Slashdot Mirror


Anti-P2P College Bill Moving Through House

An anonymous reader writes "A news.com article is covering an amendment to the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (pdf) that should make folks in Hollywood, the RIAA, and the MPAA well pleased. The tiny section seeks to hinge government approval of an institution of higher learning on whether or not they adequately dissuade Peer-to-Peer filesharing of copyrighted materials. The Act came out of the House Education and Labor Committee, which agreed on the terms unanimously. There is still some question, though, as to what penalties should be handed down for institutions that don't do enough to protect intellectual property. 'Some university representatives and fair-use advocates worry that schools run the risk of losing aid for their students if they fail to come up with the required plans. "The language in the bill appears to be clear that failure to carry out the mandates would make an institution ineligible for participation in at least some part of Title IV (which deals with federal financial aid programs)," Steven Worona, director of policy and networking programs for the group Educause, said in a telephone interview Thursday.'" Update: 11/16 16:36 GMT by Z : PDF link corrected.

334 comments

  1. Outdated business model cramping your style? by djasbestos · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...make it the law!

    1. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Farakin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if Mr. Burns is actually the head of the RIAA. "That bill is going to pass sir" "EXCELLENT, Smithers, Excellent."

    2. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Technician · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The one that got me was this one...

      I open a store and say "Come on in and pay whatever you want." Are you on f---ing crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?

      Movies came to the home market at $65 to $160 each. Piracy was a problem even though a blank T120 VHS tape sold for $15 - $20 each. I know, been there and done that. CD's on the other hand have added rootkits and DRM to make them incompatible with your playback equipment (iPod) by trying to prevent ripping. At the time I can buy full length movies at 2 for $20 or 4 for $20 in the pre viewed section at Blockbuster, many CDs are still less than an hour in length and are over $10 each. They are often not marked that they contain defective by design problems. Movies have THX certification for quality assurance of both the video and audio quality. CDs on the other hand are engineered to compete in the loudness war at the expense of dynamic range and harmonic distortion (Clipping).

      Go a head and open a store. Provide in inferior product that won't play on my portable MP3 player for an extreme price and tell me again how this business model works? I buy movies instead.

      I can buy oldies (movies) at Wal*Mart for 5.99. Try to find any good 20 year old Kiss, Pink Floyd, Styx, Queen, etc for 5.99 that hasn't been compressed.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    3. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if government is big enough.

      The ability to exploit the coercive power of government for your own purpose is, naturally, proportional to the amount of power government holds. Obviously, a government strictly limited in power and revenue isn't nearly as exploitable as one which isn't.

    4. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by CSMatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The same gripes you make about CDs can easily be made about movies too. Both VHS and DVD have DRM. The only difference is that CSS was incorporated into the DVD standard so you can play CSS-encrypted discs in almost every player, and Macrovision only kicks in if you're playing or recording through a VCR or DVD recorder. Like the CDs, many companies have also introduced non-standard DRM into their DVDs that can break the compatibility. DVDs also have region encoding and there's the PAL/NTSC nuisance to deal with, while CDs play everywhere. CDs can be ripped into MP3 files. DVDs can not without breaking the DRM and consequently the DMCA. Thus there is no convenient way to get movies from DVDs onto portable players without using an underground ripper, and your average customer is forced to buy the videos again from an online store.

      While DVDs are sold for $5 in Wal-Mart, it's usually because most people just don't want those titles. By contrast, I would imagine that most music made in the last 20 years still has a good amount of demand, which is why their prices haven't gotten lower.

    5. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      aren't ALL business models only viable if the law is obeyed? Like the law that says you have to pay for stuff on the shelves of wal-mart. Is the retail business model outdated because ultimately it requires police officers to enforce it?
      Your argument makes zero sense. Unless you advocate anarchy where all laws are ignored?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    6. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      aren't ALL business models only viable if the law is obeyed?

      Think, then post. Businesses in black or gray markets are entirely based on the law being broken, ignored, or at the very least, irrelavent.

    7. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While DVDs are sold for $5 in Wal-Mart, it's usually because most people just don't want those titles. By contrast, I would imagine that most music made in the last 20 years still has a good amount of demand, which is why their prices haven't gotten lower. Funny, the $5 movies at wal-mart seem to fly off the shelves, while most of their old music doesn't budge. No album that EVER comes out seems to drop in price. Ever. Album from 30 years ago? $12.95. Yet movies? Most of the Lord of the Rings movies are now under $10, as is every movie more than a few years old. Only the newest releases seem to command a high price, and even then they're always under $20 now (most new releases seem to be around $15). It is a pitiful state of affairs when in 90% of cases the SOUNDTRACK to a movie costs more (somtimes double) what the movie itself costs.
      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    8. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      ah an abusive retort from an anoynmous coward, typical of the piracy-justifying crowd.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    9. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Funny, the $5 movies at wal-mart seem to fly off the shelves, while most of their old music doesn't budge.

      I believe, but am not certain, that most of those $5 movies are loss leaders.

    10. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      ah an abusive retort from an anoynmous coward, typical of the piracy-justifying crowd.

      Grandparent poster most probably refers to the first amendment being **** on by the recording companies. No fair use, no personal copying, just give'em the money.

      That _IS_ illegal, but nobody has dared to challenge them in courts. And those who dare challenging them in real life are called robbers and pirates, and are fined with $222,000 dollars.

      As Trent said, "one way or another these motherfuckers will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that that's not right."

      So, here I am, no AC, and yet, justifying piracy. Make me your foe if you want.

    11. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      The only places that I've ever seen a $5 movie is near the checkout isle, next to the candy and tabloids, and honestly I've never seen anyone grab a copy. I've seen $10 movies in their own shelves in the middle of the store that are actually worth considering, but for the most part any movie that people seem to actually show interest in costs at least $10.

      Then again, I haven't been to a big box store in ages, and have no intention of entering one anytime soon.

    12. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      Unless you advocate anarchy where all laws are ignored?

      anarchy doesn't call for the ignorance of laws. it calls for the abolishment of them.

    13. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      hold on, that woman who got a 220k fine was not arguing the legality of fair use, she was caught red handed having used p2p programs to download and distribute a ton of music she didn't pay for. At least admit when a pirate gets caught trying to leech free stuff. don't pretend she was some hero fighting for the cause. This wasn't a test case bought by anti-copyright campaigners, just a woman infringing copyright who got caught.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    14. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by ShatteredArm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      CDs may be shorter, but they provide much more entertainment. There's really not much reason to watch a movie more than three or four times (if it's good), but a (good) CD can be played back dozens of time and continue to provide value. Sound quality with CDs is definitely an issue, though... Some artists are starting to release their music in surround sound, but if only I had a player for that...

    15. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He is talking about obsolete business models.

      Say it's 1403, and you form an association that collaborates, organizes and controls all written documents. You call it the "Stationers Company/Guild".

      Then decades later, in 1436 or so, someone invents a printing press, and it makes it easier printing documents with much less effort.

      At first, you market the quality of hand printed works. Later you buy some of these machines, print documents cheaper, but try to keep control.

      But at the end of the early to mid 1500's there are too many other groups that have the printing machines, and the control of your company is dwindling.

      So the obvious thing to do? Use the money that you have, to buy some government. So in 1557, the government gives you a royal charter, a monopoly for all printing. You milk that for as long as you can (for 130 years it that case).

      Now fast forward to the 20th century.
      Your MPAA or RIAA has pretty tight control of the production and distribution of movies and music. Printing high quality records and film is an expensive business to get into, so it is natural for large company control.

      Then this thing called the Internet is invented. A media production and distribution middle man no longer is necessary. Things like mp3.com and napster pop up, and information is flowing, uncontrolled.

      Well, it this case, we repeat the methods of the Stationers. Buy some government. In addition to lawsuits based on already purchased copyright monopolies, we buy a copyright extension, buy a new DMCA law to protect our new DRM encryption scheme, and buy laws to increase penalties for those damn college students who refuse to allow us to have the control we had before the internet.

    16. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      I see. which ones? the ones that let you download copyrighted content for free? or all laws regarding payment for goods and services? and why be in favour of one and not the other. please explain the reasoning behind this to me.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    17. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      I remember having THX (or something similar) on the cassette tapes. The tapes played a sound in the beging of side 1 and at the end of side 2. I thought something broke the first time I heard it. I thought the early CDs also had something like that as well. But Cds of today are not made the same way as the ones from the late 80s and early 90s.

    18. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      If you believe that powerful government increases corporate power more than contains it...

      you just might be a libertarian.</foxworthy>

    19. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      bullshit.
      the internet lets you break the RIAA monopoly easily. here you go:

      1)record music
      2)put music for sale on website
      3)profit!

      but the file sharing crowd would rather do this:

      1)copy someone else's music!

      Thats where it goes wrong. ironically, the same people who bitch about torrent ratios and 'leeches' and people 'not saying thanks' on forums sharing copyrighted files, do not realise they are the ultimate leeches, the people who take commercially produced content for free and give NOTHING back.

      There is no longer a monopoly on content. anyone can make it. I myself make PC games and bypass the retail market altogether. I'm dong what the web has enabled the little guy to do, to compete against the big guys. But most people can't be bothered to actually make content. they bitch about the content other people make, but their protest is basically to steal other peoples stuff, not to make anything different.
      There is nothing obsolete about the business model of making stuff and selling it. Wal Mart does this every day. Why a special set of rules for stuff online? admit it, its because you like to leech free stuff and are seeking for some dubious justification for it.
      If you really think that content should all be free, then that's communism. but that means you need to work your eight hours a day for free too. Happy with that?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    20. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Must be the location or the length of time you've been absent. The movie next to the tabloids and the candy are the $1 DVD's. Those are mostly old black and white movies, B-movies, cheap cartoons, and other such stuff that no one has heard of. Indeed, I never see people buying those. The $5 movies are in the electronics department, and are well known (if not great) movies. Dracula, Talledga Nights, Enemy at the Gates, The Truman Show, The Cable Guy, Saw III, Not Another Teen Movie, Down With Love, Failure to Launch, etc (that's just a handful that I remember seeing in that category last time I was there). Again, not GREAT movies (well, Dracula is pretty good), but still newer movies that people have indeed heard of, and people seem to buy quite a bit of them.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    21. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're right, most of those $5 movies are priced that way so that the store can advertise them and use this tactic to draw people into the store where they will then purchase more profitable items at the same time.

      Seriously, do you even know what a loss leader is?

    22. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I can buy oldies (movies) at Wal*Mart for 5.99.

      You're getting ripped, they're only $5 here in Nashville. I bought T2, Running Man, Popeye, hell, about 5 of them last week. They're honestly competing with blockbuster at this point. And I don't mean blockbuster's sales.

      Gene Simmons really needs to ask himself if he ever made that much money off that many album sales. I'm not saying KISS didn't sell a lot and make a lot of money, but given the number of sales and the time period, there's no way. The record company would still be telling Radiohead that the CD tanked they would barely be able to pay back their advance.

    23. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, he's talking about the law that says shooting shoplifters is excessive use of force.

    24. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      And if you cant make it law, then blackmail people into comforming. ( which is what is really happening here )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    25. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A libertarian, or someone with basic knowledge of the recent history of the United States?

    26. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have drank the kool-aid, and think that anything but our current 100 year monopoly copyright system is communism.
      I assume that you believe that copyrights should live as long as the corporation...forever.
      I assume that you pay royalties on Happy Birthday.

      Here is the RIAA/MPAA current business model.

      1)Establish 100 or longer year publishing monopolies.
      2)Buy someone else's work.
      3)Profit.
      4)Use part of profits into protecting (1).
      *)Many works disappear, as they are not profitable.

      Here is the constitutional business model.
      1)Author creates work. (or extends existing public work).
      2)Author gets exclusive rights for "limited time".
      3)Profit
      3.5)Work is no longer profitable.
      4)Work falls into public domain for further enhancement.

    27. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by pjspjspjs · · Score: 1

      The DMCA is really bad. Also RIAA lobbyists claim that they lose millions on piracy. However, microsoft recently claimed that every time their software is pirated they make money. So the figures are wrong. If you download a cd's worth of music. The record company (not even the RIAA) does not lose any money, because they didn't pay to make it. They don't lose the price of the cd. Also, the formula used to calculate funds lost from piracy is (wished profit)-(actual profit)=piracy that is crap. Even if it is the law, the RIAA and MPAA need to suffer. I say make DRM illegal!!!

    28. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, except for the fact that your games suck ass... I got a couple of them off of rapidshare to see if I would like them before giving you my cash. Nope. I am pretty sure that your business only survives because you manage to get a relatively high page rank for certain searches and people who don't know how to "try before they buy" get suckered into paying for your games.

      Upstarts in the music industry, however, cannot get away with this. No amount of google page rankings is going to get people to "try" your music. The established giants have a lock on the advertising vectors and there is no way around them. They use their lock on the advertising vectors to keep people from even trying to make music and put it on a website for sale. Therefore, I don't feel bad about taking from them what they have prevented me from getting legitimately.

    29. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Technician · · Score: 1

      CDs can be ripped into MP3 files. DVDs can not without breaking the DRM and consequently the DMCA

      Don't be too quick on that one. The Kaleidescope ruling seems to show a nick in the armor of DVD's.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/29/2251210

      Both VHS and DVD have DRM.

      Wrong.. They have copy protection. My DVD's will play just fine in your DVD player. Your DVD's and VHS tapes will play fine in my player. DRM is your music files will play on only your iPod and not mine.

      CDs can be ripped into MP3 files.

      Some CDs can be ripped into MP3 files. There fixed it for you.

      DVDs also have region encoding and there's the PAL/NTSC nuisance to deal with, while CDs play everywhere.

      True, unless you use an un-approved player.

      Thus there is no convenient way to get movies from DVDs onto portable players without using an underground ripper, and your average customer is forced to buy the videos again from an online store.

      Or use Peer to Peer. Often a customer knows he bought the movie. Why buy it twice? In my case, based on the Kaleidescope ruling, I regularly rip to my media server. The kids can put movies on the video Zen and iPod. They can watch the movies, and I don't have to deal with a stack of loose scratched DVD's they never put away. Picking up after the kids and broken DVDs is a thing of the past.

      By contrast, I would imagine that most music made in the last 20 years still has a good amount of demand, which is why their prices haven't gotten lower.

      Wrong... They are high priced or pulled from distribution. There is no back catalog of CD's and LP re-releases out there for $1-$5. There is no bin of $1.00 CDs like there is for out of copyright old cartoons on DVD. How much demand is there for old cartoons and comedians such as Red Skelton, Jack Benny, Lural and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, etc. I can find their stuff on $1 DVDs. Try to find old Jazz recordings on CD for $1. They are either classic collections at collector prices or not for sale. Please explain how they can release $1 DVDs of old stuff, but can't release $1 CDs of old stuff. The competition is showing your argument doesn't hold water.

      The music industry is clinging to the old average selling price model. Our stuff is worth a minimum of $XX. Don't dare sell anything for less than that as it will cheapen our product. This is wrong. The Red Skelton DVD I picked up did not errode the price Disney charges for Cars.

      Like the CDs, many companies have also introduced non-standard DRM into their DVDs that can break the compatibility.

      Unfortunately true. Some movie studios who also have a music label are making the same mistakes all over again and will suffer the same fate. I picked up a copy of Open Season distributed by Sony. It wouldn't rip with Acid Rip on Linux. I called them to complain. They provided a replacement for no charge without the additional copy protection. They asked what player I was having trouble with. I flat told them. I hope it is properly added to their market research. I told them flat out that it didn't work on my Linux machine, and wouldn't rip with Acid Rip to my media server so I couldn't play it on my TV or play on an iPod or Zen. The additional copy protection on HD stuff along with the high price is why for the time being I'm sticking to the old format that is good enough.

      The only way to kick the DRM to the curb is in the market place. I still make sure any DVD I buy is not distributed by Sony until they kick the compatibility problems to the curb for good.

      Selling broken shiny disks at high prices next to a Peer to Peer system that provides working product is not a way to sell movies or CDs.

      There is no copy protection on newspapers.. There is no microprint and no constellation to make copiers go ape. Newsprint is sold at reasonable prices unlike the stuff that needs protection. You get your own copy instead of copying someone else's copy. Music and movies can be sold the same way, especially out of the back catalog.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    30. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      all my games have free demos which I encourage people to make use of. but like the typical arrogant file sharer, you just stole them anyway. what an asshole, and cheers for making my point for me about the attitude of people like you.

      Ever wondered why you don't like the games people make? its because you never encourage anyone to make any, because you just steal them. In commercial terms, you are invisible, and so are your needs and desires.
      Think about it.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    31. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Spudds · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You make some interesting points. However, I couldn't help respond to:

      ... people who take commercially produced content for free and give NOTHING back Ah, but they do give back, my friend! They promote the music by listening to it, passing it around and going to shows and buying merchandise. Word-of-mouth is the most priceless and effective form of promotion available.

      I, as a musician myself (shameless plug), would love people to hand out my band's copyrighted music like hotcakes. People showing up at shows and buying our wares is vastly more important than paying us $1/download or what have you for the music.

      And as an afterthought: if a few people break the rules/laws, then they are in the wrong. If a LOT of people are breaking the rules/laws then perhaps the rules/laws are wrong.
    32. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      There is no longer a monopoly on content. anyone can make it.

      And that is exactly why the *IAA are trying to make more laws.

      If you look a little closer, this is about stopping all P2P traffic. basically they are trying to make it illegal to download movies and music as a matter of public image, regardless of the true legality of it.

      Piracy is an unfortunate consequence of easy and cheap distribution. However, it has been shown that piracy can be mitigated in large part by making the product cheaply and easily available. Big business doesn't want to sell you a new CD for $5 though, even if it costs them $0 to give it to you and even if the independent publishers can make money at that price.
      =Smidge=

    33. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      forget your fantasies about the RIAA and MPAA. I am doing the exact thing you outline in the constitutional model. So you support 100% the way I work right?
      except increasingly people do not support the constitutional model, they just take everything for free and stick two fingers up at anyone dumb enough to make any new content. take a look at the asshole who also replied to my post to stick the knife in to see what I mean. Despite having a free demo, he insisted on stealing my stuff just so he could slag me off on teh interweb.

      filesharers treat the content producers like scum. We are all branded as MPAA-MAFIAAAAAA regardless of what we do or who we are. I don't use DRM, I have free demos, no adverts, no adware, spyware or rootkits, and my stuff is pirated just as much as the next guy. In other words I have ZERO incentive to act ANY differently to 'teh evil mafiaaaaaa'. The actions of people pirating stuff just drives every content provider to act like the worst of them. This is obvious.

      "I assume that you pay royalties on Happy Birthday."

      *sigh*. where have I said that I support that crap? I support artists being paid for their work and not having their content pirated. I also support format shifting, backups and fair use, and limited copyright terms. Yet you acted like a typical pro-piracy kid in slagging me off like an evil MPAA stooge just because I dared suggest that pirating stuff is wrong.
      In short, its the attitude of hardcore pro-piracy people like you that mean the MPAA nd RIAA will never change their minds, and in fact have zero incentive to do so.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    34. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      fuck big business. Anyone can set up a website NOW and sell anything they want NOW at any price. I KNOW this because that is exactly what I do. And the one group in society that makes this hard is the people who pirate the stuff. Seriously, I get no grief from big business at all. nobody stops me doing the little company thing. the biggest problem I have is people who take the stuff for free. ironically in the name of 'sticking it to teh man'.

      Stop trying to turn this into a 'poor fileshareers vs evil big business' debate. You advocate the little guy making his own content and making a living from it right? So why the fuck is it still ok to steal the content made by the little guy? How many torrent sites check each submission and go "heck this is a small, customer-friendly and innovative small business, methinks we should not torrent their content".

      If you REALLY wanted to get back at the RIAA you would BUY music direct from non-RIAA artists. the same goes for games, movies etc etc. But I'm guessing like 99% of anti-RIAA campaigners, your 'solution' is to just still consume the same content made by the big businesses you hate, but to steal it.
      You are changing *nothing* by doing that. You will NEVER change a market to which you have made yourself invisible.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    35. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Technician · · Score: 1

      I remember having THX (or something similar) on the cassette tapes.

      That was Dolby calibration tones. Dolby worked by boosting the highs in recording to improve the recorded high frequency S/N ratio and then reversing the process on playback. To properly set the attenuation curve a refrence tone was recorded to calibrate the playback levels. They still use it on studio videotape. The specification is here.

      www.exn.ca/producersguide/HD_Prod_Specs_04.doc

      This was quickly dropped as it caused much confusion with consumers. A few with high end and super ears with unlimited budget for equipment though that was the best thing since sliced bread. It's too bad it couldn't be shoved off into an extras menu somewhere like THX calibration screens included in many DVDs.

      http://www.cnet.com.au/dvdpvr/dvdrecorders/0,239035839,240056302,00.htm

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    36. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      she was caught red handed having used p2p programs to download and distribute a ton of music she didn't pay for

      Wrong! She was caught having 24 songs in a folder which happened to be configured for sharing by Kazaa. Proof of actual distribution to a downloader was NOT presented.

    37. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Wrong.. They have copy protection.

      What is copy protection but broad-brush DRM? You cannot play your region 2 DVD in my region 1 player. You cannot copy your DVD to my (or your own) video tape. I cannot play my PC video game unless I have the original disk in the drive, even if all the code has been copied to my hard drive.

      Fine-grained DRM gets to the level that I cannot play your mp3 on my player, or you cannot play your own mp3 on a different player than the one you bought it for.

      It's still a limitation on using a piece of media for perfectly legal purposes.

