Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

File Sharing Remains a Perk of College Life

Posted by kdawson on from the ain't-nobody's-business-if-i-do dept.

An anonymous reader points out a story on the effect of a new law on file sharing on campuses — in short, it may not make much difference. "Students who are about to graduate often hand down the tricks of stealing music and movies to the next senior class. ... At the College of New Jersey, that means surreptitiously finding a new home each year for a computer holding an enormous directory of illegal files on the campus. ... The machine runs software called Direct Connect, which lets people on a local network easily trade files among their hard drives in a way that is usually undetectable to anyone outside the network. ... Educause recently unveiled a website with information about the new regulations. It provides case studies from six 'role-model campuses,' listing the steps they are taking to combat piracy. Another page lists 57 legal sources of music and movies on the Web. But when asked which campuses have forged new policies in reaction to the law, Educause officials were unable to name any."

49 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. not going to work by stonewallred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are never going to stop folks from trading files. All you can do is try and make it difficult. And that brings its own problems because it usually causes the stuff not to work well and attracts people who like challenges to break your "protection". I believe the model of charging less would work better.

    1. Re:not going to work by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't need 100% success to have a victory. Sure people will still do it, but if you don't make it easy for them to do it less people will go ahead and do it any ways. If you make file sharing so hard that only the geeks can do it. Then that is enough to stop all the non-geeks.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:not going to work by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly music is a service and should be treated as such, that's why I like to say I purchase tickets not albums.

      And what about when the music cannot be taken around on tour? Not all music is performed by small bands that can go from venue to venue. There are for electronic works for tape created at places like IRCAM. Sometimes concerts are so costly to put on that ticket prices are unlikely to cover the expenses -- I've gone to hear music at concert halls where it's hard to believe that ticket sales even paid for the huge amount of people hired for the venue's coat check, let alone the orchestra.

      Some amount of public subsidy and patronage is already present to support music that either can't be put on in concert, or isn't profitable to put on in concert. As it becomes increasingly less realistic for artists to expect payment for every copy made of their work, it's worth supporting public subsidy and patronage models at the same time as calling for people to buy tickets to see their favourite rock bands in concert.

    3. Re:not going to work by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then it's not worth listening to.

      Bull.
      Mike Oldfield. Multiple instruments, multiple tracks, all played by one individual. You cannot do that live.

      Now...if you want to say "he sucks", that's ok, you can do that. But other peoples tastes differ.

    4. Re:not going to work by Skapare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... causes the stuff not to work well and attracts people who like challenges to break your "protection"

      At least for many, breaking the "protection" is not the goal ... making stuff work well is. If the people making DRM were to come up with a way that provided the "protection" they (claim) to desire, while also working well on every platform, there wouldn't be as much interest in "breaking" it.

      As a user exclusively of FOSS platforms, I consider that every content provider that fails to make sure that my platforms are supported is a content provider that has no interest in revenues from me or other users of these platforms. As such, if WE somehow manage to access their content through means that don't involve any payment, I see no loss to the owner. They didn't have sufficient interest in our money to make an effort to get it. So it is by their own decision that they won't get revenue from us; now ours.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    5. Re:not going to work by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't Nine Inch Nail's first stuff all originally done by Reznor in the studio?

      Hire a band for crying out loud.

    6. Re:not going to work by manicb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trent Reznor is a very talented man. What about musicians who are weak performers while a genius in the studio? People who suffer from serious anxiety problems? People whose target demographic is small and distributed across the world? There are plenty of very capable live bands out there who are having trouble pulling in big enough crowds ends meet, and we're supposed to believe that every niche electronic act can put a show together and do the same?

    7. Re:not going to work by TheJediGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But the general public won't buy the alternatives. The mass computer-using public has only heard "photoshop" to the point it's a verb not unlike google. Most people will want to get Photoshop because everyone knows that's how you edit pictures. Anything else just sounds like the salesman trying to sell some cheap crap. When the average non-techie computer user looks for Photoshop and sees it for over $600, they won't look for alternatives to purchase. They'll find their nearest computer nerd friend who can get a pirated copy. Everyone uses computers these days. The non-tech people that use computers follow the marketing and mass media: The iPod is the first digital music player ever, any other kind is someone trying to copy Apple. Google is the first search engine, bing is the new guy. Photoshop is the only way to edit digital pictures, anything else won't do it right.

