anti-War, Against Dethpenality... It is just that most of them arn't.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So it sounds like a lobby group is bribing politicians to blackmail universities to catch students who are copying songs. am i interpreting this properly?
and the democrat stands up after him and says 'AND I CAN MAKE IT SHITTIER!!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Universities should forfeit their federal financial aid if they don't go along with a few other problems:
Abstinence-only approach to sex education, STDs, and birth control.
Just say NO! to drugs.
O heck, that's enough. It's not worth trying to think up any more.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
George.Miller@mail.house.gov
Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss...
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Keep it up!
Love,
Your competitors in the rest of the world.
I wonder if this is how the British Empire collapsed too.
It's official now: file sharing is the new "weed." The penalties for file sharing are rapidly growing, with small impact on how many people actually do it. This should sound familiar, as it is pretty much the same historical track taken by marijuana laws. File sharing isn't quite as far along in the process, but there will be a "War on Piracy" soon enough.
Marijuana laws are generally an easier sell, though, since you can directly see the effect of drug abuse on a person. (Especially if you trot out some of the worst potheads for shock value...) Copying files from other people doesn't turn you into a slack-jawed idiot, unless you count some of those fools who wear an iPod all the time.
It's times like these when I am REALLY glad the second amendment to our constitution is still fully in force.
For those keeping track, the PATRIOT Act was only 342 pages (PDF warning) - and wasn't really read by anyone who signed off on it because it was long, had a nice name, and there was a sense of urgency to pass it.
I get the feeling that with more than twice the pages and a nice name attatched to it (College Opportunity and Affordability Act), this will get a similar reception. "Oh, well, it has a nice name - and it's far too long to bother reading and understanding... Plus, if I vote against it I'll be mentioned as voting against opportunity and affordability for students!"
Sad, but true.
Isn't that how it works?
Hey, I hear some congressmen are taking bribes. The next time that happens, let's seize the assets of every congressman and garner their wages for ten years to come.
Ooh, and all this can go away if the Universities pay Audible Magic. Now, they wouldn't have anything to do with the current RIAA shakedowns, would they?
If you think democrats are socialists, you have some really screwed up vision of what it means to be a socialist. From a european view, the democrats are right wing, just a bit shy of being extreme right wing (neo-nazi). Republicans would come dangerously close to extreme right wing.
The most liberal democrat would still be considered a right-winger.
A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor.
Not exactly stuff the democrats seem to care about. No, not even hillary.
To be fair, the US is a totally different culture then western europe. You made your system work, we made our system work. One of the biggest culture clashes is that neither side seems capable of understanding that the other side LIKES their system.
If you tell the swedes that they are insane that they have their working population support a segment that could work but doesn't, they wouldn't understand what you are on about. They think their welfare system makes for a nice place to live in. If you told a working american that X% of his taxes went to a career student the ceiling would hit the roof.
The french LIKE their huge goverment system.
One of the most serious errors you can make in the world is to try and force your countries system on another (Oh yeah, Iraq is a very definite example of this.)
But even so, allowing democrats to be called socialists is going to far, just because they make up the US political left, does not make then socialist. By european standards they would definitly be on the right end of the spectrum and be dangerously close to the far right.
Far right is NOT extreme right, it is the difference between being loving your country, and hating foreigners.
IF the US has a problem (IF, it is kinda like saying, Oh Bill Gates is no longer number 1, he is in trouble, I would like to have his troubles) it is that its two party system has resulted in people having a choice between a moderate right winger who leans a bit to the left and a moderate right winger who leans a bit to the right. The end result is that whichever you pick, you get a compromise candidate who is always a rightwinger trying to appeal to both leftish right wingers and right wing right wingers.
That doesn't leave a lot of room for trying a new direction. The dems can't go to the center, for fear of alienating the right wing, and the republicans can't go to far too the right for fear of alienating the moderates on their side.
From a EU perspective it is often very hard to spot the difference between US presidential candidates.
But make no mistake, none of them is a socialist. Read up on what it means and you might see why the US can never go for it. It ain't in your countries culture. An american would recoil at the state providing for him from grib to grave. In the EU, we thing that is nice and exactly what we have goverment for.
(Please note I am being very generic here, so please don't tear my head off because you live in the US and are a communist or you live in the EU and want bushes baby).
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In all cases the problem is how government and business mixes, because they should at least try to maintain some semblance of separation. For foreign stuff they will usually try to claim its for the benefit of both local and american "industry" in a general sense, rather than for the benefit of just one specific company (even if its a lie people don't tend to notice cos it happens abroad, or they ignore it cos they get cheap products as a result). In this case though, the extortion is domestic, with a specific private industry leveraging their business goals onto public institutions via manipulation of federal legislation. Having industry write the laws they want in this way doesn't just undermine the basic concepts of democracy and accountability, it leads long term to a stagnant and non-competitive economy (cos the big industries write laws to stifle competition). In that sense it is actually not in the general interests of industry to be able to write their own laws, because it will lead to even the law-writing industry being uncompetitive on the international stage.
Not sure how much this really "just" demanding filter related IT campus, versus really grabbing for mass extortion of (poor) students' funds with some kind of blanket tax when filtering fails on a few, but it is pretty bad either way. The Pell students represent the lowest income where each dollar is going to be a serious item. Stealing from the poor(est) students, perhaps killing the golden goose for many, for shame... We know who the real economic terrorists are. Just wish we could arrange that holiday at Camp X-ray for them.
dumb fucking anon coward troll...
It isn't so easy to live without a degree, and it is very difficult to get a degree without loans. IF the only options for locations to get the degree for some people becomes East City Janitorial and Tech College, there will be no perceived value to the degree.
Those who can afford their own ride already will be fine, and the gap just got enormous.
All of this is pure speculation, but likely and obvious. Whichever scumbag in DC decided to slip this in with no consideration for so much of the population should be the first against the wall.
