Online Quiz As a Gateway to P2P

Andy Guess points out an interesting approach taken by a Missouri university to limiting (and limiting legal exposure because of) on-campus, on-line copyright violations, as described at Inside Higher Ed: "In order to download (or upload) files on any peer-to-peer network whatsoever, all on-campus users at Missouri S&T have to pass an online quiz on copyright infringement. But not just once. Passing the test — with a perfect score — enables peer-to-peer access for six hours on the user's on-campus registered machines."

Comments

Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[grub]

Test software: Hello Mr. Manson, 1) Is murder legal?
Charles Manson: no

Test software: 2) Is murder bad?
Charles Manson: yes

Test software: 3) Would you feel bad if you murdered someone?
Charles Manson: yes

Test software: 4) Do you presently feel like murdering?
Charles Manson: no

Test software: 5) murder, Murder, MURDER!!!
Charles Manson: no, No, NO!!!

Test software: Congratulations, you have scored 100%. You now have 6 hours of access to the cutlery drawer.

Re:Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[hansraj]

I don't think the idea is to know the intent of the users. Like you humorously pointed out, that would make no sense. Upon trying to make sense of this policy, I could come up with the following possible explanation. Of course I might be mistake :-)

I suppose the motives (or rather hopes) are based on two ideas:

1) By making the system inconvenient (even mildly so), discourages the "casual" p2p users. I have no idea what fraction of users are "casual" though.

2) Cognitive dissonance. Probably the idea is that once the users are forced to repeat certain beliefs in their head (even when they disagree with them), many will actually feel a psychological dissonance simply because the reward is not too great. One way to get rid of it, would be to actually start believing whatever they replied in the questionnaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Induced_compliance_studies

Of course cognitive dissonance does not seem to be the perfect phenomenon in use here, I wouldn't be surprised if something very similar was going on. Any psychologists in the house today?

Re:Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you being modded funny?

I think it has something to with the fact that those of us who aren't bordering on autism laughed when we read it.

Re:Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[Tanktalus]

I clicked those all the time when I was 17. After a year of doing this, I started actually believe I was 18. Even fooled my parents into thinking so!

Are there ways around it?

[The Ancients]

How long before some smart kids come up with a script to automatically complete the quiz? (and possibly sell it to fellow students)

Re:Are there ways around it?

[Shagg]

Not long. Do you want a copy?

Re:Are there ways around it?

[Kaenneth]

They might sell it to a couple students, but then those student would give it to their friends for free.

What a lost opportunity

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

all on-campus users at Missouri S&T have to pass an online quiz on copyright infringement

If I headed this university, I'd make my students take quizzes on math, chemistry, physics and whatever else the university teaches, to get access to P2P. I mean, if they want their music bad enough, they'd have a great incentive to do well at school.

But quizzes on copyright infringement? talk about brainwashing. As if they had nothing more productive to cram their brains with. Sheesh... On top of it, it's a trap: if a student is caught downloading illegal material, he can't claim ignorance.

All in all, a rotten idea that could have been a great one. You can feel the twisted minds of **AA execs behind this sorry scheme...

test eh?

[geekoid]

Let's see this 'test'
Is it a test of the specific actual copyright law? Os it some thing put together by someone who thinks they know copyright law?

I would love to see a copyright attorney go over the test. One that isn't employed by a media company.

Every 6 hours is just stupid.

Re:test eh?

[cjb658]

I've got a better idea: let's require everyone to pass a test before using the internet at all.

(brb, selling MySpace stock)

Re:test eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an actual test I was presented with. I'm a Missouri S&T student.

Some files shared on Peer-to-Peer networks are actually viruses

        * False
        * True

Do you intend to infringe copyright?
        * Yes
        * No

If a student receives a first DMCA violation notice he/she will lose network access for a minimum of
        * 14 calendar days
        * None of these
        * All of these
        * Until he/she passes the "Safe and Legal Computing" course

What is the difference between copying a friend's CD and downloading music?
        * It is only legal to copy a friend's CD
        * It is legal to download the song
        * They are both legal
        * They are both illegal

Do you agree to abide by the Acceptable Usage Policy?
        * No
        * Yes

Copyright protection lasts for:
        * 14 years
        * Life of the creator
        * 25 years
        * Life of the creator plus 70 years

Re:Question 1

[Darkness404]

Exactly, these questions that will surely be asked on the test will try to make it seem like copyright infringement is stealing as much as 2+2=4 rather then asking a moral question that can be taken either way. I am surprised to see that whenever a professor expresses views that might be objectionable the media attacks them, but with "piracy" they seem to make it seem like it is stealing when it clearly is not.

If the question is why is stealing bad, the answer would be that the person being stolen from doesn't have what got stolen. For example if someone stole your car, the bad part wouldn't be that someone has a new car but rather you don't have a car. With piracy though its the opposite, for downloading a song no one has any less songs as they can be copied and you have a new song, the RIAA seem to punish the fact you have a new song rather then the infinite supply of songs is running out. This seems to beg the question, if we can ever create a replicator that will make a perfect copy of things without doing any harm to the original will making a new item be called stealing? Because, has history is showing us, in a way that already has happened just with music and not physical goods.

We need a V-K test

[Erandir]

Yes, we need a more sophisticated test, one measuring true underlying intention. I can imagine it going like this:

Holden: You start up DC and notice that copyrighted files are being shared, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Prof Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The files are being shared, and other students are rapidly downloading them. We can't stop them without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: WHAT DO YOU MEAN, I'M NOT HELPING?
Holden: I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response. (pause) Shall we continue?

misguided nannying

[drDugan]

Google hit #1 for "Missouri University copyright quiz"
is
From http://mizzouit.missouri.edu/security/dmca-quiz.html

which states:

"If you have downloaded copyright-protected files without paying for them then, quite simply, you have broken the law."

No, quite simply, that statement is bullshit as well as many other statements on that page. It is under-informed fear mongering and spreading the big-media meme that downloading and sharing is somehow bad.

There are many options (including our site) for people who own copyrights to distribute creative works, get financial sponsorship, or distribute their works for free if they choose to - and furthermore to allow others to distribute their works for them if they license their work in away to enable it. While these issues (downloading, payment, redistribution, illegal actions) are all closely connected to the copyright on the content, making such a blanket statement is irresponsible.

Paying for content rarely enables sharing today. It is the *licensing* and the actual laws are the important part for users to understand when they download or redistribute content. People need to read and understand the licenses and the law to know if they are breaking them.

Re:Question 1

[orclevegam]

When you appropriate that work without their permission, they no longer have the privilege granted to them by law. You are, in fact, taking something away from them. Which is of course an illegal act with a specific name of copyright infringement. It is not stealing as that applies to physical goods. Depriving a person of a right is not stealing that right from them as by definition it's impossible to "steal" a right. Normally I wouldn't argue semantics, but in this case it's a valid point because of the extreme social stigma attached to theft. I don't think anyone is arguing over the legality of copyright infringement (or stealing for that matter), what's under question however is the morality of it. Even more to the point, is the question of whether all copyright infringement is immoral, or only some, or only in certain quantities. Would downloading a copy of last weeks sitcoms because you were busy and missed seeing them carry the same weight as downloading a couple CDs because you want to listen to them? What about downloading an artists entire library? Is it less moral to download an independent artist CDs versus those of a major record label?