Copyright Lobbies Threaten Federal College Funding

plasmacutter writes "The EFF is raising the alarm regarding provisions injected into a bill to renew federal funding for universities. These new provisions call for institutions of higher learning to filter their internet connections and twist student's arms over 'approved' digital media distribution services. 'Under said provision: Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable — (2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity. Similar provisions in last year's bill did not survive committee, it appears however that this bill is headed toward the full house for vote.' Responding to recriminations over this threat to university funding, an MPAA representative claims federal funds should be at risk when copyright infringement happens on campus networks." We've previously discussed this topic, as well as similar issues.

Comments

{sigh}

[ScrewMaster]

Really ... it's enough to make you want to throw up.

Re:{sigh}

[PachmanP]

No it's enough to make you wish you had enough money to buy your own politicians, so you could write the laws you wanted.

Re:{sigh}

[bigstrat2003]

It's enough to do both of those things, really. Fucking politicians should work for us, not the people with the most money.

I mean, seriously, I could deal with it if it was just "crack down on piracy harder", but mandating alternatives?? What the FUCK.

Re:{sigh}

[ScrewMaster]

These guys seem to think they are the government ... or at least, in their own minds, they feel they should be.

Re:{sigh}

[gotzero]

I think this is fantastic, but only because of the massive backlash that is going to come back from universities! They have been targeting specific ones, and in many cases getting beaten back by law schools, general counsels, etc. I am going to sit back and watch with glee as the heavy hitters from academia decide the RIAA finally overstepped too much. I do feel that I have to say that I am sure many of the people on the campus networks are doing things they should not be, but this has NOTHING to do with education money.

Re:{sigh}

[bigstrat2003]

Well, they apparently are, as evidenced by this piece of legislative shit.

Re:{sigh}

[moosesocks]

The sort of people who oppose this sort of payola are powerless to stop it, as that would require them to bribe some politicians themselves. A sort of insidious catch-22.

We could vote 'em out of office, but that didn't work too well either last year. The new ones quickly became just as evil and corrupt as the old ones.

Sigh.

Re:{sigh}

[jayp00001]

We could vote 'em out of office, but that didn't work too well either last year. The new ones quickly became just as evil and corrupt as the old ones.

Sigh.

That's because we didn't vote the corrupt ones out of office, we voted already corrupt ones in to office. What should have happened is that we should have talked to our party chairperson (on whatever party that we wanted someone out of) and explained that they had 2 choices- make that guy not run for re-election and we'd stick with that party or let that guy run and we'd switch. Party chairs have far more influence than any lobby rep. Believe me these guys will listen when their phones start ringing.

Re:{sigh}

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, they are. Through the elimination of independent engineering of standard compliant hardware/software, they have legislative control over the entire consumer electronic sector through their licenses. Because they made it illegal to implement a playback device through other means, they can put any outrageous demand on their license agreements they wish, and CE firms have to eat it whole and raw, to the detriment of the customers.

Re:{sigh}

[novakyu]

No it's enough to make you wish you had enough money to buy your own politicians, so you could write the laws you wanted. But we do! Where do you think these MPAA and RIAA guys get their money? Us!

It doesn't matter what kind of laws they write—if we stop buying their stuff, they will eventually go out of business, fascist laws and draconian enforcements notwithstanding.

Ever since I found out more about the copyright industry vs. the public struggle, I made sure I spent absolutely nothing on what's produced by MPAA and RIAA members—no music sold through a major record label, and no movies (I used to go to theater once every month or so—not anymore). Of course, one man not handing money over to MPAA and RIAA may not make a difference, but if you and I stop making them a profit and tell everyone we know not to, one day we just might.

Re:{sigh}

[MrCopilot]

No it's enough to make you wish you had enough money to buy your own politicians, so you could write the laws you wanted.

Umm, we don't have to buy them, we already pay for them. We just have to act like it. Money does not keep them in office we do.

A group of voters from their district in any significant number scares the sh!t out of most Congressmen. Especially when they have petitions, signs and a few soccer moms.

Re:{sigh}

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy indie music now, preferably by going to live shows or music festivals where I can buy a CD directly from the artist. One interesting side-effect of this decision is that I now find I am listening to more inventive, higher quality music rather than mass-marketed shit.

Re:{sigh}

[Anonymous Coward]

by protecting commerce from thieves the legislature is protecting more than mere lobbyists. they're protecting jobs and taxes.
 
when you grow up a little bit maybe you'll understand how the economy works. people taking what isn't theirs but is available for sale hurts the economy. to government needs to protect the economy to protect the nation from fiscal disaster.
 
stop trying to justify your thievery. this music is not yours to take. if you think it costs too much than boycott it.

Re:{sigh}

[Columcille]

It is so terrible how people these days want to, you know, enforce the law!

Re:{sigh}

[webmaster404]

Its not really that but no congressman (here in the USA) runs a campaign in technology. Very few will openly state their feelings on the DMCA, Software Patents and fair use. While they are always telling voters of their views of the war, taxes, greenhouse gasses, abortion, the second amendment, finding out where they stand on any technology issues is nearly impossible. How I wish we had a pirate party.... or at least RMS as a senator (now that would be a sight....)

Re:{sigh}

[iminplaya]

How I wish we had a pirate party.... or at least RMS as a senator...

All you have to do is get 51% of the voters to write him in. Time to start a political selective service program.

Re:{sigh}

[thomas.galvin]

No it's enough to make you wish you had enough money to buy your own politicians, so you could write the laws you wanted. It's enough to make me wish the Federal Government kept to the role our constitution outlines for it.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the power to withhold funding is essentially the same thing, just coming from a different angle. Intrastate travel in supposed to be the domain of the states, but the federal government takes money from the states, then gives it back to them if the pass the kind of laws the feds want. That's why the speed limit is 55 pretty much everywhere. Same story with education; the feds take money from the states, and then let them have some back if they kow-tow correctly.

Re:{sigh}

[unlametheweak]

It's enough to make one believe that there should be a separation between Politics and Education (an unrealistic ideal admittedly). It's like equating federal highway funding to a state's right to impose a minimum drinking age; they are attempting to impose influence where they have no legal authority otherwise. But then again, if one has a criminal conviction for smoking marijuana, then that person will be denied a student loan (Hypocrisy speaks). Politics and education just don't mix.

One would think that debt-ridden students should be the last target on an RIAA hit-list.

Re:{sigh}

[eggnoglatte]

I have been consistently arguing in favor of copyright on slashdot and elsewhere. But this is not about enforcing existing laws, it is about tying college educational funding to policing of the students by their colleges. That is something the colleges have neither the mandate nor the expertise to do. Also, depriving an already underfunded public education system even more just because some students violate copyright laws strikes me as a really dumb idea.

Re:{sigh}

[dryeo]

No, everyone stops buying their stuff and they'll just use it to prove that piracy is that bad and they should get paid by the government. Pretty soon everything you buy that is even remotely connected with content will have a levy that goes straight to the *AAs. And they will get very creative about what is connected to content. I don't want to have a levy on my eyeglasses or my bathroom mirror.

Re:{sigh}

[Wildclaw]

The biggest parties (usually two) in any goverment are mostly equally corrupt. Losing votes to their opposite big party doesn't scare them that much. They are simply two sides of the same coin. If they lose in one election, they will simply adjust their stances a little to gain back the voters they lost. It is just ordinary politics.

The real solution is to vote for third parties.. What really scares mainstream politicians is losing votes to someone who isn't well known, because that means that people are beginning to notice that the mainstream parties are two sides of the same coin and rejecting that coin.

Of course, before every election you will hear how you should vote for one of the big candidates, because other votes don't matter. In actuality it is the opposite. Votes for big candidates don't matter since they are all votes for the same coin. They simply reinforce the opinions that the current politicians in power have.

There are of course times when voting for the lesser of two evils has its purpose, but it is far less often than most people would think. To avoid this completly it would of course be better to have a system where you could rank your candidates, but try getting that into the law.

Re:{sigh}

[Stripe7]

And here is another reason why the American Educational system has been on a downhill slide for years. They are so busy with crud like this to teach. More emphasis is given to bureaucracy than to education. This means that even more tax monies that go to schools has to be funneled into corporate pockets to buy even more crud to "protect" the corporate interests.

Re:{sigh}

[Danse]

What should have happened is that we should have talked to our party chairperson (on whatever party that we wanted someone out of) and explained that they had 2 choices- make that guy not run for re-election and we'd stick with that party or let that guy run and we'd switch. Party chairs have far more influence than any lobby rep. Believe me these guys will listen when their phones start ringing. The problem is getting enough people in any given district to complain about this. If it's just a drop in the bucket, which it very likely would be, even if every Slashdotter called tomorrow, then it won't have any impact. Too many people are ignorant of what is happening. You think this is getting any kind of coverage in the mainstream news?

Re:{sigh}

[Anonymous Coward]

A group of voters from their district in any significant number scares the sh!t out of most Congressmen. Especially when they have petitions, signs and a few soccer moms.

Yup. Like politicians actually listen to voters. It's all about the money.

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/102702_pictures_of_anti.htm

Re:{sigh}

[novakyu]

No, everyone stops buying their stuff and they'll just use it to prove that piracy is that bad and they should get paid by the government. While that is true to some extent (such as the media tax on blank CDs in Canada), at some point, they are going to run into a wall—another business cartel/union as large and powerful as themselves. Right now, they are fighting against individual (suspected) copyright violators and occasional universities that refuse to bend over to their demand. When they tick off a larger industry, such as ISPs, with some unreasonable demand of profit-sharing, they will have a real fight then, and, eventually, after a series of compromises, we will have something reasonable like what terrestrial radio has to do to play music (for more detail, check Lessig's Free Culture).

Even if this does not happen, eventually, the public will get sick and tired of their gradually unreasonable demands, and we can hope that something like what happened with DRM in music will happen in the entire content industry.

Perhaps all this is just a pipe dream, but even so, it still feels good not to support an immoral cartel myself.

Re:{sigh}

[Kierthos]

If it was actually "You downloaded this movie, you owe us the retail value of the DVD." or suchlike, then I don't think most /.ers would have nearly as much of a problem. It's the whole "You 'made available' a handful of mp3s, you owe us millions of dollars." crap, the attempted extortion from kids, dead people and the elderly, and every other craptacular legislative thing that the MPAA and the RIAA has done that makes us not like their tactics.

Re:{sigh}

[SeaFox]

No it's enough to make you wish you had enough money to buy your own politicians, so you could write the laws you wanted.

Maybe that's the whole point of this. Make sure the file downloaders can't afford to complete college. That way they wont grow up to become people who have the money or power to fight the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:{sigh}

[mikethicke]

[quote]The biggest parties (usually two) in any goverment are mostly equally corrupt.[/quote]

Written as if it is a law of nature. Nader pretty proved this theory wrong. There is a difference between the two largest parties. Voting for no-chance candidates is much like spoiling your ballot. If enough people do it then *maybe* some useful point is made, but there seem to be far more promising avenues for political activism. There is a major flaw in the political system that ensures that the business elite have a virtual lock on political power. Solving this problem requires more than protest votes. It requires taking action as a citizen outside of merely casting votes once every four years.

Re:{sigh}

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini

Re:{sigh}

[Mitreya]

Of course, before every election you will hear how you should vote for one of the big candidates, because other votes don't matter. In actuality it is the opposite. Votes for big candidates don't matter since they are all votes for the same coin. They simply reinforce the opinions that the current politicians in power have.

But it is true that other votes don't matter. Until enough people vote for a 3rd party that it becomes viable, votes cast for a 3rd party don't matter. They would if you convert enough people, but until you do, you and a few other idealistic people are in fact throwing their votes away (in fact, it is even worse than that - only the few contested states decide between the two mainstream presidential candidates or a majority in congress, in most states which are heavily Democratic or Republican you're throwing your vote away no matter what you do).

Re:{sigh}

[MadJo]

sadly yes, if it were up to the MAFIAAs, new-born children would get their ears stuffed, to prevent them from hearing someone infringe on copyright laws.

Re:{sigh}

[h4rm0ny]

For every person that writes a letter there are 500-1,000 who don't and the people in government and in the media know this. When someone does something that's mistaken, better they receive a few letters explaining why, than everyone remain silent.

If you object to something - speak! And trust, me you'll feel better for having done something

Re:{sigh}

[ajcham]

Until enough people vote for a 3rd party that it becomes viable, votes cast for a 3rd party don't matter. They would if you convert enough people, but until you do, you and a few other idealistic people are in fact throwing their votes away

On the contrary, voting for one of the 'big-guns' rather than the candidate you actually support would be throwing your vote away. Backing your guy, even knowing they will not win, is using your vote exactly as you are supposed to.

Re:{sigh}

[berzerke]

...in most states which are heavily Democratic or Republican you're throwing your vote away no matter what you do...

It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.- E. Debs

As I live in Texas, for both Senatorial and Presidential elections at least, the way I figure it, voting third party is the only way my vote will count at all. For those that don't know, Texas is a republican state. At the senate and presidential level, the republican candidate will win no matter what. The presidential republican nominee could take a whiz on the Alamo (a major insult to Texas!) with cameras rolling and still win the state.

The republicans know this and the democrats know this. So neither party really cares about the state other than for fund raising. The republicans can take Texas for granted and the democrats know money and time spent here is wasted. Therefore voting for either party doesn't matter. That leaves third party and independent candidates.

Let third party and independent candidates start getting enough votes, and they qualify for federal campaign funds. Now their message and presence will reach more people. In the meantime, it just might rattle the 2 parties enough to throw the people a few scraps to try and win back the voters who have left them.

For those in states whether either party has a lock, voting third party is the only way to make a difference. For those in toss-up states, you have to weigh you choices more carefully.

...Until enough people vote for a 3rd party that it becomes viable, votes cast for a 3rd party don't matter.

It has to start somewhere. I'm reminded of a story. A woman was walking along a beach after a big storm. The sun was coming out and the beach was covered with starfish that had washed ashore in the storm, dying because they could not get back in the water. She picked one up and tossed it back into the ocean. A man watching her yelled out, "That won't make any difference!" to which the woman replied, "It made a difference to that starfish."

Re:{sigh}

[ultranova]

The real solution is to vote for third parties..

What third parties exist in the US besides libertarians ?

Re:{sigh}

[eiapoce]

As Long as americans are still voting for people involved with MAAFIA I'd say you've got no hope.

Information is priceless: http://opensecrets.org/ - http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do

Re:{sigh}

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh grow up. The RIAA and MPAA represent tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands who work in the entertainment industry. You might not give a flying fuck about those people, but they are the ones who create the music and movies that you whine are useless crap, whilst busily torrenting all of them on release day.
If you don't want filters on internet access stop breaking the fucking law, and leeching off the backs of honest people who think the makers of music and movies deserve to get paid.
In short...

fucking grow up.

Re:{sigh}

[chriseyre2000]

There are lots of smaller parties:

* Consitutaion Party
* Green Party
* America First Party
* Centrist Party (United States)
* Independence Party of America
* Jefferson Republican Party
* Marijuana Party
* Peace and Freedom Party
* Prohibition Party
* Reform Party of the United States of America (there are two of these!)
* Socialist Equality Party
* Socialist Party USA
* Socialist Workers Party
* Workers World Party
* Working Families Party

Re:{sigh}

[Igarden2]

What will our congress threaten next with funding cut-offs? How about health care because somebody actually prescribes contraceptives? Or a clean needle exchange? Or who knows what? You know that institutions of higher education will cater to who controls the money coming in the door (all morally outraged posturing aside.). I liked college better when the tuition and alumni donations called the tune. Our 'benevolent' federal government has unwittingly driven up the cost of higher education by funding it with our tax dollars. Schools have little incentive to economize. If they don't provide the extras, some other school will. Its a perverted competition to see who can dangle the flashiest technology in front of prospective students and their parents. So it costs a little more, just borrow it on student loans! I can't imagine starting out on a life career in debt up to my ear lobes. My 2 cents and worth every penny.

Re:{sigh}

[Anonymous Coward]

Really ... it's enough to make you want to throw up. No... not throw up...

It makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal silicon spill!!!

Re:{sigh}

[xSauronx]

Well if I had that kind of money who's to say I wouldnt buy Apple products first?

Re:{sigh}

[hey!]

The real solution is to vote for third parties..

Mathematically this is provable to be incorrect. The rational choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils, provide that the evils are at least somewhat distinguishable. As long as one or the other of the "evils" prevails, neither has much motivation to change the status quo, so voting for a non-viable third party actually reinforces the marginally greater of the evils, both in its evil tendencies, and in keeping the status quo intact.