They do the same thing with federal funds for roads ( for example ).
"if you want your citizens taxes back, you will go ahead and agree to do waht we cant constitutionally enforce in the first place" "if you dont, well we will keep the money and you will have to fund the repairs yourself. Oh, and we can mandate that you repair them. Have a nice day"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I guess filesharing doesn't nmean much to you, does it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
revenues. If it has come to this level, it classifies as not an anti-piracy push, but an assault against the nation itself.
people ARE going to go on with file sharing. cut the grants if you dare. in 20 years you will be trying to teach english to chinese college graduates you imported from china because american colleges are putting out pathetic amounts.
Read radical news here
For a while now I have gotten the feeling that the united states is less of a democracy of the masses and more democracy of the rich. Laws such as these further help create an underclass serving the needs to of those with the money an influence. It also helps to further decimate an already fragile and poorly funded education system. Its hardly surprising that there are so many immigrant researchers, since with the education system with they way it is from K12 to university we don't have much better to offer. More money is channeled into the symptoms of the a badly run education system and society, that into what cause the problem.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Not universities.
Forcing universities to police crimes they don't commit and cannot stop or pay a subscription fee ($$$$) sounds an awful lot like blackmail (mafia). In the end, all universities will end up just paying the subscription due to the ever present threat of a student simply tunneling peer-to-peer traffic through standard web protocols.
Tying funding to regulation completely unrelated to the industry is yet another bad precedent (as well as punishing the innocent along with the guilty as others mentioned).
Camping on quad since 1996.
The relevancy lies in who is committing an action, and who is being punished for it. The assumption that all students are stealing is absolutely absurd. All students will lose their loans and aid because some are downloading perceived stolen music. The math doesn't add up. As soon as some universities started pointing out flaws in finding the exact student by IP in the shotgun approach, the laws suddenly shift to the entire campus.
Ok, pass this bill. That is, as long as it has a paragraph that states that if any member of the MPAA is caught evading taxes or any other law, every member of the MPAA is imprisoned.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Just curious which "argument" will win. Since college students are technically children (youngins still dependent on parents), "Think of the children!" could apply here given the inevitable sad sob stories due to spring up detailing poverty stricken students losing their college funding and forced to go back to work at McDonald's for life.
Camping on quad since 1996.
In a nutshell, this has nothing to do with which party is in power. The political price for access has been paid and the corporate masters want legislation that gives them a competitive advantage. The *IAA both know that there is nothing they can do about overseas duplication, and that, in the end, there is nothing they can do about "copy sharing piracy" (Notice the quotes, all you literalists. I quote because semantically you're right. It's copyright infringement. Piracy involves theft of actual goods. Now go troll someone else's post.)
This law is all about the horse-trading that goes on in Congress, and political party makes no difference. Members of Congress need enormous amounts of money to effectively run for their offices. Here, in Indiana, I would need $15 dollars to mount a plausible bid against my Congressman. I'd need twice that much to run for Senate. That level of fund raising comes at a cost. Namely access and quid pro quo. I need the same amounts to keep my office as I spent to get it, adjusted for inflation. And I can't do anything politically without seniority, so I have to stick around in Congress for a while.
The solution is a mix of term limits, public funding of elections, and a shorter election season. None of these will happen because the political will simply isn't there. In the meantime, corporations will just buy market advantage in legislature. The *IAA want you to buy their product. They aren't above forcing you by getting their pets to enact laws.
Exactly. All of these NeoCons are more "down" than "right", and most Dems these days are leaning "down" too, though they are still more true to their liberal roots than Reps are to their conservative.
And what is this NeoCon/"down" position called? Authoritarian.
This is why people are so confused by Ron Paul and asking if he's running in the right party. He may lean Libertarian ("up"), but he's more Republican than any of those other bozos.
Anyone actually read the bill? There's 2 things it says.
1) If they choose to, Schools can spend grant money on technologies to prevent illegal file sharing.
2) Schools must submit a description of their plan for dealing with illegal file sharing. It says nothing about what the plan must be. So a "We respond to all DMCA takedown notices." could be the extent of their plan.
If there's a piece I'm missing please let me know.
I find it truly astonishing that in today's world, a collection of Industry-leading corporations (i.e. the members of the MPAA) can even have the slightest affect on something so distant in relation to its primary purpose - that a collection of movie companies can affect the outcome of the nation's further educational establishments.
ilovegeorgebush
[sarcasm] As long as industry draft the bills, and the people in power sign off on them, and you continue to elect people that do not read the legislation that they are voting on... this must be the system that you want. [/sarcasm]
SEC. 487. INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE INFORMATION FOR STUDENTS.
....
(a) DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RELATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
--Section 485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended--
"[incorporate] institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement
(i) including--distribution of copyrighted material, including unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to civil and criminal liabilities;
(ii) a summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws;
(iii) a description of the institution's policies with respect to unauthorized peer to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary
actions that are taken against students who engage in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution's information technology system; and
(iv) a description of actions that the institution takes to prevent and detect unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on the institution's information technology system.".
---
So, basically, the way I read this, the legislation is a hat-tip to the MPAA...but it has absolutely no teeth. It requires colleges to basically hand out a pamphlet about the "evils of file-sharing" and to have some sort of INTERNAL system up to punish file sharers and an INTERNAL technological system to prevent unauthorized file sharing. Effectively, if the MPAA comes to the University saying "give us the names of the students", the college can say "we have disciplined the student internally, and it won't go on his record, and now go away, so we can finish educating our student without the interruption of a lawsuit."
Of course, this proposed bill (which hasn't even hit THOMAS yet) completely ignores the fact that the university might use peer to peer file sharing to exchange free software for classes, for students to exchange pictures of extra-curricular activities, scholarly collaboration, or use of bittorrent or file sharing technologies for medical doctors to be able to help isolated Tibetan doctors perform complicated surgeries, etc.
