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}

[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}

[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}

[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}

[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}

[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}

[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}

[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}

[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}

[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.

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!

[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

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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: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.

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: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.

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?