Basically, the situation drives the parties to create an arbitrary dividing line, then huddle up against each other on either side of the line. There is incentive to make sure the territory on your side of the line is unambiguously claimed as yours, but there is also disincentive to stray far from that line (unless everybody else seems to be doing it, which means the line is moving).

The "real solution" is to choose a system of government and voting in which parties have influence that roughly reflects their support among the voters. No system is perfect, but many would be better than what we have. This is actually a prerequisite to making dramatic improvements in the governance of of the country. But marginal differences do often matter. Marginal differences got us into Iraq; the problem is that they aren't enough to get us out.

Re:{sigh}

[Anonymous Coward]

And your silly little rant has exactly what to do with the millions of college students who don't "break the fucking law" as you so eloquently put it??? This has nothing to do with the legality and/or practices of pirating and everything to do with the RIAA buying off our politicians to the detriment of MUCH MORE IMPORTANT issues like our nation's suffering education system.

Confusing the issue as badly as you have is a sign of pure ignorance... Here's your sign buddy.

Re:{sigh}

[Attila Dimedici]

It doesn't really take that many people if they are willing to do what it takes. Go to Township meetings, pay attention to who your Township Supervisors are (and vote against the bad ones), pay attention to who the County Supervisors are (again, vote against the bad ones), pay attention to how your state representative votes and let him/her know when you don't like it, etc, etc. If you do this it will make a difference.
Of course, every time they make it easier to vote, they make it harder to change things. The less effort you have to make register and vote, the more likely that people who aren't paying any attention to anything other than the sound bites just before an election will vote. The more of those people who vote, the harder it is for the people who are paying attention to what is going on to change things.

Re:{sigh}

[Danse]

If you object to something - speak! And trust, me you'll feel better for having done something Yeah, it feels a bit better for a while. Then a few months later I get a reply from the rep/senator's office that either blows off the issue or is so far off base that it tells me that they didn't even read what I wrote. Unless you enclose a large check with your letter, I don't think they pay much attention.

Re:{sigh}

[MooseTick]

"Ever since I found out more about the copyright industry vs. the public struggle, I made sure I spent absolutely nothing on what's produced by MPAA and RIAA members --no music sold through a major record label, and no movies (I used to go to theater once every month or so--not anymore)"

That sounds good and all, but are you sure you aren't funding them? Do you go to Blockbusters? Do you have Dish, DirectTV, or cable?

Re:{sigh}

[scervisiae]

Note well that this legislation is still a bill and has not yet been passed into law, so you may still write to your Representative to urge him or her to remove the offending portion. http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Re:{sigh}

[jayp00001]

You really don't need alot of people. Wha tyou do need to mention is that you will tell everyone you know, come re-election time, where politician X stood on issue A and why it's a really bad idea to let that kind of guy stay in office. Numbers , of course, help but even a few of those types of calls make the staffers start sweating out letters "explaining" the position in hopes that a nicely worded letter will shut you up and make you forget about it during the election cycle. You have to remeber that these guys (in general) have 2 thoughts- 1. You (the voter) are an idiot, I know better than you. 2. keeping the idiots happy and divided keeps me (the politician) in office.

Re:{sigh}

[novakyu]

That sounds good and all, but are you sure you aren't funding them? Do you go to Blockbusters? Do you have Dish, DirectTV, or cable? Nope, no, and no. I don't even have a TV. TV is for old people. ;)

Oh, and my ISP is a telco ... although that's not something to be proud of these days.

I would appreciate any suggestion of any other way that I might be funding them somehow, so that I can stop doing it.

Re:{sigh}

[servognome]

The real solution is to vote for third parties

No the real solution is organize to get others to vote for third parties. Even mainstream candidates cater to voting blocks (eg "the black vote," unions, NRA, christian coalition, etc)

It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again we see what sucking on the federal tit gets you.

When you come to rely on the government for handouts, don't be surprised when you're bitten by politics.

Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[p0tat03]

I was under the impression it was the other way around - i.e. letting the feds suck on your very rich tit.

Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a bullshit position. We subsidize schools so that the kids can learn real skills and in turn SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIVES paying income tax that supports others (along with themselves). Don't forget that if you ever partook in public schools, universities, emergency care, used public roads, water ways, drank tap water, relied on standards in food/medince (FDA), relied on standards in material science (e.g. flame retardant material, toxicities, etc) (NIST), etc, etc, you "sucked" on the public teet.

No, it's much better to leave school to the elite like in past centuries, that way when the feudal system returns all our schooling will end once we learn how to say "yes me lord, very well!" Genius.

Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[jcr]

when the feudal system returns

You don't get it, do you? When funding for education comes from the feds, the schools are vassals to the feds. The feudal system is already here, only now it's called socialism.

Want better schools? Then keep your money away from the feds, and spend it on schools that meet your standards, not the Ruling Party's standards.

-jcr

Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[aussie_a]

Then keep your money away from the feds Why not just have an armed revolution? That sounds like it would be easier.

Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[jcr]

In this country, it's still possible to throw the bums out with an election.

-jcr

Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[aussie_a]

And then you get a new set of bums who're just as bad. Hooray! You win!

Don't believe me? The Democrats created the DMCA.

Re:It's Free Money!!! w00t!

[Dragonslicer]

Don't believe me? The Democrats created the DMCA. If Wikipedia is to believed on this, that's not quite true.

Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) on July 29, 1997 It was proposed by a Republican to a Republican-controlled Congress. Sure, all the Democrats voted for it, and Clinton signed it (not that he had much of a choice anyway), but we should try to be as accurate as possible.

These 4-Letter Trade Groups...

[blcamp]

...continue to do things that merit 4-letter words directed at them.

They need to learn another 4-letter term: RICO.

Re:These 4-Letter Trade Groups...

[calebt3]

Really Intoxicated Clumsy Oafs?

Re:These 4-Letter Trade Groups...

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.

Re:These 4-Letter Trade Groups...

[jonaskoelker]

They need to learn another 4-letter term: FOAD.

Fixed.

Industry associations declare war on youth - again

[Senes]

This is just another act of the **AAs wanting to bludgeon people over the head for their own profits, and whether we give them what they want or not their response will just be to want more bludgeoning. They're going to push for a copyright term extension and tougher penalties every year, there is no right amount they are shooting for but just to keep increasing them at any cost.

"Develop a plan"

[Dada Vinci]

To keep the "throw up" metaphor going, all that a university has to do to comply is to throw some ideas up in the air and call it a "plan." The key language is that a university needs to DEVELOP a plan. There's nothing saying they have to IMPLEMENT that plan. A lot of schools have started offering subsidized Yahoo!Music and Rhapsody subscriptions as a way to give their students music without having to file-share to get it. Everybody get something out of the deal--the university pays lower upstream bandwidth costs and the students get legal access to bazillions of songs. Maybe actually paying for Yahoo! isn't great for the university's budget, but nothing says they have to actually DO anything--they just have to PLAN to.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[plasmacutter]

the tacit threat is there, and like all conservative institutions, the schools will doubtless move to implement it to pre-empt further legislation should this make it to the law books.

It's time to take action.

P.S.
I know this wont sit well with you zonk, but the edit job on my submission has more grammatical errors than the blue collar comedy tour. Please fix it : ) ?

Re:"Develop a plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't make it acceptable. If they could force something like this through, is it that hard to believe that they will make a new law in a few years to force colleges to implement it?

Re:"Develop a plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

I can develop and implement a plan to stop P2P filesharing.

Step 1 - Buy a server with lots of HDD space
Step 2 - Install FTP server, allow anonymous read and WRITE access
Step 3 - Place on LAN, allow only LAN access to it
Step 4 - Have students sign agreement stating that the server will not be monitored, but they are responsible for uploading illegal items to the server
Step 5 - Set up server to rotate logs every hour. Delete old logs.

There we go. No more P2P and no more illegal up/downloads.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[bzipitidoo]

Rather than weasel around the requirements, I'd like to see colleges take them head on. Just whip up a one line plan that says "We're not going to do anything to comply with these laws because they are impossible." Maybe a few will have the guts to go that route should this actually be passed.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[TheRaven64]

I'd like to see a load of colleges come up with the same plan - compulsory licensing - and present it to the government and the MPAA.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[Comatose51]

IANAL but trying to weasel your way out of a law usually doesn't work in the court system. American laws follow the tradition of "spirit of the law" rather than "letter of the law". This is why we have judges and why jurists argue over the intent and motivation behind a law. For example, the first amendment's guarantee on freedom of speech and press would not extend to digital formats if not for this tradition since digital formats can include neither speech nor printing presses.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[smittyoneeach]

Oh, I thought that the editing job was intended as a sample of the non-command of English that this legislation would help correct.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's really funny, because congrescritters put the spirit of the law into the text of the law itself.

The DMCA says point blank its provisions should not infringe on fair use, but judges have since ruled to eliminate it.

You are still correct, but only in the sense that the conservative appointed judges who rule the court system will side with whoever has the most money--E.G. Corporations--when it comes down to a court battle over rights.

private companies get eminent domain over private citizens when it's "for the betterment of the community", for instance.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like a recipe for a server full of trojans, viruses, and the filthiest porn imaginable.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[Tuoqui]

Well there are .mp3's they could be used to transmit 'speech'.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do I sign up?

Re:"Develop a plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your theory only works if the summary you just read accurately depicts the exact wording of the law under consideration. Guess how likely that is.

Re:"Develop a plan"

[servognome]

American laws follow the tradition of "spirit of the law" rather than "letter of the law".

America has been moving away from "the spirit" and more towards "the letter." This is reflected in minimum sentencing guidelines, "zero tolerance" ordinance, and rulings in favor of the letter rather than spirit.

It's a priority call

[dpilot]

Apparently it's simply more important to protect ??AA profits than it is to have an open and freethinking educational system. Signs of this are all over the place, from both parties. Evolution, anyone? Anyone wonder how soon teaching that the universe is older than 6000 years will be challenged, or Galileo will rejoin the ranks of heretics?

We're on the road!

Re:It's a priority call

[phoenixwade]

Apparently it's simply more important to protect ??AA profits than it is to have an open and freethinking educational system. Signs of this are all over the place, from both parties. Evolution, anyone? Anyone wonder how soon teaching that the universe is older than 6000 years will be challenged, or Galileo will rejoin the ranks of heretics?

We're on the road! Okay, did you skip contemporary history in school? There is very little going on in the manipulation of Colleges and universitys that isn't the same as was being done 35-40 years ago, in America. Hell some of the topics are even the same.

Re:It's a priority call

[Technician]

Apparently it's simply more important to protect ??AA profits than it is to have an open and freethinking educational system. Signs of this are all over the place, from both parties. Evolution, anyone? Anyone wonder how soon teaching that the universe is older than 6000 years will be challenged, or Galileo will rejoin the ranks of heretics?


Who cares? The next generation won't need a college education unless they want to move to a technology leader country such as Japan or China. The US will simply move down the ladder to 3rd world status. When the out of work Americans can't afford iPods and high speed internet anymore, the problem will go away.
(end rant)
It is important to have universities teach. This attack on education (it isn't support in any way) is outside the scope of what a university is all about. I hope this doesn't get traction and stuff that helps higher learning instead of attacking it gets traction.

Re:It's a priority call

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution, anyone? Anyone wonder how soon teaching that the universe is older than 6000 years will be challenged, or Galileo will rejoin the ranks of heretics? "MPAA trying to write their own laws? Fucking creationists!"
Only on Slashdot.

Re:It's a priority call

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding, I'm attending college at the moment and doing the whole IT and business deal, and I see no future in any of it, or any other higher business career except grunt work, working minimum wage or working at the bottom of the latter for the rest of my days, unless I move elsewhere where you can actually use your knowledge.

Re:It's a priority call

[dpilot]

Didn't say we were just starting down that road, merely that we're on it. We always have the opportunity to select a better path, just like we always have the opportunity to select a poorer one. I will say that it has become more strident recently because of the Internet. This "leveling effect" has just got to be stopped!

Old News

[techno-vampire]

The story links to an article that was posted on November 19, 2007! From what it says, the bill's already been debated. Isn't this just a tad out of date?

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this just a tad out of date?

oh come on, that's part of the slashdot charm! articles from last year, inflammatory summeries/articles, dupes and outright trolling- it wouldn't be slashdot without it.

Segment of the article

[cbart387]

Here is the segment in question. It doesn't look as dire as what the summary makes it out to be ... at least to me

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.
            (a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--

                        (1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and

                        (2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

Re:Segment of the article

[Bageloid]

So the goal of this really isn't to prevent piracy, it's to legally force music sales in colleges if you look at (1).

Joy.

Re:Segment of the article

[Anonymous Coward]

as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

The only thing the colleges are legally obligated to do under the DMCA is provide identities if they are capable.

Through that lense, I call censoring the internet connections of college students and making their moral decisions for them pretty "over the line" myself.

Why not put a pro-life clause into the bill too... require universities to make publicly available their policies and procedures related to abortion and explore technology based deterrents to such immoral activity.

Re:Segment of the article

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

So to for fill part 2 the college could start their own record label, providing a massive discount to students of the college, and selling the product on iTunes to make more money, out of the mums dad, and younger sibling who want to be cool like thier Elders.

It's not like they have to go far to find bands to sign up, and sure most of them are utter crap. Still most signed artists are.

If they want to have fun they could take technological measure to stop peer to peer of RIAA music.
Then sit back an watch RIAA panic when they realize (many, many year later) they have lost their channel not only the market place, but also the talent.

Re:Segment of the article

[vux984]

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.
(a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--

1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and

(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

Ok, what do you mean it doesn't look dire?

Number 1 is already borderline in my books, number 2 is right over the top.

Number 2 says the university must both actively promote some sort of legal alternative, while simultaneously seek technology to filter illegal activity. In order to qualify for federal funding.

Don't let the 'develop a plan' phrasing lull you. They want a strategy, with a timeframe, and deadline for implementation. You aren't getting off the hook with: "My plan for curbing torrents: 'put a port block on XXX'. To be implemented by the year 2058. The end."

There is no simply justification for federal funding to hinge on pandering to an industry lobby group. Not ever.

What's next? MADD gets to ram through some legislation where the university will have to develop a plan to prevent drinking and driving, including instituting technological measures to prevent it [just imagine what that would look like!], if they want federal funding.

And then the religious right wingnuts get theirs... the university has to develop a plan to ensure illegal sexual behaviour* is technologically prevented...

(*in some states anal and oral sex are illegal, but hey this could be expanded to cover anything remotely indecent or other riske mischief that students are particularly famous for...)

Bottom line, the university is not responsible for policing students. The police are. This is pure and utter bullshit. I sure hope there is some way of challenging the legality of this law itself.

Re:Segment of the article

[Kopiok]

By that text, the could just send out a flier, put up a link to emusic.com, and "attempt" (or actually attempt) to block Limewire ports/traffic. Sounds reasonable to me.

Re:Segment of the article

[QuantumG]

the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials

to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property 1. which is it, copyrighted materials or intellectual property? Are they trying to suggest the two are synonymous?
2. what illegal downloading are they talking about? Can they state which laws exactly make downloading illegal? Cause if they're talking about the No Electronic Theft act, sorry, that's not relevant to downloading.
3. haha, your stupid country has laws that deal with civil matters with criminal laws.. how fucked are you?

Re:Segment of the article

[h4rm0ny]

Number 1 is fine. Students *should* be well-informed about policies that affect them.

You are right about number 2.

Re:Segment of the article

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is, the universities' finances will be piss-poor if they comply, but they'll be up shit creek if they don't?

/me crawls back under her rock now.

Re:Segment of the article

[Timinithis]

The solution to meet this bill is really simple:

1) Provide the students, faculty, etc, the boilerplate in the student handbook -- link from the front page of the school site to the same.

2) Limit all on campus networks to Comcast cable. The FCC already knows they filter traffic, and it is "technology-based" so that should meet the requirements of #2

Requirements met.

Now, once the FCC slams Comcast for violating net neutrality, well, back to square one.

Question: What would it take for universities to gain protection under net neutrality?

Re:Segment of the article

[cbart387]

Bottom line, the university is not responsible for policing students. Taken on face value I agree with that statement. However, they are responsible for what happens on their premise. Ie Drinking underage. It's illegal in the dorms and if you're caught you'll be handed to the cops. That typically amounts to if you're stupid enough to be loud in your dorms. Did most people do this? Yes. Did I? Yes. However I'm not going to be angry at the university if I was caught. I knowingly did something illegal. Part of your argument hinged on the stupidity of some of the laws. (Damn hippies and ruining drugs for the rest of us). I agree with you on that but part of being in a society is agreeing to follow the laws. If you do not like them that's fine. Do something about it then. However, that's between the government and you, not between the university and you. That's my $2x10E-2

Re:Segment of the article

[vux984]

Number 1 is fine. Students *should* be well-informed about policies that affect them.