    38. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      Don't be too quick on that one. The Kaleidescope ruling seems to show a nick in the armor of DVD's. Kaleidescope both had a license by the DVD CCA and copied CSS onto the hard drive. The ruling only effects Kaleidescope and any other rippers or copiers that actually have a license from the DVD CCA. And in any case that is a moot point because the DVD CCA changed their licensing rules so that it is now impossible to license or re-license a DVD ripper.

      Wrong.. They have copy protection. My DVD's will play just fine in your DVD player. Your DVD's and VHS tapes will play fine in my player. DRM is your music files will play on only your iPod and not mine. While it is true that Macrovision is not DRM, but ARM (Analog Restrictions Management), DVDs have CSS, which is DRM. Just like DRM'd WMA or AAC files won't play on unlicensed computers, DVDs won't play on unlicensed players. The entire point of CSS is to ensure regulation of the DVD player market above and beyond ensuring that it conforms to the standard (i.e. selling licenses to manufactures and criminalizing unlicensed players, creating a guaranteed revenue stream). That's the point for all other forms of DRM as well, to ensure that the media only plays on "approved" devices. It's not about obscurity, it's about control.

      Or use Peer to Peer. Often a customer knows he bought the movie. Why buy it twice? In my case, based on the Kaleidescope ruling, I regularly rip to my media server. The kids can put movies on the video Zen and iPod. They can watch the movies, and I don't have to deal with a stack of loose scratched DVD's they never put away. Picking up after the kids and broken DVDs is a thing of the past. Because re-purchasing is the only legal option available to the consumer. As I said before, the Kaleidescope ruling doesn't affect the legal status of any other unlicensed rippers, only licensed ones. And even if one does use a licensed ripper, what portable device has CSS decryption provided by the manufacturer? If you know of a ripper or copier that both removes CSS and is licensed by the DVD CCA do let me know.

      Unfortunately true. Some movie studios who also have a music label are making the same mistakes all over again and will suffer the same fate. I picked up a copy of Open Season distributed by Sony. It wouldn't rip with Acid Rip on Linux. I called them to complain. They provided a replacement for no charge without the additional copy protection. They asked what player I was having trouble with. I flat told them. I hope it is properly added to their market research. I told them flat out that it didn't work on my Linux machine, and wouldn't rip with Acid Rip to my media server so I couldn't play it on my TV or play on an iPod or Zen. The additional copy protection on HD stuff along with the high price is why for the time being I'm sticking to the old format that is good enough. Consider yourself lucky that the FBI didn't arrest you shortly afterward, as AcidRip is an unlicensed ripper. I have serious doubts that the FBI actually would care that much about someone ripping for personal use, but what you did there was basically admit to breaking criminal law to someone who has an incentive to tip the authorities about your confession. It probably would not pass for "probable cause," but it is still a confession nonetheless and I wouldn't be surprised if Sony didn't at least hassle the FBI to raid your doorstep. I'm even more surprised that Sony sent you a new copy.
    39. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I picked up a copy of Open Season distributed by Sony. It wouldn't rip with Acid Rip on Linux. I called them to complain. They provided a replacement for no charge without the additional copy protection. They asked what player I was having trouble with. I flat told them. I hope it is properly added to their market research. I told them flat out that it didn't work on my Linux machine, and wouldn't rip with Acid Rip to my media server so I couldn't play it on my TV or play on an iPod or Zen.
      That Sony was willing and able to resolve this issue is mind blowing. It still raises the question why they don't just put non-DRM stuff on the shelves in the first place.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe his games just werent to your taste... i bet there are plenty of very sucessful games that you don't like.

      I don't think he is doing himself any favors by the posts he makes here though. it's bad PR to side with "the man", particularly when "the man" is fining people $220000 for running kazaa. It changes my attitude to the guy from "oh look, a cool guy writing indie games" to "jesus what an asshole". which is strange beacause i think otherwise i'd agree with him: yes piracy is wrong, but the **aa go way too far with their lawsuits and fines..

      maybe create a 2nd account without your website url, mr cliffski?

    41. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Okay, here's the problem... you're not on the same page as everyone else. You're in your own little fantasy world where you reply to what you THINK people are saying and not what they ARE.

      I'm not saying it's okay to steal the music. Nowhere did I say that. What I DID say is there is a proven link between cost/easy of purchase and piracy rates. If you make a product easily available at a reasonable price, fewer people will rip you off. *IAA companies don't like that line of thinking because it eats at their profits, so they'd rather try to stop people from going after the cheaper product.

      I'm not saying the industry leaders shouldn't take steps to protect their property either, though I bet you wish I was.

      Big business has been attempting to squash, criminalize, or otherwise legislate away the ability for anyone else to sell music for the price they (the little guy) want.

      One method to do this is to instill a "downloading is bad" mentality within the public. RIAA lawsuits, reports with very questionable links between P2P use and declining sales, etc. And now, trying to muscle in on university networks by cutting off federal funding if they don't block P2P traffic.

      P2P traffic DOES have legit uses, you know, even if some (arguably most) of its use is less so. It doesn't matter how many torrent sites host links to illegal copies - if people are willing to get it legit they will do so. People who download illegally will probably do so no matter what. The whole point is to lower the bar for legitimacy, not scare people into thinking anything not bought directly from you is illegal.

      You're delusional if you think any amount of law will make it better. This is purely a problem of the industry trying to force the market and public midshare into their outdated business model when it should be the other way around. The big guys need to start trying to understand their new market and new technologies.
      =Smidge=

    42. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, bandwidth costs would be disastrous if it weren't for P2P distribution. By curtailing ALL P2P distribution, the RIAA/MPAA also hope to shut down upstarts who have come to RELY on P2P.

    43. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Seriously, do you even know what a loss leader is?

      Obviously I have some idea, if I'm pointing it out in response to the idea that $5 DVDs represents a viable business model.

    44. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Dude, get with reality. You'll never stop sharing. Stop calling it piracy, that twists your thinking. Stop acting as if it's obvious that sharing is wrong. If you can get over this mental block you have about how you're being ripped off by hordes of evil pirates who are treating you "like scum", then maybe you could spend a little more time in figuring out how we can "promote the arts and sciences" without holding back the same. I don't think you quite understand what you're asking. You want copyright to work, and be respected. The ways to slow sharing to a crawl (it can't be stopped) are so draconian and damaging to civilization no one in their right mind could want to do them or seriously think they have a prayer of happening. Those ways are 1) kill the Internet and make sure nothing replaces it, or 2) kill computing by turning all personal computers, recorders, and copiers of any sort into devices that put DRM first, before their owners. Lest you don't realize just how mind bogglingly gigantic an undertaking that would be, you'd basically have to outlaw and remove "File -> Save" from everything. No more Office. No more applications of any sort that can save your work. No more cameras, scanners, video recorders, faxes, photocopy machines. Not even a telephone or microphone could be allowed. Imagine what it would do to society to give all that up. We'd all be much much poorer. NOT going to happen. Yes, nothing less than measures that drastic are going to slow sharing. I suspect you disagree on that point, but if you can think of any way copyright can function in our current and future environment, I'd like to hear it. Keep in mind, if you think sharing is easy now, it will only get easier. Face it, copyright is broken. The only thing that keeps copyright limping along is the residual respect most still have for the law, and the genuine desire to compensate those who help or entertain us. But keep pushing idiocy and insults to our intelligence, and that will be lost too.

      So, what to do? We need a model that fairly compensates scientists and artists, and sanctions what is both impossible and wholly undesirable to stop anyway. The obvious way of basically making the government into a bigger patron of science and art than it already is, has many problems of its own of course, not least the problem of instant knee jerk negative reactions along the lines of thinking that amounts to communism. It would pay a lot more to put thought into this rather than into futile attempts to turn back the clock. The US Constitution can be amended. The writers knew very well change and progress would make change in law necessary. Copyright is not holy writ. I hope someday copyright will finally be amended out of existence and replaced with something that works. Then instead of feeling all hard done by when "evil pirates" copy your work, you could feel flattered that people value your stuff enough to want to copy it, or imitate it, or improve it, and you will receive a little consideration, be able to put a little bread on the table.

      For some content providers, some of the whining over copyright infringement is just an excuse to cover up the fact that their stuff is garbage and no one actually wants it. I've seen the same thing in those sorts who are overly sensitive about discrimination, so that when for instance they get a problem wrong on a math test and get marked down for it, they scream that they weren't wrong, they were being discriminated against, often in bare faced, head-in-the-sand, "la la la I am not listening" yelling with hands over ears defiance of all evidence to the contrary, such as everyone else who made the exact same mistake losing the exact same number of points. They'd much rather believe the world is doing them an injustice than that they made a mistake. The most extreme form of this is the mentally disturbed person who goes on a killing spree. (Have I Godwinned this now?) Without exception, they blame their victims and the whole world for pushing them over the brink. Same also with the likes of Metallica. Use their supposed wrongs suffered as a big justification and crutch, and do damage to society and themselves when they try to act on their wrong thinking.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    45. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      I could very well use that for a poster slogan in my college's chapter of Students for Free Culture. I wonder if quotations like that are copyrightable when in distributed paper form...

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    46. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I don't see those $5 DVD's advertised really, so without advertising, the loss leader situation can't be true.

      Think of it this way: the actual production cost for the case and disc being sold is likely under $1. I'm sure if I can buy blank DVD-R's for $0.30 each in quantities of 50 then pressing factories are coming in MUCH cheaper, and the case isn't that much more expensive.

      Combine also with the fact that MANY movies will recoup their production costs simply from the theatrical release. Beyond that, the rest is profit.

      So yes, reselling a movie whose production cost has already been covered at $2-3 profit per copy is certainly viable. Not as nice as raking in $12 per copy, but after the movie has been on the shelves for more than 6 months, most of the "OMG I must have this!" people have bought their copy, and getting $2 from them is better than the nothing at all you're gonna get if you don't drop the price.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    47. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Technician · · Score: 1

      You cannot copy your DVD to my (or your own) video tape.

      This is copy protection. I can sell you or lend you my video tape and it will play. Digital DRM files have no equivalent. Moved files have playback prevention. The same is true for console video games. They have copy protection. There is no rights management that says permission granted to play on player serial number XXXX and no others. The copy won't work (shouldn't work) while the original will.

      Fine-grained DRM gets to the level that I cannot play your mp3 on my player, or you cannot play your own mp3 on a different player than the one you bought it for.


      It is this exact playback prevention that is DRM. It is defective by design. It is designed to not work on another player. This is protected WMA songs playing on certified players are guaranteed to not play on it's replacement certified but not authorized player.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    48. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Technician · · Score: 1

      That Sony was willing and able to resolve this issue is mind blowing. It still raises the question why they don't just put non-DRM stuff on the shelves in the first place.

      It was an experiment with only a few titles. I was sure to let them know it is a failure. DRM will make it in the market if the loss to piracy is drastic and the loss to rejected sales is minimal. I was let them know I bought the movie. DRM will kill sales. DRM did not stop piracy. When my copy didn't work and before I found non-DRM ones were offered, I picked up an ISO from Bit Torrent. It is the first and only MPAA movie I got from Peer to Peer. After I received my working copy, I deleted the ISO. I bought it. It didn't work. I used a work-around. I let them know.

      They need to know people are moving to portable players just like they did with music. Ripping to the players is common. Home Theater set-ups are common. Media servers are common. Watching the movie is expected. Forcing the watching of "Don't steal this film" and the FBI warning is robbing customers who bought the film. Life wasted on the redundant waste of time can not be bought back at any price. Quit stealing my time.

      This is the main reason for PVRs and home media servers. I don't want to take the time to find the disk the kids didn't put away, sit through the propaganda, and re-file it when done. I would like to decide on a movie, select it from the menu and have the movie start when I hit play. I love a media server. I hate new incompatible copy protection. It kills sales.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    49. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which ones?
      all of them.

      the GP is correcting you on your use of the word anarchy, he's not making a comment about file sharing.
    50. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you sure you know what it is? Are you saying that these movies are generally placed toward the back of the store so that people have to walk by other (profitable) merchandise to reach them? Are you saying that the pricing of these movies is done in order to entice people into the store in search of this great bargain and get them to buy other stuff? Are you saying that the stores limit how many bargain-basement films each customer can buy in order to encourage buying other products, or that they set required purchase amounts of other goods in order to get the bargain price? Are you saying that these $5 DVDs are advertised as being a special, limited offer, with a price that is abnormally low?

      Because none of these things apply to any of the stupid bargain-basement things I've seen. A $5 DVD loss-leader would be a retailer taking, say, The Simpsons Movie and selling it for $5 each, in the hopes that the sales of other stuff generated by people coming in to take advantage of this great bargain would make up for their losses. But whenever I've seen cheapo DVDs, they are cheap because they are worthless things that most people would not want to buy. And given that production costs on DVDs are well under a dollar, and royalties on such ancient fare are not that great, there is no reason to think that they don't make money on $5 bargain-bin DVDs.

      A loss leader:

      - Is frequently placed in a location which forces purchasers to pass a lot of other (profitable) merchandise.
      - Is something that is purchased frequently so that buyers will understand how much of a great deal it is.
      - Is frequently limited to a certain number per customer to discourage stockpiling.
      - Has limited stock available

    51. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Bonewalker · · Score: 1

      Maybe you missed the recent article on slashdot that pointed out that most of the people who enjoy p2p file-sharing are the ones who are actually going out and buying music and DVD's. Your self-righteous attidude that those who file-share give "nothing" back has been proven false already. So, what is your next argument?

    52. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont buy music but I'll always go and see a band when they tour. if they dont tour, they dont see a cent from me. I strongly disagree with their sense of entitlement; that they should be able to make a cd and live off it for the rest of their lives. if you're not producing or performing you shouldnt get paid.

      did you ever hear of a builder who built someone a house, and then expected continued payment from every set of new tenants that lived there? no. why is that? because it's batshit insane.

    53. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      1)record music
      2)put music for sale on website
      3)profit!

      Actually, Gene Simmons is the one who ought to be using that business model. Either that, or:

      1) Write some new tunes, and/or dust off your old ones
      2) Learn to play them
      3) Work with a concert promoter to sell tickets to your live show
      4) Profit!

      But instead he turns into a complete whiner and cries about how his royalty checks from the labels are dwindling.

    54. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Outdated business model cramping your style? ...make it the law!
      I think you'll find that the law came well before the "outdated" business model. It's called copyright law. It's a useful law. Look it up if you get the time. It allows people to profit from creating art, encouraging them to produce it full time if they think they have the talent.

      This amendment isn't some extra enforcement agent, giving the **AA extra power to sue little old ladies, this is a bill to encourage education about the law, and the consequences of breaking it. I, for one, have absolutely no problem whatsoever with students in our educational facilities being taught not to break the law. It's an extremely valuable lesson, and could really help curb this undermining of our culture.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    55. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      I don't side with the riaa or the mpaa, they are both maniacs and idiots I support many of the criticisms of both groups.
      But I don't believe that piracy is justified.
      This is one of my main points. You can be against piracy and still be against the RIAA and MPAA. People love to lump all content providers together as evil, because it makes it easier to justify piracy that way.
      I could easily post anonymously, but I think a post that points out the problems of piracy has more weight if its clearly from a content producer. Maybe it's bad PR for me, but I think it's an important point of principle, and one I'm not ashamed of stating openly.
      I'm not 'siding with the man'. That sounds like the whole 'if you're not with us you're against us' argument. There are more shades to the debate than just "lets sue everyone and impose rootkit drm" and "all content should be free man!".

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    56. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      oh dear...
      The builder knows 100% that he will get paid for his work, and his work is paid accordingly. The musician knows that 99% of the music he writes wont sell any copies and he will get nowhere. This is balanced out by his dream that in that 1% he will write something popular enough to recoup the losses of the other 99% of the time.
      You sound like you are jealous of people who write a hit album and seem to be making a fortune. Do you think you were jealous of them for the 15 years before they became an overnight success when they earned sod all while you had your nice regular builders salary?

      There is no government permit required for you to write songs. If it's such a gravy train to just bash out a hit single and relax on your private island, why aren't you doing it? It's a free market, nobody is going to stop you.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    57. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      I have d/l music on the internet too, but I'm not bothered like you are. I make mine entirely available for free without any strings (other than keeping my information attached, which I can't enforce but people have no reason to remove). The problem you have is you expect people to pay for a disposable commodity that once bought, no longer has monetary value.

      CDs have ongoing monetary value-- after you buy them you can legally resell them.

      Downloads do not preserve your monetary value. You cannot sell "used" commercial downloads. People who collect a large number of commercial downloads will ultimately realize once they tire of them that they can't do anything with them but give them away, because they're now worthless. At that point, it is impossible to stop the completely free distribution of once-commercial downloaded content. Individuals who have bought it have no vehicle by which they can liquidate it to recoup some of their original investment, because their original payment was not an investment at all. They will then likely feel no compunction whatsoever to turn them over to anyone who might want them.

      Thus, downloaded content becomes an "ethereal" commodity, with a value more akin to an experiential commodity, such as a trip to an amusement park, the theater or a concert-- there you pay for a ticket to experience an "event" and beyond that it also no longer retains any monetary value-- you cannot resell your theater experience. But in comparison, an MP3 download is totally pathetic as an "experience" of that sort-- for one thing, it's not very "unique" in that you can get it anytime-- but you can't experience Jimi Hendrix live in Maui anytime you want. The rarity and quality of the experience just aren't there in a content download any more than it is in the content of a pizza parlor flyer stuck in your windshield wipers at the mall. Downloaded content is disposable content, and people aren't going to see the value in such content as it is in fact, not there to see.

      You might remember when LPs gave way to CDs. In fact, there was some reduction in value in one way at that point as well, but it was somewhat mitigated by an increase in value in another. LPs were 12" square, and often had some BIG photos of the musicians or other interesting artwork that you could enjoy while listening to the music. When CDs arrived, many people bemoaned the lost of the beneficial content of the 12" sleeve-- and CD artwork looked pretty pathetic in comparison. There were some attempts to rectify this that didn't fly (you may remember the vertical box format). But, the new "digital" recording technology was supposedly better and more resistant to degradation over time. In going from LPs to CDs, value was not lost, in fact some was gained as the resell value of CDs is enahanced by the technology's resistance to degradation.

      But downloads take away things without giving things in return. And legal free downloads are all-you-can-eat, the fact that they are often given away without any strings is the context in which you have to "compete."

      I see downloads as simply advertising flyers. Advertising for a full CD perhaps, or better, a live concert experience that does not try to compete in a marketplace of millions of free near-equivalent alternatives. Asking people to pay for downloads is like having a radio station where listeners have to pay first for every song before you play it for them, in an ocean of free radio stations that just play music with perhaps a few advertisements interspersed.

      So do yourself a favor-- don't sell downloads, and don't buy downloads. Think of downloads as a means of sticking your fliers in everyone's windshield wiper in every parking lot in the entire world with one click of a mouse.

    58. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, cool, that's very reasonable. but unfortunately you sometimes give the impression that you don't think it's a shades of gray issue, that everything the **aa does is justified, and i think that gets people's backs up. that's obviously not what you actually think, but maybe it is what people think you think.

    59. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Nursie · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. It's not stealing, really.

      2. You also make the false assumption that if they couldn't get it free then you would have more paying customers. Not true. Not true in the least. Pirates buy MORE media than non pirates.

    60. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "But most people can't be bothered to actually make content. they bitch about the content other people make, but their protest is basically to steal other peoples stuff, not to make anything different."
      1. I dont think you understand what the word "stealing" means. It does not mean "depriving me of possible revenue".

      2. Most pirates are indiscriminate about the companies they pirate from, as it should be. The "little guy" doesnt have a right to profit off of creativity any more or less than anyone else.

      "There is nothing obsolete about the business model of making stuff and selling it."


      The internet has the potential to make the world more free (as in beer/software). Of course profiteers such as yourself want to take this freedom away. If you made widgets, and nanoforges were invented that allowed limitless manufacture of anything from raw material, would you have them banned for copying your widgets? Its the exact same thing, except we are talking about software, music and movies not widgets.

      If it can be easily copied, and isnt some sort of private information, then it should be easily copied. I believe that all software code should be open source and free, including your games. Its the only way humanity progresses, both ideologically and pragmatically as we get closer and closer to assembling things atom by atom. We have to set up a legal framework now, or our children and grand children will be walled up in a world of complete artificial scarcity, dominated and controlled by Intellectual "Property" overloards.

      Now I hear the keyboard clacking, "you cant tell me my software has to be open source!! thats communism!!11". There are some things too important to be left to individual "biases". Whether software is open or closed is one of those things. Now games are more like music and movies, entertainment, than actual software "tools", but I would like to quote a very old slashdot post (whoes author has sadly escaped me (notice im not taking credit for others work which IS morally wrong) ) But this is something that bears reprinting in every single discussion about IP.

      -----------
      Seriously though, I'm sure that a lot of people think the way this guy thinks. It's an easy mistake to make, especially if you look at software as being analogous to physical property. The analogy breaks down pretty quickly if you look at it. I like to use the example of the "magic hammer".

      If I attach a rock to the end of a stick to make a real-life hammer, and I give it to you, now I don't have a hammer anymore. With software, I can sell the hammer to you, and I still somehow have an identical hammer (that's how Microsoft makes the big bucks). With open source software, I give you the hammer with instructions on how to make it. I haven't really lost anything by giving you the hammer - I still have my copy, and copying it took about 3 seconds. You are encouraged to share the hammer with your friends (and you don't loose anything by doing so either). You can also make improvements to the hammer. Only an enterprising few will do this, but the effect is cumulative. When someone forges a brass head for the hammer, poof! Everyone's hammers are now better. Steel head? Poof! Claw on the back for pulling nails? Poof! It doesn't take long before everybody has a really good hammer. -author unknown

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    61. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am doing the exact thing you outline in the constitutional model. So you support 100% the way I work right?"