      We tech people know there are viable alternatives, but the general public don't. Hence there is a valid question to be asked if the "mainstream" marketed software would do well to have affordable alternatives. How many people would buy a legal copy of Office if the new version of Word, Excel, and Power Point could be bought for a reasonable price? (Historically, this was not the case, but MS did release a 3 license pack of Office 2007 that was only Word, Excel, and Power Point for home users priced sub $200.) Software Piracy could likely dramatically drop if the "household name" products were priced at better price points.

    8. Re:not going to work by YourExperiment · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are never going to stop folks from trading files.

      I don't know. You could always name and shame a particular college on the front page of Slashdot, citing the exact method that the students use to share files. That'd probably do enough to drop a few people in the shit.

    9. Re:not going to work by dylannika · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they don't have wide appeal would they be making any money off of physical discs? I doubt it.

    10. Re:not going to work by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a bit of a catch-22. Most of those bands would not exist without the immediate dispersal methods of file sharing: people aren't likely to plop any sum of money down on an 'unknown'.

      Are they 'entitled' to profit from their ventures when people like them? No, they're not; that's not how it works in this world. Should they be compensated by those who like their work? Of course - if they want to continue to see the fruits of those people's labors (assuming those people are not content to work for free).

      It's a trade-off of sorts. You can't have both bounty and high cost in a medium which is, essentially, free for the taking. Human nature doesn't allow for it (and I'd argue, laws to the contrary are immoral).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    11. Re:not going to work by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder if anyone has done the math on this... but if you lowered the price of Photoshop to $50... would it create more profit than at its current price $669?

      Adobe has already figured that one out. The relatively price-insensitive customers (professional design shops) they gouge out the wazoo, while they sell a much cheaper program (Elements) missing just a few features (which are key to the pros but not the dabblers) to gather in money from the masses. And they sell the full programs to students for a much reduced price.

      (it can be cheaper to take a design course at a community college and buy the student version than to buy the full version. Especially if you qualify for an education tax credit as a result. And it's 100% legal)

    12. Re:not going to work by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I, OTOH, am on neither 'side', but think copyright is dead. Not that it 'should' be...that it is.

      The practical fact is, without some degradation per copy, and/or high costs to copy, there can be no such thing as copyright

      If things are infinitely copyable over 'free' channels, with no work per copier, and almost no work to originally copy...that's it. it's over.

      This isn't some 'Copyright should be dead', it's not any sort of moral judgment at all. Hell, for all I know, the death of copyright will cause a cultural disaster. It's just a fact.

      Copyright was created to stop people from taking a work, spending time and money, and reselling it. That's the point, that's what it manages to stop. It stops the business of copying, when copying had to be a business because no one was out there making their own 35mm film copies, and even if they were, the echos of those copies would quickly disappear as the copies got worse over time...and no one would fund that without any sort of profit possibility, which exposed them to legal sanctions as any illegal business would be.

      Without that effort required...well...

      Imagine a hypothetical world where sex was a heavily regulated industry, and, for some reason, took an amazing amount of prep work and skill. Certain people were allowed to charge for it, and did.

      Others operated outside the law. Sometimes large illegal brothels would spring up and provide mostly identical sex (Piracy rings.), and eventually get shut down by the law, and sometimes people would setting up crappy locations and manage to provide really bad sex. (Aka, analog copies.)

      And now imagine someone figured out how to provide 100% identical sex using a standard bed everyone had in their house, as long as someone who had had sex at some time showed them how.

      And now imagine someone figured out how to copy stuff exactly using the standard computer everyone had in their house, as long as someone had a copy on a computer somewhere.

      Copyright is dead, or at least has been fatally wounded and will be dead soon. It's coasting right now on the fact that a) they own congressmen, and b) citizens are amazingly apathetic. But I suspect in, very soon, the laws will change, simply because people are not following them. I am not, in any sense, arguing this is a 'good' thing, just a 'true' thing.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    13. Re:not going to work by daver00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Recording still is costly.

      Give me $10,000 and I'll build you a studio that will return sound quality so close to a multi million dollar equivalent that 99% of people would not know the difference. Recording is very cheap these days, and does not justify the exorbitant rates we are charged for digital media.

    14. Re:not going to work by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can still get a contract to do studio work for soundtracks, advertising, etc. They can release one song and get you to pay for more if you like. All sorts of new options will pop up once the gates are broken down.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    15. Re:not going to work by shadowbearer · · Score: 4, Insightful

        You put your best works out there and you take your chances.

        That's how it should be. Nobody - and especially not the middlemen - should be guaranteed a living by law.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  2. In other news by DMiax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Copyright infringement remains different from stealing. As in "we will stop stealing when you stop calling it stealing".