This is truly sad. A university is shouldn't be asked to participate in corporate shenanigans like this.
What they should be doing is pulling funding from universities like U of Delaware for requiring students to adopt the idea that all whites are racists (among other things). Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
They've since stopped this program but why aren't heads rolling over this?
My guess is that this particular bill will be shot down, but congress needed to propose it to show that the MAFIAA's bribes are being put to good use. The actual meat of this bill will most likely be tacked onto something that is sure to pass, like spending bills for the war in iraq.
I got nothin'
The parallels are striking:
(1) Both are essentially unenforceable laws,
(2) Which many people are guilty of breaking.
(3) Both are victimless crimes.
(4) They can be used as "catch all" laws in cases where no actual crime has been committed.
(5) Demonisation tactics have been used in both cases, from "Reefer Madness" to the "You wouldn't steal a $PHYSICAL_OBJECT" ads.
(6) There is a massive disparity between the penalties and the harm caused in both cases: a conviction can ruin your life, get you fired or thrown out of college, and unable to get a job.
The only difference is that people choose to be involved with drugs, whereas people can be pirates without even realising it. Evidence of piracy might be a small violation of an EULA, or an MP3 file that your friend sent you and you forgot to delete. Future police forces might be able to arrest, charge and convict almost anyone for piracy, ruining their lives before they can say "police state".
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
I am sophomore in college student attending school in the United States. Without the help of financial aid, I would not be attending school. Unfortunately, my parents cannot afford to help me out with my tuition and expenses. I have divorced parents; my mom is chronically ill, and my dad doesn't make enough to be able to help me.
I will probably be the first to be harmed by this proposal, if it goes through. I have tried to get financial aid, although I can only get about 1/7 of what I actually need. The rest is my life savings of having to work since I was 13 and what I am making working during school. If this does go through, I will not be able to finish my college career in 4 years, I might have to take some time off to work and save up, giving the next kid (who is lucky enough to have the money to finish school) a degree much faster at a younger age, putting him straight on top of the competitive age.
This is so unfortunate that our country is more concerned with copyright laws, etc, rather than our own students' well-being and their ability to learn the skills needed to be successful in the 21st century. After all, we will rule the world some day.
It's not a lack of willpower for some students to finish school; we're not all lazy and we do give a shit about what's going on. I guess our needs aren't heard very well...
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.
Political parties change. If most Republicans are neo-cons, then the Republican party is a neo-conservative party. The sooner people realize and accept this, the sooner we'll stop electing fascists (yes, look it up) like GW Bush simply because of his party. "I've always voted Republican" is not a reason to do so again.
Hah. Yea that's 100% true, but think about all of us that already have an education and skills - we're going to be RICH!
Somehow I don't think I've thought my cunning plan all the way through, but it sure looks good on paper.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
No, the problem is that a federal legislator was bribed into thinking that it is the universities' job to play media policeman without funding to do so. The file sharing problem is so small that universities should not be concerning themselves with it. It is a waste of time and resources.
So the Republicans screw the poor by offering large tax cuts for the rich while at the same time eliminating social programs, if you want to live, either work three jobs or join the army. The Democrats eliminate your chance for higher education by using gunpoint tactics against colleges.
Anyone here able to tell me the difference between those parties? Let's assume I was poor in the US, who should I vote for? What party does actually try to better my situation?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
"Turn on, tune in, drop out."
I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell this is the relevant passage in this Bill, which seem to be amending requirements on institutions receiving Federal education money: (10) the support of efforts to establish pilot programs and initiatives to help college campuses to reduce illegal downloading of copyrighted content, in order to improve the security and integrity of campus computer networks and save bandwidth costs; What is the definition of "support?" Who determines the nature and details of the "pilot programs and initiatives?" This seems to me to be an incredibly vague basis for denying financial aid. If the "initiatives" are to include content filtering on university networks, this seems to me to be federally imposing censorship duties on colleges and universities. I love this country! If as implied in the CNet story, "initiatives" is to include compulsory purchase of content to somehow sate their students hunger for copyrighted material, what is there to say but WTF? How is this not extorting money from universities to give to the RIAA and MPAA? How does this help higher education? If the problem is a sense of entitlement to free content, how does this really address rather than aggravate the issue? Best to leave things vague so that the details of compliance are left to the Feds. There seems to be no "letter" in this law that would allow any institution to make it's own determination of compliance. The spirit of the law is this: "Play ball, or else!" The ballgame in question looks to be letting the entertainment industry dictate policy and expenditures to higher education. What could go wrong there?
Trust me, nobody in Europe who actually has seen what a socialist party is like would consider the Democrats socialist. If anything, they're centrist.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The thing I find the most appalling about this is that the two Senators who added this to the bill are on the higher ed committee! Their purpose is to protect and assist higher education and students, not to hurt it.
I wonder how long it will be before someone does something violent to the MAFIAA....
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
Quite true, and it's annoying that the media do not address this side of things. They either talk about Republicans or Democrats but never the issue that neither really serve the peoples interests. That's because the fourth branch of US government is a one party system. (Although the internet has a chance of changing that if it doesn't get locked down soon.)