I agree that there is nothing inherently offensive about informing students about policies that affect them.

I think its borderline because I don't think the universities funding should be tied to this.

Why only copyright infringement? Does the university have to satisfy the feds that its displaying its policies on sexual harrassment or on racism, or sexual discrimination too before it gets any funding? Of course not.

I imagine most if not all universities already do all those anyway, and may even be required to, but is their any legislation directly tying their funding to it?

Re:Segment of the article

[vux984]

It is my understanding that a number of universities are on the 'backbone' with their own fiber. Remember, the original arpanet linked a number of military and educational facilities directly together. I think a number of these universities are not 'ISP customers' in the traditional sense.

Re:Segment of the article

[vux984]

However, they are responsible for what happens on their premise.

No. Your an adult. Your responsible for what you do.

Ie Drinking underage. It's illegal in the dorms and if you're caught you'll be handed to the cops.

Correct. But its not their responsibility to 'catch you'. If they are forced to deal with you because you make a confrontation unavoidable (by being obnoxious and loud, or getting complained about, etc), they will deal with it appropriately by handing you over to the cops, but the cops haven't handed them deputy badges and said go forth and inspect every room every hour to ensure nobody underage is drinking... oh, and if you don't we're cutting off your funding!

Part of your argument hinged on the stupidity of some of the laws. (Damn hippies and ruining drugs for the rest of us). I agree with you on that but part of being in a society is agreeing to follow the laws. If you do not like them that's fine. Do something about it then.

Ignoring stupid laws -is- one of societies legitimate responses to laws it doesn't like. Especially when society is ignoring it wholesale. If its just you, that's not society, but when pretty much everyone with a computer is in violation of the law to some degree society is 'speaking' and sending a message of what it thinks of the law. And government is -supposed- to respect what society says.

Re:Segment of the article

[sjames]

I'm not a university, but compliance could be FUN!

1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and

In order to illegally download and distribute copyrighted materials, you must first install a "p2p" application. We suggest one from http://universityofmars.edu/p2p. Further instruction in the necessary procedures may be found in the documentation provided in these programs

(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

In addition to p2p downloading, you might also consider simply having a friend or acquaintance burn you a copy. As our network resources are limited, we would prefer that you use this method. For that reason we have set up http://universityofmars.edu/friend2friend where you can list the copyrighted media you are willing to copy and what other media you would like copied in return. As this is a great savings in bandwidth, the p2p programs we offer for download will remind you that friend2friend offers you much higher quality copies and will match your share folder and request against the friend2friend database and redirect you if a match can be found.

There! Now all the students know the procedure and a technology based tool actively re-directs students to alternatives. As a nice side effect, social opportunities are created to help students get to know each other.

Nope..

[Anonymous Coward]

The main story from the EFF blog is dated jan 14th '08

Slippery Slope

[sickspeed6]

While i agree, all a univ. has to do is create a plan, in 2 years, there will be a new fed. funding law and it will require implementation of the plan, and then ISP's will be required to create a plan, and then they will have to implement a plan, and so on and so on.

Re:Slippery Slope

[TheRaven64]

So, if my plan is to pass a law requiring compulsory licensing for all works in certain domains, will the next law requiring it to be implemented implicitly enforce compulsory licensing? What if, say, all of the Ivy League schools propose compulsory licensing as their solution?

Re:Slippery Slope

[sickspeed6]

No, you are right, it wouldn't be a guarantee, i guess i will clarify, it is easier to get away with so long as it is introduced in small stages. Its happened in the past and it will happen again. Slowly take away freedom, and then all of a sudden, there are no freedoms left.

We are all criminals in their eyes!

[Doug52392]

I've noticed this a lot lately, any government agency, lobbyist group, or any group that is supposed to be fighting crime views every single person in the world as criminals.

In the eyes of the federal government, we are all terrorists, so our Constitutional rights should be taken away.

In the eyes of Comcast and Verizon, we all use our Internet connections that we pay for to do illegal stuff, so we should have our Internet connections regulated, censored, and spied on.

In the eyes of the MPAA and RIAA, we are all illegal software pirates that deserve to be sued for millions of dollars.

And in the eyes of collages and universities across the United States, we are all criminals who are plotting school shootings and bombings, and deserve to have the FBI raid our dorms, be arrested, and be kicked out of collage.

See the picture here? Everyone thinks that if they label every single person on Earth as a criminal, it will make all our problems go away. But they are wrong. They are all wrong.

The federal government thinks they are keeping us safe by treating every single American as a terrorist plotting to blow up the country, but what about the people who actually are plotting something like that? They would never catch them because they would be too bush prosecuting innocent people to notice!

With airports locked down tightly thesse days, travelers are annoyed by all the security checks and security stuff to make sure people don't have weapons. But the people who actually want to do harm could probably easily smuggle that kind of stuff by them.

And for all the piracy bullshit, they think that shoving the DMCA and RIAA lawyers in everyone's faces will stop the 1% of people who ACTUALLY steal software, movies, and music, while the other 99% of us suffer. But it WON'T! Hell, I'm getting very tempted to start illegally putting brand new movies on BitTorrent just to stick it to the RIAA, MPAA, etc. If we're all criminals in these people's eyes, what would it matter? Personally I don't agree with downloading movies and music (with music sucking with that rap crap, what is there to download?), but I don't think it should be a federal crime punishable with million dollar fines and stuff.

When will they learn, the government and RIAA can't solve all their problems like this!

Re:We are all criminals in their eyes!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I've noticed this a lot lately, any government agency, lobbyist group, or any group that is supposed to be fighting crime views every single person in the world as criminals.

Not quite. The idea is to curtail the rights that we don't use much in order for increased security. In the case of the government, it's at least directly for our own protection. No-one actually believes that everyone on Earth is a terrorist. OTOH, I can imagine some deranged person believing that everyone with an internet connection has pirated something at some time...

Re:We are all criminals in their eyes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. This seems to go along with the logic of "only sick people take pills" and "If you make guns illegal our streets will be safer since no-one will have a gun." Perhaps the reason that people "pirate" software/music/movies is that the legal options impose so many restrictions that the product becomes effectively unusable. This has been demonstrated time and time again with things like the Sony rootkit fiasco, and the scourge known as SecureRom.

Re:We are all criminals in their eyes!

[aussie_a]

I can imagine some deranged person believing that everyone with an internet connection has pirated something at some time... You wouldn't have to be deranged, just slightly over zealous, as most people on the internet have pirated at one time in their life.

Re:We are all criminals in their eyes!

[Anonymous Coward]

They would never catch them because they would be too bush prosecuting innocent people to notice! I didn't know you could type a Freudian slip :)

Re:We are all criminals in their eyes!

[TapeCutter]

I agree and you only need to look at the size of the US prison population to obtain hard numbers for your assertions. It's got a long way to go before it reaches Stalinistic proportions but "the land of the free" has by far more prisoners and executions per head of population than any other western nation.

The Amish Method.

[Deathlizard]

Frankly there's only two ways you can stop piracy from happening on college grounds.

1) Buy everyone in the school music accounts to download music thus rasing the tutition, Which enrages students and punishes students who prefer going to buy their music at music stores, and will ultimetly result in retention levels dropping in an already competitive market as it is.

Or

2) The Amish Method. Cut the internet cable since there's nothing on the market that can assure 100% piracy free internet, ban all computers since they can make MP3's using a line in jack and a CD player, and ultimely ban electric power from everywhere on campus, since they could possibly use electricy to copy a tape with a boombox or operate an electric guitar.

At least the english, math and history professors would be happy with #2, since calculators would be banned and people would have to be forced to write their thesis's on parchment. Of course, Victrolas would have to be banned too, but it's hard finding a wind up one these days. Maybe they'll come back in vogue.

Re:The Amish Method.

[MulluskO]

#2 isn't such a bad idea.

I worked at a tech for a residential network at a large university. Let the students contract with private providers, some of the students were doing this anyway after the guys in charge of the connection implemented a hare-brained QoS scheme. The cost per student may actually go down, liability is erased, and the students get better service.

Re:The Amish Method.

[Deathlizard]

it doesn't matter. Have a computer lab in the college? well that can be used to download music or burn CD's or even make an MP3 file using the sound card's line in jack. you better have that policy in place to spy / restrict that lab to only authorized personnel. Of course I guess you can disable the Internet and sound card and CDROM's and USB ports so that it's basicially a dumb terminal, or use DOS 6.22 (Can't use Windows. Sound recorder is there and it makes it easy to pirate. Maybe Windows 386 would work.)

And remember. They can pirate with that Stereo in their room. So once they do pirate the music using their liability free network connection, they can burn it to CD and play it in their stereos and BAM! Everyone in that Dorm that heard it is a pirate! You better have a policy to arrest that guy, since he used your power grid to broadcast his pirate booty to the entire dorm. Maybe fine the entire dorm since someone may hum or whistle it down the hall.

Re:The Amish Method.

[cdrguru]

It's not the individual "I'm not gonna pay" pirate that is the problem. It is the "I'm going to give this to the planet" pirate that ensures there is no value to recorded music.

The sooner everyone is participating in the "buy one, share with the planet" strategy and coordinating media purchases to ensure one and only one copy is sold, then we will finally be free of advertising, promotion and the RIAA.

Pity about all the jobs, but they are all just leeches anyway, right?

Re:The Amish Method.

[Mr. Bad Example]

> The Amish Method

Worst Robert Ludlum novel ever.

Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag

[Lunarsight]

This is yet another reason to boycott the RIAA. I heard that music industry album sales took a real dive last year. Let's assist them going down even further for 2008.

As far as the MPAA goes, perhaps they also need to be reminded what happens when they bite the hand that feeds them. (Of course, if the writer's strike lasts long enough, it will leave them very economically vulnerable. What better time to boycott the bastards?)

I agree with this...

[sean22190]

Messing with college kids always goes over well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War

Re:I agree with this...

[mouko]

Being a college kid, I can safely say that most of my peers will have no idea about this bill until after it has been passed and the DRM tools are in place.

Re:I agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

i hope so. and i hope if you're a music thief that you get beat down by the man and made to pay for it.
 
you have no right to take this material for free. pay for it, jerkoff, or don't listen to it at all.

Re:I agree with this...

[stuff and such]

seconded, although I don't know about making the assumption that my peers will ever realized what's going on. When I try to explain what DRM is to most people, I just get a blank stare.

So, don't take federal funds.

[jcr]

This is a constant problem with life on the government teat. It makes you subject to the control of the government, whether or not the subject at hand is within their constitutional powers to regulate.

-jcr

Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag

[radarjd]

This is just another act of the **AAs wanting to bludgeon people over the head for their own profits, and whether we give them what they want or not their response will just be to want more bludgeoning.

The simple solution is simply not to consume what they produce. If nobody buys / downloads / watches what they output, they will go away.

Re:{sigh} the start of the $0.03 dollar text

[Anonymous Coward]

Title says it all. Plenty of places in education where savings can be made.

Student unions would probably take the lead.

The Universities Answer;

[paiute]

Anyone employed by the RIAA has his or her degree(s) annulled. Let's see how many lawsuits are accepted by the courts from a bunch of laypersons with only high school diplomas.

Re:The Universities Answer;

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod informative! It's a bloody good idea!

Re:The Universities Answer;

[proselyte_heretic]

Not quite authoritarian enough. The universities license and copyright their degrees, and in order to apply to a job, you have to ask the university to grant you authorization to copy your degree and send it to your prospective employer. Obviously if it is the RIAA, this permission is not granted.

Re:It's easy to be against - solution?

[Depris]

well it's not all they do heh ... but in terms of using the computer thats what they do... kids today are really dumb... they might be using their computer to write something... but most of the time it's movies and music. People always seem to point to free art... and claim the "beethoven" model works. Okay friend.. it's not the middle ages... it's the 21st century... that model "doesn't work" anymore. I saw a free song called "poop in the pool". ... I have no interest in that. I do have a lot of interest in "good music" like Pink Floyd. One of them is free ... the other one is not.

Since When Is This Our Problem?

[Comatose51]

Using the Federal government's power to force universities into compliance with **AA demands is the equivalent of using our collective resources to help/save a company/industry's problems. If we extend the **AA's analogy and reasoning, we might as well go around the world attacking countries that compete with us commercially. GM losing market shares to Toyota? Bomb Japan! Oracle losing to SAP? Bomb Germany! Windows losing to Linux and OSS? Assassinate Linus and arrest Stallman!

Copyright violations is a problem that affects a group of companies and an industry. Why should we be forced to collectively pay for their outdated business model/practices? How does this benefit the rest of us? If you don't think we'll end up paying for this, imagine what happens when universities don't get their Federal funding and our students don't get their education. Higher education is an absolute necessity for a productive country.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[commodoresloat]

If we extend the **AA's analogy and reasoning, we might as well go around the world attacking countries that compete with us commercially. Shhhhh!! They can hear you.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I've noticed this a lot lately, any government agency, lobbyist group, or any group that is supposed to be fighting crime views every single person in the world as criminals.

Countries actually do take actions against countries like that if a local industry is threatened. They impose trade tariffs to balance out the difference, so as to encourage back the local industry and help the economy. However, it's been shown time and again that free trade works even better. As for Linus and Stallman, that would be illegal.

Copyright violations is a problem that affects a group of companies and an industry.

It primarily affects a group of corporations and all the commercial indie artists out there, which then affects their customers, which covers an overwhelming majority of people. Plus, like with the foreign competition, the economic benefits of preventing the self-destruction of a profitable local industry affect everyone through quality of life benefits.

Why should we be forced to collectively pay for their outdated business model/practices?

Hopefully, if there's any need to use this proposed law, funding cuts will make up for money spent on enforcement.

I also have never been satisfactorily explained why the model is outdated. The model is created on copyright law, which is still very current. Copyright law was created to avert the inevitable cultural disaster that came with increased copying and communication potential. The need for copyright law has significantly grown with the internet and P2P. If anything, copyright law and the business model based upon it are less outdated than ever.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[QuantumG]

I also have never been satisfactorily explained why the model is outdated. The model is created on copyright law, which is still very current. Copyright law was created to avert the inevitable cultural disaster that came with increased copying and communication potential. The need for copyright law has significantly grown with the internet and P2P. If anything, copyright law and the business model based upon it are less outdated than ever. Living up to your nick I see.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[Wildclaw]

Copyright law was created as replacement for the monopoly that distributors had on printing and distributing information. Distributors, not wanting to lose their monopoly completly, managed to negotiate a law where they got the monopoly on a single work.

Protecting the rights of artists was the original excuse that distributors had for implementing the law, and it may even have been a good excuse in its time. It even made itself into the US constitution in a slightly edited form. Although to the US forefathers credit, they did actually only give the congress a right to limit distribution, and not a responsibility.

Why is copyright law bad? One reason, is that leads to privacy invasion since you have to monitor all communication of private citizens to make sure that they aren't sending copyright information. The swedish pirate party is focusing quite strongly on this particular issue since it has few good counter arguments and is pretty obvious.

There are also economical issues regarding inefficencym as copyright is a limitation on the free market of distribution. The difference in cost between making a song availible to one million or a hundred million people is minimal, yet with a copyright system the cost difference remains large.

There are other issues also, such as new business models that copyright laws prevent.

Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the pirate party did a presentation at google about some of what I said above, that was filmed. It is availible at the link below

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2541736281918823479

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

One reason, is that leads to privacy invasion since you have to monitor all communication of private citizens to make sure that they aren't sending copyright information.

That's not true. We don't need total surveillance to monitor You can selectively monitor piracy hotspots, like P2P networks, or illegal websites (think a US version of allofmp3.com, or something akin to that). If people want privacy, it would encourage them to find a network that successfully discourages piracy, or just to stop using the P2P networks altogether if they are inevitably abused. I'm sorry, but the right for all of us to have our culture trumps the potential for slight privacy invasion of select individuals on select networks. If that's still too much though, you can always make copyright infringement a criminal issue, hand all enforcement over to the government, and make them get a warrant before monitoring suspected pirates.

There are also economical issues regarding inefficencym as copyright is a limitation on the free market of distribution.

Yes, that's the point of copyright, but that doesn't make it a problem.

There are other issues also, such as new business models that copyright laws prevent.

Like what? Any artist may release their works directly into the the public domain, as if copyright never existed. Copyright provides all the same options, but more, which enables all the same distribution methods, but more.

Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the pirate party did a presentation at google about some of what I said above, that was filmed.

