Slashdot Mirror
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.
Really ... it's enough to make you want to throw up.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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!
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
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.
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
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 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.
sigfault (core dumped)
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.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
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.
This sig is intentionally blank
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.
False dichotomy. Just because you don't support the corporatocracy doesn't mean you're a communist.
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.