Badass Resumes
I attend a community college as a non-traditional student. Due to events that happened to my family when I was in highschool I had to drop out and get a job to help support my family. I recently returned to school going part time, and I can only attend college because of financial aid. I used to hate school but I love college and am happy to say that my gpa is 3.87. My college has a high number of non-traditional students going there, meaning those over the age of 25 who are returning to school. Now I mention all of this to say that there is generally a large number of regular students who come in because their parents have made them, and they usually last a semester before they drop out. The majority of these students come from middle and upper-middle class backgrounds. These students spend a lot of time just messing around on their laptops in lobby areas, playing music and games and so on. If some of these students are using the university's network to download some song, this bill then means I can't afford to go to college anymore. Yup that makes sense. I know several students who do not even own a computer of any sort, and also are 100% reliant on financial aid to afford going to classes. This type of bill would eliminate from college many students who want the opportunity to go, just because some fuck-offs want to download some music rather than attend class because daddy will stop payments on their shiny new car if they aren't enrolled. This is a mean-spirited bill harming those who generally cannot stand up for themselves: us poor folks who work hard but haven't had the opportunities for advancement due to unfortunate circumstances. How anyone can suggest this bill does anything to "help" financial aid is beyond my comprehension. We live in a society where those at the top of the economic pyramid issue dictates that harm the majority that is not lucky enough to have hundreds of millions and billions. Copyright infringement is a problem, but I think it has less to do with university students downloading stuff than it is the fact that people have a lot less disposable income than they have had in the past. There also is the issue of price gouging by media corporations where the price of cds has remained relatively the same regardless of the drop in the cost of production since the time when cds were first introduced. I also do not believe that all this bullshit about paying the artists is true, and I would like to know what percentage of a sale of a CD, or more importantly how much of these fines and such imposed on copyright infringers the average artist gets. This legislation just makes me angry and yet more cynical. We really have lost our way as a nation when the sense of civic responsibility goes so far away that our elected leaders blatantly create legislation that only benefits a tiny segment of the population that needs the least at the expense of those who need the most help. Its rather hard to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you can no longer get an education. . .
Insert witty sig here.
I'm reading the linked PDF file, and I don't see anything about requiring colleges to do anything to P2P sharing. The closest I can find is section 487 which says that colleges must list P2P file sharing in their policies about illegal activities. It's kinda unclear because the bill lists modifications to the existing 1965 bill with stuff like "insert an 'and' and delete the semicolon then add the word 'P2P file sharing' ..." But I don't see anything that says they must take any particular action on file sharing. What they added seems completely pointless B.S. There's already a lot about copyright in the bill, but 99% of it is about illegally copying educational materials.
Can someone clarify this for me? Where is the section we should be concerned about?
The revolution would not be televised because no one will be watching.
You can actually can have some influence over politicians. The two-party system means that waiting until the general election is probably too late, but there are primary battles going on all over the country at all different levels. Find someone who isn't corrupt and vote for them over the incumbent.
In the case of this bill, contact your congresscritters and tell them what's wrong with it. The most important are the people on this list, as they're the members of the education committee that's nominally responsible for it.
CNET just wants people to think "Democrats= bad" (and more generally "government=bad"), so TFA doesn't bother to say *who* these "top Democratic politicians" are, but it turns out there are only two of them so far:
George Miller (CA 7)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX 15)
They are clearly hoping to get a lot more co-sponsors and eventually a veto-proof majority, because the bill is mostly about money for education and most politicians like to be seen as helping kids. But it's still an early draft, so there's a good chance of getting the RIAA stuff taken out.
i wonder what all is in this pork smelling tree sized truck load of paper...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
...saying much the same thing during the 2000 election. Well, things have gotten worse than most of us could have imagined, and the populace hasn't risen up en masse to hang the bastards from lightposts yet. This will barely register on Joe Citizen's radar, because, if this bill passes, either universities will challenge it in court, or roll over immediately. They won't let that kind of money get away.
they need those 747 pages to BBQ all the pork within...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
School is expensive enough in the USA, I don't think these grant-supported US-citizens would be able to afford schooling in England.
The conspiracy nut in me wonders if this is an effort by faith-based right-wingers to drive more and more people away from higher education. Get the kiddies early with stories of Sky Daddy, and keep them from experiencing crazy new ideas...where's my tin foil?
Blar.
Oh gosh. I [i]wish[/i] we had a Socialist candidate make it far enough along the process to vote into office. Wait, you mean that's why we have a two-party system to begin with? You mean it's to keep out ideas that might work for the people? What, you mean voting doesn't matter much anyway, not in a congressional republic at least?
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Man, I align with the dems on nearly every issue on the planet, but initiatives like these are what make me fail to put a check mark in the Democrat party affiliation box when I registered to vote 20 years ago. Yeah, this is a GREAT idea dems; make it HARDER to get an education and let people fall further behind in life just because they happen to download a few songs...
Oh, catching a MAFIAA member breaking copyright law would already be enough, given a few recent "surprises"...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Any Republican who "always voted Republican" isn't a real Republican anyway: a Conservative, probably, but not a Republican. All Conservatives are Republicans but not all Republicans are Conservative (or something like that).
When was the last time you heard a sob story about a "criminal" being forced to live under the bridge?
Don't worry, this will be twisted around long enough until everyone believes that those college kids who engage in filesharing are hardwired as criminals and we should be glad they were found already in college when they were filesharing instead of later when they slay old grannies.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This site will help to contact your representative. This one will work too, and I think it will find senators as well.
Google is our friend! And apparently non-partisan. Yessss...
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
I see a lot of posts about the law and about how stupid and fucked up the RIAA and MPAA is.. blah blah blah. Tell me something new. 1) Our country is totally fucking corrupt and run by special interests and 2) We are racing towards the bottom faster than anything in the history of mankind except maybe the shit storm at Pompeii.
...... not everything a student does on their computer/laptop REQUIRES AN
Let them pass this bill. What it should do is force the Universities to do what they should be doing NOW. Cutting the internet off for all those little fuckheads that want to screw around instead of being there to learn. Education in this country has been going into the crapper.
IMO this is mostly about manners. You don't go into someone's house and start messing with their shit. If you attend a University, you don't go messing around with and fucking up their internet. It will take another 25-50 years for this to sink into people's heads about how manners, conduct, personal space, and ethics CAN and DOES apply to cyberspace. There are some things that will get you bitch slapped or worse in real life, cyberspace should not be any different. If you came into my house and starting installing programs, moving data around, running p2p connections on your laptops you would get your ass kicked. It's like pissing all over the bathroom, leaving a floater, not lighting a match and then just leaving the door open. You would be outside my front door real fucking quick picking my shoe out yo ass.
