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.
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.
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!
Messing with college kids always goes over well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War
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.
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.
"(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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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.
This is my sig.
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....)
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
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.