College Funding Bill Passes House, P2P Provision Intact

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the College Opportunity and Affordability Act passed through the House today with a vote of 354-58 and the anti-P2P provision is intact. That provision would require universities to filter P2P and to offer legal alternatives. They are claiming now, though, that universities would not lose federal funding if they fail to do this. Of course, an amendment that would have clarified that was withdrawn immediately after it was offered."

Comments

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games

[sakdoctor]

Rubbish. As a student I wasn't in the least bit hypocritical. Buying music, games and high-end software for my course would have made me poor and unable to afford tangible things such as beer.

Naturally I pirated it all. Man that was a long time ago now, back when kazaa wasn't all spammy.

Re:"Legal alternatives"

[shark72]

"Since P2P filesharing is legal (though sharing particular files may not be), and there are no other alternatives with the same features, this seems to be nonsense."

The Ars Technica article was using a bit of condensation for readability. I think the context here is understood: use of P2P for trading unauthorized files. I believe the Ars audience understands that P2P applications can be used legally, that's not the application of choice for most college students.

I don't think the colleges are obliged to offer an alternative "with the same features" (ie. DRM-free MP3 files provided at no charge) as P2P. This may seem unfair, but we do not have a God-given right to our own free MP3 file of any song we desire. What I believe will happen is that the various legal services will step up with a subsidized service that offers streaming and/or DRM.

It may be an unpopular opinion around here, but free MP3s aren't exactly oxygen. The biggest rationale (besides the most honest one: saving money) is that P2P allows us to sample and learn about new music, some of which we might buy. But I've had incredibly good luck in finding lots of great music and broadening my music horizons using Pandora, last.fm, and iTunes' search and exploration features. Nutsie.com is my new toy of choice. Again, once we acknowledge that we don't have a God-given right to free MP3 files, we can find plenty of acceptable substitutes to enjoy all the music we want freely and legally. Anybody who claims that they need P2P to explore new music in a "try before you buy" mode either isn't being honest with themself, or simply hasn't done their home work.

An iPod in every ear

[mi]

The new "basic" and indispensable appliance, is not it?

Let's see, the "poor" must be able to afford (at somebody else's dime, of course) food, shelter, medical care, a TV, and a car. Now the ability to "share" somebody else's music is also viewed as important by Slashdot's illiberal crowd...

Re:An iPod in every ear

[mi]

This sounds like you are suggesting that when people are poor for whatever reason they shouldn't get food or shelter or medical care?

No, I'm suggesting, they should not be getting a music-player to begin with. We are talking about government assistance to colleges here. What kind of students are these, who are receiving government money and yet have not only the players, but the time to pirate songs too?

As for food, shelter, medical care — or anything else — well, nobody should be getting it from others against their will (as the taxes are collected). But that's a different topic...

Re:College = education.

[urcreepyneighbor]

I was going to include something to the effect of "don't give me the bullshit about linux and bsd isos", but I assumed no one would even dare try that stale, simple defense. Seems I was wrong. hm.

The defense raises an interesting point, tho: what gives you the right to waste the bandwidth of the school? Downloading, if it is for study, is one thing... but uploading...? Not so much.