      Are you? Do you forfeit your copyrights after a "limited time"? Would you be ok with giving away your source code when it is 15 years old?

      Otherwise, your software eventually goes obsolete and dies on a backup dvd.
      In general, I am not a big fan of buying software without source (even at a future date). When a company like ID provides eventually releases of code, like with quake and doom, at least they are contributing to advancement in society.

      I don't see the point of private science. If you write the most efficient algorithm ever, and it dies on a backup tape, is that useful?

    62. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Zanth_ · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately your comment makes little sense. Why would a movie lose its appeal but a music album would not? How often have people remarked that they are sick of hearing the same song played over and over again on the radio, or that they have overplayed an album. In my circle of friends these types of comments come up enough to warrant further investigation as to whether or not rewatching or relistening holds more or less value.

      Regardless of the erroneous logic, I actually agree with you from a personal standpoint. There are few movies that I can rewatch umpteen times (Star Wars, LOTRs, Sawshank, Wallstreet are but a few that I can and have) but a good many CDs (I own 1500+) I can listen and relisten over and over and over without tiring much. But then, I'm more of a music lover than a movie lover. Transplant me for someone who prefers movies and their sense of value shifts towards DVDs rather than CDs and to boot, they get the better deal, cheaper DVD often with the soundtrack and special features. I get at best 45 min of good music. YMMV is the catch phrase to use here.

    63. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should choose another line of work. This one doesn't seem to be making you happy.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    64. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      There are more shades to the debate than just "lets sue everyone and impose rootkit drm" and "all content should be free man!".

      Indeed, but the way you argue just makes you sound like a dick. Nobody is going to argue shades of gray when you froth at the mouth like a rabid clown screaming about evil people who are stealing your brain.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    65. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think I'm a builder? from that and your responses to other posts you do seem to have a comprehension problem

    66. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      this is a bill to encourage education about the law, and the consequences of breaking it.

      Which law are you talking about?

      U.S. copyright laws do not contain a single instance of the words "downloading," "download," or "piracy."

      The only time the word "downloading" appears in the entire U.S Code is as some sort of defense for possessing child pron.

      The only time the word "download" appears in the U.S. Code in relation to copyrighted material is in the section on counterfeiting, only applies to criminal offenses, and requires that the person making the copies "sells or rents" them.

      To recap: There is no law prohibiting downloading and the whole "making available" issue only comes into effect if there's a "sale or rental." Since there is no law that even mentions the activity, college kids using p2p cannot possibly be breaking any laws. There should be no consequences.

    67. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      jeez, I'm using a metaphor you even started for fucks sake, but hey, anonymous coward, if you cant argue the point, just hurl abuse eh? makes your side of the argument seem soooooo watertight.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    68. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      why the fuck would I bother? if I sit on my ass and hum to myself, some other gullible schmuck will make the magic hammer.

      and that's the way we all think.... and no hammer ever gets made. Note that in my example we are all behaving 100% rationally.
      yeah great system, except that it totally and utterly fails. without reward for individual effort, nobody makes an effort. Would you go to work if nobody was going to pay you?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    69. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you go to work making posts, making arguments, using energy to convince, to entertain, to educate? Would you go to work posting for FREE? Would you spend "effort"?

      Points at cliffski

      Demonstrated. Pwned.

      books.google.com

      For you I recommend Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain. Consider yourself PAID. :D With one link, I've given you more value than you yourself ever coded. Guess that makes me a helluva jolly good fellow. Yarrgh!

    70. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      Oh jeez is this how some idiots minds work? I post in my spare time. you want to watch movies that people made half heartedly in their spare time when bored?
      get some fucking perspective kiddo. Lord Of The Rings was not made by 3 bored guys one afternoon.
      You == clueless.

      the difference is that you didn't fucking write Tom Sawyer did you? you cant get it through your skull that handing someone a link to content is not the same as creating it? maybe that whole point just goes way above your head.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    71. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dear cliffski,

      New content, bet you can't wait to reply.

      Oh jeez is this how some idiots minds work? I post in my spare time. I guess so. It looks like it.

      you want to watch movies that people made half heartedly in their spare time when bored? You don't?

      I think your powers of convincing then are fading. Undercut by free.

      get some fucking perspective kiddo. Wow. I know that "Pwned" comment hurt. You're already down to ageist blabbering. And yet here you *still* are entertaining, pretending to not be putting in any effort whatsoever, for free.

      Lord Of The Rings was not made by 3 bored guys one afternoon. As Al Pacino would say, "No it was not."

      You == clueless. Double equals? Twice as strong? For half the price?

      the difference is that you didn't fucking write Tom Sawyer did you? You need to read it. Or re-read it for the first time, free.

      you cant get it through your skull that handing someone a link to content is not the same as creating it? Then how did that content get there?

      maybe that whole point just goes way above your head. Or maybe you're just upset that the way people value your content makes you feel small. But at least you tried. It's what you do with it that counts (and in your case, that number isn't very big, let alone notable). But it'll be ok. Dream, dream, dream of dreams way above their heads.
    72. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are reading what you want to read, instead of what is written. this goes for just about every post you replied to, not just mine. if you want me to abuse you can, you go fuck yourself your stupid imbred motherfucker

    73. Re:Outdated business model cramping your style? by AdmiralDouglas · · Score: 1

      Although I tend to agree with you... you're going to need to back up those statements with some kindof evidence. Research, or some study done that proves it.

      Stating something is a fact doesn't make it a fact.

  2. MPAA & RIAA for Congress by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why don't we make this all a lot easier to follow and understand: Simply replace the Senate with the MPAA and the House with the RIAA. We'll save some money by not having to pay the middle-men.

    1. Re:MPAA & RIAA for Congress by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe take their ears away from the corporate whispers for some time with us?

      A quick google search found these.
      List of representatives
      Search for yours, by zip. Make it easier!

      Send a letter.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:MPAA & RIAA for Congress by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 2, Informative

      much more effective: make a phone call.

      If you talk to lobbyists, they'll tell you that often a representative will vote according to how many calls from constituents he got on either side, and often only as many as a hundred or so people will call! This is where you can actually make a difference! When you call you'll be greeted by a staffer, so make sure you know the title of the bill AND the code. Citing both will more likely result in your opinion being recorded by the staffer.

      I'm not sure what's going on with the bill right now, but it's also important to know when/who to call:
          1) call those in a committee dealing with the bill if they're currently making changes to it
          2) call everyone the day before a vote to let your representative know how you would like them to vote on it

      The humane society often puts all this information together for people who are concerned about animal cruelty issues. Is there a similar group that does the work for us on this front?

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:MPAA & RIAA for Congress by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      www.eff.org

  3. I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ban anyone from breathing if the join the RIAA.

    No offence, but why should one illegal activity like that be treated above all others? Here's one, one that's more useful, ban the funding to colleges that don't do enough to prevent rape on campus. That would actually be a good crime-prevention to tie to funding, and it is a problem.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't like stealing (or the less wieldly intellectual property infringement if you prefer), and it's bad. But this industry that has long since lost 95% of it's creativity and intelligence, is now trying to force money from people, threatening the creativity and intelligence of those people also? Make people dumber so they like your stuff more? Make Brittany Spears and Backdoor Boys more popular?

    That is the stupidest waste of legal paper I've seen in a long time.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    1. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by yakumo.unr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that and why not the same for anti drug and gun policies is pretty much exactly what my girlfriend had said as soon as she read the original article on this..

      damn I lost my mod points yesterday :(

    2. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by GeckoX · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Welcome to Post-Secondary Daycare!

      This is the beginning of yet another very slippery slope. Students, stand up for your rights as citizens of the country you live in! You are not second class citizens, and yet they'd like you to be.

      More legislation for the sake of big business. This is so sad on so many levels.

      --
      No Comment.
    3. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      They seem to be forgetting that these very same institutions are busily turning out the workers and business men/women/person/s [delete as appropriate] of tomorrow. I'll just bet they'll be queuing up to work for the companies that tried to screw them over when they were at uni, oh yes....

      What it may well do is force an upsurge in people looking for new ways of doing business, and happily stomping on the remains of the current companies and their representative organizations.

      Isn't that how Hollywood got started? with groups of creative people yarding it across the continent to escape oppressive patent/IP enforcing that controlled their ability to make movies and the equipment required? cameras, film and suchlike?

    4. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the stupidest waste of legal paper I've seen in a long time.

      First time reading stuff on government/lawyers/politicians/theman?

    5. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by cliffski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      actually the reason that britney and the backstreet boys are on TV and you don't like them is that they sell records. If you pirate music, you are invisible to the market, and your purchasing decision doesn't register. The record execs don't sign bands that they think people like, the sign bands that make money.
      You could have some cool indie band that was massively popular amongst the slashdot reading demographic, but they will never get a record deal or national tour sponsored, because they do not generate money.
      Removing yourself from the marketplace for music means losing any influence whatsoever on the supply side decisions. Money talks.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    6. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting...

      There are a large number of people that don't like them and don't pirate (count me in that crowd)

      The reason the are popular is that they pander to the lowest frequent denominator. I won't use "common", as in that phrase, it means found everywhere. Sadly that is pretty low.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    7. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      that and why not the same for anti drug and gun policies

      Why anti-gun policies when guns are not only perfectly legal, but protected by the Constitution itself?

      Why should drugs be illegal in the first place? Shouldn't I have the right to screw up my life any damned way I please? Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to outlaw a purely personal activity? (The same goes for prostitution and gambling). If a woman has the right to remove a fetus from her body, why doesn't she have the right to insert a needle full of heroin? It is, after all, her body, her life, her business. If it's my sperm that produced the fetus then removal of the fetus is my business too, isn't it? But not the needle!

      That said, universities should be mandated by Congress to ENCOURAGE P2P file sharing, which benefits independant artists and OSS programmers (who are what P2P is really there for).

      Of course, the RIAA labels are threatened by their independant competitors, who they could formerly keep out of your ears by keeping them off the radio.

      We have the best Federal Government money can buy.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      that and why not the same for anti drug and gun policies

      But there is something like that. It's called certification.

    9. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Good points, but I'll argue that the sentance for any crime comitted under the influence (or to assist in getting under the influence) of such mind altering substances should be increased. Unfortunately, they can increase other forms of crime, and that is the problem. People think because they weren't in control of their actions, they shouldn't be responsible, but they chose not to be in control - and should accept the concequences of that stupidity..

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    10. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by Jerry · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to outlaw a purely personal activity?


      When your "purely personal" activity infringes on the Constitutional right others to be secure in their person and property.

      I don't care what you smoke, drink, inject, sniff or screw, as long as your activity only harms you and no one else.

      If it were only possible to bring back from the dead a person MURDERED by a driver using a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, or one smoking pot, or sniffing glue, or using meth, or whatever. But no, we have to bury the innocent and support the drunk in jail for a few months or years, if he gets convicted. Then he's out free and others have their lives and property at risk again.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    11. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by harl · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I don't like stealing (or the less wieldly intellectual property infringement if you prefer), and it's bad. You really shouldn't gloss over it like that. Stealing and copy right infringement are fundamentally different and need to be treated as such. One must involve deprivation. One may or may not involve deprivation. That's what makes things so touchy. It's a crime but how do you assess penalty when there is no loss?

      Calling it stealing is simply propaganda and it's working.
      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    12. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      One must involve deprivation. One may or may not involve deprivation. That's what makes things so touchy. It's a crime but how do you assess penalty when there is no loss?


      Really, which? Obtaining without permission (stealing), or obtaining without permissions (IP Infringement).

      Stealing DOES NOT require deprivation of something from an individual, simply unlawful attainment. Likewise, IP Infringement does deprivation of compensation for work rendered.

      IP Infringement is to theft as cars are to automobiles. Simply a subset of a whole.
      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    13. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

      >The record execs don't sign bands that they think people like, the sign bands that make money.

      They don't sign bands, they manufacture them.

    14. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by harl · · Score: 1

      You are completely wrong.

      If what you say is true then why is there a whole group of law that concerns copyright infringement? Why not simply use the theft laws already on the books?

      Theft is taking a physical object. Copyright infringement is copying something that you are not allowed to copy. Look I'm not going to debate this because it isn't my opinion. It's fact. Copyright goes back to the 1500s. It was originally created to stop the flow of information after the invention of the printing press. It was originally a censorship tool. Only later was it used in a commercial manner. Look it up.

      There must be loss with theft but there may or may not be loss with copyright infringement.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    15. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by paeanblack · · Score: 1

      Why should drugs be illegal in the first place? Shouldn't I have the right to screw up my life any damned way I please?

      If you've set aside some money and purchased insurance for your health care, funeral, existing debts, and the care of any dependents you may have, sure, be my guest. Until then? Fuck, no. You don't have a right to make a mess that others will need to clean up.

      Generally speaking, the people who have the foresight to plan for their future are the ones who don't get caught. Consider the current system to be a metric of maturity and discretion.

    16. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      You are completely wrong.

      If what you say is true then why is there a whole group of law that concerns copyright infringement? Why not simply use the theft laws already on the books?


      Why are there laws that vary between stealing one thing and another? Why are there laws for taking classified information and nonclassified?

      Because different things require different treatment.

      Here's a simple one for you - everything illegal is a crime, so let's just make one law for all crime!

      Theft is taking a physical object.


      Lets not change the word. Theft does imply the deprivation of something, but stealing does not.

      stealing
      stealing

      Copyright infringement is copying something that you are not allowed to copy. Look I'm not going to debate this because it isn't my opinion. It's fact.


      So it is not theft, which implies a physical object, but it is still stealing.
      Maybe you should get your facts straight before trying to act high and mighty.
      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    17. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by tryfan · · Score: 1

      Your argument is a typical example of post hoc thinking.
      In truth, the "narrower" artists don't attract enough people to get a record deal anyway. If it wasn't for the Net, they just wouldn't be on the radar.
      Actually, some of them get so much on the radar, thanks *to* the Net, that they actually *do* get a record contract - in spite of the fact of downloading.
      The winners in these cases are not only the downloaders, but everyone else that would never had heard of these artists otherwise.

    18. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      It actually is not. Theft will always cause deprivation. If someone steals from a retail location, the store is out the revenue of whatever was stolen, as well as having incurred the cost of acquisition. Stealing from an individual is much the same. The individual may not be out the revenue, but will have paid the cost of acquisition and will be out the utility of the stolen item.

      On the other hand, in infringement, there is no requirement of deprivation. The infringer has an object. The legal owner still possesses it. Deprivation would only occur if the infringer would've paid for the object if he couldn't have acquired it infringingly. Somewhat difficult to prove. And yet I'm pretty sure that of all the music in everybody's libraries, there is some portion of which they wouldn't have if they were required to pay the set price. Is there usually deprivation in infringment? Very probably. But it isn't required in nor is it a necessary aftereffect of infringement.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    19. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      you might want to read my other reply. I used the word stealing, not theft.

      There's a difference and stealing DOES NOT imply the loss of something by the victim.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    20. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by randomaxe · · Score: 1

      Except that artists on traditional labels hardly make any money off of music sales, be it on CD or digitally distributed. Artists make most of their money from touring. That's why essentially defunct bands (pick an 80's hair metal band and you've got your example) can stay afloat financially by playing small events and venues, but without bothering to write or release new material.

      And last I checked, there wasn't a reliable way to attend a concert for free via any existing P2P network. So buying music really isn't doing your favorite bands much of a favor, short of keeping their RIAA-affiliated record label signing them back on each time their contract nears expiration.

      Besides, what kind of tool looks to TV and radio to find new music these days?

    21. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by cliffski · · Score: 1

      aha, so by taking a small struggling bands music for free, you are actually providing a public service?
      If something has a price tag, its wrong to take it for free. If the band is more interested in 'getting the word out' they can make the album free, or they can ask for donations. both are valid decisions, as are charging for their music. But if they DO charge, and people take it anyway, you are basically saying to the band that you don't care what it is they want, you are going to take that decision out of their hands... just because you can.
      My fave band is probably heavily pirated, but I always order the CD the minute its released. Why would I try and rip off the very musicians I most admire? The are also very successful and don't need more money, but they have earned every cent of it, and good luck to them.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    22. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      I did read the other reply. But in the post I was replying to, you did indeed use the word theft. You said that infringement is to theft as cars are to automobiles. Thats false. You also said that infringement does deprive the creator of earnings. Which, as an absolute, is false. It can potentially do so, but not necessarily so.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    23. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      err, ok, slip up. However prior to that slip, and the main point, is that it is stealing.

      And, for that matter, something is being deprived, just not what was stolen.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    24. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Granted that infringement is a subset of stealing.

      What, however, is being deprived? Keep in mind that the way you are wording your assertion is as an absolute. And as I've already said, infringement does not always (absolutely) cause deprivation. Just that it potentially can, and probably does in many cases. How many, I can't say. How much, I also couldn't say. I do know that not every act of infringement causes deprivation.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    25. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      OK, I wasn't saying all of it does, but in cases, such as with the music industry, some of those infringing would have payed for some/all of the things if they weren't stealing them.

      And even such, as I said before - those people don't have the right to that media, just because they want it.

      If we live next door, and you have a bigger/nicer yard, it doesn't deprive you of anything if I use your yard while you are away and pick up after myself, but that doesn't make it right/legal.

      Admittedly the civil penaltys and fines are much more reasonable than what the RIAA is trying to get from their lawsuits, but that is another matter.

      I've said it before, of the four sides in this, two are wrong (Pirates, RIAA), the purchasers and boycotters, are the only ones in the right.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    26. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by mstahl · · Score: 1

      ...Backdoor Boys more popular...

      I think the Village People's popularity peaked a long time ago. Seems like that'd be a lost cause.

    27. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      OK, so by that definition, punching someone in the face is stealing. You deprive them of their good looks, deprive them of the absence of pain and deprive them of a blood-free shirt. We should abolish laws on physical assault and just call it all 'stealing'. In fact, surely homicide is stealing - the theft of life? Gosh, we could do this all day...

    28. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I think we've established stealing doesn't involve depriving.

      have a nice day and grow up while you are at it.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    29. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      illegal drugs, are illegal. And that's not the issue here at all. and I meant gun policies, not ANTI gun policies, though not living in the US I do normally tend to think of the latter first.

    30. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      is that really comparible?, is it a group of profit mongering corporations looking to force the universities to have strict policies enforcing their will, or otherwise be fined to the point they'll have a hard time funding many (any?) students.

      The whole thing is basically criminalising all the students, before they even are students.

    31. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one half of the piracy transaction is actually stealing, ie., the person uploading the file is stealing the exclusivity of the publishing privilege. We as a society have granted the copyright owner a limitted privilege to be the exclusive source for this material, and piracy deprives the copyright owner of this.

    32. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by harl · · Score: 1

      Because different things require different treatment. That makes my point not yours.

      Here's a simple one for you - everything illegal is a crime, so let's just make one law for all crime! Nice straw man. Should keep the crows away but it's not good for much else.

      Lets not change the word. Theft does imply the deprivation of something, but stealing does not. Let's play the dictionary game! It's fun! You claim copying is stealing. Stealing from the link you provided is taking something that doesn't belong to you. From the dictionary you used take means to kill fish or game. Since copying a CD has nothing to do with killing fish or game that doesn't belong to you it can't possible be stealing.

      For those in the audience that don't like to waste time with pointless semantic games can you please explain how you can take, seize, or move secretly without deprivation?

      Maybe you should get your facts straight before trying to act high and mighty. I'm not being all high and mighty. I'm simply right. So far you've answered my questions with a question, used a fallacy, and argued semantics. How ever at no point did you address any of the historical facts. Copy right started as a concept in the 1500s with the invention of the printing press. In the 1600s the Britain enacted the first copy right law. Late 1800s nations started to unify copy right.

      For thousands of years lawyers and politicians had laws against stealing. However they chose to enact new separate laws to deal with copy right once a method of cheap copying became available (the printing press, player piano rolls, computers). There has never been a single case of any copy right infringer being convicted under a law regarding theft and/or stealing. Rather than use existing stealing or theft laws the RIAA is trying to have new legislation written up.

      It may be illegal but it's not theft and it's not stealing. I wish it was stealing because then the penalty would be lower than it currently is.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    33. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by microcentillion · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Colleges will implement it, but it won't make any difference.

      ' One who derives pleasure in creatively circumventing limitations '

      Almost everyone in college had to 'creatively circumvent' their financial issues just to get there, and computers are way easier to do it with than money.
      Tunnel your communications using a different protocol to a system off-campus, and go from there. I'm still waiting for GOOD public servers that do that for any connection type...

      --
      But clearly you have something better to say...
    34. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I think I agree with you - if you murder or steal, whether or not you were under the influence or trying to get under the influence should be of no concern. I see no difference between stealing a carton of cigarettes to feed your addiction to the most addictive substance on earth and a starving man stealing a sitloin steak. I see no difference in murdering someone because you're shitfaced drunk and because you caught them fucking your wife.

      The crime should be what matters, not the reason for the crime. Drugs should play no part at all, good or bad.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    35. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Your straw man is on fire. Drunk Driving is not a "purely personal" activity. Drinking itself is, until you get behind the wheel.

      Where does the Constitution give Congress the right to outlaw a wager between you and me? Where does it give Congress the right to outlaw your mom's services to me? Or her right to put a needle full of steroids in her arm?

      When will they come up with a test to show that you're actually intoxicated on cocaine, heroin, or marijuana rather than one to test whether you may have been intoxicated in the last week or (in pot's case) month?

      Drinking is legal. Driving drunk isn't. I have no problems with either concept. Go troll somebody else.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    36. Re:I have another bill that should be passed by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      If you've set aside some money and purchased insurance for your health care...

      This is the US. My health care and its bill are none of anyone's business but my own. We don't have universal health care here.