It's not so common, common sense.
The universities need to isolate and protect their internet that is being used academically such as staff email, research programs like Folding@Home, etc. It needs to not be filtered, but to be *secured*. There is a difference. Authorized staff and students can have access, but only for authorized work and programs. Just like companies that will shitcan you for looking at porn and check outgoing communications for data leaks, universities need to do the same.
As for the fuckheads, the university needs to SELL or SUBCONTRACT internet connections to the students and the dorms. T-Mobile Hotspot, DSL, or cablemodem connections in the dorms. No reason why students cannot get vouchers or discounts or whatnot. Selling and/or subcontracting would SOLVE THE PROBLEM FOREVER. It is no longer in the universities hands how the students are using their paid for internet connections. That is between an ADULT, a CONTRACT, and an INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER. There are already methods that exist for companies to go after individual citizens that doing something *illegal* on the internet. ISP's are already doing packetshaping, etc.
Universities should not be in the business of providing free internet to their students (regardless of what a student pays in tuition). They don't provide free cellphone service or tv, why should they be providing internet for entertainment purposes? By removing the internet, securing it, and isolating it they remove the argument completely. It really has nothing to do with them anymore and is no different then a student's cellphone service. You cannot hold a university liable for cell phone communications a student makes on campus. Just the same, you cannot hold a university liable for a student's use of any outside service provided by a company.
This would not harm any university student either. Their studies would not be affected. They can go to their departments and use the hardware and software with no problems and *if* for some reason they need to connect to it from the outside they can VPN right into it. I used a dial-up connection from home to log into my university and compile my C++ projects when i went to college 12 years ago. No reason that a student cannot use similar technology (VPN's work quite well). If a student needed to perform research then he/she could go to the library (what a concept) and even use the systems there. That can be a controlled environment. Another thing to consider is
You can't have it both ways.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
It's the other way around.
I'm conservative, but I wouldn't say I am republican. I vote libertarian as much as I do republican / democratic.
That's how much the current administration has trashed my concept of what being a Republican means. To me, the worst thing you could call me is a conservative, but I'm proudly Republican. Weird eh? Whatever happened to the real Elephants I wonder...
From the government: Hello EdIII. We recently heard that someone pissed all over your bathroom, left a floater, didn't light a match, and then left the door open. We are glad to hear that you've taken action against this individual! However, we must note that you did nothing to prevent these actions, such as leaving a sign up in your bathroom saying "Please don't piss all over my bathroom," or install piss-detecting sensors that can stop someone from pissing in your bathroom. We are sorry, but because of your failure to comply with the Freedom to Pee act of 2007, we'll have to shut off your power. However, you can forego this consequence if you pay the Plumbers Association of America $900 per offense.
I noticed that this website (1) harps on "free speech," and (2) has articles about (a) "anti-God professors," and (b) "Christianity and the American Commonwealth." This marks it to me as a conservative propaganda outlet, with articles written by paranoid people. I suspect that, if the document is real [which may not be true], then it never made it past University sanity-checkers.
We need cool heads to deal with race.
Has anybody noticed that alot of the MPAA/RIAA are foreign(key word) owned corporations that are trying to manipulate the US government. Many from the same directions as the last world war. Aren't there laws in this country preventing foreign manipulation. If there isn't then maybe those foreign corporations and their host countries should be handled the same way as the last time but with a little less sympathy after they get pounded to near extinction. Wake up america, you have nothing to lose except your future. That's assuming the government hasn't given it away already.
Here are the emails for the county officials and city council for the largest cities in his district. Make sure to send Blind Carbon Copy (BCC) so they might actually read it.
Subject: George Miller hides language in H.R.4137 that would remove federal funding from colleges unable to stop file-sharing
BCC: LDare@cao.cccounty.us, pburk@contracostatv.org, cwamp@contracostatv.org, bkondylis@solanocounty.com, ceward@solanocounty.com, jfsilva@solanocounty.com, mpalmaffy@solanocounty.com, JPSpering@solanocounty.com, sgoerkeshrode@solanocounty.com, cmcook@solanocounty.com, jmvasquez@solanocounty.com, pknelson@solanocounty.com, mjreagan@solanocounty.com, FCZaragoza@SolanoCounty.com, cao-clerk@solanocounty.com, bwagenknecht@co.napa.ca.us, mluce@co.napa.ca.us, ddillon@co.napa.ca.us, bdodd@co.napa.ca.us, hmoskowite@co.napa.ca.us, Diane_Holmes@ci.richmond.ca.us, natbates@comcast.net, tom.butt@intres.com, Lopez.Ludmyrna@comcast.net, johnemarquez@aol.com, elirapty@aol.com, harpreet.sandhu@comcast.net, tony_thurmond@ci.richmond.ca.us, Maria_Viramontes@ci.richmond.ca.us, aevenson@ci.pittsburg.ca.us, mayor@ci.vallejo.ca.us, jdavis@ci.vallejo.ca.us, tpearsall0285@aol.com, sgomes@ci.vallejo.ca.us, tbartee@ci.vallejo.ca.us, hsunga@ci.vallejo.ca.us, garycloutier@sbcglobal.net, citycouncil@ci.concord.ca.us
Dear Sir or Madam,
News source: http://www.news.com/2102-1028_3-6217943.html?tag=st.util.print
Bill source: http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf
This is unbelievably unconscionable and corrupt on the part of your elected representative. The MPAA is applauding Rep. George Miller for introducing an anti-piracy bill that threatens the nation's colleges with the loss of $100 Billion a year in federal financial aid, should they fail to have a technology plan to stop 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."