Ah yes, a man of extremes and absolutes. He can't quite seem to distinguish between the entertainment industry and copyright, nor can he distinguish between the appropriate monitoring of illegal activity and total surveillance. He's the kind of guy who deserves to live in a society of total surveillance just so he can get some perspective about what he's protesting about. He's the kind of guy who thinks corporate copyright holders care more about killing freedom than they do about increasing profit margins (they're corporations, not villains out of a B-grade novel). He's the kind of guy who likes to dictate to the rest of the world to do what he wants, and gloss over the consequences of doing so. As you can probably see, I have little respect for the guy.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[aussie_a]

When you don't pirate music you have 2 choices:
* Going with the people that provide what you with legal DRM-free music (sometimes dollars free as well)
* Going with the DRM-encumbered music that comes at a dollar price.

If DRM and free music isn't that important to you, you should pay for what you want. Otherwise support those that give you want you want you jackass.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[thogard]

The best thing that could happen to most state universities would be for them and the nearby states to all lose their federal funding at the same time. There would be a year or two of real pain for some students and some professors and loads of pain for most of the administration but the resulting downsizing and refocussing on funding sources outside of the fed would result in better education and a far better deal for the students.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[Comatose51]

Huh???

You really lost me there. I don't even see how our two posts are connected. I'm arguing against the use of the Federal government and funding for higher education to deal with a problem that really impacts one group of companies. I'm neither arguing for the elimination of copyrights nor supporting piracy. If the **AAs have a problem with piracy, then they should go and sue the pirate. We have courts for that reason and copyright infringement is something that is commonly dealt with in the courts. I don't see a reason for the **AAs to get special aid from our Federal government. More importantly, I don't see the need to sacrifice our collective good for their sake.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[gordo3000]

do you actually believe that Universities won't get their funding? what imagination land are you living in. you are actually implying that school won't capitulate. it turns out, when you talk to administrators, they don't give a flying f*** if their students want to download music and would prefer they don't because it costs them real bandwidth. Most schools will happily oblige after lobbying congress to say they will gladly comply with this law as long as the MPAA and RIAA can provide them with said software to police their networks(and of course, extra funding for the computational power required + a bit more).

everyone seems to think this doom and gloom scenario of universities holding out for the little guy, protecting our rights to pirate music and keeping things in a civil court of law, but that just doesn't happen. your desire to listen to britney spears ranks about 1000th on the list of a regular administrator, right above whether to use sporks or spoons and forks in the cafeteria.

Now, why do they not care a lick about this? because their job is to actually give people an education, not an internet connection.

Re:Since When Is This Our Problem?

[aussie_a]

Y'know, I don't think I meant to reply to your post. Sorry! I stand by my points, but they seem fairly non-related to your post.

Proper Outlets

[kemushi88]

Every time something like this happens, I send $20 to the EFF. If you are equally outraged, I would encourage you to do the same.

Re:Proper Outlets

[zsau]

Leaked email:

To: Mitch Bainwall <chairman-at-riaa.com>; Dan Glickmann <president-at-mpaa.org>
From: president-at-eff.org
Subject: Thanks again!

Thankyou RIAA & MPAA, keep up the good work. Every time you make one of these moves, we get a little extra money.

Re:Proper Outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a billionaire to be able to keep doing that.

Re:Proper Outlets

[SecurityGuy]

Last time I got outraged by something like this I sent $100. Coincidentally, I'm wearing the T-shirt they sent me in return right now.

I don't generally get worked up about the music issue because I believe there IS a lot of copyright infringement. I get worked up by the claim, quickly retracted, that ripping your own CDs for your own use is illegal or otherwise wrong. I appreciated the EFF pointing out that the "making available" argument holds water as well as a bucket with no bottom, though. Busting people for breaking the law is one thing. Imagining extensions to the law to bust people who might have, but for which there is no evidence, is quite another. I should send another check for making sure that RIAA remembers that law is what's on the books, not what they'd like on the books.

Anywho, lawyers are expensive. Lawyers with a conscience who fight this on your behalf are paying a ton in opportunity cost. Get out the checkbook and tell them what they're doing is worth something to you.

Re:Proper Outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, your wallet and bank account must be completely tapped out. (This kind of shit happens a lot).

Re:Proper Outlets

[Wazukkithemaster]

Surely you've run out of money by now...

Re:Proper Outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

I just skip the whole "donating money" thing and just say I did so others on Slashdot will follow my lead.

It's worth way more than $20 to the EFF. Exponents and shit.

no illegal activity

[fermion]

Why limit this to filesharing? The only reason that this causes a problem is because it discriminates against other equally vicious crimes. Let's just put a general clause in the student loan and other funding bills that requires colleges to remove funding if colleges do not go to all measures to prevent the illegal activities of the students.

For instance, no one under 21 is supposed to drink. Most students at colleges are under 21, so clearly colleges should do more to make sure that alcohol is not available to the majority of the students.

I would also certainly think the software distributors would want the same protections, and representatives like the BSA has a zero tolerance policy. If one piece of pirated software is found on one computer on the campus, revoke all the funding.

i also know from pretty good sources that our college campuses are swarming with stolen calculators. Underage kids steal them, and then sell to college kids for half price. It is hard to prosecute the college kids for receiving stolen property, btu easy enough to revoke funding if the school does not put into place a program to teach the kids that stealing is wrong. Because, obviously, the problem is not that the temptation of cheap calcultors, but that they students were never taught right from wrong.

Re:no illegal activity

[XaXXon]

And drinking underage is actually a CRIMINAL activity. Why don't we get the criminal activities under control first (not that I think underage drinking is a serious issue) before we start worrying about civil offenses by cutting off access to higher education?

Or we could just deal with the individuals responsible for breaking the law on an individual basis. What a concept.

Re:no illegal activity

[rts008]

You forgot the most important one: *over the top knee-jerk sarcasm=ON*

Colleges should execute the students that get traffic violations, dismember those that get parking tickets, and waterboarding and then multiple electroshocks to the genitalia of any student caught plagiarizing. Add in that any student caught with a cigar or cigarillo MUST be attempting to roll a blunt with that heinous marihuana(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness), and condemn them to at least 3 consecutive life sentences (without parole) at hard labor in prison after being excommunicated.

We can't leave anything to chance here.
This list of poking at why it's wrong could grow to tiresome levels, so I will quit here at 'just long-winded'.

I can't do the subtle tongue-in-cheek as well as you did [I'm one of those 'jerk their scrotum up behind their ears, then tie it in a proper square knot' kinda guy ;) ], but for what it's worth I agree with you about the absolute absurdity of this whole concept.

I hope this is shot down, chopped up, burned, and buried. But the way stupid crap like this gets implemented, I'm not going to hold my breath instead of snail-mailing and e-mailing my representatives and senators...even so....*sigh*

Re:no illegal activity

[lachlan76]

The idea that a government should be able to deny access to social services to any citizen/permanent resident is ridiculous. Education is something that should be encouraged, and not denied to anyone.

I am from Australia---we've had a system of government-funded university tuition for many years, though, in the last 20 years or so, students have been required to pay a contribution (loaned by the government, and repaid through the tax system). An engineering degree currently costs the student AU$7118/year, for instance. This is available to all citizens, permanent residents, and New Zealand citizens, among others (though non-citizens must pay their contribution up-front). Disqualifying any citizen (see Wikipedia for more information) would be a rather unpopular move.

What does one have to do to be disqualified from receiving funding in the US? I have heard that a criminal record was sufficient, but I have trouble believing that.

Who makes money here?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe them?

Re:Who makes money here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for the free advertisement, we're getting thousands of hits from this page. I'm sure you'll find our products excellent.

Regards,

Richard McEnroe
CIO REDLAMBDA INTERNAZIONAL

Re:It's easy to be against - solution?

[bigstrat2003]

First of all... paragraphs, dude. o.O

Second of all, no one is necessarily opposed to cracking down on piracy, we're opposed to the bullshit "you must offer an alternative" clause. Why don't we have all businesses making doing business with them mandatory while we're at it?

"It all comes back as blowback."

[doyoulikeworms]

And believe me it will. You've raised a generation to fear and hate you. Good luck winning them back when they're in power.

Re:"It all comes back as blowback."

[dmadzak]

You are so funny. They will just buy off the next generation of politicians. You think we are the first generation that wanted to change how things are done. Look at the Baby Boomers they were so right and were going to show the old folk how to make the world a better place. All they did was screw it up more.

University Money

[Anonymous Coward]

What they (MPAA & RIAA) want is money from tax payers. The university must subscribe to a solution for all students whether said student uses it or not. Plus filter and turn over to them the traffic records for all student based connections. They don't care about the 98% who they will hurt if funding gets cut.

write or call you representative and tell them what a crock this is.

Not a bad idea?"

[zotz]

"(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

Here is the beginnings of one such plan...

2.a. When it comes to music, music that does not have a Free License is not allowed on the campus networks. Net even legally purchased music if it doesn't have a Free License.

2.b. The University has set up a server at freemusic.university.edu where we host music with licenses as described in 2.a.

all the best,

drew

Re:Not a bad idea?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree with you Drew.

I am disgusted with the perversion of fair use I see in our universities.
These kids are our future but also low grade common criminals who need re-education when it comes to theft of music.

These location are rampant with illegal non fair use exchange of music content, I would dare say no fair use happens.
What society expects of persons should be explained to these miscreants, pay your taxes, get a job, don't steal ANYTHING. Don't harm those you can't see. Its NOT ok to sanction or rationalize this kind of awful thieving behavior. Students DO need educating on the subject and they DO need alternatives to crime.

The rest of the posts in the thread appear to come from thoes who want to call evil good.
Cal evil evil boys while your waking up and smelling the coffee
Geesh

Re:Not a bad idea?"

[Dunbal]

Here is the beginnings of one such plan...

2.a A single, purchased copy (at educational discount prices) of all copyrighted works (music and movies) shall be placed in the university library. Additional federal funding will be required to purchase these works, however such funds could be covered by an additional tax on the record labels.

2.b Students will have 24hr online streaming access to the university library, so long as they play/view one work at a time.

      After all, turnabout is fair play.

Re:Not a bad idea?"

[skeeto]

When it comes to music, music that does not have a Free License is not allowed on the campus networks.

Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot of music with a free (as in speech) license out there. The only thing that comes to mind is something like the Nexiuz (or other free software) soundtrack.

Most of the "free" music out there comes under the not-so-free Creative Commons non-commercial license. It is semi-free.

Re:Not a bad idea?"

[zotz]

"Most of the "free" music out there comes under the not-so-free Creative Commons non-commercial license. It is semi-free."

Although there might be more than we think. For instance:

http://ccmixter.org/media/tags/attribution
http://ccmixter.org/media/playlist/browse/44

Indeed. So...

2.c. We will seek additional Federal Funding to assist in funding the creation of such Free Licensed music.

How much more of the alphabet will we need?

all the best,

drew

Re:Not a bad idea?"

[zotz]

2.b Students will have 24hr online streaming access to the university library, so long as they play/view one work at a time.

Should this not be:

2.b Students will have 24hr online streaming access to the university library, so long as a particular legit copy of a particular work is only played/viewed by one person at a time.

all the best,

drew

Special Place

[Twitchie]

Well, that makes me about sick. "Let's sacrifice the education of our youth and the future of the nation by cutting funding to ensure Hollywood makes an extra few dollars." I guess when universities have to reduce programs and students begin getting denies admission, we will be able to more easily secure the "dumbest nation on earth" status. But hey, at least the movie and music industries will get their money. How bright do you have to be to sit in a meeting and say "We can't find anyone smart enough to invent a technology to control this. Well, let's go ahead and stifle education. Maybe increasing the ignorance in a population will create a genius to write the software we need." The more people that complete college = more people with good jobs = less people that feel the need to use p2p for music and movies. Apparently these lawyers are from the future where the education system was butchered. They're obviously products of such a system. Wonder which country we stole the time-travel tech from because we sure as hell didn't invent it. There's going to be a special place for folks someday.

Re:It's easy to be against - solution?

[celle]

"but giving everyone the ability to just log on to a p2p program and download whatever they want instead of buying it will lead to a bankrupt industry for music and movies."

Wow, freedom of choice, that's new. And they're already bankrupt. Wouldn't it be great if it were in dollars too? Then we'd be rid of these distractions that waste our physical and financial lives.

"I don't know about you but most of my favorite movies weren't made in someones garage with a new mac. It's nice when people do that... but no I don't want to see professional art disappear in favor of someones amateur attempts."

Everyone was an amateur once. Amateurs existed before there was an industry and they will after it is gone. Professional art, the tastes of the arrogant running roughshod over the tastes of everyone else.

At some point, we're going to have to shoot them..

[tjstork]

I mean, the whole country is locked in the hands of an investment class that frowns upon any enterprise that even smacks of productivity. They would rather rake the poor over the coals with high interest just because it has a higher return. They seek to restrict and restrain any trade that offers meaningful competition. They seek to make the people believe that their subjugation is moral, and they seek to use cultural preferences to divide the nation and hide any real agenda.

Show me the candidate that wants to ban credit cards, reduce the terms of patents, or do any structural thing designed to break up the current moneyed class. There isn't one. There's no political party seeking to benefit the American people, merely, a set of dueling soulless juggernaughts, jousting, half drunk with power, over whose lords will crush the masses the most.

I'm sorry, but this is an all-time grammatical low

[siglercm]

I'm afraid (of losing karma because) I'm the one to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Quotes from this article as posted at this moment:

"These new provision"
"institutions of higher learn"
"We've previous discussed"

(At least) Three gross errors in one posted article. And to think that this is about federal funding for public colleges and universities. I humbly submit we need more.

There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

If you don't mind my asking.. how much do you currently pay to send your children (assuming you have them) to school?

Seriously, I'm interested.. a ballpark figure is fine, i don't expect you to divulge your yearly earnings for everyone to see.. I mean, sure if you feel like boasting..

Point is.. You and I (and most people on this site, i imagine) earn more than the average person. Hell, I earn more than the average American, and i do it in a foreign currency with a lower value. For you and I, picking a school for our kids is a matter of choice. But we're relatively big fish... what about all those people who can't afford private schooling? Don't their kids deserve to be (at least potentially) useful, educated and productive members of society? I mean, there's only one alternative to that, and it's being a constant drain on welfare... Frankly, i'd rather have a bunch of rich people complaining about paying taxes so that poor kids can get educated than a bunch of rich people complaining because they were repeatedly mobbed by beggars just outside their door.

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[jcr]

Don't their kids deserve to be (at least potentially) useful, educated and productive members of society?

Sure they do, and that's why it's crucial to get schooling out of the hands of the government. What poor kids get now is (at best) incompetent baby-sitting.

-jcr

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

I don't disagree with that, actually.. It's just that i see the alternative as being even worse..

I mean, if the government isn't funding schools, who is?
The states? Big Business? with one i don't see any difference, while the other is 10 times worse than Federal funding, and i'm sure you agree.

I'm curious.. what's your answer to this? Or am i missing something?

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Demogoblin]

My father is a letter carrier, didn't go to college, and doesn't make much money. He did, however, work hard and maintained a good credit rating. I go to a private university, mostly covered by loans in both mine and my father's name, with the understanding that I take over those loans when I graduate because I should have the ability to pay for them.

Just because someone doesn't make that much money doesn't mean they can't afford private schooling. It's all about making smart choices and taking personal responsibility.

If you want a better investment, I'd say take those tax dollars for public schools (or any donation money) and give them to private school's endowments. That would make private education very cheap, and keep it out of the hands of the government. They have enough to worry about.

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Demogoblin]

Alumni of said institutes. Look at Olin College. 100% completely free education on the assumption that their alumni will donate back to keep an endowment large enough to maintain the school.

Most of what a school generates in donations is from alumni of the school. Those large donations that earn a building name are usually from friends of trustees, deans, or other officers of the school, and are rare (relative to smaller donations).

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

Ok, I agree up to a certain point... i'm just not sure your point addresses all my concerns..

You are, by your own admission, a smart and personally responsible individual, right? Your dad worked hard to get you to college, and you obviously value it and are making the most of it.. That's good to see, as a lot of kids aren't these days.

However.. i'm not talking about college.. I'm talking about education. If your dad had been forced to pay your full tuition in grade school, middle school and high school, would you now be going to college? I gotta say, i think it's less likely.

Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong here.. i'm finding this whole debate really interesting..

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

That's good for some institutions. Not all can or will survive like that.. You'd have to rely on the loyalty of individuals with divergent ideals, although i guess the quality of the institution would have to speak for itself in order to maintain funds over a long period of time.. It's a good example, but i just can't see it being the rule.. I see the necessity for constant good performance as a detrimental property, since no school can reasonably guarantee the success of it's students, regardless of the quality of the education. It's (at least currently) an exception.