      ...funeral, existing debts, and the care of any dependents you may have

      Are you suggesting that I may never die? What is it with you dumb yuppies anyway? Face it, dumbass, you will die. Maybe today. Maybe not for another seventy years - but you WILL die.

      Let's look at two people - my Grandmoter and her son, my Uncle.

      Grandma didn't smoke and didn't drink. Uncle Bill smoked four packs of Kools a day through the one lung he had left after he lost the other to TB.

      Uncle Bill died at age 65. He never collected Social Security. He never got Medicare. All those SS taxes he paid go to somebody else's retirement.

      Grandma collected SS for thirty five years, and saw the doctor at least monthly, for thiose decades, paid for by the government (Medicare). She fell and broke her hip at age 99.

      In the end, you will run up a huge hospital bill and die. The sooner you do so, the easier your burden on society is. When you come up with a method of not dying, then maybe your points will have merit. Until then you're whistling past the graveyard you WILL inhabit whether or not you ever eat a trans-fat french fry, smoke a cigarette, or snort a line of cocaine.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  4. Everything is copyrighted by webmaster404 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just about eveyrhting that can be shared through P2P is copyrighted. For example those Linux ISOs I downloaded last night, they were copyrighted, now they were under the GPL which allows me to share them, but it still is copyrighted. So are the creative commons works, so now can we not share them like the licence allows us to do due to this bill? It is so much like the *IAA to try to distroy innovation. People are wondering why America has lost business and tech domonence yet would vote for this bill. They would egarly press for more education in computers, yet favor Microsoft which got us here in the first place. Our new motto for our country should be "Don't innovate, don't share and don't learn unless you have paid your patent protection fees and copyrights to the *IAA"

    --
    There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    1. Re:Everything is copyrighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are picking apart the wording of a summary of a summary. If the original bill were phrased that way it would be quite worrying, but it probably is not.

    2. Re:Everything is copyrighted by webmaster404 · · Score: 1

      Sure it might not be used like that but remember the DMCA? About the "Anti-Circumvention" part? Whenever we have senators/representatives clueless about technology (I don't think that they should be programmers but still should know a lot about computers) and are getting lobbied by the *IAA they can make it seem like somehow all this is hurting the economy and it would be the right thing to do is to discourage any time of filesharing, they will usually go along with it and ruin our economy that way much like the DMCA did.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    3. Re:Everything is copyrighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I checked the bill itself (http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf) and it is very careful to always state "unauthorized distribution", meaning that authorized distribution is still fine. Granted, the bill is dangerous for many other reasons, but it would not penalize anybody for legal distribution.

    4. Re:Everything is copyrighted by webmaster404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what starts out as "unauthorized distribution" becomes "all bittorent traffic" becomes "all P2P traffic" how many colleges will start banning P2P traffic and if the lobbyists keep on misleading Congress, how much more time till "all P2P traffic" becomes illegal?

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    5. Re:Everything is copyrighted by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      How long until someone writes a p2p app that uses port 80 and http?

      You shut down Napster, Kazaa replaced it, Kazaa got full of spyware, something replaced it.

      I remember the FIRST torrent. I was sitting in my dorm room freshmen year slashdot posted a story about some 'new fancy' protocol to help bandwith of people wanting to distribute stuff. I downloaded the program and ran it. I thought "cool but there's not much here."

      A year later there were 2-3 major trackers, but it was still pretty much under ground. 6 years later. Bittorrent is THE p2p everyone talks about. These people don't understand how the internet works nor how fast everything can change. Remember DiVX, I can't think of the last movie I downloaded in Divx, it's all Xvid now.

      Pirates are intelligent, fast and have absolutely no loyalty. If there is a faster better cheaper way to distribute something, it will be adopted overnight.

    6. Re:Everything is copyrighted by stinerman · · Score: 1

      How long until someone writes a p2p app that uses port 80 and http?

      Then the universities will start putting their students behind a firewall that doesn't allow any incoming connections. Yeah, I suppose you could connect to them, but it'd kill speeds at least.
    7. Re:Everything is copyrighted by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      So then someone figures out how to send data back after the student requests it. Making it look Identical to HTTP traffic. Heck wrap it in some Binary Data and I don't think anyone would know the difference.

      Or toss it on 443 and let it fend for itself among ssl traffic.

  5. Homer by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Every time I see another MPAA/RIAA story I can't help but picture Homer Simpson singing "I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T! I mean, S-M-A-R-T!" as he burns his house down.

    1. Re:Homer by blast3r · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You should get a big kick out of this then.

      http://listserv.educause.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0711&L=icpl&T=0&F=&S=&P=546

      This tool they are talking about includes numerous network based tools they want Universities to install on their network. These tools CAN NOT detect ILLEGAL file sharing. They can only detect that file sharing is taking place. So what are Universities supposed to do? Watch the logs and when someone shares a file launch a raid on their room to check and see if that file was illegal or not? This is ridiculous.

      Now the scary part. The Universitytoolkit is setup by default to allow unauthenticated access to the tools on the box via a web application. Someone from the network can anonymously view ALL traffic this system can see which includes web traffic, etc. If anyone has installed this toolkit you might want to do some more research.

    2. Re:Homer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry sir, but you have violated the copyright on the Talking Heads - Burning Down the House. You will be hearing from our lawyers shortly.

      - The RIAA

    3. Re:Homer by insanemime · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, some universities have gone to just locking down their firewalls on campus and make the students in the dorms pay for their own internet through a local provider. That way the University does not get in trouble. Unfortunately you then have to contact the one guy who controls the firewall if you need to use anything that he has not already punched a hole for.

    4. Re:Homer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trivia : apparently Dan genuinely fluffed that line and ad-libbed it.

    5. Re:Homer by IronChef · · Score: 1

      It's like that, but we are in the house too.

  6. Name of the Amendment...... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else first notice the acronym of the amendment also ends in AA?

  7. I have a great idea... by PontifexMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    let's throw out the existing governmental system, you know the one that is bought and paid for by the corporations, or anyone with the cash on hand to do so and replace it with SOMETHING THAT FREAKING WORKS. I'm sick to death of the government pandering to these idiots who can't keep up with the times and the technology. For those, the only method of survival is bribery to dismantle any competitive alternative to themselves (you hear that Verizon and all you other morons?). Elections aren't working, since the parties are in the pay of the same group of a*holes as well. This truly is extortion on a country-wide scale. Bastards.

    --
    Pax Vobiscum
    1. Re:I have a great idea... by jamar0303 · · Score: 2

      If people would vote for third parties instead of saying that it wouldn't work, then we'll see some change.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    2. Re:I have a great idea... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      The US election system and legislative system are both set up in a way that squelches third parties.

      With no coalition-building as happens in a parliamentary system, third parties have no pull in Congress; with the electoral college system, they have no hope of influencing executive elections either.

    3. Re:I have a great idea... by shinma · · Score: 1

      Yes, because that worked so well in 2000...

      --
      Shinma
    4. Re:I have a great idea... by s!lat · · Score: 1

      Monarchy is actually a solution to that problem. ;)

      --
      It's a leather thing
    5. Re:I have a great idea... by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      But how could you do that, since the corporations who finance elections, bribing both major parties with "contributions" to do their bidding are in charge?

      The corporations control all media except the internet, meaning that the corporations control both media and government. Witnesss Nader vs Libertarian; Nader wasn't on th eballot in enough states to win even if he'd won every state he was on the ballot on, while the Libertarians were on the ballot in 49 states. But the corporate media slobbered all over the guranteed to lose Nader while completely ignoring the Libertarian. They have it in your head that a vote for anyone but a Republicrat (both major parties are their puppets) is a wasted vote and you don't even question it!

      I advocate two reforms that will never ever happen.
      • You can't contribute to more than one candidate in any given race, as that's a thinly disguised bribe
      • You aren't allowed to contribute to any candidate you aren't eligible to vote for.
      Only when snowball==hell will this happen. We live in a plutocracy. Deal with it.

      -mcgrew
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:I have a great idea... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
      --
      Sadly I and anyone that thinks like this is a terrorist. The USA has the largest military in the world and until we hit critical mass, there won't be another revolution. I don't think that this will ever happen in my lifetime.

    7. Re:I have a great idea... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The whole Idea of a wasted vote is getting pretty pathetic anyways; when was the last time you didn't rationalize your vote by something like "at least it wasn't as bad as voting for the other guy"? What people need to do is not vote for the lesser of two evils, but demand that at least one comes up to neutral. I'm not doing it any more, I'd rather turn in a blank ballot than vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  8. non-broken link to the text by theMerovingian · · Score: 4, Informative


    here

    Also note the status of the bill, it has just been introduced.

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    1. Re:non-broken link to the text by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1
      Summary of the bill:
      • Sec. 487: Requires universities to annually disclose their copyright infringement policies to their students.
      • Sec. 494: Requites universities to "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" (emphasis added). Also allows the Federal goverment to pay (bribe) the universities to help with the cost of such technology through grant money.
      • All the other sections referencing copyright seem to be related to enabling access to textbooks for disabled (e.g. blind) students.
      Personally I would just reject the bill on grounds that it is too long (Hmm, we need a fancy sounding "Robert's Rules" term for that).
  9. It's time for a governmental wide recall. by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's time for a governmental wide recall.

    1. Re:It's time for a governmental wide recall. by BobMcD · · Score: 0, Troll

      In all seriousness, if you want to send a clear message that you don't like where this is going, go vote for Ron Paul in your local primary. His website (www.ronpaul2008.com) has all the info you'll need to get ready.

      Whether you agree with all his politics or not, he is the only one running - THE ONLY ONE - that dares to say the current way of handling government is wrong.

      Congress simply doesn't have the authority to try and force college students to buy music from the RIAA. And no, that isn't a straw-man, that is what you get when you simply connect the fist-sized dots in front of you. They can, and should, work to make a body of valuable law, but their primary duty is to encourage commerce. Radiohead, Reznor, and others are proving that commerce is still quite viable, and in that light there really isn't any authority for Congress to meddle with this dying industry. Especially not at the cost of those schools and students they're supposed to be trying to help.

      In the end this becomes just another needless law to protect special interests.

      Of the candidates currently running, I can think of only one who would have the convictions to veto this crap.

    2. Re:It's time for a governmental wide recall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

    3. Re:It's time for a governmental wide recall. by lordofwhee · · Score: 1

      Ignoring how obviously biased that post is, it does bring up some good points.

      Albeit points that have been noted in basically everything our government now does, but good ones, nonetheless.


      You know what I'd like to see? A techie running for president. We seem to be the only ones that make any damn sense any more...

    4. Re:It's time for a governmental wide recall. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Troll? TROLL? Have you even looked at my posting history? Now, because you don't agree with me, I'm a TROLL???

      What the hell?

      That post was on-topic, had at least one discussion point, and was in no way negative!

      You mods that did that certainly do not deserve any more points...

  10. Send a message to the constituents of the proposer by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here are the emails for the county officials and city council for the largest cities in George Miller's 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."

  11. Hey, Americans by rueger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In all seriousness, are you all completely f*cking MAD??! How can anyone in your country sit by and watch this sort of thing? How can anyone with two brain cels to rub together cast a vote for either Democrats or Republicans? I don't even really care about P2P use by students - this is just a supremely stupid bit of legislation.

    Seriously, if your elected politicians will vote for this, what else are they doing that defies all sense?

    1. Re:Hey, Americans by faloi · · Score: 2, Informative

      How can anyone with two brain cels to rub together cast a vote for either Democrats or Republicans?

      Perhaps you haven't been following voter turn-out trends. Most people aren't voting for Democrats or Republicans. They're staying home. Congress's approval ratings are in the toilet. Citizens aren't happy with their elected officials. People are screaming at their representatives when they do something stupid. But we haven't gotten to the point where we psychically stop bills before they start. Only when it's presented can we voice our continuing displeasure, and wait for a new election cycle.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Hey, Americans by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How can anyone in your country sit by and watch this sort of thing?

      This isn't simply an American problem. This sort of private co-opting of government is a big problem, but it's not just *our* problem as Americans. You appear to be Canadian - your government saw fit some time ago to provide a subsidy to your recording associations for all blank media sold in your country. That's just one example. So please - we don't need the condescending bit, it's a problem pretty much everywhere.

    3. Re:Hey, Americans by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      European parliaments regularly consider laws that are the equal of this in terms of stupidity.

      Eg, the UK government recently tried to make it illegal to commit blasphemy against any religion. They eventually watered down the legislation.

      Democracy is a terrible system of government, but every other system is worse.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    4. Re:Hey, Americans by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Canuck here.

      Couple points: It's not a subsidy on all blank media, data media is exempt. And in many cases, exactly the same media is sold with and without the subsidy, so you can easily circumvent paying.

      Having said that, it's a meager token, one that I happily pay as it allows our government to tell the **AA to take a flying leap on our behalf. Also knowing that, in theory at least, that money does get distributed to the artists. I really don't have a problem with an artist getting paid a pittance when a copy of their work is made. (Of course, the chance that the particular artist that I copied a work of gets any of that is, er, difficult to determine, but that's another story)

      Point being, this is not even remotely the same thing. Please refrain from throwing our government under the bus with that of the US ;) While not perfect...I'll take what I've got any day thank you!

      --
      No Comment.
    5. Re:Hey, Americans by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also knowing that, in theory at least, that money does get distributed to the artists.

      Does it or not? The difference between theory and reality is that in reality, theory doesn't mean shit.

      Having said that, it's a meager token, one that I happily pay as it allows our government to tell the **AA to take a flying leap on our behalf.

      Since when does giving someone money tell them to take a flying leap?

      I really don't have a problem with an artist getting paid a pittance when a copy of their work is made.

      I'd have a probelm with any tax designed to reimburse a private entity for illegal actions I'm not committing.

      Point being, this is not even remotely the same thing. Please refrain from throwing our government under the bus with that of the US ;)

      My point is, don't throw rocks from your glass house. The condescending crap from foreigners who evidently are bored enough to criticize the US gets old. Deal with your own problems, we don't need your 'advice.'

    6. Re:Hey, Americans by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      It's because the government has been able to get people to believe that voting for third parties is "throwing your vote away," thus ensuring that anyone who does turn out to the polls will ensure the status quo by only voting for either one or the other out of fear that their vote won't make a difference.

    7. Re:Hey, Americans by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Congress's approval ratings are in the toilet. Citizens aren't happy with their elected officials. Part of the problem is that most people aren't happy about Congress, but they think their state's representatives and senators are great. Citizens are perfectly happy with their elected officials, it's everyone else's elected officials that they don't like.
    8. Re:Hey, Americans by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Wow, who pissed in your cereal this morning?

      That money gets paid to the **AA, who is in charge of dispersing the funds from there. Thus the theory involved in the artists actually seeing any of it.

      It is legal in Canada to make copies of media for personal use. Not so clear cut in the states. Paying that subsidy to the **AA basically means that the **AA agrees to this, and thus can not take legal action against people in Canada that choose to do so. In other words, if the **AA were to try to take legal action in Canada, our government can, and does, tell them to take a flying leap. That would be 'since when'.

      It's not perfect, but it's no where near what you make it out to be.

      No one is taking funds for 'illegal acts I'm not committing', as this is perfectly legal in Canada. However, the **AA are American entities, and control most of the mass media market. It's really not a bad situation considering this. We pay a pittance to support our legal copying of media for personal use.

      Not even going to touch the assumption you're making on your side of the border as to the legality involved here other than to say that the situation is all shades of grey. Copying media that you own most assuredly should be legal. But do not try to tell me that there are no people blatantly stealing media. Don't try to make this black and white, because it is not.

      Last, I threw no rocks Mr. Hypocrite. You quite obviously were the one throwing the rocks, and I merely clarified the misinformation you presented.

      Don't want advice? Then I'd highly suggest you don't give it in the first place.

      --
      No Comment.
    9. Re:Hey, Americans by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Wow, your comment was modded "flamebait" as was this guy's. Looks like the MAFIAA lawyers have mod points today.

      To answer your question as to how anyone could vote for a Republicrat (the two wings of the Corporate Republicrat party are more similar than factions of the old Communist party in the USSR), the corporations control all media in th eUS except the internet, and they have it in everyone's head that a vote for a "third party" (non-Republicrat) candidate is wasted. So you have people staying away from the polls in droves, while Congress' approval rating is about 10%.

      I personally split my vote between the Greens and the Libertarians, as I'm for the environment and liberty, unlike our corporate overlords and their bought and paid for government. The environment and personal liberty goes against the corporates' profit margin.

      Now mod me flamebait too.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    10. Re:Hey, Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, if your elected politicians will vote for this, what else are they doing that defies all sense? Apparently you have missed at least the last 7-1/2 years in American history if you think that this particular bill is the most insane thing to come out of American government.. I mean, sure it's really a piece of shit bill, but at least it doesnt violate the constitution at every turn like many bills that have been made into law in the past decade or so.

      I just hope that America can hold it's shit together long enough for me to graduate and leave the country with a degree that's worth enough to find work elsewhere. It would make sense that it would take at least 10 years for this bill--if passed to law--to force nearly every college in the nation to close up shop.
    11. Re:Hey, Americans by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      Precisely. And thus they tacitly endorse their servitude to the Duopoly. Until people actually vote in protest (i.e. third party, cries of "but it's a wasted vote!" be damned) nothing is going to change.

      I repeat, staying home is not a protest. It's just the incumbents laughing at you all the way back to their offices at the capitol.

    12. Re:Hey, Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, if your elected politicians will vote for this, what else are they doing that defies all sense?
      Well, they voted for the invasion of Iraq. How's that, for starters?
    13. Re:Hey, Americans by Hatta · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, are you all completely f*cking MAD??

      Yes, I'm fucking pissed!

      How can anyone in your country sit by and watch this sort of thing?

      What alternative is there?

      How can anyone with two brain cels to rub together cast a vote for either Democrats or Republicans?

      No one with 2 brain cells to rub together votes for either democrats or republicans. Have you seen the voter turnout statistics lately?

      Seriously, if your elected politicians will vote for this, what else are they doing that defies all sense?

      EVERYTHING!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  12. You know. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Except for the time to acheave an insightful comment on Slashdot and put the effort in witting to your Representative you may perhaps beable to stop it.... I already send a message to my Rep... Have you?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:You know. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I hope you checked your spelling and grammar in that message to your Rep ;)

    2. Re:You know. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Yes I did,
      For Slashdot I don't thuroly check my spelling mostly because I am at work and only spend a couple of minutes to reading and writting, forced to use IE with no spellchecker. So yes things sometimes come out crappy in spelling on message boards. Some people are not natually perfect spellers and in order to just write a small message it could take 5 to 10 minutes to get it right.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:You know. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Except for the time to acheave an insightful comment on Slashdot and put the effort in witting to your Representative you may perhaps beable to stop it.... I already send a message to my Rep... Have you?

      No wonder these crap laws always pass, if all the letters to representatives look like your comment.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:You know. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Spell checkers are over rated, mine doesn't even recognize common English words like "whatkinda", "fucktard" and "dipshit", how can you communicate with your rep without commons words like those?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:You know. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I also said grammar because of your use of except. The way you used it your sentence didn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't think "except for" means what you think it means. I know I'm being picky, and most people will understand anyway, but the sentence doesn't parse. If you replaced "except for" with "remove", it would work.

      Anyway, I'm being a complete grammar nazi now, I've been looking at /. too long, and I should have better things to do, so I'll stop. :P

  13. Call them up. by onefriedrice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Call or write your congressman or senator. Colleges should not be forced to play law enforcement. That's the government's and/or prosecutor's job.

    --
    This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
  14. Simple solution by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

    Ask admission if they are in collusion with the recording industry instead of the business of higher education. Then if necessary take your business elsewhere. Feel free to copy your rejection letter to the local media. They love a good story.

    1. Re:Simple solution by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Feel free to copy your rejection letter to the local media. They love a good story.

      The media are corporate. They are not going to print any letter that would receive an "insightful" or "interesting" mod at slashdot (check my comment history). The same people who own your newspaper own Sony and Universal and BP.

      -mcgrew
      (you may find that link amusing... it's a search of the Illinois Times' for my name (the last story listed quotes my daughter). They are an independant weekly here and almost every letter I've written them has been published. The Copely paper, the State Journal Register, has never printed any letter I ever wrote them.

      You might also find it amusing that the linked S-JR story is about my roommate's ex-husband, who was on his way to kill his parents when the cops stopped him (yes I have an interesting life.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Simple solution by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Well it helps if you can write. With one exception (too close to deadline the editor claimed) all of mine have been published in big media and small. Helps if you know what style they like and what buttons to push. Being a member of the Press club (previously) and having worked for Pulitzer Publishing and having an idea of what skew to use also helps (as does working with writers in Print, TV, and advertising). Sensation sells. Package it around the corporate money calling the shots at high-learning and you're in. Whining doesn't sell print. You have to push the corporate angle. And although 'some' print is tv crossover, many are not - and most imporantly - they have no vested interest in file sharing as it relates to music. Unless Gannet is selling music - which isn't the case last I heard. Nor is Hearst media for that matter.

      I'm not aware of Sony media in the print world - could you be specific? Same for Universal and BP.

      Trust me. Do a little careful dissection of what's made it in and use that as a template if you're stuck.

  15. Where's the Constitutionality? by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support, or directly provide, loans at the Federal level for college students. It makes absolutely no sense to me that anyone can find support for money taken from me so that you can get your college education.

    My father came to this country penniless, and worked as a waiter to get through college. He didn't have Federal support for college, so upon graduating he had no debt. Today, most of my friends who graduated in 1996-1998 still are paying off their bills, and I'm sure I'm partially paying for some of it through whatever fraudulent taxation system the Feds use to acquire my funds to pay for others.