Now I'm a Canadian, but watching your news once in a while... aren't most republicans pro-gay? I sure hear a lot about them flaunting it.
Jeremy
Man, this reeks of the same methods MADD uses to force states to enact MADD's insane, Draconian and Stalinistic DUI laws. It's no suprise that MADD has used money and political embarrassment to get their way. And now it seems the RIAA has taken on MADD's legal tactics, un-fucking believable.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
That story is a very good example of why Federal subsidies are a poisoned gift. An entity starts accepting money from Washington. It starts living above its means. Then D.C. can force the entity to toe the line on whatever matter the lobbyists du jour have sold to Congress, otherwise, no more free money!
Federalization of education is not a good idea. Power should be closer to the universities. Tuitions should reflect actual costs.
Besides, providing more funds to the universities has only resulted in jacking up tuition costs. I don't see an increase in degree quality or research results.
We need the universities to get their snout out of the Fed feeding trough. If all Fed funds were cut, more liberty and responsibility would result, which is always a good thing.
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
> connections to the students and the dorms.
They actually did that to the phone systems in the university residences where i was (in the uk). Unfortunately the provider realised they had a lockin monopoly and charged extortionate rates accordingly. Indeed calls from landlines were so expensive that it was cheaper to buy a mobile (this was in the 90's). The system lasted one year and the university had to renegotiate the contract because so many people complained. What you are suggesting is essentially the same, and will have the same result: One supplier will get a monopoly and will screw students accordingly. This is unacceptable.
However, i do agree with your (poorly communicated) core point that the function of a university is to educate, not to provide a playground for students. However, the internet is a core tool of modern education, whether you like it or not. With lectures provided online, coursework submitted electronically and much practical and research work done via the internet, a connectionless student is at a severe educational disadvantage. In the 12 years since you (and i) went to university things have changed, and a dialup command-line connection is simply not enough. Nevertheless, i agree that it is not the duty of the university to be paying huge bandwidth charges for people to download music/movies etc, even if they come from a legal source. However, the solution here does not include subcontracting. I would remind you that the university is an ISP, and has all the legal obligations and rights that come with this. THEY can filter traffic and block services, and THEY can cut you off if you break their terms of service (and you have to sign them before you get a connection), so really the problem is that the universities are not writing and enforcing their own policies effectively.
> It will take another 25-50 years for this to sink into people's heads about how manners,
> conduct, personal space, and ethics CAN and DOES apply to cyberspace.
Does these good manners apply to you also? If so, i suggest you re-read your own post and make appropriate changes to your writing style. You can begin by redefining "good manners" to exclude poorly articulated ranting, the sweeping generalisation that everyone with more money than you is a "rich spoiled brat", and liberal use of the words "fucked", "fucking", "fuckheads" and "shit".
The penalty for corruption in public office shoud be death. Nasty, 14th-century-style, public execution. They fuck with our country, we should make sure they're fucking with the best. Bob Ney should have been gutted and then hung by the neck on the Washington mall- that would have gotten some attention. Cunningham, DeLay, "Cold Cash" Jefferson- ditto. Those caught paying bribes should be burned alive. Those caught TAKING bribes should be literally crucified. Leave the bodies to rot and let the crows have the eyes.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Indeed. And Slashdotters thought Republicans were the only bad guys. A a few more eye-opening stories like this before the 2008 Election and the Republicans could carry Slashdot--granted, it's good for zero electoral votes... but still.
At 747 pages, there's bound to be something in there that the politicians like, so expect this to pass. All that needs be done is an intern showing them the passage that their psycological profile is most likely to identify with, and it's a done deal. The problem with this kind of legislation has always been the tailgating of pork and landmines onto otherwise seemingly harmless legislation. See the Real ID provisions of the $80 billion spending bill supposedly for body armor for the troops in Iraq passed in, what, '05? To the best of my knowledge, the troops are still waiting for that body armor to show up. Likely, the contractor providing the armor is still collecting the payments even though they haven't delivered.
At 747 pages (no, I haven't read it yet), it's liable to be chock-full of corporate welfare goodness, and even though there might not be any teeth in it at the moment, someday the Secretary of Media Appeasement will say 'Damn, the media isn't getting its federally legislated profits on time, we'll have to bust down some doors and shake down the people." It's only a matter of time.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
My good manners do not by default extend to my choice of words and language. That is what I would consider a component of "real life". My choice of writing style in this case, may be construed as bad manners, but does not have anything do with how I used it in context. I am simply referring to how people conduct themselves in another person's home compared to how they conduct themselves in another person's private cyberspace. It is not an analogy, it is something that is directly related to each other and is in fact the same. Most people seem to not be aware of it just yet. I know a very fine and upstanding British gentleman that has impeccable manners, yet will use my families computer at will and install anything he likes. It is simply something he is unaware of. He treats the computer as an appliance and does not realize that it's installed programs, data, desktops, configurations, settings, etc. are actually components of a very real digital reality, aka cyberspace. Your personal cyberspace is always with you, just as your own personal space. Incredible amounts of data about individuals are kept online and whether or not one is aware of it, they have a presence in cyberspace personally as well as publicly.
:)
I would say that this is a public forum and as such, I chose my language as i see fit. If that offends somebodies sensibilities, I am not sorry. I understand your sensibilities and I applaud them, but they are not necessarily my own. My usage of profanity in and of itself does not detract from my message or make it "poorly communicated". A diamond in a pile of "poopy" is still a diamond. Not that my own take on the situation could be construed as so valuable as a diamond mind you
To address your points, which are valid:
1) Monopolies and price gouging by service providers - Since this problem resides solely in the US (The topic being US Law), those problems will work themselves out within the market and the laws that govern them. I believe that multiple providers could gain entry to these new markets and that Universities could not single out a single provider. If the University does not sell this themselves (making them the sole ISP), then they need to open it completely to the outside market. Remember, the point of this topic is the US government taking away funds based on the performance and policies of a University providing internet for entertainment purposes. That could not happen to a corporate internet provider. I believe that by having a standard ISP contract and charging for the service, and certainly by opening it up to outside providers, the Universities could get rid of their liability, bypass these laws, and safeguard themselves against being strong armed by special interest groups and government funds.