Also, starting a new institution would be near impossible without some backing.. in that case, you'd end up with either the government or a private enterprise in control.. I believe these (for the purposes of this debate) are the things we're trying to avoid, right?

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Demogoblin]

First of all, I never claimed to be a smart individual ;] In 1821, 93% of New York children were attending private schools (E.G. West, "The Political Economy of American Public School Legislation," Journal of Law and Economics, 1967, pg127). There was a fear that because of all of these schools were Catholic, it could potentially force Protestants to convert to Catholicism. The solution was a sort of "voucher" system (sound familiar) in which the states provided per pupil subsidies for Protestant schools. The Free Schools Act of 1867 then nationalized these Protestant schools, creating the public school system of today. The state then essentially ran a price war to gain a majority, which is why public high school students tend to be wealthy. Public education has taken an overwhelming majority in the pre-university levels. Private institutions of higher learning are all we have left before the government controls a frightening majority of our ENTIRE educational system. This may not turn out to be a bad thing, BUT the fact that the government could POTENTIALLY start "brainwashing" our citizens through the educational system is enough to turn me off of the idea.

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[milsoRgen]

Point is.. You and I (and most people on this site, i imagine) earn more than the average person.

Must be nice to elevate yourself and the group to such a status. I can assure sir there are those of us that do not harbor such fanciful thoughts about our incomes and those of our peers. I'm sure there might be financial factors at work that cause a lot of people that visit this site choose Linux or pirated copies of Windows...

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[MacDork]

Frankly, i'd rather have a bunch of rich people complaining about paying taxes so that poor kids can get educated than a bunch of rich people complaining because they were repeatedly mobbed by beggars just outside their door.

Who says you can't have both? A college education is a pretty worthless piece of paper these days.

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

haha.. yes, i guess reality does like to rain on the ideological parade..

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

Yeah, honestly.. It is nice, since i had a public education, paid my own way through university and, yes, used to be one of those people.. the ones who liked linux for financial factors, that is.

Now i just have to make sure i do enough charitable work that i'm not crushed under the weight of my own nouveau riche guilt. :/

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

Heh.. I reserve the right to come to my own conclusions, although i admit that you never explicitly claimed to be smart :P

The history lesson is good, it's really interesting to know.. But i have to say that I'm not sure the Catholic Church is a better handler than the US Government, especially if you're worried about brainwashing. At least the government is likely to change hands every decade or so..

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[zoewith2dots]

Private school around San Francisco costs around $24,000/year. Private college is around $45,000/year, including room and board.

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Stray7Xi]

Schools should be funded by state and local funds. If that means they have to raise their taxes that's fine. But the federal government has way to much money that they can put strangleholds on everything by denying funds. It allows them to pass laws that would be unconstitutional to require just because they instead make the the requirements "optional" for states but tied to funds that are required.

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Dun Malg]

If your dad had been forced to pay your full tuition in grade school, middle school and high school, would you now be going to college? I gotta say, i think it's less likely. One of my coworkers has six kids. Two are in college, and the other four are in private K-12 school. We make only slightly more than letter carriers. Yes, private K-12 education can be done without taking out loans. You gotta eat a lot of peanut butter sandwiches, but it can be done.

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[jcr]

I mean, if the government isn't funding schools, who is?

Well, to be precise, the people fund the schools, not the government. The only means at the government's disposal are those taken by force from you and me.

So, we already pay for the schools, and we should do so far more directly than we do now. There's no constitutional authority for the federal government to have any role in education at all.

-jcr

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

Indeed. My assumption from the beginning was that any money the government has must by necessity be taken from the people (in the form of tax dollars, etc..)..

I accept what you're saying, the altruistic approach is a good one.. i just feel that, in practice, it's almost impossible to guarantee that from any large segment of the population, except maybe with a tax deduction attached.. and i doubt the government would be too keen on that, even though they'd no longer have to fund those pesky schools..

on the other hand, education as a charity doesn't seem that bad.. though that approach has it's own caveats.

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

Wow, that's impressive.. unfortunately, (for me, at least..) that's part of the problem.. The fact that this is an impressive effort still makes me dubious about the viability for everyone. My interest is in finding a method that's flexible enough for everyone, yet robust enough that real education can take place, free of economic or ideological blackmail.

Of course, i freely admit that the fact that i was publicly schooled is making me more cynical of wholly private schools, despite the fact that i was somewhat unsatisfied with my early education..

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

yeah, that's just newspeak.. it'd be great if 'unconditional and optional' didn't mean 'but you won't get funding if you don't do as we say..'

really, politicians really, really should be held accountable by their constituents for speaking like that..

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[jcr]

I accept what you're saying, the altruistic approach is a good one

You misunderstand me if you think that I'm advocating altruism. Supporting quality education is a fundamentally selfish endeavor, because it improves my community. Altruism is a fiction promulgated by those who seek the power to tell other people what to do.

jcr

Re:There's no such things as free money.

[Gideon Fubar]

Yeah, i think we're saying the same thing with different words here.. to my mind, using your resources to improve your community is altruism, regardless of the motive.

Perhaps that negates the 'selflessness' requirement of altruism? could be, but i'm certainly willing to lose that part of the argument.

either way, i agree with your reasoning here.. I'll have long term selfishness that benefits everyone over slash & burn that benefits few any day of the week.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[LinuxIsRetarded]

Show me the candidate that wants to ban credit cards, reduce the terms of patents, or do any structural thing designed to break up the current moneyed class. There isn't one. There's no political party seeking to benefit the American people, merely, a set of dueling soulless juggernaughts, jousting, half drunk with power, over whose lords will crush the masses the most.

I'll see you in the bread line, comrade!

How does this work?

[webmaster404]

Even if Downloading == Stealing like the RIAA wants you to believe, does the federal government cut off funds to schools with a high rate of crime? What if a group of students steal from a store does that warrant federal funds to be cut off? What about underage drinking and illegal drugs being used? I don't see how the RIAA convinces people that unauthorized downloading is a capital crime, if we don't do it for stealing or substance use, why do it for downloading. If only congress had a mind that could think for itself....

Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag

[Vombatus]

The simple solution is simply not to consume what they produce. If nobody buys / downloads / watches what they output, they will go away.

Not true.

If no one is buying their product, they will claim that it is due to the illegal copying of their product - proving that they need more stringent laws.

Ad infinitum.

Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag

[webmaster404]

No that won't work, any loss in sales is always, always the "pirates" fault. Same thing with how poorly Vista has been doing, its piracy not that no one likes the songs/software you have, its always the "pirates" how dare they try to break our monopoly!!!

Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag

[ATMAvatar]

If no one is buying their product, they will claim that it is due to the illegal copying of their product - proving that they need more stringent laws.

That may be true, but in the absence of federal subsidies, they will still go away.

Businesses cannot survive without money. It may certainly take quite some time before they finally keel over, but if people stop buying their products, RIAA/MPAA member companies will eventually die off.

Higher Learn (come on, EDITors)

[ill stew dottied ewe]

As a student at an "institution of higher learn" (guess which one) I have experienced these attempts to control filesharing. There was a point where internet connections were being turned off due to high traffic, assuming 4GB over bittorrent was always "evil." I am a CS student, and I have several distros on my computer. I heard about this just in time to stop sharing them, as I can't afford to lose my connection to the internet or the internal Unix machines (our programs must run on them). They have backed off, and claim that only illegal filesharing will be punished, but I don't trust them, they have failed too many times. It is not the place of the internet provider, be they a university or a business, to filter and decide what bits are evil. They will, without fail, punish the innocent.

Fine, but add another provision

[Reality Master 201]

Any company that sues a anyone for copyright infringement activity and doesn't actually have a good case should have all of their copyrights revoked, with all intellectual property reverting either to the original authors, or to the public domain if held for a period longer than 15 years.

Re:Fine, but add another provision

[freedom_india]

ALL would be too much.
That specific copyright should revert to the People (the Government).
Secondly, there should be no knowingly or unknowingly clause at all.
If i sued you for a copyright violation and the court decides i was wrong, my copyright goes to the government.
No if, no buts...
Period.

Let us see how many take-down notices do these lawyers print.

Re:Fine, but add another provision

[Reality Master 201]

No, all is not too much. Corporations using the machinery of government and law to force universities into helping them punish people for intellectual property violations is already a bad idea. If it's permitted, the consequence of careless litigation by the recording industries should be fatal to the company. It's like the death penalty, but for imaginary people that get all the benefits of our government and its services, but without many of the responsibilities and risks.

Strange but true

[buss_error]

Something that's pretty strange, and while I'm not licenced to practice law in any state of the Unided States, I don't see where it's illegal to OBTAIN unlicenced intellectual property, only to PROVIDE it. On the other hand, receiving stolen goods IS a crime.

How I see it is that RIAA and MPAA are failing to provide their content in a way that is easy, free of silly encumbrances, and are guilty of product tying. In other words, their bleetings are a product of their outmoded and protectionist practices, not because they actually add any value.

Put another way, if RIAA and MPAA are allowed to seek injunctions against receiving their products in a way they don't approve, I'd like to seek injunctions against every power company that provides electricity because it cuts into my profits in selling whale oil and whale oil lamps. Out moded business models should die because of market pressure, not thrive due to political contributions, rigged laws, or "The Disney Copyright Protection Act".

That said, Intellictual property is property, and depriving those that own it of legitimate compensation is theft. There are many inequities in movies, even more in music. But one cannot legitimately usurp agreed contracts of the creators of that IP, no matter how unfair it is to the creators. They agreed to it, after all.

I do not have any .ogg (a better MP3) songs that I do not own the CD. I've never downloaded anything that I did not purchase an origianal licenced copy of if it is covered under triditional copyright. That that create a work I apprecite deserve to be conpensated for their effort under the terms they make their work available.

If you don't like the people or the circumstances the work is made available under, the simple solution is to avoid the work. Don't buy it. Don't download it. Don't view it, and don't support them in any way. This is why I've not see a Sony move, bought a Sony CD, or purchsed a PC with Sony chips that I could avoid. (Not always possible, but you can TRY.)

For the same reason, I do not own Blue-Ray. I have HD-DVD. I may have to go to Blue-Ray as it displaces HD-DVD, but I'll only go there once HD-DVD is a thing of the past.

Re:Strange but true

[cdrguru]

Unfortunately, the RIAA/MPAA are in the position you acknowledge of content owner. They own the copyrights or at least have the ability to seek enforcement of infringement. The current crop of people railing against copyrights and the lawsuits are not in a position to dictate how the RIAA/MPAA products are to be sold.

If nobody wanted their products and they were buying government support for their business, that would be different. But obviously there is a market for music the RIAA is empowered to seek enforcement for infringement. That some people believe there is no reason for an "offline" marketplace and only desire an "online" marketplace is no reason to claim that the "offline" marketplace is outmoded and should be abolished.

Piracy is an established fact. Nobody I know is willing to pay for music any longer because it is available for free. As long as the "providers" are outside the jusidiction of the US copyright laws, there is no stopping the providing. Should the content owners make it even easier to upload their products to the non-paying part of the planet? I suppose the argument exists that it doesn't make any difference.

But currently the universities are teaching Internet == Free. Software, music, movies, books, anything in digital form on the Internet is free.

Re:Strange but true

[Dun Malg]

I don't see where it's illegal to OBTAIN unlicenced intellectual property, only to PROVIDE it. On the other hand, receiving stolen goods IS a crime. Copyright infringement is not theft. There are no goods involved, stolen or otherwise. That second sentence should read:
On a completely unrelated and irrelevant tangent, receiving stolen goods is a crime.

No, it's still bad

[LandruBek]

This is still bad.

First I notice that "alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution" is ambiguous. If it said "illegal peer-to-peer distribution," I think it would be clearer. Arguably the statue as written slouches towards a blanket ban on peer to peer networking.

Second, "develop a plan" implies spending time, money, etc. for that development. Engineering is expensive. This is a waste of universities' resources. Students pay good money for tuition, not for engineering systems that offer them no benefit, but rather solely benefit the RIAA and MPAA. And it is no rebuttal to claim, "they aren't paying; it's federal scholarship money that pays." If a student wins federal scholarship money, that money should be spent to benefit the student, not spent on corporate welfare.

Third, this further turns university campuses into little nanny-societies -- which IMHO is not what universities exist for.

Fourth, this is a slippery slope. Once a plan has been federally mandated, it just takes one more act to command the universities, "Now implement your plans." Even stronger: there is no rational reason to make these plans unless someday they will be implemented. (If they aren't going to be implemented, why spend money developing these plans?) So there is no reason to accept this provision if (like me) you think that actually implementing such "deterrents" is intolerable.

So, it's bad.

Injection

[thefear]

regarding provisions injected into a bill But was it an SQL injection?

Better off without Federal involvement

[Anonymous Coward]

As with most issues, locals could solve their challenges the most efficiently. When the corrupt Government gets involved, dirty politics and bundling enter the game. So ideally, locals pay as they spend and decide for themselves.

What about?

[Derosian]

Jury Nullification, if a panel of juries eventually decides you know what this has gone too far, we should be able to change things...

Re: Buying politicians...

[secretwhistle]

If their numbers continue to collapse, we can always hope for insolvency. That should take them out of the bribery lobbying business.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[ChromeAeonium]

False dichotomy. Just because you don't support the corporatocracy doesn't mean you're a communist.

Damn, beer all over keyboard and monitor...again!

[rts008]

RMS as a senator? Only if he gets to use his katana during senate debates.

Hell, I've been practicing Kendo and Kenjutsu since 1966 (yes I AM that old!), and would gladly give RMS some instruction in the use of the katana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenjutsu and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendo.

Some cool vid's on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-myBW-ubCiU&feature=related,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czmNlnWK-m4&feature=related, and just because this is /., here is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-kIlzLy-Tk&feature=related.

Re:Here is a nvel idea. Stop Stealing!

[freedom_india]

> Did, YOU the downloader create this work?
Truth.

>you threaten the very livelihood of the industry and the artists
Wrong. I threaten the livelihood of RIAA companies like EMI, BMG, SONY etc. The artistes already have lost money from digital sales.
None of the money i pay to iTunes goes to the artist. It is shared between Apple and RIAA company.
So when the real copyright holder gets nothing as a result of a contract which is lopsided, what does he/she have to lose?

If i steal zero dollars from you, does it mean i committed a crime? If you bounce a zero dollar check i wrote, does it mean i committed a crime?

Where does the question of theft arise when the artist himself gets nothing from legal internet sales?

The same question you asked earlier can be redirected to the RIAA itself: Did you [RIAA] create this work of art? Do you[RIAA] pay the artist fairly for the work he/she did?

Two wrongs do not make a right. Agreed.
But you[RIAA] can't point a finger at us when three fingers point back at you.

Re:Here is a nvel idea. Stop Stealing!

[Wazukkithemaster]

Justify theft? Tuition prices at Universities are high enough as it is... I don't need a thief tax added on. Thanks though. I don't even download music... The radio and whatever music happens to randomly be playing in my house (4 Mitbewohners... Housemates?) is more than good enough for me. Access to a service I would literally never use in exchange for my money doesn't seem like a great deal. I honestly don't even want to have a discussion with you about how the law and morality differ. I don't want to challenge you to justify your claims with something resembling an argument... much less premises. Your "use the system" rhetoric just pisses me off. Yeah, I'm sure that if you "play the game" you'll end up on top. Right. That's what college students are told their entire fucking lives. Then when we get done with the obstacle course we see the barren wasteland that awaits us... that people like you, who built "the system" and/or support "the system," left for us. Sorry, but I don't want that... I wont buy into it and I sure as hell am going to do whatever I can to avoid it.

Damn MAFIAA...

[tubapro12]

...how long is going to take them to realize that it is they that must change in order to regain a semblance of a thriving market?

<obfuscate>Besides, Student X, working to obtain Y Education at Z University loses their 50% of the value of their education because the college they were attending can no longer afford to pay Professor A due to piracy by Student B. Thus, Student X, 2 and a half years later, resorts to piracy due his relative impoverishment as he can now not hold a good job due to his utter lack of knowledge which he would have obtained via Professor A.</obfuscate>

We bailed out the airlines, didnt we?

[Cyno01]

n/t

Re:We bailed out the airlines, didnt we?

[Comatose51]

I know but we shouldn't use one bad example to justify another. Interestingly enough, the airlines industry is also one of the least liked industries. We also subsidized AT&T and the telecoms by giving them free access to public land to laid their lines. Noticing a pattern here? Companies that need help from the government don't seem to do well with their customers.

Re:We bailed out the airlines, didnt we?