    Can't people see that Federally-financed loans are one of the primary reasons that tuition is so high? Before Federal loans, colleges would loan students their own money (at 1-2% interest) to go to school. The colleges had good reason to keep tuition low since they were taking a risk with their own money. Now we have people paying for college loans until they're 35 -- and those who never went to college and never wanted to are supporting others as well.

    Combine that with no Constitutional mandate for regulation of the Internet, or for criminalizing non-physical content sharing, and you have a really hilarious law that would make the Founders roll in their graves non-stop.

    This bill is a non-issue. It protects the inherent rights of no individual, but provides subsidies to special interest groups. Where's the Supreme Court when you need them?

    1. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by malkavian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I come from the UK where we used to have completely funded University education by Grants.
      Now we have loans, which I consider to be a huge step backwards.

      The idea of funding (in the Federal level in the US) is to ensure that if someone proves themself to be extraordinarily bright, the fact that they may not have enough money to attend university should not be a barrier to them receiving a damn good education. The principle behind this is that this bright person may well come up with the solution to a problem that cures cancer, solves the energy problems of the world or some other wonderful thing.
      They may also create the next plague, be an evil mastermind or some other thing. But the point is that while they're pursuing their dream, they're quite probably going to be in a highly paid job doing some extremely high brow work. And while they're working, they're getting taxed. And over time this elevated level of tax paid more than pays back the money they were allocated by having their tuition fees paid for.. And all the while potentially helping improve the quality of life for all.

      So, I've no problems with grants, or anything else like that which funds education. That's a good use of money that stands an elevated chance of making the world a better place.

      Now, to turn round and say "If you don't kow tow to the special interests of a business entity, we'll remove your accreditation to effectively teach people and educate them", what you're essentially saying is that you don't care about the future potential money that may be generated by all the people being taught in the future, especially the very bright, but poorer ones who NEED the funding.
      You'd rather hamstring your technological base of the future, and future competitiveness in the world market to satiate the demands of a corporate entity that produces NO technology, merely entertainment (which is fast becoming of questionably value world wide).
      This is a very good strategy, long term, to ensure you become a second class country with an inferior technology base. Money in the pockets of a few non-entities at the sacrifice of the progress of all.
      Rank blackmail and extortion.

    2. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      It makes absolutely no sense to me that anyone can find support for money taken from me so that you can get your college education.

      Since currency is produced by the government, they can take as much as they'd like from you. If you don't like it, start bartering with everyone. The founding fathers had a problem with taxation without representation, but as taxation is currently legislated by elected representatives, the system is working as it was intended.

    3. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Since currency is produced by the government, they can take as much as they'd like from you. If you don't like it, start bartering with everyone.

      We would if they'd let us.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by fropenn · · Score: 1

      The Federal government also provides support to small business in development loans, and local governments often provide financing to support new business growth by waiving certain taxes to encourage the growth of new business.

      The philosophy behind providing loans for higher education is that it provides benefits for the country in economical growth and improves the strength of the democracy by providing a large base of (hopefully) educated voters. Seems to be a reasonable way to spend my tax dollars.

      One of the biggest issues in the increasing cost of higher education is the same issue faced by many others in the United States - the dramatic and uncontrollable rise in health care costs. The same level of staffing is now much more expensive than it was 20 years ago, because premiums on health insurance are so much more expensive. Many institutions have initiated efforts to cut the cost of a college education, but this is difficult to do without having a serious negative impact on the quality of education received by students.

    5. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by absoluteflatness · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a college student, I've never quite understood how the economics of college work out the way they do. Tuition and fees for my school are $3,698.50 a semester for in-state students, and $9,887.50 for out-of-state students. There are roughly 16,000 students enrolled full-time from in state, and around 6,100 from out of state. So, from tuition alone, the school takes in about $59,176,000 twice a year from in-state students, and $60,313,750 from out-of-state students. I'm too lazy for better research right now (as I know the university gets money from the state, thus the lower tuition, and from other sources), but, if my multiplication skills are still good, my single school is directly charging 22,100 students $119,489,750 per semester.

      On average, students take 5 classes a semester, so, by my reckoning, on average, students directly pay around $1000 per professor/class. Our student to faculty ratio is something like 16:1. Where does all the money go to here? Despite ever-increasing tuition, the school continues to run a deficit. Rather than update computer labs, students are simply told to bring their (required) laptop computers to labs. Textbooks are paid for by the student, sold at a profit by the university bookstore. I realize that facilities and education cost money, but it seems like someone, or everyone, is on the take here.

      As a final note, on your point about student loans. It seems that any system set up to help poor people with something expensive just encourages raising the price. The system that has healthcare be hugely expensive, and solves that problem by paying a company whose sole purpose is to keep the status quo going, is crazily backwards. Same with education. Simply handing out money only strengthens the system. If colleges (or healthcare) are genuinely too expensive for many people, how is a subsidy on their current practices supposed to fix anything?

    6. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Citibank is raping my wife $1300 a month to pay for her loan so she can make a lovely $45k a year in expensive southern california where our rent is $1700 a month. We are almost bankrupt and I may have to drop out of school and get a second job to pay for this. Bankruptcies will not cover student loans.

      So no taxes are not paying for this but rather those who graduate. This does not include my soon to be $1000 a month as well so I do nt have to work minimum wage jobs because I lack the magical piece of paper. I may just have to work 3.

      Co

    7. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      Where's the Supreme Court when you need them?

      Deciding that every law is allowed by the Interstate Commerce Clause as long as it applies to people who
      a) live in a state.
      or
      b) sometimes engage in commerce.

      Sorry, but if you speak up for the 9th and 10th Amendments today you get ignored and/or publicly reviled as a crazy person, unless you're transparently applying one of them only to a single issue where half of the country is on your side anyway. The opportune time to stand up for a generally limited Federal government passed before any of us were born.

    8. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support, or directly provide, loans at the Federal level for college students. It makes absolutely no sense to me that anyone can find support for money taken from me so that you can get your college education.
      This is because society as a whole benefits from a higher education level. When some sort of exchange is seen as beneficial to society as a whole, the generally accepted response is to subsidize that exchange.

      My father came to this country penniless, and worked as a waiter to get through college. He didn't have Federal support for college, so upon graduating he had no debt. Today, most of my friends who graduated in 1996-1998 still are paying off their bills, and I'm sure I'm partially paying for some of it through whatever fraudulent taxation system the Feds use to acquire my funds to pay for others.
      How much did tuition cost then? In case you haven't been paying attention, tuition has been rising well beyond inflation the past ten years or so. You could support a small family on what a lot of schools charge.
    9. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, let's take your $5000 per student and say half of that is overhead for facilities and administration, that leaves $2500 per student per semester for academics. Assuming a student to faculty ratio of 16:1, that's about $40000/semester or $80000/year per professor. That doesn't seem unreasonable, so the overhead costs must be more than 50%. I'm wondering what the actual costs are.

    10. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much did tuition cost then? In case you haven't been paying attention, tuition has been rising well beyond inflation the past ten years or so. You could support a small family on what a lot of schools charge.
      Did it ever occur to you that maybe this happens because the government gives out money? People want the government to pay for it because it's exepensive, but it becomes more expensive because the government is willing to pay.
    11. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 1

      Trust me, there's a ton of expenses. Liability insurance of various kinds? Huge. Utility bills? Substantial. Maintenance, upkeep, renovations of buildings? On most campuses, it's going to be millions per year unless you're letting the buildings fall apart. Library materials / subscriptions / electronic resource fees? Big. Health / Counselling services? Costs increasing all the time. You have to account for depreciation on capital assets - equipment, buildings, etc. Maintaining the grounds? Snow removal (think overtime)? Health benefits for employees? Plus, your discount rate (direct financial aid) might amount to 30% of the tuition revenue. Also, payments on bonds used to build buildings, etc. And students now demand much nicer housing with more amenities than they did 20 years ago. That gets expensive as well. A huge number of the costs are basically fixed. There's not usually a lot of discretionary money in your average college budget. Unless you're one of the schools with multi-billion dollar endowments. I've sat on the budget committee at a university. Trust me, at a lot of schools, the tuition revenue doesn't cover all expenses. It's revenue from the spending rate of the endowment, federal and state money, grants, etc. Even if you're paying "full tuition" at your average institution, there's still a subsidy coming from somewhere to support the services you're using.

    12. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support, or directly provide, loans at the Federal level for college students.

      Well, it's pretty simple, really. Art. I, 8, cl. 1 contains the spending power. Essentially, provided that it does so for public purposes, Congress can spend federal money however it likes. Making higher education more accessible to the general public is a public purpose. A student loan program is one means of doing so; Congress could just as easily have created a national public university instead, or just given the money away instead of lending it, but loans are the option they chose.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    13. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Combine that with no Constitutional mandate for regulation of the Internet, or for criminalizing non-physical content sharing, and you have a really hilarious law that would make the Founders roll in their graves non-stop.

      If we could hook Jefferson and Franklin up to a generator, we could probably power the east coast.

    14. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the NCSU bookstore all profits go to scholarships.

      scroll to the way bottom of this page:
      http://www.fis.ncsu.edu/ncsubookstores/textbooks.html#FAQ4
      also note that 4.5% is on the pie chart for college store income, which here supposedly goes to the scholarship fund.

    15. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I agree with your comment (our grants have also been replaced by loans) but I believe what he's asking is what Constitutional authority Congress has for passing these laws.

      I believe Article 1, Section 8 is what SCOTUS says gives them the power: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (emphasis mine).

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    16. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by berashith · · Score: 1

      Your final statement backs up the current trend in my home state. We have an enormously popular program that gives money out to all college students per semester for a significant number of hours of education as long as the student can maintain a high enough GPA. This means that there is a large amount of "free" money floating through the system. Amazingly, as this has happened, the costs and fees have gone up in accordance, and the total cost has increased by the exact amount of the grant at some lower level schools, and scales up proportionally throughout the system.

      Congratulations for all of the benefit of a good idea being consolidated to a very small few.

    17. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by TheWizardTim · · Score: 1

      And another thing, why does the government take MY money to pay for roads! It's not like I get anything out of having a national transportation system! Any what about the FAA! I don't fly, why should my hard earned dollars go to keep airplanes from smacking in to one another.
      /sarcasm

      Up until the 80 you could work a minimum wage job over the summer and pay for one year of college. The cost of college has gone up much faster then minimum wage. Grants from the government used to pay for ~95% of your costs, now it's down around ~40%. Thank you Regan! We all get an advantage when we have a population with college degrees, or have good roads, or fire departments, or FAA. You have to accept that you live in a country. You are not alone on an island where you can do whatever you want and you can ignore others. It's We the people in order to form a more perfect union. Not "I will do whatever I want."

      We are the government. People forget that. It's not the government taking money from you, it's you taking money from you. If you don't like what's going on, work to change it. If you don't want a population of people with college degrees, change the system. If you don't want to pay for public fire departments, change the system. But I will tell you now I am working to keep things like colleges open, fire departments funded, clean air/water and so on, because it belongs to all of us, not just me.

    18. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      Have you considered running for office? Your clarity about protection of individual rights is impressive....

    19. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      The fact is, tuition generally pays for only a small percentage of a school's operating costs. The rest comes from research grants, alumni donations, and interest on their endowment (and possibly taxes for a public school). Even a small, bachelor's-only college has a ton of support staff, buildings, equipment, etc to pay for. But remember that unless you go to one of those, research is as much a part of your school's mission as teaching is. In fact, your professors are mainly there to do research. Most of them, even the ones who do enjoy teaching, only teach because that's what the school makes them do so they can do their research the rest of the time. All that research means WAY more staff, equipment, and buildings are needed - not to mention paying graduate students and postdocs, which are both for all intents and purposes entry-level professors that small colleges don't hire.

      But before you bemoan paying for all that when all you want is an education, remember what I just said about your professors. If your school didn't spend money to attract the best faculty it can - which means giving them the space and resources to do their research - they wouldn't be able to give you the quality of education you went there to get.

      Why did you go to your large state school instead of a smaller branch campus? Probably because you know the main campus is better than the branches. And that's because they have top faculty who are doing top research, which costs a lot of money.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    20. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes no sense to me that congress takes my money to provide you with a police force. Oh wait, you're a fucking moron.

    21. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem is they waste a lot of money on image. How much educational value does UCLA get from its sports program, very little compared to whats invested. How much educational value is received from overly intricate architecture buildings. How much educational value does a physics professor that spends all his time publishing in journals instead of actually teaching produce? Because when school presidents get together, do you think they judge each other based on the quality of education received, thats not very prestigious!

      Also if you've never worked in a bureacracy you just don't just realize how expensive things can be when you have to have every decision analyzed, every part approved, every action preceded by paperwork.

    22. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      I work for a college, so maybe I can clear things up a bit here. First there is a small army of people that make sure that you can sit in your chair and hear your professor. From the registration people to the kind people that make sure you have the right books. There are people that empty the trash, mop the floors and scrape gum off the seats. The heat has to be paid, the building has to be maintained and the secretaries get vacation, just like you want some day. There are people that enter your grades so that someday you can point at them and say "I did that" and you will have records to back it up. Ever seen the commercials where they talk about a cell phone network, and i has one guy standing there with a ton of people at his back? Yeah, that is your professor. You aren't paying 1000/prof/class, at MOST he/she is making $100 to show up, lecture, test you, grade your papers and deal with you. For a 5 credit class it works out per hour to be a cup of coffee a day.

      [rant]And because this is slashdot some will jump on me about how crappy thier prof is. Well, guess what, someday you may have a crappy job, a crappy house, crappy spouse, and even crappy kids. If you let any of those define you, they win. Think about it.

      And also because this is slashdot someone will jump in and say "But I am paying for this I deserve better" Yup you are paying for it, no you don't deserve better. You want an MIT education, go to MIT. Want a Harvard level of networking and support, go to Harvard. Want a Big 10 level of notoriety, go to a Big 10 school. But don't go to PoDunk U and expect any of this. Don't go to the local college then gripe that they don't have x, y, or z. You are responsible for your education, whereever you go, what you get out of it is what you put into it, and no, that doesn't mean studying harder, think about it. [/rant]

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    23. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

      It makes absolutely no sense to me that anyone can find support for money taken from me so that you can get your college education.


      Minds are a public resource as much as any other. The fact that you're an anti-tax troll doesn't negate that.

      The Constitution says

      Section 8: The Congress shall have power

              to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


      I hope you're not trying to say that a well educated populace doesn't fall under general welfare, and since that's quite clearly one of the enumerated powers of Congress, I have no idea what you're complaining about. It's perfectly Constitutional.

      Whether it's a good idea or not, well, that's the more interesting debate. But when you say "I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support..." all you're doing is displaying your ignorance of Constitutional Law.

    24. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by TheWizardTim · · Score: 1

      Companies don't profit from grants.

      Companies do profit from loans.

      It's that simple.

    25. Re:Where's the Constitutionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who works in education, I know that what you say is true, but it's such a bullshit system. For example "There are people that enter your grades so that someday you can point at them and say 'I did that' and you will have records to back it up."

      There are COUNTLESS jobs like that, which exist only because the people who engage in the main goal of the entire organization are too lazy, scared, or stupid to do it. One secretary is a necessity, but when a small college has 3-4, each with their own massive, multi-desk work place, that's a WTF. Same with advisers...if you could just get -one- person to write a clear, complete resource, you could have that same one person be the only adviser. Hell, if every one of these infrastructure people posted Q&A's online, it would have to save each college $100k/year.

      The problem is that businesses (education included) are content to grow with demand, rather than limiting themselves to the rate at which they can hire competent staff. At some point, there's going to be a tipping point where people who don't learn new things don't get hired for jobs that require it.

  16. It is the universities that will suffer from this by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The saddest part of this flawed logic, to me, is that the established schools that would qualify for this federal money will suffer the most from this. My generation was a part of that 'absolutely everyone must go to college or they will forever be unemployed' push. Back then, only drop-outs and teen moms ever went to 'night school' or 'community college'. This, in recent years, has changed a lot.

    There are now a lot of ways to get a degree, and since the employee market is flooded with them now, they don't have nearly as much meaning as they once did. And the traditional schools pumping out so many psychology and sociology majors (my self included) without any job market to support them has added to this problem. Degrees are like driver's licenses these days. Your boss wants a copy for their file, but never really looks at it again.

    Locally we've seen huge growth in 'technical colleges' and 'education centers'. My wife goes to Kaplan online. A good friend of mine used the University of Pheonix. Have they suffered for those choices? Not really, because the name on the degree isn't that important any more. Just like with comic books, when you print too many of the damn things the value goes way, way down.

    With that in mind, imagine the bevy of options a young person would have these days in terms of education. Imagine also that they get to their dorm room and realize that they can't use the internet. Well, technically they can, but they lose access to a lot of content that is important to them. Their lives for the next five years (and yes, the profit model really does encourage at least four and a half...) will be less enjoyable for a number of reasons. Should access to the internet be one of them?

    And in this mindset, how many will begin to wonder if their credits will transfer?

  17. Have another cigar fellas... by plowboylifestyle · · Score: 4, Funny

    this room isn't smokey enough. Oh and don't worry about the college kids. As I said before college students are not known for rebelling against draconian measures aimed specifically at them.

    1. Re:Have another cigar fellas... by Winckle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In America, no.

      In France and Canada, yes.

    2. Re:Have another cigar fellas... by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the 60s and 70s yes. But nowadays college kids stand by like sheep and watch as a fellow student is tazered for asking a question. They are by and large spineless.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    3. Re:Have another cigar fellas... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      In the 60s and 70s yes.

      Uh, what did they change in the 60s and 70s? The same stooges who were running around talking about changing the world in the 60s and 70s are those in command today and still the changes haven't happened. In fact, since they've taken control things have had a downturn in several areas.

      People keep talking up this hippie revolution ala Dennis Hopper but the fact is that kids are still spending time in jail for a couple of joints and the only revolution that Hopper is pushing today is with retirement funds.

      You people buying into the Freedom Rock generation's dream are simply consumers. Society hasn't changed that much.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:Have another cigar fellas... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Not since the Vietnam War ended anyway...

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:Have another cigar fellas... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Dude we're the ones holding the tasers now, we be the man we were rebelling against; Don't trust anyone over 35, parking on the left is now parking on the right, you bet your bippy!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:Have another cigar fellas... by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      The same stooges who were running around talking about changing the world in the 60s and 70s are those in command today and still the changes haven't happened. Actually, Bush was too busy drinking his way through the 60s and 70s to talk about changing the world. ;)
  18. Work Arounds by bostons1337 · · Score: 1

    Ya I admit this sucks but theres always work arounds for things. You'll just have to start using programs like Tor to mask your IP and start using encrypted p2p traffic. How are you going to catch someone you can't see?

    1. Re:Work Arounds by seanellis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point it, however, that when some John Q Student gets caught doing this, this will be taken as the college not taking "adequate measures" to stop him. If the lawmakers are dumb enough to pass this legislation, what chance do you think a jury will have understanding the minutiae of encrypted vs. unencrypted vs. copyrighted-but-legal content? "He's trying to hide it? Must be illegal!" Then, bang, the college loses a major part of its funding, ups its fees for all, and the neediest kids get it in the shorts (as usual).

    2. Re:Work Arounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P2P traffic on TOR is a big no-no. It slows it down to a crawl.

      Besides, TOR isn't much of an issue. You go after the exit nodes and scare them into submission. The German police already succeeded in scaring a self-proclaimed internet independentist "online rights" supporter into turning off his exit node.

      Once, safe behind his keyboard, he may have made loud proclaims too, about "the fight" and how "we would win". But faced with uniforms and handcuffs, he gave up. He wasn't charged with anything, and yet he surrendered.

      As you all will. Once snatched away from your precious computers you will shit your pants.

      Bullying works. Always. The one with the biggest stick wins.

    3. Re:Work Arounds by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point. No technology solution will work in the long run, and inevitably colleges will lose the financial aid regardless of whether or not they have implemented a filtering solution system under this bill, because it will no longer be "effective."

  19. Subject correction by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Subject: George Miller hides language in College Opportunity and Affordability Act that removes federal funding from colleges unable to stop file-sharing

  20. It's just one more reason to live off-campus by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    Just go ahead and add "Avoiding the music industry's nanny state / racketeering" to the list of good reasons to live off campus.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  21. Re:It is the universities that will suffer from th by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    "My generation was a part of that 'absolutely everyone must go to college or they will forever be unemployed' push."

    Every generation is subject to that bullshit. The joke is that with low unemployment today is the ideal time to skip college and get into the workforce early.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  22. So no more common carrier status? by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If universities are doing content filtering to weed out P2P traffic, then they obviously aren't functioning as a common carrier.

    Does this make them liable for anything else illegal done with their network? What about the transmission of viruses?

    I don't think they want to go this route.

    1. Re:So no more common carrier status? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. If I were in charge (generally speaking) I'd lawyer up, and if it came down to having to do something, I'd outsource all student connections to some large ISP, then source the school's backbone infrastructure as a service through that ISP. Now, the school no longer has responsibility for the internet connection of students, and it is no longer a federal issue. Congress cannot force an ISP to become network un-nuetral :)

      Not sure about all the details, but the idea seems sound. Throwing the student's connections onto a public ISP resolves the issue IMO. I've always wondered about something: if the **AA can sue me even if someone hacked my wireless AP, why don't they just sue the schools instead of individuals? Why don't they just sue Comcast or Verizon? I'm afraid the answer is that they only want to target those that can least afford the fight.

      I'm rather curious about the legal position this puts the schools in, forcing them to help enforce laws. does anyone have a legal view of that issue? Does that make the schools complicit in further file sharing? Is there legal precedent for strong-arming the schools into assisting law enforcement in such a manner? What happens when some kids start using Wi-Fi to share where the kid is on campus and the AP is not? What happens when someone gets smart enough to set up a ssh tunnel to a server off campus and use it for P2P access; is the school responsible?