2) University students need internet as it a core tool of modern education - Not true. Not totally. Online lectures, submitted coursework can all be done on an intranet. Outside host addresses don't need to be accessed from within a universities own networks by students outside of classes and labs. Students outside of the University are completely unaffected. Anybody outside of the campus grounds will be using a separate ISP to access the University and therefore are completely beyond the scope of this topic. As for the research work being done (the only real need for outside host address access), this can be done by the use of the library or controlled machines, kiosks, etc. within the University. They are controlled and can stop programs and services from being installed, etc.
The real issue that I am trying to make is that Universities do not need to provide access to host addresses outside of the University for students PERSONAL MACHINES. I believe that providing this is detrimental to the University as a whole. It creates an environment in which activity like p2p file sharing can take place on campus grounds. Since we know the unconscionable and complicit behavior of the RIAA, MPAA and other like minded groups along w
Heh. Gotta love when someone tries to explain away something which doesn't fit their Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative model. Very entertaining.
Maybe you can explain to me how a turkey is either an elephant or donkey.
Well in reality Bush is more Democrat then Republican...
That must be the reality where evil counterparts have little, pointy mustaches.
Havoc Video
Nice :)
I won't have to pay though. I flushed all the evidence away
I've had so many arguments with people about politics, all because they simply couldn't fathom the simple fact that most top-level politicians are NOT idealists; they just want to make themselves and their cronies wealthy. Looked at from that perspective, almost every single thing that the Republicans and Democrats (and Tories and Whigs and Liberals and Progressive Conservatives and NDP and so on) have done over the years, no matter how apparently stupid it was, makes perfect sense.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
Why don't they tie financial aid to a plan to reduce murder, rape, child molestation, TERRORISM (shit, they might try that one), or anything else?
ANY politician on board with this legislation is a corrupt piece of shit who deserves to go to prison.
Americans these days are too complacent. They've got their Reality TV shows, and their "Desperate house Wives". Nothing short of the Government shutting off their TVs for them is going to make the average american sit up and go, "What the *bleep* happened to our country?!" No sir, now that all of the things that were MEANT to be kept out of the government are involved, everythings gone to heck. Big business, the churches(Separation of Church and state is a TWO way street), anything else you can shake a stick at... the government no longer works for the interest of its people(the select few do not count), therefor it is broken. I need to find a copy of the Magna Carta.
Well in reality Bush is more Democrat then Republican...
Bullfuckingshit.
The reasons Democrats hate him is the majority of Democrats are Liberal Bias too.
Bullshit. The Democrats are an extremely conservative party. That they look liberal next to the GOP tells you how far to the right they have gone.
I wish people would include the bill number when writing articles (any website or newspaper, not just /.). It makes it much easier to reference when talking to your Representative or Senator.
My source for the number (in case it's somehow wrong): http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=326
One of two things are going to happen here. This will cripple the economy as universities stand up to the government and the MPAA and more and more people will become unskilled. Eventually the economy will completely collapse and the country will be thrown in to chaos causing them to start over. Hopefully this time they'll do a much better job of it.
Alternatively the government will become so corrupt and controlling even china will take a step back and think "Hmmm maybe its time we invaded and spread democracy".
Why do they have to give bills names? Why not just leave it as a number?
What is next? A bill doing the same for welfare recipients? Can you imagine a bill to would require people on welfare to have their Internet monitored by their ISP to ensure they aren't pirating? Or maybe we could require any public k-12 school, receiving federal aid, to do mandatory locker checks for drugs?
Thank goodness that financial aid can be used while living off-campus. Thank goodness you can just get your own ISP at college, instead of surviving off the college's sluggish network.
there are other ways of controlling the MPAA. in particular waterboarding sounds like a good start.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
No but seriously you are wonderfully depressed and that is fine. You've got this idea that America was a great worldwide empire, like Britain or Rome. Not so much. Frankly if any of the scholars in the declining years of Athens or Rome were to read what you just wrote and understand it in all of it's context, you would be beaten by a man in a robe.
What exactly do you think is going to happen in America, based on recent events, that is WORSE than anything else in the country's history. Do you fail at reading about things before you were born? "The dollar is going down! Shitshitshitshit! I can't buy cheap electronics from Asia anymore! My European candies and home appliances! MY IKEA STORE!" Because the Great Depression, Oil Embargo, civil rights struggle, COLD FUCKING WAR, and all of that shit, oh, well that was nothing but a challenge. We keep a retard in the white house for 8 years and float a congress of Ben Dovers and suddenly the ties that bind are sundered and people will take to the streets to tear down the foundations of government and society. You my friend need to drink more, because the only thing that is really going to fuck us up is people eating their own paranoid shit. Newsflash, people on the street think Bush is an ass and the war is Vietnam II, but they aren't exactly making FALLOUT shelters.
When Britain, Rome, and all of those wonderful empires ate it, they lost colonies, kingdoms, huge resources that they had poorly managed for their own benefit. Unless you believe that illegal immigrants are going to turn barbarian invader, and let me tell you that makes a ton of sense for people who send home pay in cashy american dollars, you are gagging on your own crap.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
the sooner we'll stop electing fascists (yes, look it up) like GW Bush simply because of his party. "I've always voted Republican" is not a reason to do so again.
Have you even read the original post? It's not George Bush that is totally getting blown by the recording industry. It's not George Bush that introduced legislation to tie student loans to anti-piracy?
Hey, I guess some people really do believe that slavery is freedom (aka known as socialism).
This is my sig.