[hekk]

Subsidizing those industries or companies who choose to lobby the most congress-critters is bad policy. Let the market do it's thang, invisible hand and all that.

Re:We bailed out the airlines, didnt we?

[Cyno01]

Never said it was a good thing, just making a point because the GP post was sounding like this was something new.

Right to Read

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman called it correctly.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:I'm sorry, but this is an all-time grammatical

[paulthomas]

And to think that this is about federal funding for public colleges and universities. I humbly submit we need more. Maybe it's the reason.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[smacNhawaii]

Thank you for your post. In the real (as opposed to virtual) world, I sometimes feel very alone in my opinions.
To think, education takes second place to fostering consumerism. And, really, you have to be stupid to buy their product. It makes an evil sort of sense.

"At Any Cost!"

[erroneus]

This is the present mantra for much of business today.

This notion covers everything that connected to U.S./Big business seems to be failing or suffering lately. We've watched the decline in IT. We're watching the crisis that's slowing the global economy. We're watching the heavy decline in U.S. intellectual power. These and more can all be traced back to unchecked power and influence wielded by big business.

They want their profits and in the short term, it doesn't matter to them what is harmed along the way. (And it doesn't help much that the most commonly accepted metric of success is based on "growth" even during times of saturation when growth is impossible.) The short term profits realized by selling risky home loans has caused a lot of trouble and none of the people responsible for it are being held accountable. The people who continue to outsource IT are placing ridiculous amounts of risk outside of our borders placing just about every kind of risk imaginable outside of our jurisdiction... no one will be held accountable when bad things happen, and some already have if I'm not mistaken. And by further attempting to harm students in college for simply wanting to enjoy music should be clear and easy to see.

They (and by 'they' I mean big business, not just the RIAA or even 'Big Media') would rather we learn our lesson and simply bend to their collective will and behave as good consumers. It's amazing to me that they cannot see the flaw in their intentions, but clearly, they cannot easily see beyond the next fiscal year.

Things have got to change and it needs to start "At Any Cost!"

Not smart to piss off all the college students

[Simonetta]

It's not smart to piss off all the college students. They (eventually) grow into positions of authority. Or, they become the shaper of your legacy by both being the historians of their era and being the writers of the novels and movies about the era.

    For example, take the case of J. Edgar Hoover. Founder and director-for-life of the American Federal police force; the FBI. He basically created his own myth as a brilliant policeman and police manager. In his younger years he destroyed nearly all of the small gangs that overwhelmed the small local and state police forces in the depression years.

    But in his later years, he decided to singlehandedly destroy the Civil Rights movement and the anti-Vietnam-war movement at the same time. He seriously pissed off all the blacks and all the anti-war college students (which was most of them by the early 1970s). Now he is forgotten outside of his agency. He is more known now for being a strident anti-gay gay man who liked cross-dressing and for keeping blackmail records on everybody in Washington than he is for his earlier achievements.

    I strongly doubt that this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't decided to take on all the young people and black people at the end of his career. The moment that he died all the young people that he pissed off and imprisoned started writing books to destroy the myth that he built around himself in the 1940's and 1950's.

    The same will happen with the 20th-century record industry executives. By deciding to take on all the college students they are all but assuring that they will be remembered and written about by these same students as creeps and fools. When the RIAA has fallen (and they eventually will) there will be millions of young people who will go out of their way to ensure that the four or five global media conglomerates are legally broken up into tiny companies and forced to stay that way.

    Personally, if I ran a giant global industry that is in the process of a structural transformation of its business model, I would hesitate to anger and alienate all the college students. They seem weak at the time, but they eventually grow very strong.

    And they have long memories.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you could instead blame the criminal class that has decided that they have a right to obtain the fruits of somebody else's labor without offering anything in return.

(Posted anonymously because of the Slashdot groupthink that thinks that intellectual property is only good when it's used by the GPL.)

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[CodeBuster]

So what are you trying to say, "workers of the world unite" or perhaps, more to the point, "death to the bourgeoisie"? Communism has already been tried and failed in every meaningful instance of national scale. The Chinese are communists now in name only and the other few remaining communist states are ruthless, authoritarian, or both.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[LS]

I'll come visit you at the remedial reading comprehension class, idiot!

Do you know anything about McCarthyism? He basically labeled anyone who opposed his beliefs a communist. If you read the parent's post carefully, you'd see that he actually speaks for productivity, trade, and competition - hardly communist ideals.

Re:Here is a nvel idea. Stop Stealing!

[skeeto]

Well bucko's, I hate to tell you this, you dont! The law makes it quite clear that you DO NOT have any right to do so and in point of fact doing so is a violation of said LAW and in knowingly violating said LAW you damn well deserve whatever happens to you either as a result of a criminal case or civil case brought against you.

Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. For example, in countries that have more unjust laws than the US, such as China, do the journalists who break the law when they make negative reports about the government "deserve whatever happens" to them?

The purpose of copyright is not to make anyone money. It is to expand the public domain for the good of the public. Copyright law is meant to serve the public. The constitution says nothing about artists deserving to make any kind of money. It is all about benefitting the public. Current copyright law actually does the opposite of its original purpose: as copyright gets stretched, works never fall into public domain. It is an unjust law that should be broken. As long as politicians are paid off, this unjust law will only get worse. Because of this, I would even argue that it may even be our duty to break copyright law.

Sharing our own culture is our right. This has been taken away from us.

You can whine and snivel all you want, but the law is the law. You don't like the law? Then form a group, a coalition, raise money to hire the best K's streeters you can afford to lobby congress to get it changed, That is how the system works, use it.

This group is called the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[ChromeAeonium]

I don't think anyone's saying that. The fact is, there is a class of people that tends to take advantage over the poor. Trying to fix those problems does not make one a communist, so put away the McCarthyism.

Despite what some people would have you believe, there's more to the world that just black and white partisan politics; there are middle grounds. You can have a mixed system to promote the general well being and the common good without becoming ruthless or authoritarian, which, coincidentally, is what can happen to capitalist societies if left alone. A good example is the political corruption of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. It wasn't the free market that fixed those problems, is was (the now called) socialist policies, and without those policies, life would generally suck.

Communism doesn't work (at least, it hasn't in the past), but plutocracy ain't too hot either. Think of economic policies like salt. Salt is made up of an explosive metal and a poisonous gas, but without salt, you die. Pure communism and capitalism are very bad things; we need a mixture, and sometimes the mixture needs to be adjusted. If it wasn't for having a mixture, we'd both probably be working in sweatshops right now.

whats goog for the goose should be good for the ga

[shareme]

so should not RIAA and MPAA loose their 'funding' if their members break federal drug laws? Its only damn fair right?

When I read this, I finally realized

[Dr. Hellno]

That Kenya is beating you guys at democracy right now

Re:Here is a nvel idea. Stop Stealing!

[FlyingGuy]

Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. For example, in countries that have more unjust laws than the US, such as China, do the journalists who break the law when they make negative reports about the government "deserve whatever happens" to them?

This is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It is a basis for an argument about a free press and free speech.

The purpose of copyright is not to make anyone money. It is to expand the public domain for the good of the public. Copyright law is meant to serve the public. The constitution says nothing about artists deserving to make any kind of money. It is all about benefiting the public. Current copyright law actually does the opposite of its original purpose: as copyright gets stretched, works never fall into public domain. It is an unjust law that should be broken. As long as politicians are paid off, this unjust law will only get worse. Because of this, I would even argue that it may even be our duty to break copyright law.

Yet another argument based upon some dreamy notion soundly grounded in fantasy. Give this a read over, you might find it contains actual facts as opposed to what you have said.

Sharing our own culture is our right. This has been taken away from us.

You can whine and snivel all you want, but the law is the law. You don't like the law? Then form a group, a coalition, raise money to hire the best K's streeters you can afford to lobby congress to get it changed, That is how the system works, use it.

Great! I suggest you support them with actual MONEY since they have people who actually know something as opposed to you who live in some sort of fantasy land, although I doubt that they will agree with your position since it is utterly and completely without merit or a basic grounded in logic or facts.

This group is called the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. So everyone who's not 100% happy with the current political system - or even the current political candidates - is a communist now?

Sorry, McCarthy, but you're 50 years late, and your arguments still don't make sense.

Give them time ..

[cheros]

.. and Zimbabwe will probably beat them too..

Federal funding is a load of crap

[Lost Engineer]

What business does the *federal* government have funding universities in the first place, much less telling them what to do? I don't recall any United States university (military academies aside).

A related note: maybe the Unis will now learn their lesson about suckling at the federal teat.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[CodeBuster]

so put away the McCarthyism. The GP suggests that "they should be shot" which strongly implies either an anarchist or communist type of outlook.

Without getting into a lengthy debate, let me just say that it was not socialism that brought you the improved living conditions that we have today, but rather sustained economic growth over a long period of time. The difference between the average American lifestyle today and the poor people living in Africa is 238 years of relatively sustained economic growth, sometimes faster and sometimes slower and with the occasional backtracking due to recessions. It WAS the free market that achieved the good things that people generally attribute to unions and socialism. The sweat shop was a necessary transitional phase on the road to economic growth. You enjoy a better life today because your grandparents and their parents had the courage to suck it up and provide a better life for their children and their children's children. They had the ability to look beyond themselves to the future and that is something that is becoming lost in America today.

What is capitalism but freedom? Freedom to buy from and sell to whomever you want, the freedom to spend or save your own money as you see fit and the freedom to choose your own destiny and succeed or fail based upon your own merits, luck, efforts, and hard work. Why should we seek to limit the freedom of the individual to live his life as he chooses? If you are talking about a mixed system then you are talking about taking away freedom and self determination to a greater or lesser degree and that is the great trap of socialism. In order to redistribute you must first take by force and that is the opposite of freedom.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[bug]

Before you decide to lynch all the "investment class", maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror. If you have a 401k, pension, mutual fund, or almost any kind of equity-based investment, then you're one of "them". Granted, that doesn't excuse the pseudo-fascism/mercantilism that you point out. Many incumbent monopolies are rent-seeking by giving bribes to politicians in return for locking out legitimate competition. That's unethical, and ultimately short-sighted. However, the solution isn't to go out and shoot "them" in some crazy communist revolution. The solution is to actually support a free market. Overreaching intellectual property laws create government sanctioned monopolies. Free market rules don't stand a chance in that environment. Let's give reform a shot before we start advocating armed revolution, please.

Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag

[Lunarsight]

Perhaps we also need to make it clear exactly why nobody is purchasing RIAA music anymore - what about a marketing campaign saying 'it's not because of piracy - it's because we think you suck.'

This message can be reinforced by purchasing music from independent labels - if indie label sales are going significantly up while the RIAA label sales are freefalling, it makes the 'piracy' argument seem all the more far-fetched.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the Brandenburg Doctrine being shred? (toothy grin)

One should never board a plane with such a candidate. Why let the tragedy of one's own perishing be that which assists the diluting of the suspicion of assassination with respect to said candidate?

Those having a distaste for conspiracy theories fall into two camps. Those who can't stomach the fact that there is something wrong with humanity and those who are part of the conspiracy.

but . . .

[forand]

So generally I agree with your statement: two party system bad. Where I tend to think your argument takes a turn for the worse is when you suggest that voting for a third party actually does something good. While I agree that this COULD have some effect there are definitely times where the difference between tweddle de and twedle dumb is significant and voting for a third party is like shooting yourself (and everyone else) in the foot (Bush 2004?). The problem with the system in the US is not that it is a two party system but that it is designed to be a two party system. You cannot vote for who you like without worrying that who you really hate might profit from your vote. Changing the way we vote from yes/no to a gradated system would allow those of us who don't want to see another Bush era to vote our true beliefs without jeopardizing the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, there have been no viable third party candidates IMHO, and the vast majority were not worth voting for at all.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

The wife and I have felt this way for a while - and she used to be a true-blue rah-rah American!

The US is _rapidly_ heading to third-world status. I give it a generation or two at most (25-50 years).

Shame to see it happen, but already I see more freedom in even Eastern-European (yeah, remember - communist-block countries?) countries whereas the US is taking rights away.

I never thought I'd hear her want to leave the US, but that is where she's headed

Re:I'm sorry, but this is an all-time grammatical

[plasmacutter]

I disavow any connection with zonk's editing. I submit to you he had not had his requisite mountain dew at the time he edited this submission, and is therefore also not at fault.

It is your civic duty to call PepsiCo inc. to task for their failure to provide said caffeinated beverages to zonk, and any other member of the slashdot staff.

I believe such crimes are punishable by water-boarding in gitmo.

New legal justification for open download of music

[FromTheAir]

Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.

This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:

In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media. I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.

Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.

Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.

Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.

Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.

Where's the freedom though?

[tjstork]

What is capitalism but freedom? Freedom to buy from and sell to whomever you want, the freedom to spend or save your own money as you see fit and the freedom to choose your own destiny and succeed or fail based upon your own merits, luck, efforts, and hard work. Why should we seek to limit the freedom of the individual to live his life as he chooses?

I agree with that completely. Now, my question to you though, is, in today's economy, where's the freedom? You can't say that they you are free to choose your own destiny and succeed and fail on your merits when any established player uses a deep layer of patent, copyright, insider contracts and market force to crush you? I mean, if we were as free as you suggest, then, should I not just be able to develop a word processor, a car, or a CPU? The fact is, its difficult to do so because there are so many patents out there that stifle innovation and competition.

Social stability matters, and there is none, when at any given moment you might find yourself without a job because they just yanked your business to India or some other third world country. Yes, it is radical to say to shoot a ruling class, but, really, the basic purpose of a class being allowed to rule is that we expect that class to bring home the bacon for the rest of us. If they aren't holding up that end of the bargain, more loyal to their foreign investors than they are to Americans, then, why have them? That's what I'm saying.

Seriously, why pay your bills, if, at the end of the day, your mortgage is held by a foreign country or a credit card is issued by a foreign bank, and the interest really is so much imaginary money designed to pad the pockets of someone whose already far richer than you'll ever be?

Re:Where's the freedom though?

[CodeBuster]

You can't say that they you are free to choose your own destiny and succeed and fail on your merits when any established player uses a deep layer of patent, copyright, insider contracts and market force to crush you? Patents, copyright, and to some extent insider contracts exist because of government interventions not because people are free to buy from and sell to whomever they please. One cannot make good the effects of government interventions with even more interventions. That too has been tried and failed. The fact that these impediments exist in our system today is not a failing of capitalism per se but rather the result of an attempt to create a mixed system.

I mean, if we were as free as you suggest, then, should I not just be able to develop a word processor, a car, or a CPU? Nobody is stopping you, but from a practical standpoint a single individual, however smart and industrious, is limited simply because certain modern goods and services requires millions of man hours and tons of resources to produce. You could still go into the processor business if you wanted to. The practical barrier of entry might be high due to high capital startup costs, need of specialized skills and expertise, and myriad other difficulties but that is true in any free system and no amount of government intervention is going to change that without destroying the industries that it seeks to change.

Social stability matters, and there is none, when at any given moment you might find yourself without a job because they just yanked your business to India or some other third world country. So take some responsibility for your own situation. Save some of your money for hard times and buy assets instead of spending it all on depreciable liabilities every month. I am not saying that you personally do not do these things, maybe you do, but there are tons of people out there with a flat screen TV, boat or RV, and myriad other pieces of depreciable personal property complaining about how they can't save anything for tough times or they aren't getting ahead. People make poor choices, but that is not my problem and it shouldn't be the government's problem either. If you are an adult and want adult privileges then you have take on adult responsibilities and that includes making your own choices and enjoying the rewards or suffering the consequences.

but, really, the basic purpose of a class being allowed to rule is that we expect that class to bring home the bacon for the rest of us. You speak as if their success was only by the leave of the rest of us, when in fact that is not necessarily the case. In the past, when kings or warlords raised armies and conquered neighboring lands they did not take or receive by the leave of the conquered, but by their right of victory and success. The people in charge are very often in charge because they were successful, not because they inherited their position (there are few reigning hereditary monarchs with any real power left these days). I have no responsibility to bring home the bacon for you or anyone else and neither do you. The world doesn't owe me or you or indeed anyone else a living, we earn a living and succeed or fail based upon our own efforts and merits.

Seriously, why pay your bills, if, at the end of the day, your mortgage is held by a foreign country or a credit card is issued by a foreign bank, and the interest really is so much imaginary money designed to pad the pockets of someone whose already far richer than you'll ever be? Think about how you would feel if they didn't cut your paycheck because they didn't feel like paying you what you were owed and you will see your answer. A responsible adult pays her bills period. Any attempt to rationalize not paying ones bills is going to be met with unsympathetic ears by the vast majority of hard working people everywhere.