    2. Re:So no more common carrier status? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Well, they already strong-arm colleges into letting the Army come recruit.

      Let me tell you, those mobile Army recruiting stations they set up are *gigantic*... there was a huge one that just sprang up yesterday outside of the entrance to the football stadium here on the night of a big game, trying to trap the people going to watch.

      What a crock. So much for neutral academic dialogue.

    3. Re:So no more common carrier status? by cain · · Score: 1

      If universities are doing content filtering to weed out P2P traffic, then they obviously aren't functioning as a common carrier.

      No offense, but I think that phrase does not mean what you think it means. Univerisities are not common carriers.

    4. Re:So no more common carrier status? by isaac · · Score: 1

      ISPs in the USA (including universities) ARE NOT COMMON CARRIERS!

      Jeezus, people! Stop propagating this myth!

      ISP immunity for subscriber traffic/content comes from Section 230 CDA (yep, that CDA) and the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA. They don't need or want common carrier status.

      -Isaac

      --
      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    5. Re:So no more common carrier status? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      trap people? so they had cages and shit with stun batons to get people inside? i would love to see that it must have been sweet to watch.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  23. Re:It is the universities that will suffer from th by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    Yep. Best time to work is when the economy is going well, so get a job, save some money, and when it starts tanking...as it inevitably will, being a cyclical phenomenon, go to school. By that point you may have a better idea of what you want to do for a living, and not end up settling for a placeholder "I dun went to colege" degree.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  24. Don't forget to write your REP by haplo21112 · · Score: 1

    http://www.house.gov/writerep/

    The only way they know that we as a population are opposed is to let them know. So drop them a line to let them know how stupid it is that things have gotten this far, and to oppose it going any further.

    Of course they wont listen to you, all they care about is the Money that the RIAA, and MPAA is slipping them under the table.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  25. RIAA declares jihad on higher education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... you realize how utterly backwards your country is when funding for higher education is based upon compliance with irrational self-aggrandizing laws written by a for-profit entertainment industry.

    Fantastic. Where do I sign up?

  26. Location of provision? by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

    Which provision in particular does the article refer to? I'm trying to find it but there are references to copyright infringement all over this bill.

    1. Re:Location of provision? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pages 382 and 412. Come on, a search on "peer-to-peer" and "file sharing" wasn't that hard, was it?

  27. Democrats need to be CAREFUL by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These are younger and still impressionable people. You damage their youth experience and place them directly in front of the **AA Steam-roller and you will witness the birth of an ARMY of Republican voters. Do these people *NOT* realize that College-age people are also VOTERS? And as less mature voters, they're a lot more easily swayed by their direct experience and their emotions.

    The Democrats have historically been directed by "big media" and when their targets were hazy, people were less offended. But now the targets are clearly defined and those targets VOTE... especially when they are being targeted and have someone to vote out of office.

    1. Re:Democrats need to be CAREFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The premise of your argument is wrong: Democrats are in the pockets of big media, because that's where big media contributes. Look at where their political contributions go:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B02

      According to that, Hollywood contributes to Democrats 69% of the time.

      As for the news organizations:

      From this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

      Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

      MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.


      So, the agenda that's being pushed through is by Democrats for big media, who contribute to them.

    2. Re:Democrats need to be CAREFUL by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      If only you were right. College age people are the least likely to vote of all eligible age groups, and are the most likely to become disillusioned and disenfranchised.

      Witness the last Presidential election where Bush lost in a landslide (sadly, only here in Illinois). Levi is a young man, early twenties (or was when I wrote this in 2004.

      We geezers are the ones who show up at the polls. I split my vote between the Libertarians and the Greens, and wish everyone else would stop voting for the Corporate Republicrats. Here is the mainstream (corporate) media take on American Politics

      Mainstream media guy A: "Well, you know, theres the Dogshit Party and the Catshit Party. You know they're both so yummy and tasty, but frankly I prefer dogshit."

      Mainstream media guy B: "Well, yes Bill, but the Dogshit costs so much. Those on a budget prefer catshit."

      Blogger: "But I like the Apple Pie Party!"

      Mainstream Media guys (in unison): "Apple pie? If you vote for Apple Pie you're wasting your vote!"

      Mainstream media guy A: "Those damned bloggers don't get it, do they?"

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  28. This is why Republicans want small government by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    let's throw out the existing governmental system, you know the one that is bought and paid for by the corporations, or anyone with the cash on hand to do so and replace it with SOMETHING THAT FREAKING WORKS

    Actually our "wise" elected leaders do not pander merely to money, they pander to those without money just as well when the contribution-challenged represent a likely voting block. I'm about to use the "R' word, please try to keep your emotions in check and read the entire comment before firing off a flaming response. Thanks. ;-) Republicans, the real one - not the one's running the show today, prefer a smaller federal government due to legislation like this. It is not that they do not believe that government has some responsibility towards educations. It is that they believe that many things are better handled by more local government - state, county, city, school board - where we have more of a say in things. In other words local control rather than distant control from Washington, DC. If you take federal money you better damn well expect that there will be federal strings attached.

    Democrats, the real one - not the one's running the show today, used to agree on that last point about federal strings. John F Kennedy, during the 1960 presidential debate, was against federal support of public schools for this reason. He argued that if the federal government helps it should be with one time costs, like construction of a school, and not with ongoing costs such as salary, books, etc. He warned that the later will invariable come with strings. As the US election season gets going keep an eye open for the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate on those political cable channel, or check youtube. It is awesome. Two intelligent candidates intelligently and substantively debating issues. We haven't seen that in a while, and it doesn't seem like we'll being seeing that any time soon either.

    1. Re:This is why Republicans want small government by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Your 'real Republicans' died out when the Boomers came of age - we've had spend-happy corporate whores running the country for the last 20+ years.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    2. Re:This is why Republicans want small government by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Your 'real Republicans' died out when the Boomers came of age - we've had spend-happy corporate whores running the country for the last 20+ years.

      Not died out, gone out of fashion, and fashions change. Similar story with the Democrats, except they've been at it for 40+ years. Hey, the French are coming around. The Democrats can rediscover John F Kennedy's arguments that lower tax rates can spur growth and generate greater tax revenues. Higher tax rates are about bureaucratic inertia, control, and societal engineering. Given Kennedy's position on federal funding of education these traits are not core Democratic values.

    3. Re:This is why Republicans want small government by smaddox · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the real problem behind this.

      The federal government never should have gotten involved in funding schools. If the states wanted a national body to set standards for education, they should have formed their own - not relied on the federal government. Education should not be subjected to this corporate political bullshit.

      Further, if a state does not accept national funding for some project, then that state's population should not be required to pay taxes to support said project. It is utterly mind blowing how many rights states are giving up to the federal government.

    4. Re:This is why Republicans want small government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the so-called small government Republicans have been busy enlarging the government lately. In fact, only one Republican candidate for president has seriously advocated a smaller government - Ron Paul.

    5. Re:This is why Republicans want small government by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      The problem with small government is it can't do anything about big problems. How is a small government going to fight the second world war, put a man on the moon, end the Great Depression, or protect civil rights in the Deep South?

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    6. Re:This is why Republicans want small government by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      The problem with small government is it can't do anything about big problems. How is a small government going to fight the second world war, put a man on the moon, end the Great Depression, or protect civil rights in the Deep South?

      That is a straw man. Real advocates of small government don't believe the federal government should be abolished, and they do believe that national defense and some large issues are properly federal domain and often constitutionally authorized. The real problem is that over time too many things have moved from local control to federal control, directly or indirectly as in the strings attached to federal money. If redistribution is necessary, say from urban to rural, the fed can use block grants to state and county authorities who decide what the local priorities should be.

  29. Analogy time! by e-scetic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's choose a lobby, any lobby...let me think....no, scratch that, let's go for the gold, let's choose AIPAC (pro-Israel lobby).

    Ok, now, let's have this lobby sponsor an amendment to one of these education bills, calling for the schools to take action and develop plans to ensure there is no anti-Israel "hate speech" anywhere on campus. Further, the schools who don't take sufficient action risk losing funding. Schools develop fucking SWAT teams to check every book in the library, every dorm room, scan every poster or flyer, oversee the school newspapers, etc.

    Or let's also throw in the soup lobby, the carrot lobby, the evangelists, big tobacco, big pharma, television, hell, every lobby you can think of, adding their respective amendments about bloody everything.

    Where this is even possible, schools of higher learning, the bastions of freedom of thought and expression, the foundations of critical thought, where the right to hold alternative beliefs and opinions is sacred, are no more. When it comes to education there should be nothing remotely resembling lobby group amendments.

    1. Re:Analogy time! by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Read the Coda to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

    2. Re:Analogy time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, now, let's have this lobby sponsor an amendment to one of these education bills, calling for the schools to take action and develop plans to ensure there is no anti-Israel "hate speech" anywhere on campus.

      Given that hate speech is generally legal (in the USA, at least) but copying music is not, your analogy fails immediately. Nice troll, though.

    3. Re:Analogy time! by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      Actually, the analogy still holds because P2P is legal and the bill is anti-P2P insofar as it seeks to enforce "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

      Think about it - how else do you prevent copyright infringing downloads than to ban P2P or any technology which allows exchange of such files? The only alternative is to get into the thoughts of would-be downloaders, create massive databases of what files are allowed or not allowed, restrict P2P to only approved networks, etc.

      This tiny little amendment opens the door to controlling what you can or cannot see or hear.

    4. Re:Analogy time! by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      Cripes, what an interesting read. Thanks for that!

    5. Re:Analogy time! by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Where this is even possible, schools of higher learning, the bastions of freedom of thought and expression, the foundations of critical thought, where the right to hold alternative beliefs and opinions is sacred, are no more. When it comes to education there should be nothing remotely resembling lobby group amendments.

      Oh come now. Why get pissed when it finally spills over into the education realm? Were all of the other gross examples of corruption not enough to incite outrage? And yet where is the action? Where is the change? Until and unless the masses become seriously inconvenienced or suddenly develope critical thinking skills, it will all remain the same.

  30. As you sow, so shall you reap by Quixote · · Score: 2
    This is what happens when the voters stop voting, or vote on the basis of strawman issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

    Listen up people: *START VOTING* !!!

    The *IAA has the money, no doubt; BUT THEY CAN'T VOTE! AND IN THE END, ONLY VOTES COUNT!!!

    If you don't have the money to donate to candidates who look after your interests, AT LEAST GET OUT AND SUPPORT THEM IN KIND! VOLUNTEER FOR THEM, WORK FOR THEM.

    Shit. I hate to shout, but I am *sick* and *tired* of this bullshit. When will people wake up and pay attention? Most of "citizens" could probably name all the "Dancing with the stars" contestants, but would have no idea who their congressman is. More motherfuckers voted for "American Idol" than in the last election!

    1. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap by Entropius · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that the vast bulk of Americans are so (dumb|undereducated) that you can easily persuade them to vote for whoever by spending money on TV ads.

      This is why money counts.

    2. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me up when someone who isn't a complete sycophant has more than a tenth of a percent of the polls and maybe I'll start voting.

      At this point in time, voting means nothing (especially when your congressman of choice just gets bought 10 minutes after inauguration anyways).

    3. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if money counts, then make your money count. http://teaparty07.com/

    4. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue. You can vote for multiple people in American Idol, which is why it got a higher "voter turnout". If 100 people vote for 5 people on American Idol, and 400 people vote in the national elections, technically American Idol has more votes but the national election had more voters.

      Please stop repeating this myth, along with the "Your vote counts" myth.

    5. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap by berashith · · Score: 1

      OK, I am all for voting the bastards out. We can replace these bastards with a new set of bastards. The big problem is that the people holding the purse strings to the bastards, the DNC and RNC, will still be around, and the next set of bastards will still be doing as they are told or they will get none of the campaign cash needed from their party to stay in place. So we can keep cycling through tons of bastards (it seems that there are more than plenty waiting in the wings to sell their souls) , while the same problems of corporations controlling the bastards will continue forever because of a layer of abstraction between voters and the political parties. Very few politicians stand for anything other than the party line, so the bastards themselves really don't count for much and the control is at a totally different level.

      Meanwhile we are stuck with the laws that we voted the bastards out for having passed.

      Sorry for revealing a broken two party system, I hear the black helicopters coming already.

    6. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap by Entropius · · Score: 1

      While some of Ron Paul's policies appeal to libertarian values, he's too much of a religious nut for me.

      No thanks. I'd rather work to get Colbert elected; he'd do a better job, and his followers are significantly less obnoxious.

    7. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when the voters stop voting, or vote on the basis of strawman issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.
      Listen up people: *START VOTING* !!!


      The trouble is that we only have one viable party in this country, the Corporate Republicrat Party. This party funds all Republicrat candidates; any Republicrat that doesn't toe the party line loses his or her funding. The two wings of this party are more alike than the various factions of the old USSR's Communist Party.

      This party owns all media outlets except the internet, and has been working since its inception to throttle or control that outlet. They have convinced America that if you don't vote Republicrat you've wasted your vote.

      People are staying away from the polls in droves precicely because they don't give a shit about gay "marriage", abortion, or any of the other strawman issues the Republicrats talk about. Meanwhile the DMCA, Bono Act, PATRIOT Act ("Cowardly Government Officials are Scared Shitless Act"), Bankrupcy Deform, all pass with a 100% or nerly so margin from both wings of the Republicrat Party.

      Half of eligible Americans vote, yet Congress has a 10% approval rating. That should tell you a thing or two. Look, I want marijuana legalized. Do I vote Republican or Democrat? I want copyright stripped from any work that has DRM. Do I vote Republican or Democrat? What does it matter when both candidates want DRM to be protected rather than outlawed, and marijuana to be outlawed rather than taxed and regulated?

      I personally split my vote between the Greens and Libertarians. I know I'm tilting at windmills, Don, but at least you can't accuse me of being apathetic.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap by WithLove · · Score: 1

      Because you totally have to be 18 to vote for American Idol. ???

  31. 700 pages? F that by daeg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A 700 page bill is akin to me doing a 700 file commit to SVN. There's no way in hell any manager should approve that large of a change. Either break it down into 5 page commits as individual pieces that can be debated and passed/rejected one-by-one, or get the fuck out of Congress. They are just giving ammo to non-Democrats. Remember how no one "read" the Patriot Act? This is the same deal.

    Passing a bill without reading and understanding it should be treated as treason, plain and simple. Don't like it? Don't run for Congress or don't vote on the bill. Period.

    1. Re:700 pages? F that by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      But then your against affordable college because you didn't support the bill. You dont want to be anti afford ability do you?

      Then ypour opponent will use that as ammo to run against you.

    2. Re:700 pages? F that by mbone · · Score: 1

      Basically all bills are comparably long, and have been at least for my lifetime. And, yes, it is routinely abused, and, yes, bills are routinely passed without being read in their entirety.

    3. Re:700 pages? F that by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      So, as a member of a community notorious for not reading articles, you're asking Congressmen to RTFB?

      "And the reason the Founding Fathers [had things balanced between federal and state] is that there would be enough people in the room that maybe a few of them could read!" --Lewis Black

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  32. Re:Send a message to the constituents of the propo by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    Thank you for posting something useful to this discussion. /. has over (using Dr Evil voice) 5 MILLION patrons but all the most can do is complain about how wrong this is. I usually sit back and watch both sides dems/republicans liberal/right wing duke it out in hilariously stupid fashion but this time peoples lives and futures are being threatened because an industry has a huge lobbiest group and deep pockets. I will be contacting my congressman and voicing my concerns on this matter. Imagine if over 5 MILLION people did the same thing?

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  33. It's about time by hoyeru · · Score: 0

    I am a comic book artist and I sell copies digital copies of my artwork online(or try to). That's how I make my living. You /.~ers can keep on inventing excuses such as "coping a digital copy is not stealing", "keeping up with the times", "fair use" and so on but the truth is that everyone that is creating stuff today-artists, writers, musicians (and that includes writers of software too) is hurting badly because of the rampant pirating of our work.
    I wish the law is even stricter and anyone caught pirating anything be made to pay dearly. This includes taking any of the property they own(house, car, etc) and if they cannot pay send their ass to jail. Enough IS enough.

    Let me see what excuse /.~ers can come up with

    --
    fuck karma, I like saying the truth better
    1. Re:It's about time by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 1

      And of course, everytime you steal from earlier comics you should lose all your property and go to jail. This includes homage splashes in the style of other more famous artists and in-jokes based on the intellectual property of others. Right?

    2. Re:It's about time by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      but the truth is that everyone that is creating stuff today-artists, writers, musicians (and that includes writers of software too) is hurting badly because of the rampant pirating of our work

      Let's say that you are absolutely correct about that. But so what?

      Authors do not have a god-given right to copyrights. They're artificial monopolies which are used to subsidize artists (in a slightly peculiar way, in that the value of the subsidy hinges on the popularity of the work) in order to achieve a net public benefit that is greater than if we didn't have copyrights. It is entirely reasonable and very responsible for the public to reduce or even eliminate copyright protection if it serves the public interest to do so. If that harms authors, it doesn't matter, save for the effect on the public interest, which is all that matters. The same logic applies to creating or increasing copyright: it isn't done to benefit authors, but to benefit the public.

      Social norms play a role in this. There is a norm to the effect that commercial piracy is harmful to the public interest. But there is also a norm, which we have been seeing more and more lately, that non-commercial piracy engaged in by natural persons is perfectly acceptable. Along with this, we have also been seeing growing interest in copyright law, and growing dissatisfaction in it by large masses of people who feel it has grown too large.

      So what I think is likely to happen is that copyrights will shrink, and while they might protect authors against commercial pirates, there will be no meaningful restrictions on ordinary people. This may quite possibly result in that 'hurting badly' becoming the normal state of affairs, if it isn't already. So long as the public is better served by having more freedom to do as they like even taking into account that there might be fewer works created and published, this is not only an acceptable outcome, it is actually a desirable one!

      I wish the law is even stricter and anyone caught pirating anything be made to pay dearly. This includes taking any of the property they own(house, car, etc) and if they cannot pay send their ass to jail. Enough IS enough.

      Naturally you wish for that, since you are self-interested. And it's good that you are, since copyright is all about exploiting your sense of self interest. But the public is equally self-interested, and from how people are behaving, it seems likely that they wish the law was looser, such that your average individual who pirates doesn't even get a slap on the wrist or even social opprobrium. Seeing as how the audience outnumbers the authors, I think the audience is going to win on that one.

      Copyrights are too easily granted, last too long, bar too much behavior, apply to too many types of works, over-reward authors, and carry too-harsh penalties for infringement. Enough is enough.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    3. Re:It's about time by Nursie · · Score: 1

      "I sell copies digital copies of my artwork online"

      You sell bits and bytes. Not a good business model. Try selling prints or actual comics. maybe give the comic away for free like penny arcade. They make money through advertising and doing custom artwork.

      "coping a digital copy is not stealing"

      It's not, it's copyright infringement, an entirely seperate act, which is why we have diffent laws for it and different words for it. Stealing is where someone takes something and deprives other people of it.

      "keeping up with the times"

      This is a fair objection. The record labels(and movie studios) ignored digital music for a long time and now try to sell versions that restrict fair use. They are failing at selling in the modern world. This is no excuse for copyright infringement, but it is a fact.

      "fair use"

      Fair use needs to be protected. Copyright infringement is not fair use. Fair use is keeping backups and time/format shifting works you already have legal access to.

      "but the truth is that everyone that is creating stuff today-artists, writers, musicians (and that includes writers of software too) is hurting badly because of the rampant pirating of our work."

      Prove it. There have always been poor and struggling artists, convinced of the greatness of their own work, who have looked for reason's they are still poor. It's usually "they don't understand me" or "they have no soul" or " they just don't appreciate good art". Anything but "maybe my work is actually worthless". There are plenty of comic book guys (PA, scott adams) doing perfectly well for themselves.

      "I wish the law is even stricter and anyone caught pirating anything be made to pay dearly. This includes taking any of the property they own(house, car, etc) and if they cannot pay send their ass to jail. Enough IS enough."

      Then you're an asshole. And you clearly subscribe to the view that every infringement is a lost sale, which is patently false. Recent studies have shown that people who download music illegally buy more music than other folks, not less.

      As for your work being entirely yours, well, this is a philosophical argument. One could attribute much of what goes into creating it and a large amount of what might make people want it to the rest of the culture around us, what has gone before, etc.

      And don't forget, copyright is a work WE grant YOU. WE grant you copyright terms not because of some natural right but because it encourages you to produce and enrich the culture. Lately WE don't like those terms so much and are thinking about changing them. If that makes YOU less likely to produce artwork then we'll live with that and you'll have to find a real job.

    4. Re:It's about time by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Findinig a scapegoat for your own failures is very human. But you know what? If you are, indeed, a comic book artist I see no evidence of it. You have no sig. The link to your username only points to a slashdot page. Who the fuck are you anyway? You might as well post AC, because you're a John Doe.

      I suspect that your comics are badly rendered and/or unfunny. I hope you can link to one and prove me wrong. But whether or not your comics are well rendered and funny, nobody's going to pay you to draw them if they never heard of you.

      The artist's enemy is not the copyright infringer, it's obscurity. I used to keep a Diary and submit stories to K5 until one of the admins pissed me off enough to leave, and had folks there begging me to publish the Paxil Diaries in book form so they could buy copies!

      Good art is like good drugs. Give 'em a free hit and they'll be back for more. Why do you think the RIAA labels let their so-called "artists" on the radio?

      Come on out and let us know who you are!

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  34. I'd rather like... by jesterpilot · · Score: 1

    to see the plans of the universities to deter the threats on science and reason, like the ID-movement.