I thought it was the evil, rat-bastard Republicans that were in the back pocket of the MAFIAA..
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Why do we only have two choices? Think about it...
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Meh. Congress could do something if they had any balls. Or ethics. Blaming Bush only addresses half of the problem. Electing a democrat won't bring any real change. Just a different flavor of scum.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
does this mean I'll be able to witness a real college riot complete with fire hoses? College students have gotten so apathetic with important issues lately maybe an issue close to home will wake them up and bring back the protests of the 60s.
Once again I wish there were a "Mod Parent Up +10,000", because that's about the most, and the only, important message to be made here. The reality is, whoever has the money wins. And in a contest between an organized and ruthless multi-billion dollar industry, and tens of thousands of disorganized, scattered, apathetic individuals, the fight doesn't even merit the name.
One day business will start to realise that the desparation of this industry is a threat to commerce, not just music consumers, because one day this industry will be gone and all we will be left with is a legal framework that makes our economies harder to adapt to change.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
"Republicans and Democrats, working together ... and the only thing worse than a Republican, or a Democrat, is when these little pricks work together!"
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Free, unlimited usenet access for one and all would be a good alternative. It's more of a client-server piracy system.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Someone should talk to Bill, he's always trying to pull stunts like this...
B$
And we wonder why it has become necessary to offshore so much technology work - it has become more important to protect "Baby got Back" from piracy than to educate our best and brightest. This is just a roundabout way to completely shut down schools that do not comply. It's really a totalitarian move on the part of the government, and sadly this is the direction the US has been moving in for a number of years.
Hehe. Yeah, they are going to take care of your healthcare too. Haha.
Please. We all know the Dems are in the pocket of Hollywood. It's an order of magnitude less evil than being in the pockets of Big Oil.
Of course, Bush just found his veto pen. Surely he has your interests at heart, and will veto this bill should it appear on his desk.
How many wrote their congresscritters when financial aid was being taken away from people who have a drug conviction? This pales in comparison, in my mind. That said, I'll be writing some letters today. This is absurd.
Funny how Republicans discovered that when Bush's popularity dropped into the Nixon basement. I heard a completely different argument from my Republican friends in the 2004 election. And this doesn't explain the antics of the Republican Congress either, who were pretty hand in glove with the Administration. Perhaps Real Republicans should consider starting a new party.
With respect to being "no difference" between the Republican and Democratic congress; that's clearly not true. "Not enough" difference is closer to the mark. Maybe the difference between unrepentant sinners and hypocrites.
This situation is not surprising though. We've got plenty of people up in arms about immigration, or gay rights, or the minimum wage. Where is the outrage over undue corporate influence? Over corruption? Over the failure to protect the right of free speech against corporate intrusion?
Nowhere, because the people haven't risen up and chosen sides on those issues -- yet. We're too focused on the sides we have already chosen. More than we ought to be.
It's funny to hear the Republicans demonizing Hillary Clinton, because to our ears she sounds the most like a Republican of our leading candidates. Compare her to Edwards, who is doing his best to channel RFK. We're lining up behind her because, despite her negatives, she's running a smart campaign and has raised more money than God, and we're looking forward to see her use it to wipe the smirk off your faces. On the other hand, we don't much like her, because she doesn't speak our values. She's trying to play a Democratic game within a Republican frame, and while true believers on either side see through this, some of us are banking on her getting enough independents and Republican women with this strategy to go over the top.
You see, we really want you guys beaten in 2008; we don't want you to get any more Supreme Court nominations. So some of us will hold our nose and hypocritically support a candidate who doesn't really speak our values, just like we'll be seeing hypocrites on your side singing the praises of Giuliani, who we detest as irrationally as you detest Hillary.
And when we're done throwing out the old bums in 2008, maybe we should start looking for a new party too.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
W.T.F. Hollywood is almost as evil as big oil? Show me a story where Hollywood employs slave labor and hires mercenaries to burn villages through burma to build their pipelines, and i'll begin to see the correlation.
Oh, and bush won't veto anything unless god tells him to, or unless it increases spending on anything other than the war. I have a hard time seeing him veto Pell grant CUTS. Asshat.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
So as if life wasn't hard enough for poor students, they have a choice between losing their grant money, or losing the ability to easily pirate media.
These students are POOR, they won't buy your media if they can't pirate it at college, they will either pirate it elsewhere (possibly putting money into the hands of organised piracy groups) or simply do without. They can't afford to pay the excessively high prices for this stuff, so you are just making life even harder for people who are already short of cash and often experiencing life away from home for the first time.
The one good thing that could come out of this, is that it could encourage colleges to promote the use of free software.
When i was at college, the only way most of us could afford all the software we used on campus and needed for our courses, was to pirate it. If the college were to provide it to us for free on DVD that would make life much easier.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Universities can add a portion to their software licenses that prohibits abuse of process, etc. by users of their software or derivatives by or in benefit of the MPAA organization and members. Seems simple enough to counter the MPAA threat with provision for MPAA paying all the bills if the college is sued. A lot of software comes out of the University system that is used in or the basis of software used in the movie industry. From project planning, special effects, accounting, forecasting, research, etc.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
What could the IRS do about tax resistance? Well, for one thing, they wouldn't have to throw people in jail, they could just confiscate tax resister's assets. Set a punitive rate of 4x what you owe (or more, I don't know what the real laws are); anyone who doesn't want to lose their house will comply, as will anyone who wants their kids to go to college. It's not like saying "No I won't give you taxes" will keep the IRS from collecting it involuntarily. And remember, people who have a lot of money--the ones that you most want to resist--have the most to lose.
Your political landscape is so far biased towards the right that the democrats would be rabid right wingers in any other country.
It wasn't always so, but it is now.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The way to hell is paved with good intentions.
Get involved in local politics, forget about grandiose idiotic ideas. You can implement those only when you have a real power base.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.