Re:Where's the freedom though?

[tjstork]

Patents, copyright, and to some extent insider contracts exist because of government interventions not because people are free to buy from and sell to whomever they please. One cannot make good the effects of government interventions with even more interventions. That too has been tried and failed. The fact that these impediments exist in our system today is not a failing of capitalism per se but rather the result of an attempt to create a mixed system

So, would we also throw limited liability onto that plate as well? The entire notion of a corporation and a securities market is merely a legal creation by the government. We could get rid of corporations as a federal invention in the marketplace, don't you think?

Think about how you would feel if they didn't cut your paycheck because they didn't feel like paying you what you were owed and you will see your answer. A responsible adult pays her bills period. Any attempt to rationalize not paying ones bills is going to be met with unsympathetic ears by the vast majority of hard working people everywhere.

1) Companies DO cut your paycheck when they don't feel like paying you any more. Go ahead, please make that argument to any contractor whose gone through rate reviews or December freezes or any employee whose had their pension cuts, benefits cut, raises frozen or salaries cut. All of that is rather common in the USA today. So yeah, companies do not pay their bills, and they only pay people when they want to. Why shouldn't I act like they do?

2) Corporate america has limited liability. If Enron goes belly up, or if other companies do not pay their bills, the people who own the company, ie, the shareholders, do not have to pay any of the debts. That's patently a right that I as an individual do not have. I do not have a way to magically gamble my assets the same way that corporations can gamble. I just don't.

Please, tell me what moral code requires me to pay a credit card company? Islamic countries don't, not even to this day. Charging interest is a -sin-. Even under catholicism until a few hundred years ago, charging of interest was a sin. Is there a commandment that God wrote, that says, Thou Shalt Pay Chase Manhattan on Time? I don't think so. Equating the payment of a credit card bill to a bunch of shareholders that are already legally shielded from not losing anything on the deal to some sort of a moral or religious code is about the most assanine thing that I've ever heard of.

Re:Where's the freedom though?

[CodeBuster]

Companies DO cut your paycheck when they don't feel like paying you any more

Perhaps, but have you ever NOT been paid for work that you have already done? Even if you are laid off or fired you still received a final check for any work outstanding for which you have not yet been paid.

Go ahead, please make that argument to any contractor whose gone through rate reviews or December freezes or any employee whose had their pension cuts, benefits cut, raises frozen or salaries cut. All of that is rather common in the USA today.

In all of those cases which you mention they are reducing future payments which is NOT the same thing as refusing to pay bills already incurred. Unless you have a contract with them spelling out future salary or benefits over a fixed period of time (this is what unions attempt to do for their members, albeit inefficiently, for this precise reason) then they are perfectly within their rights to do so. If you don't like the terms then you can quit and find another job or else you can suck it up and continue working.

So yeah, companies do not pay their bills, and they only pay people when they want to. Why shouldn't I act like they do?

An actual person can be put in prison whereas a corporation cannot.

Corporate america has limited liability. If Enron goes belly up, or if other companies do not pay their bills, the people who own the company, ie, the shareholders, do not have to pay any of the debts.

That is a good thing. Who would take the risk of sticking their neck out with an investment if they thought that the lawyers would strip them of their personal assets when the venture went south? Probably not many people and they would certainly demand a very high rate for their level of perceived risk. If you don't protect investors then nobody in society gets any sort of credit. If you think that credit is not important than take a look at countries like Bangladesh where industrious people are condemned to poverty not because they are not willing to work or have no skills, but simply because they cannot even get a loan of $40 US dollars to get started in a business or a trade.

That's patently a right that I as an individual do not have.

Any individual who files the papers and pays the filing fees can start his or her very own corporation or trust fund which provides the same sort of personal liability and asset protections of the big corporations. Most people simply do not have enough assets to protect to merit the additional complication at tax time, but the same legal advantages of the corporation remain open to you as they do to all citizens.

Please, tell me what moral code requires me to pay a credit card company?

Do you know what it means to have credit? What is credit? Credit is your promise to repay in the future, possibly with interest, what you have borrowed today. Credit is your word of honor or your promise. Do you break promises that you make simply because you may not like the person to whom you made the promise? If you don't want to bear that burden then don't make the promise in the first place (i.e. don't use the credit card to borrow money).

Islamic countries don't, not even to this day.

Are you a Muslim? Perhaps you can emigrate to a Muslim country if you like their terms better than ours. However, even the Muslims, the more secular minded among them anyway, take out loans with interest and borrow money on credit cards. If these loans are not offered then there are alternative schemes which circumvent the prohibition on charging interest in Islam with fractional ownership structures and rents which amount to very nearly the same thing in the end (i.e. Islamic Mortgage) at least from a functional standpoint (i.e. the borrower makes payments for something).

Charging interest is a -sin-. Even under catholicis

Re:Where's the freedom though?

[tjstork]

Perhaps, but have you ever NOT been paid for work that you have already done? Even if you are laid off or fired you still received a final check for any work outstanding for which you have not yet been paid.

Actually, companies routinely try to push back on work orders after work has commenced and work has been completed.

Do you know what it means to have credit? What is credit? Credit is your promise to repay in the future, possibly with interest, what you have borrowed today. Credit is your word of honor or your promise. Do you break promises that you make simply because you may not like the person to whom you made the promise? If you don't want to bear that burden then don't make the promise in the first place (i.e. don't use the credit card to borrow money).

No its not. It's a contractual obligation for a service provided. Companies can renegotiate or impose by fiat their terms of service, and so too consumers can do the same for payment. If companies did not want to assume the risks of consumer negotiation, they should not have engaged in the contract to begin with. The onus is on companies, not consumers.

Arguing that we should equate a business relationship with a corporation as a personal promise is utterly ridiculous. Companies break every promise they ever make. Products do not live up to advertised promises, services do not live up to promises, and companies routinely say in nearly every contract that they make that they reserve the right to change its terms simply because they do not feel like keeping up with their so-called promises. Companies and corporations were created, originally, to benefit society in general and it is debatable at this point whether or not they have lived up to that very fundamental promise!

So, my argument to you is, surely, if you believe in promises so much, then really, why should what you say to any company even matter, when, at the end of the day, no company will keep its word with you.

You may not like the idea that shareholders are protected from being personally taken to the cleaners (it may interest you to know that if you have a 401k

No, I don't have a 401k, so it doesn't bother me at all. Really, I'm watching the stock market crash, the mortgage sector tank, and the only negative effect that has happened to me is more difficulty in selling my house.

That is a good thing. Who would take the risk of sticking their neck out with an investment if they thought that the lawyers would strip them of their personal assets when the venture went south? Probably not many people and they would certainly demand a very high rate for their level of perceived risk

The moral of the story is simple. You argue against government intervention as a moral wrong, yet, the very society that you exist in could not exist without the twin government supports of corporation and lending enforcement. In other words, a company has legal recourse to collect a debt under caveat emptor because of the government, and a company shields its investors from liability becuase of the government. So, for you to say that government is evil and private sector is good, is simply disingenous, as you cannot have today's private sector without the government!

It's a government intervention, which is my point. Sure, you can argue that it is a "good government" intervention, but, what you are advocating is a government intervention none-the-less based upon your personal social preferences. With that said, anyone else's ideas of government interventions are certainly welcome. If you can have the mere existence of your financial frankenstein called a corporation, certainly, others can have their wishes to ensure these institutions are made to work in the public interest, unless of course, you maintain a pathologically selfish interest in disregarding the wishes and wills of others. This is a democracy after all!

Re:Where's the freedom though?

[CodeBuster]

Actually, companies routinely try to push back on work orders after work has commenced and work has been completed.

That is what the courts are for. If the contract is clear and the work was provided then they will not have a leg to stand on for not paying.

No its not. It's a contractual obligation for a service provided.

Errr...not quite. Most people place money in a separate category because of its supreme liquidity (i.e. you can spend it on anything you want right now). Borrowing money is not the same thing as paying for a good or service, it is a special case. However, if you feel that you have been treated unfairly or that the contract is unfair then the courts await your fair hearing. The companies may bet that you won't take them to court, but it is surprising how quickly they pay out after your lawyer calls. If the company won't honor the contract then call their bluff and take them to court.

Arguing that we should equate a business relationship with a corporation as a personal promise is utterly ridiculous.

It is an individual promise. If you do not keep your promise to pay back, whether that be to a person or a company, then don't be surprised when others, whether they be people or companies, are reluctant to loan money to you again in the future. If you want access to credit in the future then you have to pay your dues, it is really that simple.

Companies break every promise they ever make. Products do not live up to advertised promises, services do not live up to promises

Talk is cheap, get it in writing.

and companies routinely say in nearly every contract that they make that they reserve the right to change its terms simply because they do not feel like keeping up with their so-called promises.

They can say whatever they want in the contract, but what is actually enforceable in court is another matter entirely.

Companies and corporations were created, originally, to benefit society in general and it is debatable at this point whether or not they have lived up to that very fundamental promise!

Corporations were created to benefit the shareholders and owners not society per se although they often have the effect of benefiting society, even though there are abuses from time to time. What is the alternative? Government planning and central control? Corporations may be somewhat bad, but most people who have lived under central planning would agree that the government can be even worse.

So, my argument to you is, surely, if you believe in promises so much, then really, why should what you say to any company even matter, when, at the end of the day, no company will keep its word with you.

I have never had a company fail to fulfill the terms of a contract that I entered into with it. I have sometimes had to renegotiate the contracts periodically, but you would be surprised how willing most companies are to negotiate. Many consumers simply take whatever terms are initially offered because they dislike confrontations or they are weak willed, but negotiation and court if necessary can generally get you what you want and if they cannot, well you are always free to say "no" or go somewhere else.

You argue against government intervention as a moral wrong

Not morally wrong, but rather undesirable. The government has to provide some things (i.e. military, laws, courts, police, etc.) but that does not mean that I want them providing everything.

So, for you to say that government is evil and private sector is good, is simply disingenous, as you cannot have today's private sector without the government!

Government is not "evil" and the private sector is not "good" they are simply different ways of organizing society and production. I prefer the private sector because it is my opinion and the opinion of a great many others that they produce a better outcome on the whole of it then

Re:Where's the freedom though?

[tjstork]

Borrowing money is not the same thing as paying for a good or service, it is a special case.

Nah, its a service. That's why they call the sector "Financial Services", and why the excuse for the destruction of our economy is called a "move towards the services industries". Really, all we've done for the last decade is trade that which provides real wealth - manufacturing, for an economy based on lending to each other, and now we've reached a breaking point, and the whole thing is collapsing.

If you do not keep your promise to pay back, whether that be to a person or a company, then don't be surprised when others, whether they be people or companies, are reluctant to loan money to you again in the future. If you want access to credit in the future then you have to pay your dues, it is really that simple.

I have no intention of borrowing again in the future. So, again, where's the problem. I really don't care if my credit score is 800 or if it is 8. Point of fact is that I haven't borrowed a nickle in over two years, and have just been paying down debt. Once I sell my house, I'll basically be debt free. From there, I'll be able to save up for a house cash over about a period of two to three years, and I'll have no debt, a house, and two cars that are paid for. After that, I'll either buy used cars or save up for one.

Indeed, nobody is stopping you. You may spend your own money however you wish. My only objection is when other people come to me with the power of government (i.e. the power of the sword) and demand a "donation" to their just cause in the form of more taxes.

And indeed, I have a problem with the government that subsidies mega corporations through limited liabilities at the expense of family owned businesses and local stores. In essence, corporations are a government subsidy to destroy communities.

I have sometimes had to renegotiate the contracts periodically, but you would be surprised how willing most companies are to negotiate.

Why should anyone have to do this? Again, you argue that we should all be so weak willed, and honestly, to me, at this point, I see the whole system as a giant joke, and if there is to be any negotiating, it should be that companies should be making concessions to me in order to have my vote to retain their legal existence.

Re:Where's the freedom though?

[CodeBuster]

And indeed, I have a problem with the government that subsidies mega corporations There is something that we agree on completely. The subsidies must end. No more corporate welfare. As for limited liability, I believe that it is on balance more positive than negative, but we obviously disagree on that point.

it should be that companies should be making concessions to me in order to have my vote to retain their legal existence. So take a hard line in the negotiation and demand concessions, but do not be surprised if they tell you where to put your concessions. It is easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar after all. As for voting, the trouble with voting is that we all have only one vote, no matter how important a particular issue is to us, and we are frequently forced to chose some things at the expense of others (i.e. no candidate perfectly represents any one voters views...or at least that is very rare). In the marketplace we can spend more or less of our available income on greater or lesser quantities of a tremendous variety of goods and services, but we generally cannot do that when we vote (imagine having only one dollar to spend every four years, it would be tough to fully express our consumer desires with only that one dollar to spend). I enjoy the freedom to vote and I think democracy is a good thing, but lets be honest here: voting is about as close to all of this and nothing of that we as individuals can get when it comes to making economic decisions. Just listen to the campaign speeches or the debates, the positions are very well staked out now and I for one don't much care for any of the candidates with the possible exception of Ron Paul and even he is not perfect. Imperfect choices for an imperfect world I suppose.

Re:Where's the freedom though?

[tjstork]

There is something that we agree on completely. The subsidies must end. No more corporate welfare. As for limited liability, I believe that it is on balance more positive than negative, but we obviously disagree on that point.

well, here's the thing. I don't disagree with you really that much at all. Mine is a rhetorical argument that wonders if the public definition of right and wrong changed, what would be the social implications? Like, let's say I convinced everyone to not pay their bills, then suddenly, our definition of what is fair ownership and what is not would change. Recall that at one point we were all property of the King (as serfs), back in the day...

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[LinuxIsRetarded]

Come on! You can't possibly be that stupid, can you?

Do you know anything about McCarthyism?

Senator McCarthy persecuted people due their opposition of his political agenda. In no way am I persecuting the poster, rather I am comically pointing out that his views regarding the economy happen to align with the socialist idea of government domination of trade practices.

The poster actually wants a candidate that will "ban credit cards"! Obviously to ban credit cards would mean banning all forms of lending- mortgages, student loans, small business loans, etc. Can you comprehend the negative effect on the economy such a drastic (and ridiculous) action would have?

From the post I responded to:

They would rather rake the poor over the coals with high interest just because it has a higher return.

Again, apparently the poster simply has no idea what capitalism entails: choice. If someone doesn't want to borrow money at a high interest rate, he or she doesn't have to! Many people survive without high interest rate credit cards- it is a simple matter of living responsibly. Look at Asian immigrants, for example. I personally know several families that have moved to the United States from Asian countries and refuse to even take mortgages to purchase homes. Rather, they live in large groups in affordable housing until they can make their purchases outright without any loans. If they are that rigid with respect to mortgages, I'm quite confident they don't indulge in ridiculous spending via credit cards to create a lifestyle they can't maintain.

Grow up. Stop blaming the government for poor decisions made by the people. It's simple supply and demand- when people stop overindulging and generating massive credit card bills, those high interest rate credit card companies will have no choice but to offer different products.

Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag

[Anonymous Coward]

That all may be true. But the fact remains Universities have no moral or legal obligation to HELP students steal music.

Perhaps the students will spend less time chatting and downloading music on the internet and more time actually remembering what they are SUPPOSEDLY learning.

Any extra federal funding is a good thing, and killing illegal downloads at college is a good thing.

If you've ever been to college or know ANYTHING about P2P you should agree with me. WHY?

Well, in case you have no sense or morality or imagination. Many colleges are already filtered and most people can still gain access to non University internet such as coffee shops, home, cellular internet if they MUST download illegal content.

Is that so bad, asking people to do their illegal downloads on their own time ?

Many colleges have VERY cheap napster or maybe even itunes accounts where the kids pay 10 bucks a month and download all they want.

So, whats the REAL complaint about filtering? Are you mad to see that upload bandwidth just sitting there ?

Well, bandwidth, along with copyright law suites cost money and with tuition already skyrocketing asking Universities to take a legal stance that is ANYTHING but legal is just stupid.

You're asking for higher tuition's via this extra service of having P2P at school, which sorry, makes ZERO sense to begin with.

Piracy really shouldn't be done in a setting so easy to track back to your MAC because universities are among THE MOST TARGETED places on earth.

Your not anonymous in college, your just young and stupid. These days, in fact, you are FAR less anonymous

There is nothing wrong with telling people to download illegal content on their OWN bandwidth and their OWN time not at the liability of the University.

It's bad enough they are forced to support athletics departments and social events at college. Kids don't need YET another thing to do besides learn especially stealing intellectual property.

I mean, face it, most parents pay for their kids to go to college even with financial aid. These KIDS simply aren't so poor and so bad off that they need to steal Kayne West's latest album.