    --
    Trust me, I work for the government.
  35. Is it just me, or is this a bit shortsighted? by Fuji+Kitakyusho · · Score: 1

    Won't this simply drive students into off-campus housing?

  36. What Next? Social Media Sites? by illectro · · Score: 1

    Seriously, people do like downloading files, but many more appear to be happy to browse sites like youtube and its clones for videos, and imeem and it's blossoming collection of immitators for their music needs - not to mention the various agregator sites. Why download a client, share your bandwidth and put yourself at risk from getting sued by the RIAA/MPAA or at risk from wierd viruses from the sofware you're downloading when you can just upload your media to a website and proclaim to the world that you love it? I mean the big record labels have signed on to allow free sharing of music via imeem and that in itself must take a huge number of potential file sharers out of the equation. Sure the videos aren't really dvd quality yet, and while the music may be cd quality it's still bound up in a browser, but you can't beat the price, convenience or the fact that it's instant and on demand.

  37. Yet another illustration ... by doggod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of why centralized government funding of things is generally a bad idea.

    When the Federal government becomes the source of significant funding for education, it also automatically becomes a magnet for those who wish to impose their will on the educational system -- whether related to the educational process or not.

    It works everywhere. For example, states have to bow to the Federal government in the design of their roads and driver's licenses and what-have-you because otherwise they risk losing the rebate of tax money that was originally partially collected from their state -- in the form of Federal highway funds.

    The collapse of the USSR demonstrated the inherent inability of highly centralized, heavy-handed bureaucracies to cope with the extremely varied and variable conditions of the real world. It's somewhat baffling to see that the US public has apparently not gotten that lesson at all and continues to support the trend toward emulating the Soviet mistakes.

    Then again, oh wait, I get it. It's not baffling at all. The US public was mostly "educated" in the system of government-run schools, which feeds children a steady diet of propaganda so that by the time they grow up they're convinced that Big Brother Knows Best and they should Sit Down and Shut Up.

    Sad to see how the "land of the free and the home of the brave" has become the "land of the cowardly slaves."

  38. Re:It is the universities that will suffer from th by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Under the same logic your screwed to minimum wage regardless of skill without the magical piece of paper. If everyone has them then everyone needs them for a job.

    So if some kid is screwed out of college its walmart time and welfare.

  39. I just..... by dippitydoo · · Score: 0

    Emailed our senators in Washington State. You guys should do the same for your state. Unless you live outside the country, You lucky bastards.

  40. sneaker net by queequeg1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if forcing college kids to use sneaker net will increase or reduce the problem. I have actually become scared by the RIAA's tactics, even though I would occassionally download only a song or two (who wants to pay a $3,000 settlement for downloading a few cheesy 80s tunes). So, to avoid getting caught, I asked a neighbor for a copy of some of his 80s tunes. He brought over an external hard drive with everything he has, totalling over 700GB (more than 17,000 flac files). Too many to go through before giving the drive back so I just copied the entire drive. I have since listened to much more than I originally intended to get from my neighbor.

    I have to wonder if, given how inexpensive external drives are and how close college students live to one another, forcing people into a mode where the standard is to share thousands (or tens of thousands) of songs in a single transaction is an effective way to reduce piracy. Sure, the number of people who do this might shrink, but the number of songs pirated might go up.

    1. Re:sneaker net by Narbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its not that uncommon. I am more tech savvy then my friends and have been accumulating for years and years now. My buddies know this and its not uncommon for them to wander over with an external drive which I am only too happy to fill up for them.

      Its not that they don't buy music. Like me they will buy stuff to support the artists they like however this is a good way to get old tracks that are really hard to buy and also a great way to discover new music. The net effect is more of a win for the music industry then anything else. My buddies certainly would not go out of their way to purchase really old/inaccessible music and they might find something they like and start supporting that artist. Nothing lost, something potentially gained.

    2. Re:sneaker net by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I just came back from Afghanistan, and over there external drives are the de-facto standard for storing and sharing stuff. A person loans his drive to another guy who copies part or all of it, then passes it along to some other guy, possibly adding stuff to the drive if the owner wants it. I bought a 750 GB drive while I was over there and maxxed it out in a very short time, along with my 160 GB laptop drive. My collection of music and stuff was good before but now it's unbelievable. I have hundreds of movies (many of them good quality rips), TV series (a big thing overseas is watching TV series on DVD or hard drive), and an enormous collection of music. I have enough just from a few transactions to keep me entertained for years to come.

      Even if they stop peer-to-peer file sharing apps, who cares? With modern external drives and their huge capacity, sneaker-net works well. Plus they could use IRC, DCC, FTP, same way the internet pirates do, and what can the university do about it?

  41. New Title for Posting by njhunter · · Score: 1

    Congress Removes $100 Billion in Funding from Colleges

  42. No by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Don't send a letter. Vote out of office. And the guy you vote in... vote him out of office in the next election, until you find one that doesn't suck corporate cock.

    The best way to promote change and make sure your Congressman listens to you over some corporation is to make sure he knows that his job depends on him doing so, and the best way to do that is to demonstrate it by repeatedly swapping congressmen out of office after one term.

    Of course, one person alone can't do that much so you might need to band together with likeminded people. Perhaps you should form a PaC. That worked pretty well for the AARP (They all vote, too. That's an important bit.)

    Oh, except then you'd be a big corporate interest and your congressman still won't listen to you! Oh... the irony...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  43. Easy Solution by corsec67 · · Score: 1

    Require a Quorum to be there as all of the bill are read *out loud* before voting on them.

    Would solve a ton of issues quickly, and make congress slow down.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  44. Re:It is the universities that will suffer from th by HazMathew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Slashdot forums: Come here for horrible advice!

  45. Of course It's a democrat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a suprise! It's a Democrat introducing the bill... I suppose the Liberal news media wouldn't have told you that.

  46. Re:Send a message to the constituents of the propo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe in musicians being paid and kids learning right from wrong. university and college are for learning, not stealing music. I support the bill 100%, but then, I'm not a leeching little thief like most slashdot readers.

  47. Because.... by DebianDog · · Score: 1

    Because the youth of America would rather sit an bitch about it on Slashdot, Blogs, etc.. without actually doing anything about it. Older folks have NO IDEA what P2P is!

  48. Have YOU done YOUR part? by devjj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just contacted my rep. It took all of five minutes to write this up. Have YOU contacted yours? Speak up, or this thing WILL be passed as-is.

    Mr. Flake,

    I am writing to you with regard to provisions in the proposed College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 that, among other things, would require institutions of higher education to implement strict anti-piracy measures that may include implementing filtering software and/or subscription music services for students. I believe voting Yea on such a bill would be a tremendous error in judgment. Funding for educational institutions should never be tied to commercial enterprise in this way.

    History has proven conclusively that no filtering implementation is perfect, and literally each and every time software such as this is implemented people find a way around it. Furthermore, implementing software of this kind is prohibitively expensive, and would place an unfair burden on our already financially strapped educational institutions. It would be a grave disservice to students, faculty, and citizens alike to force the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and others to spend large sums of money on unproven technology when teachers are leaving because of pay that is less than competitive.

    Additionally, forcing schools to sign up students for subscription music services, or requiring schools to purchase a site-wide license for such services, is an extraordinarily short-sighted "solution." The access to said services does not conclusively lead to lower piracy rates, and restricts competition in this emerging market. Requiring a campus to sign up for Rhapsody is not fair to Napster (and vice versa). Furthermore, these services rely on Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes which are not universally compatible. In a day and age when increasing numbers of students are not running a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system, it would be a serious disservice to require these students to pay for something they will not be able to use. Microsoft DRM-protected content is only accessible from Windows and devices built for it, which leaves users of Apple's Mac OS X and all Linux distributions out. These services are not compatible with the most popular portable media playing device sold today, the iPod, and students cannot and should not be expected to pay to replace said devices. This, again, would amount to a restriction on competition.

    In short, this legislation is poorly conceived and the only people who stand to benefit from it in its current form are record company executives and purveyors of filtering software. There is no question that the illegal distribution and consumption of copyrighted content is a problem; however, this legislation will not solve that problem. It will increase costs for taxpayers. It will discriminate against users whose computers are not running Windows. It will require extremely costly investments from educational institutions that are already struggling with their bills.

    It is in Arizona's better interests that this legislation be defeated, or modified to remove these provisions. As a graduate of the University of Arizona, I can tell you firsthand that our state's schools cannot afford to be forced down this path.

    Sincerely yours,
    Joseph [DELETED]

    (My rep's name is Jeff Flake.. I wasn't insulting the guy.)

  49. You are aware... by mbone · · Score: 1

    ... that they already do this for marijauana, through Section 438 of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 ?

    Here is a PDF legal brief on this.

    If they can do it in one case they can do it in every case.

  50. Fundamentally Flawed by ToxicBanjo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as a corporation can buy the laws it wants others to follow the country is heading for ruin (or already there).

    The difference here is that as much as we bitch about it nothing really gets done to change it... it's very much drowned in apathy. Especially when the stigma to the layman is that if you oppose this then you ARE a distributor of illegal "insert whatever here". We seriously need to see forward thinking education to the masses on why this is such a bad idea. Same as the DMCA and other "let's get it through fast" legislation. They introduce these bills & laws without fully understanding what they are doing or the REAL affect it will have on society. We need to reach the layman and let them know WTF is going on. It's great to share bitch-fests with other techies on /. but my mother, cousin Jenny working at the supermarket, and Bob the mailman down the road need to know why we bitch with so much zeal.

    When is the time to rise up and to do something for real change? We are the people that have a deep inside knowledge of this matter, maybe it's time to "hack the planet" and get the message out to more than just our own SIGs.

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
  51. Send a letter to your representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such as ....

    Dear Representative,

    I am writing to oppose a provision in the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 that was recently passed by the House Education and Labor Committee.

    This bill includes copyright-related provisions that force institutions of higher education to police the online activity of their networks on behalf of media companies and copyright holders.

    Intellectual property should be protected, but not at the expense of the general public for whom the law is intended to foster all kinds of growth. Forcing universities to police copyright violations puts an undue burden on higher education and will result in the reduction of legitimate fair use within higher education.

    Sincerely,

    1. Re:Send a letter to your representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Intellectual property should be protected, but not at the expense of the general public"

      but this law does nothing to hurt law abiding members of the general public who don't steal stuff. If you don't steal stuff on-line, this bill seems perfectly reasonable. at least admit you are just trying to keep it so you can take stuff for free. be honest for once!

  52. Re:Send a message to the constituents of the propo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps not, but if you support this bill 100%, then you ARE an idiot. It proposes cutting off Federal funding for the entire university if a school isn't taking "adequate" measures to prevent file sharing. This has nothing to do with educating kids about personal responsibility, and everything to do with screwing people out of an education because of the actions of strangers, to better preserve the profit margins of a failing business model.

    The end result the **IA's are looking for will be complete abolishment of P2P traffic at universities, regardless of it's legality, and that's exactly what universities will be forced to do, or risk losing their federal funds.

    You don't have to be a "leeching little thief" to despise the **IA's and their tactics, you just need a modicum of common sense.

  53. There's always option C by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Or..... .... you might want to grow up a bit and realize that Congress has a FEW issues that are SLIGHTLY more important then enabling a bunch of people who want something that costs money to produce for free to keep on getting it for free.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:There's always option C by berashith · · Score: 1

      Then maybe congress should try working on these slightly more important issues. Drafting legislation that threatens to make universities into a police force should be resisted by the people.

      Tell the reps to work on the important issues instead of telling the people resisting the nonsense to shut up. Although, if we just roll over and give them free reign to do whatever they feel like they may get around to the important stuff a bit more quickly... if they deem things other than padding their pockets as important.

    2. Re:There's always option C by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      Hmm - like making sure that underprivileged college students are able to get financial aid? Oh...wait...

      Congress is just as justified in spending time ensuring people can download music for free as it is legislating into stability an antiquated business model of *completely* non-essential corporate juggernauts. We have in this country an ostensibly free market system - as in any system governed by free market economics, the adage "adapt or perish" applies. If people aren't buying your product, there's something wrong with your product. There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that people will pay for both music and movies, when they're in a convenient, unencumbered format, at a reasonable price. So, rather than whining to the government, the record companies need to slim down, change their business models, and, god forbid, cut the budgets of their million dollar record release parties.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:There's always option C by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      What, you mean like the illegal war in Iraq they've been too spineless to defund? Holding the administration for its numerous and egregious violations of the law and the constitution? They're not doing that either. Preventing the justice department from walking all over the privacy of Ordinary Americans? They're not doing it. Keeping people who think shocking testicles is OK from being appointed to positions of power? Not doing it. Making sure that no American has to choose between eating and buying the drugs he needs to survive in his old age? They're not doing that. Fixing broken IP law in copyrights and patents? Not doing it. Making sure that America is prepared for future emergencies like Katrina or a deadly flu pandemic? Not doing it. Making sure that our infrastructure is safe from another terrorist attack? Near as I can tell they're not doing that either.

      With all the shit they should be doing but are not you would think they would have some time to deal with this trivial crap in a way that is fair to the taxpayers who pay their salaries and give them their jobs. But they're not doing that either. As far as I can tell, we could replace Congress with a bunch of pet rocks and it would be equally effective.

      But yeah. I need to grow up.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  54. Re:I SUPPORT THE BILL by Hanners1979 · · Score: 1

    Gene Simmons? Is that you?

  55. Keeping students from swapping files is futile by dheltzel · · Score: 1

    Even if they manage to shutdown the network aspect completely (not likely), another avenue will arise. Imagine is someone made a "file swapping device" that had a lot of storage and several interfaces. It could have a db of md5 hashes of all the files it knows about and whenever it connects with a similar device, it could swap the list of what it has. Then the devices could silently sync themselves with all the files that differ. After every "swap meet", you would have hundreds of new files to peruse and either keep or delete. The deleted ones would leave their hash in the db as a rejected file and you would never get that one downloaded again. Imagine this with a multi-terabyte drive, swapping music, movies, anything. Your only work is to delete the stuff you don't want to make room for more files. Backups would only need to be the db of hashes, because you could likely get almost all the files back from a few connections with your friends.

    1. Re:Keeping students from swapping files is futile by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      so you want to teach my wireless router to act like DC++ eh? .... May i subscribe to your newsletter?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  56. CAN WE HAZ SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE NOW? by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 0, Troll

    CAN WE HAZ SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE NOW? No, really, given that most market interventions end up hurting consumers, as this article makes clear, can we please NOT have single-payer health care?

    Mod me off topic if you want, but I want to go on record as being the first person to say that the government is the enemy.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  57. Writing to constituents seemed like a better idea by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

    It seemed like a better idea to me to write to the proposer's constituents. Miller is clearly not representing their interests, and they would likely ride his ass for this, threatening a future reelection attempt. Not to mention that these people likely get much less email than the representative, and are thus much more likely to actually read your statement, rather than filter it to the trash.

    In general writing to the people who are supposed to be represented by a given congressional fuckwit seems like a good idea. They created the problem when they voted for him, and if they are made sufficiently aware of the problem, they may in the future fix it (or at least delay its return).

  58. Flawed reasoning by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're implying that Backstreet Boys are popular because their fans pay for albums whereas the fans of more obscure bands do not, your reasoning is flawed. For one thing, as a band approaches obscurity, it would be increasingly difficult to find a p2p seed for their material. For another thing, taste tends to broaden with age, as do people's paychecks, making them more likely to turn to the more convenient amazon.com rather than lurking for hours in search of a seed for an early Bob Dylan album. Thirdly, label-constructed boy bands already dominated the airwaves before the advent of p2p.

    It's more likely that the Backstreet Boys dominate the radio because if you want to make a lot of money with only one act or one station, your best bet is to appeal to large groups of people with homogenous tastes - not various groups of people with differing tastes.

    In fact, leaving the low-bandwidth medium of radio to lowest common denominator acts and promoting more nuanced bands through the internet is probably the best way to do it from everyone's perspective. It's a waste of time for the labels to take on small bands, and it's a waste of time for the small bands to try to get signed to labels who aren't interested in them.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

  59. If p2p users were a little less careless... by Phil_at_EvilNET · · Score: 2, Informative

    P2P has become like anyting else lately. It's targeted because people like it, use it in excess, and think there's no repercussions for using it illegally. Kind of like underage drinking, smoking, and illicit drug use, or illegaly owning a firearm. If you don't want to get caught drinking, you drink in the company of people you trust. If you don't want your parents knowing you smoke or use drugs, you take measures to make sure they don't find your stash or catch you using it. If you don't have a permit to carry a gun, you don't wear it on your hip. In the same respect, if you're filesharing, you should take measures to make sure you can trust who you're sharing with, make sure that you conceal it using a secure VPN or tunnelized network, and you keep it encrypted or hidden so that if someone sees it they don't know what is or how to look at it. SECURITY is your best defense at sharing data, any kind of data, be it legal or not. If you want to protect your ass, you need to protect your assets. The only way to do that is to make sure you either secure your little P2P stealth-net or simply don't do it at all. Since most of us would elect the former than the latter, that means using the skills you have and the knowledge you can share and creating a secure, tunnelized P2P network that uses encryption. Be smart people.

    --
    To avoid corruption, one must remain dishonest.
  60. College kids aren't the problem by businessnerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we seriously still harping on the whole "college kids are the only people who pirate content" issue? Because it's pretty outdated now. That whole trend happened fast and then began to taper off really quick. The reason? Well, when Napster (the real one) hit the scene and blew the p2p doors wide open, not everyone had a broadband connection in their home. Colleges and Universities, on the other hand, had some of the fastest connections around. Broadband was the key here. It may not seem like it nowadays, but mp3's were big. It would take me at least a half hour or more to download one song on my dial-up connection (on a good day), and that was one at a time. At the same time, my older sister, who was in college, could start a download, begin listening to it while it downloads, and the download would finish before she's done listening. Essentially a feux-stream. It wasn't even until a few years later that dsl was available in my area and it was still expensive and unreliable. I had one friend who got it at his house and we pretty much spent all of our spare time over there downloading music and eventually movies, tv shows, and music videos when the p2p clients evolved enough. When we weren't infringing copyright, we were playing online video games like Team Fortress. But this activity was isolated to only this kids house. When we weren't there, we could not do these things because no one else had broadband. Then I went to college. All of a sudden, me and a good 75% of the rest of the freshman population had 24hr access to high speed internet for the first time. We all had something downloading at all times. Not because we wanted to deliberately rip off the music and movie industry, but just because we could. It's like when you get your driver's license. You may not have anywhere to go, but you'll go out for a drive anyway. Just because you can. Anyhow, soon the residential broadband market caught up. Cable internet was more affordable, DSL was more widely available and much more reliable (I know Verizon improved the DSL scene in my area greatly). So now it wasn't just the college kids who had unlimited access to all of the content they wanted for free. Furthermore, the college networks are no longer the fastest out there. Technology improved, but also the college networks were choked with all of the massive downloading (damn tubes!).

    So where are we now? Well, everyone, college and non-college folk alike, have the same unfettered access to p2p technology. What they decide to do with that technology is not determined by whether they are on a college campus or not. In fact, once that initial hype over being able to download anything in seconds subsided, I became much more selective about what I downloaded. This was the case with many people I knew. After a while, you start to ask yourself, "Do I really NEED to download this?" where before it didn't matter if you needed to, you just did anyway, because you could. At the same time, the **AA was rattling their sabers over lawsuits and iTunes hit a level of maturity. People began go legit in droves. So is college any different than anyone else?

    So some may argue that college campuses do a lot of incestuous p2p sharing. Where someone sets up a Direct Connect server and the massive student population just shares among themselves. Well yes this happens, but it's not as widespread as you may think. First and foremost, this activity violates many schools network use policies. P2p servers are also easy to spot because you notice 90% of the schools bandwidth is being taken up by a single ip address on the third floor of a dormitory. This means that a p2p server will not last long, as the IT department will either block the traffic or just outright revoke that individuals internet privileges. Even early on when p2p hit big, a lot of schools banned p2p apps from their networks. This was usually a futile effort because once a new app came out, everyone jumped on the new one and the game of cat and mouse began.

    O

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
  61. Re:Just one question for the government: by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    Just one question for the government: (Score:0, Troll)
    Where's Bin Laden ?


    Holy shit, Al Quaida has mod points!