Don't feel sorry for idiots stealing music they will likely delete or lose later. They are wasting bandwidth on the entire internet, not ONLY their school and someday you people have to admit to yourself artists are lossing money and therefore ART itself is being stolen from and art in my opinion is a very important part of culture. For other countries .. like Sweden.. the less on their globally non existent cultural dominance doesn't matter.
For a country like American.. with a globally dominate culture... the slow erosion of profit through music and video is likely going to have a negative effect where we lose cultural power and of course money through global piracy.

Since our culture is the most downloaded, we are losing the most of any country via piracy. AND since we are also the wealthiest country, of all the countries we could afford to buy the movies and music more than anyone.

In some ways the explosions of free music and movies is nice, but SIT BACK AND THING, this model of free intellectual property means the slow erosion of profit and therefore the erosion of quality.

We have a spike of information and art, free to the world. And then.. as the number of artists decline and people have had their fill of American culture and art, then we've created a new model where all artists will have to embed advertising into their products in order to ensure they can make enough money.

Look at all the ONE HIT wonder musicians. Many of them struggle for years just to get their one hit signed and recognized. That YEARS of work to sell their song while a bunch of assholes pirate it.

WELL... whats going to happen to their career people ? We will have a culture of one hit itune wonders and artists being DRIVEN to make the most hyped up salable product they can.

Well, tha

Re:Here is a nvel idea. Stop Stealing!

[Dun Malg]

You can whine and snivel all you want, but the law is the law. You don't like the law? Then form a group, a coalition, raise money to hire the best K's streeters you can afford to lobby congress to get it changed, That is how the system works, use it.

Ah yes, the old "if it's law it must be obeyed" fallacy. Tell me, what do you do when the law is backed by a multi-million dollar industry lobby that can out-spend you 200-to-1? Give up and just obey the law? Surely you agree that at the opposite end of the spectrum, where it's an issue of basic human rights, that justice must sometimes come before obeying the law. You wouldn't have said to Rosa Parks "whine and snivel all you want about having to sit at the back of the bus, but the law is the law", right? Well, I ask you then, at what point does it change? Where is the "moral line" beyond which the law should be disregarded on principle? You seem to think the travesty of perpetual copyright is not morally repugnant enough to warrant civil disobedience, but I say you're an idiot who blindly thinks "law makes right".

Today it's the copyright lobby

[Z00L00K]

and if they get what they want then tomorrow there are some other gang that pushes their opinion through, let's say creationists that wants the educational institutions to abolish evolution altogether. Follow this by teaching each student to be a good American supporting the US army in the war against terrorism (or whatever the next "war" is called).

Maybe McCarthy would have really loved the abilities we have today?

why the personal attacks?

[big_paul76]

You can whine and snivel all you want, but the law is the law. You don't like the law? Then form a group, a coalition, raise money to hire the best K's streeters you can afford to lobby congress to get it changed, That is how the system works, use it.

Can somebody explain to me why so many people who support the status quo on copyright seem to feel the need to characterize anyone suggesting a change to the status quo or articulating the flaws in our current copyright system as "whining and sniveling"?

If I make the argument, for example, that copyright is fundamentally flawed, and suggest that we need a combination of de-criminalizing private non-commercial copyright infringement and a statutory license, does that make me a whiner? Or am I raising a legitimate point? If the point I raise is not valid, can't someone who feels differently simply point out the logical flaws in my argument, without having to start name-calling?

Maybe I'm just not paying attention, but I never see the EFF or Stallman or others on the far end of the anti-copyright spectrum engage in that sort of name-calling.

Re:why the personal attacks?

[FlyingGuy]

You on the other hand sound seem rather atypical, and so if the usage offended you I am sorry.

I have absolutely no problem with people thinking the provisions of copyright should be modified as it is our right to petition our representatives to do just that. If they do not respond in a manner that suits you you are then free to vote against them next time they come up for re-election. I live in the San Francisco bay area and I have pretty much had it with Senator Diane Feinstein and I will be voting against her in the next election and I will try and convince everyone I know to do the same.

To a certain extent the system is rigged to those with the money, but even that only goes so far, if enough people vote against an elected representative then you will get someone in there that just might do whats right.

The system has failed

[billcopc]

When a large portion of citizens are worried/afraid of their government, that means the government has failed.

These people were (back in the day) supposed to be acting as proxies - a manageable group of elected individuals serving on behalf of their community / district. If that's not what they're doing, then why are they on our payroll ? Anyone paid by our taxes is on "our" payroll.

PS. I'm Canadian, but the same concepts theoretically apply to the USA. The fact that things have been left out of control for so long just makes it harder to recover.

Re:Industry associations declare war on youth - ag

[jombeewoof]

Perhaps we also need to make it clear exactly why nobody is purchasing RIAA music anymore - what about a marketing campaign saying 'it's not because of piracy - it's because we think you suck.'

This message can be reinforced by purchasing music from independent labels - if indie label sales are going significantly up while the RIAA label sales are freefalling, it makes the 'piracy' argument seem all the more far-fetched.

  I will donate a small amount to that campaign.

National Coalition of Consumers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest we form a PAC that represents consumers in Congress. We need to make our voices heard, and inject statements into law, such as "the use of DRM in commercial media would nullify any copyright protection in perpetutity", and "media companies which form cartels that enjoy in excess of 50% market share, and which influence Congress to pass actions which are anti-consumer in nature, shall have the privledge of a 90% tax rate on taxable income." I'm sure if we change the rules, they will change their collective "borg" thinking.

Article includes link to e-mail your U.S. Rep.

[mdalal97]

If it really bothers you, then e-mail your representative. It might do some good.
      http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=346
The link is also supplied in the article.

"Obvious tag"

[Meor]

Remember when all those "crazy libertarians" with theirs "heartless ideals" said public funding of schools was a bad idea and that politicians corrupt the best of intentions?
 
I'd like to point out that you are now being taxed by the government to enforce RIAA policies for our children. Not exactly the income redistribution paradise people envisioned I think.

ORLY?

[IonOtter]

RIAA: We're going to enact a law to cut your funding unless you do what we say!

Universities: Go ahead. Knock yourselves out. Kill us. Wipe us off the face of the earth.

RIAA: Wh...what?

Universities: Sure! And then we'll turn off the switch on alll of our DNS servers.

RIAA: ...

Universities: *GRIN*

just how much does the RIAA

[alizard]

expect us as taxpayers to pay in order to protect their dying business model?

There is one area where I'd like to spend money on the *AA organizations. RICO Act investigations (we can start with their bot-generated extortion demands) are in order.

no, they don't

[alizard]

The consumer electronics industry is big enough to beat Hollywood's best lobbying efforts out of chump change and buying them out with no more than a substantial committment of resources. A committment of resources comparable to a Hollywood buyout would make it possible to nail every elected chump Hollywood 0wNz The only thing they'll use their lobbyists for is things like extending the R&D tax credit and getting more H1Bs to replace American jobs.

As for why they have not used their resources to boot Hollywood out of DC, I don't know. Perhaps they'd rather tell us "we'd love to build some new classes of products, too bad Hollywood won't let us" while they wait for Japanese to innovate to the point where American companies can reverse-engineer. Perhaps they're still hypnotized by smoke-and-mirror presentation of the "pie in the sky" hypothetical profits from Hollywood - digital convergence. Perhaps they want an excuse to move all their R&D out using the *AA companies as excuse.

Maybe they're just gutless.

Re:Here is a nvel idea. Stop Stealing!

[FlyingGuy]

Look if all your argument is going to based on straw men then please don't respond. I will be happy to debate points relent to the argument, but trying to compare copyright to the things that the Rosa Parks protested for is really actually absurd.

Re:{sigh} Real Author & Student Loves Educatio

[PrincessVader]

Hi, all: This article is shocking, to say the least! Make no mistake; this is about loss of royalty payments and loss of income taxes on those royalty payments.

As both a published author and a college student, I would gladly forego my royalty on those copies of college textbooks that were shared among less fortunate college students, because it means that more college students will have them to read! As far as I am concerned, I would rather give that share of my royalty to a deserving college student than to a government bloated with the fat of too much taxation and not enough generosity towards the little guy.

College students are, or will eventually become, taxpaying, (hopefully) book-buying citizens who will pay back that small loss of royalty and taxes many times over.

Cheers,
Princess

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[ChromeAeonium]

It WAS the free market that achieved the good things that people generally attribute to unions and socialism. No, actually, it wasn't. Do you think the people in charge of all those businesses that were exploiting workers suddenly decided that they made enough money and can now start treating the workers fairly? Guess what, that didn't happen. It called the Gilded Age for a reason. Sure, we had massive economic growth that turned the US from a backwater farming nation to a world power, but only a small group was actually reaping the benefits. People like the AFL and the Wobblies, as well as various regulations and protection laws, are what channeled the economic growth to form the middle class and produce a decent standard of living.

What is capitalism but freedom? How about the freedom to exploit, the freedom to collusion, the freedom to blacklist, the freedom to form cartels? Sugarcoat it all you want, but those are the realities of pure capitalism. Not pretty. But don't take my word for it, read a history book. If you want the freedom to succeed or fail based on your own merit, the first thing you need is an even playing field. We don't have that now, not by a long shot, but if it weren't for the mixed economic system we have now, it'd be even worse. Pure capitalism is the same as communism in that it only works the way its supposed to on paper. You enjoy a better life today because your grandparents and their parents had the courage to take a stand and say that they were people, not tools, and that they demand to be treated like it. Before that, people were just that, tools. Replaceable, expendable.

They had the ability to look beyond themselves to the future and that is something that is becoming lost in America today. What? You can't be serious. Ever take a sick day? Enjoy a safe workplace? Get paid overtime? Do you get lunch breaks? Health care? Retirement package? Do you think you deserve that? Of course you do. You're not forced to do more at less pay just to keep your job, you don't have to endure hazardous conditions because they're cheaper, you're not fired because you looked at the boss funny. Why is that? The free market? Don't make me laugh. Your knowledge of history is severely lacking. People decided that they weren't going to put up with it anymore, and changed things. Not because they were socialists, communists, or whatever little loaded label you care to use, but because they were fixing the free market for the better.

What really gets me about your comment is the part about it 'becoming lost in America today.' That just smacks of elitism. Maybe when your job is sent overseas because you can't afford to live on the $2 per hour your job is worth in India, you'll realize that the mystical free market doesn't give a damn if you and your family have enough to survive. Maybe the thought of living in poverty so that some fat cat can live in moderately higher wealth sounds good to you, but I'll take my chances with a mixed economy. Sure, I don't have the right to treat people like cogs in a machine, but at least I'll have the economic freedom that exists only in pure capitalism theory and mixed economy reality.

I for one

[andruk]

I for one wonder if they will try to take on a major law school, like Harvard, or Yale, or something, with this act instead of directly talking to the school.

Something tells me no, as the students will simply run for congress, and change the law.

Furthermore, I think I speak for most of us when I say, "Fuck the RIAA and MPAA." Saying it makes me feel better. Now if I could only cure this movie addiction.

Deja Vu

[EdIII]

This subject is coming up again already.

I had posted a lengthy comment about this previously, and basically it comes down to 3 things:

1) The entertainment industry and government obviously don't care about our education, since they are willing to threaten it. It threatens our WHOLE nation, to threaten EDUCATION. No wonder we keep slipping in the numbers. Idiocracy was a documentary.

2) Internet is NOT a right on campuses. Since when did your tuition fees include unlimited, unfiltered internet?

3) It is entirely possible, to secure and segregate the networks on campuses. Just FUCKING do it for christ sakes.

Not all networks absolutely require access to host addresses outside of them. Internet on campus could be no different then some major corporations. Secured, and outside host addresses are regulated in their use. Libraries could force all traffic through proxies, which could severely hamper P2P, but easily allow research to be conducted. Different departments have different networks and servers, but there could be separate security domains applied on them and a common access to a general use proxy server.

We could all come up with technical solutions, but the bottom line is that you could still do what you need to do on campus, and be able to use those networks to LEARN at a university. What a concept huh?

I also feel it just comes down to good ol' manners. My momma raised me to be respectful of other people's property in their home. If your at a university, you SHOULD be bitch slapped for running P2P there. Why? It causes network problems (I got problems with P2P in my own home dammit), and obviously is risking other students education. Instead of trying to educate these students on the evils of IP piracy, why not teach them some simple manners. Either wait till you graduate, have your own home and internet connection, or buy yourself a separate connection to do it. Using the universities connection is just plain rude.

Years ago, I tried explaining this to a friend of mine. He would drive around stoned after smoking a doob, and I would lay into his ass about how irresponsible it was. He would come back at me, "It's not a big deal man, it should be legal anyways". I would tell him that the arguments for or against its use is irrelevant. Just by doing it, he is putting other people on the road at risk for his own behavior. P2P is the same situation. You can argue for it, or against it, all day long. However, when you are a guest in someone's home, you turn the Bittorrent off, unless otherwise invited to do so.

We don't need the entertainment industry and government to figure this out for us. We just need to listen to our Momma's, and raise our kids right.

I quote you "You can whine and snivel"

[Anonymous Coward]

So where the fuck do the personal attacks come from? YOU.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[Nevyn]

They would rather rake the poor over the coals with high interest just because it has a higher return.

No one is forcing them to take it, and if you want to give people with a low credit rating money at a low interest rate ... you are obviously free to do so. Go to prosper.com and give away as much as you want today (hey ... I'll happily take a $25k loan for 4%, just let me know).

Oh, what's that you don't want to give away your money ... just other people's. Interesting.

Show me the candidate that wants to ban credit cards

Sure, they could also ban mortgages too ... which would be equally stupid.

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[ibsteve2u]

"...and refuse to even take mortgages to purchase homes."

Now, when it comes time to send their children to college, they'll either have saved up $80K or more per child, or they'll - surprise! - take out a loan.

Educational loans are the new darling of the predatory investment class, because the Republicans changed the bankruptcy laws to make it impossible for the student OR the parent to walk away from them. They can even sieze Social Security payments to repay them.

So, parents, before you take out a student education loan or co-sign on one, make sure your child signs an agreement to carry insurance that will repay the loan in the event he or she is injured - and soon, it seems, in case your child's college is found to have too many ripped songs floating around and your child loses some grant money and has to drop out.

Of course, the insurance company is probably going to force the student to agree not to skateboard, or high dive, or sky dive, or be involved in gymnastics, or play team sports...but anything to protect the predatory investment class' money, right?

Bully!

[eyenot]

My perspective on copyright infringement and intellectual properties is informed by the early invention of the printing press and the effects this had on religious documentation and monkhood in general. Obviously, no longer being the holy tools they once were, the fingers of monks had to find other things to keep busy (and safe from Satan!) which leads us to the emotional damages lawsuit world of today, But I Digress! I don't think humanity has any real moral ground to stand on when it comes to profiting from the use of copyright or trademark; it's bullshit, and it's tiresome bullshit at that. It'd be a much more developed world if you couldn't hold back progress by claiming intellectual property rights for decades at a time. We've taken it to the logical end and are now stuck in the mud of corruption and idiocy holding the reigns of what passes as patentable, trademarkable, and copyrightable. To this day, within the same idealist you'll find the visionary who one day hopes to profit from some intellectual property development of their own, but also the rebel who misinterprets (or fails entirely to interpret or parse whatsoever) Franklin- and other-inspired bumpsticker slogans in order to justify squiggling out from under the copyright restrictions put in place by others.

However, despite my stance, that intellectual property is bullshit, there are worse things in life that I despise, and college is one of them. I hate college and college students, and professors, too, for the most part. College is the biggest crapshoot, freakshow, Kentucky-Do-Nothing that was ever established in the guise of something else, and if we can do anything, even tolerate anything, in order to break up their unruly mobs, end their land-squatting, and stop the siphoning of public and private funds past the event horizons of their financial singularity crisis explosion HELLHOLES, then all the better! Arrest them all! They're idiots, anyways, for ever believing that the best things for a devloping and apt mind is to ruin it with hogwash and that the best thing a budding capitalist ever does in their life is go into debt for the folly of others.

So even though I resent the snake-oil of "intellectual property", it's a small bottle outweighed by the hogsheads emplaced by "college".

Re:At some point, we're going to have to shoot the

[CodeBuster]

The people in your camp certainly seem to outnumber the few libertarians among us so all I can say in reply is vote for your mixed economy and wealth redistribution and see where that goes. My fellow libertarians and I will be waiting at the end of that ruinous road to greet you and say, "we told you so". As for my job going to India, it already has and I have moved on to a new one. They moved my cheese so I found something else. I suggest you do the same.