    -mcgrew

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  62. Re:Send a message to the constituents of the propo by snuffin · · Score: 1

    here is a complete list of all senate and house, as well as president GW Bush and VP.
    There is also a ton of media sources on this email list.
    Use this to bcc.
    We always talk about the power of ./ to bring down server when everyone goes to the page to look at the articles. now is a chance to use that same power to hit so many elected officials as well as media outlets that even if 10% listen to our emails that is a lot of coverage.
    the list was gathered from this site. http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm

    here is the list ready to be pasted into the BCC line of your email using ; as a delimiter.

    comments@whitehouse.gov;vice_president@whitehouse.gov;chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com;mail@bobbarr.org;me@glennbeck.com;belling@cyberlynknetw

    ork.com;gra@inetport.com;2radio@hermancain.com;bq@radioamerica.org;drudge@drudgereport.com;larry@larryelder.com;comments@airamericaradio .com;roger@regularguy.com;guntalk@guntalk.com;2roger@rogerhedgecock.com;hhewitt@hughhewitt.com;alrantel@kabc.com;heykevinjames@aol.com;b

    rucejacobs@clearchannel.com;joecrummey@clearchannel.com;terrygilberg@clearchannel.com;marklevinshow@abc.com;FRAFF@radioamerica.org;rush@

    eibnet.com;bob.mohan@kfyi.com;chuckm@chuckmorse.com;jill@lvcm.com;2oreilly@foxnews.com;jpa@wava.com;pov@usaradio.com;quinn@warroom.com;d

    rshow@wamu.org;roberts@therightsideonline.com;leerodgers_ksfo@yahoo.com;2michaelsavage@paulreveresociety.com;2wxyt@wxyt.com;dickstaub@co

    mpuserve.com;Talkback@cnn.com;journal@c-span.org;wilbur@kvi.com;wilkow@wgy.com;cccore@aol.com;thechrisplanteshow@starpower.net;correspon

    dence@spectator.org;letters@georgemag.com;editors@humaneventsonline.com;insight@wt.infi.net;backtalk@mojones.com;letters@nationalreview.

    com;letters@newsweek.com;letters@slate.com;Letters@time.com;letters@usnews.com;armylet@atpco.com;editor@covenantnews.com;iht@iht.com;rud

    dy@newsmax.com;editor@usatoday.com;pilgri1@ibm.net;gkendall@up.net;letter.editor@edit.wsj.com;nated@wt.infi.net;jfarah@ibm.net;WorldNetD

    aily.com;AKSTAR@MICRONET.net;letters@pop.adn.com;register@dibbs.net;htimes@htimes.com;Meredith_Oakley@adg.ardemgaz.com;letters@azstarnet .com;opinions@aol.com;opinion@bakersfield.com;letters@fresnobee.com;newsroom@lompocrecord.com;letters@latimes.com;letters@modbee.com;edt

    rib@angnewspapers.com;letters@link.freedom.com;letters@pe.net;SacGazette@aol.com;editor@sddt.com;letters@uniontrib.com;letters@sfexamine

    r.com;letters@sjmercury.com;pdletters@aol.com;gtop@gazette.com;letters@denverpost.com;letters@denver-rmn.com;letters@courant.com;editor@

    ctcentral.com;editor@bristolpress.com;editor@thechronicle.com;dtimes@webquill.com;letters.greenwichtime@scni.com;news@shorepublishing.co

    m;news@shorepublishing.com;ledger@acorn-online.com;editor@middletownpress.com;editor@newbritain.com;nceditor@webquill.com;editor@newstim

    es.com;ncnews@bcnnews.com;letters@record-journal.com;newspaper@ridgefield-ct.com;regcit@connix.com;newsroom@acorn-online.com;news@shorep

    ublishing.com;news@shorepublishing.com;wptnews@bcnnews.com;newspaper@ridgefield-ct.com;bulletin@wilton-ct.com;letters@rollcall.com;lette

    r@twtmail.com;dcook@newszap.com;3njletter@newsjournal.com;HeraldEd@herald.com;insight@orlandosentinel.com;editor.letters@herald-trib.com ;letters@sptimes.com;letters@sun-sentinel.com;tribletters@tampatrib.com;conedit@ajc.com;jrnledit@ajc.com;letters@augustachronicle.com;le

    tters@starbulletin.com;scj@siouxcityjournal.com;letters@lmtribune.com;letters@suntimes.com;tribletter@aol.com;fencepost@dailyherald.com;

    forum@pjstar.com;letters@sj-r.com;NewsEditor@Starnews.com;StarEditor@starnews.com;letters@cjnetworks.com;weedit@wichitaeagle.com;editor@

    murrayledger.com;bbankston@theadvocate.com;feedback@nolalive.com;letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com;letters@baltsun.com;capletts@annap.inf

    i.net;timesnews@mindspring.com;mail@sta

    --
    Faster, Cheaper, Secure. Pick 2
  63. Education is a Public Good by mechsoph · · Score: 1

    I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support, or directly provide, loans at the Federal level for college students.

    Government supports education because education is a Public Good. Federal support lets more students go to college which makes them more productive which ultimately benefits everybody. At least that's the theory.

    Can't people see that Federally-financed loans are one of the primary reasons that tuition is so high?

    I'd say it has more to do with the increasing demand for a college education. A generation ago, a person could get along just fine with only a high school diploma. Today, life without a college degree would be pretty rough. The increase in demand would necessarily drive up the cost.

  64. re: I'd argue that you need to listen to the money by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    If "money talks", the problem here is, the recording industry isn't intelligent or patient enough to listen to it. The "massively popular" indie bands circulating the p2p networks and Usenet groups aren't *only* popular because people are downloading the content from these Internet-based sources! They're popular in those sectors because lots of people are enjoying their music. That means, the POTENTIAL to profit is right there, staring them in the face (if they bother to look).

    The problem is, they've probably alienated these potential customers with their insistence on only selling the products THEIR way... on physical CDs that cost too much and often have anti-copying measures in place on them. Alternately, they MAY opt to sell SOME of the material via heavily DRM protected file formats, on specific "online music stores".

    The people who least care about these limitations or restrictions are often the ones with less "taste" in music to begin with. I'm talking about the younger kids, just discovering the joys of music for the first time, and the very casual buyer who doesn't have more than a dozen albums in his/her collection, total. That would be your typical Backstreet Boys, Brittney Spears type listener.....

  65. Go for it -- fence yourself in by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    I hope this does pass and colleges start waging war on Hollywood's behalf. It will further drive students away from mass produced entertainment and into the arms of Creative Commons licenses. Hollywood will find that their fence not only keeps the future consumer out of their backyard, it keeps Hollywood out of the next generation of do-it-yourself entertainment and mashups.

    Go for it, bozos.

    Fences work both ways.

  66. You are absolutely incorrect. by cuantar · · Score: 1

    It does plenty to hurt non-pirates, and that's the problem with it. Universities that fail to "adequately" (as defined by *IAA, I'm sure) police illegal filesharing will lose all federal funding -- including that received by students who don't violate copyrights, as well as those who don't even use the school's network. I fall into the latter group and I cannot afford to pay tuition and other expenses without financial aid, so this poor piece of legislation certainly concerns me. The *IAA wants to punish everybody at a given institution for the actions of a few people whom they don't like because schools are starting to stand up to their often ill-founded lawsuits. What's fair about that? Why should entertainment companies be able to control education money?

    --
    Legalize it.
  67. Postscript: not all of the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to add a short footnote: in Scotland students get a grant and not a loan. By the UK, the poster is referring to England :)

  68. Step 1: read the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think somebody skipped high school government class.

    Since currency is produced by the government, they can take as much as they'd like from you.

    Citation needed. Are you saying that a group that produces a currency is free to steal it from anybody who has it? Or are you saying the government can take whatever they like from you that they've produced? I can think of obvious counterexamples to both.

    If you don't like it, start bartering with everyone.

    We don't like it, and many of us are using other currencies. That doesn't stop the federal government from taxing us.

    The founding fathers had a problem with taxation without representation, but as taxation is currently legislated by elected representatives, the system is working as it was intended.

    Not necessarily. Article 1 Section 8 enumerates all of the powers of Congress; if they use my taxes for something not on the list, it's not working as intended (or allowed). Unless we amend the Constitution first, they can't violate Article 1, even if they vote on it.

  69. E-mail to my representative by Saxophonist · · Score: 3, Informative

    Representative Ellison:

    I urge you to oppose a provision contained in H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, specifically in Section 494, entitled "Campus-Based Digital Theft Prevention." This provision unfairly and needlessly places a burden on colleges and universities to subscribe to services that may have little or no educational value and/or to purchase, possibly with federal funds, software or equipment to impede file sharing on their computer networks.

    It is not the job of colleges and universities to police student activities at the behest of private businesses, notably those represented by the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. The money spent by colleges and universities in compliance will inevitably be passed on to students through fees and costs, negating the very idea of "College Opportunity and Affordability" that the bill's title purports to create. Federal funds used to further this end could be better spent on actual student aid if it is truly the goal of Congress to help students financially through this bill.

    Further, it is not technically feasible for filtering software to distinguish between legal peer-to-peer traffic and other peer-to-peer traffic on a network. Such software will either stifle all peer-to-peer traffic, including legal, protected speech necessary to academic freedom, or it will take an ineffective approach that may prevent some illegal file sharing traffic, but may also permit some such traffic as well as block legal file sharing traffic. Copyright holders can and often do permit distribution of their works through peer-to-peer and other distribution channels. Blocking any such distribution channel is tantamount to blocking academic freedom and free speech itself.

    I urge you to get Section 494 stricken from H.R. 4137. Failing that, I urge you to vote against this bill. I eagerly await your reply.

    Sincerely,
    Saxophonist

    (Well, I used my real name.)

    Feel free to use any or all of this in your e-mail or letter. Of course, use your own representative's name. If you feel it would be more effective, call in addition. Let your opinion be heard.

    1. Re:E-mail to my representative by cide1 · · Score: 1

      It takes 7 letters on a particular topic to attract a congressman's attention. At Purdue, we have a group of us who decide to write our representatives regarding technical issues, with the goal of sending seven letters. I am also copying my letter that I composed to address this bill. Feel free to copy this, but congressmen do not give form letters much value. Change things up to make the letter unique. Pay particular attention to the first three sentences. It is important to state very quickly a few key facts, so that a congressman's staff can quickly file the letter. First off, give your name, and state that you are a voter from their district. They will check your name against their voter rolls, and if you don't vote for them, they don't care all that much what you think. Second, state the topic. If it's a bill, give the bill number. Thirdly, state your position. These three things help your letter get filed correctly. Use the rest of the letter to argue your position, in straightforward, and approachable manner.

      Dear Congressman,
      My name is XXX XXXXX, I am a registered voter in your district. I am writing to express my concerns over House Bill HR4137 "College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007." I am against the passage of this bill, specifically the contents of Section 494, titled "Campus-Based Digital Theft Prevention".
      As the bill stands, it requires public universities to filter internet traffic, in an attempt to block peer to peer applications. Peer to peer is a technology used by many applications to gain increased network performance. Section 494 of the bill is strongly supported by the RIAA and MPAA, which are private enterprises supported by record companies and movie companies with the intent of copyright enforcement. I believe that public universities are a disinterested third party in protecting the copyrights of work not owned by them, and not received by them. Public universities should not be expected to face the implications of filtering, including, but not limited too: filtering legal downloads, assuming responsibility of filtering accuracy, and limiting students rights to distribute their own creative content. I find the threatening language regarding possible loss of federal funding to be unnecessary, and frankly, against the interests of making college available to more potential students, which is the goal of this bill.

      Sincerely yours,

      XXX XXXXXXXXX

      --
      -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
  70. Re:Just one question for the government: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's just another knee-jerk mod that took a post at face value. The problem is that you don't have to be a thinker to get mod points, just a populist.

    It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the post is suggesting that the elected reps have their priorities all screwed up (or bought up).

  71. Doesnt this just mean an enforced revenue stream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the bottom of this is one thing, the RIAA/MPAA just bought themselves a permanent revenue stream, at the expense of taxpayers, schools, students and a small part of Americas future. What will eventually take place, is this, in order to comply with this order, colleges and universities will start including automatic memberships to services that kick back to the RIAA/MPAA. They will of course, be supported by some outrageous fee on a semesters basis (kinda like the new technology fee recently put in place this last semester for me, no one can actually tell me what its for at the college, but apparently its for technology). In other words, the cost of college goes up for every student for something that they may or may not use, another layer of bureaucracy is enacted at the college in order to keep track of everyone who has paid for the fee, and the ONLY people to benefit from this are the RIAA/MPAA schmoes, and of course the politicos who get kick backs.

    Seeing as most kids get some form of financial aid already, it sickens me to think that kids will be taking out loans to pay off the **aa that will take them a decade or two to pay off once they get out of school, these people should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. What the hell is this world coming to?

  72. Re:I SUPPORT THE BILL by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering who gave the MAFIAA mod points? The GP you replied to was a flamebaiting troll if I've ever seen one, posted anonymously by a registered user ("extra anonymous modifier"), yet there is no moderation whatever.

    Yet in this very same thread, and the Gene Simmosn thread, a couple of people ranted against the government and MAFIAA and were modded flamebait.

    Your post wasn't moderated at all, you should have at least gotten a "funny". I have no mod points today, all I can give you is applause.

    [Hanners1979- "OMFG mcgrew gave me the clap"]

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  73. Re:Send a message to the constituents of the propo by smaddox · · Score: 1

    Yes, because banning file sharing will help the kids learn right from wrong....

    You know nothing about kids.

  74. WRONG by TehZorroness · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wal-Mart sells physical items. When you steal a physical item from Wal-Mart, someone looses money. When you copy information from someone, they still have everything they did before and suffer no loss. It's your pencil, your blank piece of paper. You should certainly be allowed to write whatever you want on it. You should certainly be allowed to hand out copies of that piece of paper without worrying about a $10,000 lawsuit. Intellectual Property law does nothing but hinder the growth of the publics' intellect.

    The original purpose of copyright was to motivate people to produce creative works. It was not intended for these creative works to be restricted from public use until 70 years after the death of the author of the work. We also notice all over the internet that people are creating all sorts of creative works with no compensation. Look to sites such as jamendo, YTMND, or Something Awful. Look at all of the hundreds of thousands of blogs. Look at the Free Software movement. All of these communities are built upon sharing information and media with the community. There is no form of compensation to the users of these communities, yet they still produce works. There is no need for copyright.

    1. Re:WRONG by cliffski · · Score: 1

      show me the freely made community produced lord of the rings movie. or bioshock game.
      You can't because there isn't one.
      Amazing though it may seem, people who get really good at something want to do it full time. if they go full time, they can produce more high quality content and everyone benefits. going full time means they need to earn money from it. that means people have to pay for it. how is this not obvious?
      would you really prefer to have all amateur entertainment content and NOTHING else?
      do you only listen to amateur bands, watch amateur movies and play amateur games? I call bullshit.
      You would replace 'schindlers list' with a cat video on youtube, and 'war and peace' with some blog post. Sorry, but I prefer the high quality work of professionals, and so does 99% of the planet.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  75. How did that happen? by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

    Citibank is raping my wife $1300 a month to pay for her loan...

    I have about 35,000 in loans from my BA/MS, and my payment is around 300 a month. No matter how I work it, I can't make your math add up unless you owe like 150,000 or so. So the question then is, what's missing? What kind of job does your wife have that she makes what you say but had to get a 150k education to do?

    And honestly, you can work with your lenders. Something just doesn't add up in your post.
    1. Re:How did that happen? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Well the deal was they are going to cut her bill to $690 a month with an interest only arm loan for 2 years then up the payment to $1500 a month after that.

      The vendors can do whatever they want since they know you can't declare bankruptcy.

  76. Re:Send a message to the constituents of the propo by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    I knew they **aa were reading /. but I never thought they would admit it. Even as an AC.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  77. Re:It is the universities that will suffer from th by biggybo · · Score: 1

    Simply "having a degree" doesn't mean much in terms of viability as an employee or predictor for economic success. However, degrees from top-rated universities are in more demand than they've ever been, for they provide valuable information as to who's legitimately talented, and who just "went to college." The graduating Stanford graduate starts with an average salary of $100,000+, and it only goes up from there. This is factoring in all of those who end up working low-paid "volunteer" jobs, such as those working as teachers in low-income communities or for charitable non-profits. As a senior at the University of Washington Business School, I've had absolutely no trouble getting scheduled for interviews. As a matter of fact, I'm swamped with 18 potential employers who've left messages on my answering machine that I've failed to call back as of present. While having a piece of paper saying "I graduated from college" isn't in high demand, graduating from a school with high standards, is.

  78. P2P and Illegal Drugs = No Financial Aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know a couple of years ago they began denying financial aid to students who were convinced of using illegal drugs. What's disturbing to me is P2P is essentially being put on the same level.

  79. "pro-piracy people like you"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "pro-piracy people like you"?

    Where are you getting this?

    Are you reading the posts, or just randomly spewing shit.

    Why are are you making broad assumptions that anyone who supports copyright reform does not to support artists. And communism?

    Perhaps I just don't understand why you are defending the current 100 year copyright law. If you are an independent author, you must know that the $250000 fines, and laws that help sue college students, and laws that protect DRM are not there to help you.

  80. Colleges and university's are fucked either way... by Bonewalker · · Score: 1

    If they don't spend thousands if not millions of dollars implementing a prevent p2p defense they will end up losing at least that much in students who won't enroll because they can't aid if they attend that particular university.

  81. Re:It is the universities that will suffer from th by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    While your point is perfectly valid, it doesn't really argue with mine that those schools that aren't on as select a list as your own would suffer from this bill, due at least in part to increased competition.

    Or does it?

    Or in other words: Grats on your shiny degree, care to discuss the topic at hand? :)

  82. Re:Send a message to the constituents of the propo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's nice to see that the US Government values the Entertainment industry over the education of tomorrow's leaders. :/

  83. Nonsense, you can sell your own music easily. by cliffski · · Score: 1

    WTF? If you are a band that wants to give your music away FREE, nobody will or can stop you. If you want to sell your music for $0.01 $1 or $5 or $20 thats ENTIRELY up to you and nobody can or will prevent it happening. These are the facts. This is what I do for a living (with games, not music, but same principle). You can do it too. Right now.

    Please show me evidence of how big business and the RIAA are preventing a small indie garage band selling their music direct for free. tell me how they will stop me. a direct example of how its done. Plenty of bands give away free music. None of them have been sued, intimidated, arrested or killed by the RIAA.

    You are delusional if you think that any backwards-rationalising about business models can justify taking something that someone else made and distributing it without paying the price set by the creator of that content. That's just unethical, and a kick in the teeth to the guys who made the stuff.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    1. Re:Nonsense, you can sell your own music easily. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      If you are a band that wants to give your music away FREE, nobody will or can stop you.

      Not entirely true.

      If your distribution relies on P2P technology, and I make P2P illegal, I have stopped you from giving away your music for free.

      If I throw up enough legal hurdles and threats that no web host will allow music files to be stored on their servers anymore, or only ones that you can't afford are willing to host, I have stopped you.

      If I convince your potential audience that downloading any music is somehow morally wrong and/or illegal, I have stopped you.

      Please show me evidence of how big business and the RIAA are preventing a small indie garage band selling their music direct for free. tell me how they will stop me. a direct example of how its done.

      First, RTFA. If that plan succeeds and even one college band is silenced because they can't distribute their work, what would you say?

      Second, it's called an infringement lawsuit. Plenty of small-time bands have been shut up with legal threats because a handful of notes sounds somewhat similar to an existing song. (Some more deserving than others, IMHO) Just one of the many tools they can use to stall the music industry paradigm shift to make that extra buck.

      Lastly: You're delusional if you think my side of this discussion has ANYTHING to do piracy. Have fun beating that strawman... My argument is that they (*IAA) are controlling for the sake of controlling, not protecting, and ultimately it does nothing productive but actually hurts everyone involved.
      =Smidge=
    2. Re:Nonsense, you can sell your own music easily. by cliffski · · Score: 1

      holy crap, you accuse ME of using a strawman, and then you build some huge argument about eh RIAA outlawing P2p (they are not) and making it illegal to host music files (which they are not). talk about fucking irony.
      the RIAA are pressing for colleges to not cover the tracks of students who download copyrighted material. How can you say that's not fair? only people breaking the law and using a campus network to pirate music need fear anything.
      Stick to the debate on the topic, not what you wish the topic would be.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    3. Re:Nonsense, you can sell your own music easily. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      The RIAA are pressing for colleges to not cover the tracks of students who download copyrighted material. How can you say that's not fair?

      Because they have not, in hundreds of lawsuits, actually managed to prove anything with that information in court. Not once. Their track record for accurately identifying pirates is nonexistant. All it does it create a chilling effect on legitimate use.

      That "only criminals have anything to fear" argument is pure bullshit too. Do you have blinds of curtains on your windows? Why? If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide! Moron. While I understand what you're trying to do, there are centuries of precedence that show us it's not going to work. Why don't you try something that doesn't kill legitimate business in the process?
      =Smidge=

  84. Anti-P2P College Bill!! by douji · · Score: 1

    But my research area is P2P !!!

  85. Use Peeguardian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple i use Peer guardian at school. it helps, it protects and it blocks those riaa and mpaa bast..ds

  86. Another Sale for $0, and another, and another. . . by warmbowski · · Score: 1

    What should be the basic objective of Copyright? And what should the government use it's money to enforce. 1 Protect your work from being appropriated as someone else's work? Check. 2 Keep others from profiting off of your work without sending you a royalty? Check. 3 Make sure that legit purchasers of your works can't give them away to others for free - indefinitely? Um . . . I'm fine with 1 and 2, but I really don't think it's worth our country's taxes to use them to stop people from sharing. 3 was never on the radar until p2p. It's not like it's misrepresenting or actually making money off of giving away a copy. Think of it as a sale for $0. Which the royalty cut should be $0. It's not being stolen, it's just not being earned. The only lost money, is the large amounts of tax money spent to enforce 3, and keeping this bad business model alive. And mostly for the sake of middle-men (not for the consumer or the creator of such content). My point? don't protect middle-men (or women).

  87. If I were the principal... by r6144 · · Score: 1

    I'd impose a ban on all MAFIAA material on campus, pirated or not, just like how schools around here ban pornography. I'd also put up banners like "When you listen to RIAA's music or watch MPAA's movies, you are putting our school in danger. STOP!".

  88. Schools THEMSELVES have pirated software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know for a fact (and I can say this because all Apple// software rights were released to the public) that schools could never afford software for the few computers they had in the 80's. So they pirated everything. Some software companies even turned their back on this practice with full knowledge.

    Do corporations need a few more dollars or do they need a lot more skilled workers? I guess they'd rather move their whole production overseas and then fall prey to a hostile takeover.

  89. You are kidding yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kidding yourself if you think any amount of letters to congressmen will make a difference.

    1. Re:You are kidding yourself by devjj · · Score: 1

      "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

  90. Stanford's and MPAA's response to the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a look at this article in which Kamil Dada from Stanford University probes the MPAA for more information about their decision to promote the bill and what the academic world's response to it has been. It is one of the more in depth articles about the proposed bill:

    http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/11/27/govtActsOnFileSharing