    1. Re:In other news by 1336 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Copying is not theft.
      Stealing a thing leaves one less left
      Copying it makes one thing more;
      that's what copying's for."

      Source: http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft

  3. sneakernet filesharing by Rob+Bos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If nothing else, there's always USB keys. Now pushing 128GB. My coworkers and I trade entire television shows pretty regularly.

    Who needs fileservers? Sneakernet is becoming more and more efficient.

    1. Re:sneakernet filesharing by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Informative

        Indeed. External drive enclosures with SSD's are getting down to the size of a small paperback book. Easily concealable, and even more easy to dump in a garbage can somewhere without losing much, if it becomes necessary.

        Maybe not as "convenient" for some people as broadband sharing is, but nearly un-prosecutable, given how common and how inexpensive drives of large capacity are becoming.

        Once again, technology is bypassing antiquated business models and the efforts of those who hold to them to keep the status quo. Damned shame that the politicians are mostly ignorant of the ramifications of said technology.

        They, too, are becoming antiquated.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  4. That's basically what we did by IICV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's basically what we did when I went to college. Someone would host the DC++ server, and everyone else would connect to it and share files over it. You had to have 1 GB of shared files to join.

    ResNet didn't give a shit, and in fact for a couple of years the guy who hosted the server was about as high up in ResNet as a student can get. We were using a ton of bandwidth, but as long as it was on the internal on-campus network they didn't care. In fact, I heard that we were kind of wink-and-nudge supported by the actual network administrators - college students are going to pirate stuff anyway, so they'd far prefer we do it on the local network, and leave the gathering of new materials to guys who'll use a VPN to a dedicated usenet box.

    1. Re:That's basically what we did by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At my school, we just used SMB shares. This article reminds me of the time we were discussing the possibility of building a machine to replace that of a graduating senior, just so the location of his massive Simpsons collection wouldn't change. I also remember very fondly when I heard in conversation that my machine was down over the weekend - from a person I had never met before, and who didn't know when he mentioned it that he was talking about my machine.. When your computer is known by people before you yourself are, that's an achievement. :)

      So really, all this article has accomplished is to fill my Sunday afternoon with waves of happy nostalgia. Was I supposed to be shocked and outraged?

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:That's basically what we did by Da+Cheez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We have the same system with DC++ here, including support from ResNet, though the minimum share level is 5GB. Problem now is that since the system is tolerated by the admins, to cover their own skins (understandably) file sharing has been restricted to non-copyrighted files, with violators being permanently banned from DC++. As such it's hardly used anymore except for finding things like Linux distros without cutting into internet bandwidth allotment, and sneakernet's becoming more popular again.

  5. But they're making it easier by Rix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Napster/Grokster lawsuits spawned BitTorrent. Killing suprnova caused a bloom of (better) torrent aggregator sites.

    Excessive use of antibiotics just gets you antibiotic resistant strains.

    1. Re:But they're making it easier by Spad · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's evolution, baby.

    2. Re:But they're making it easier by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Excessive use of antibiotics just gets you antibiotic resistant strains.

      Sure, and if you have an incurable disease affecting one limb, as a last resort you amputate rather than allow the disease to endanger the entire system.

      If you think the pirate community is going to overcome the entire weight of the legal profession, the political players and the big money spinners through sheer force of arrogant denial, then I suspect some time in the next two or three years, you are going to learn a painful lesson. I'm only sorry that quite a few innocent people are going to be deeply inconvenienced when the remaining healthy tissue in the limb is sacrificed to be sure the disease is contained.

      In the long run, of course copyright in its current form will have to evolve. That is already recognised and as the political climate adapts to this reality the balance will slowly but surely swing back to something more reasonable. But first, I expect there are going to be some nasty, nasty laws passed, and some horrendous and high profile punishments handed down to people as examples, and a lot of people are going to get scary letters and realise that they aren't as safely anonymous and immune to consequences as they thought, and a lot of mostly young people are going to get the point.

      I suspect that regardless of the ethics or practical merits of copyright reform, such a shock would be no bad thing in the long run. We have a generation growing up today who have never known a world without the Internet and mobile phones and social networks and P2P. In far too many cases, they have a sense of assumed entitlement, a lack of awareness of privacy, poor manners, problems with social interactions in the real world, an obvious dependence on technology instead of self-reliance, an assumption that the way to do well academically is to cheat on-line instead of actually learning stuff, poor fitness and health because they spend more time playing with electronics and less time playing sport, and a whole bunch of other unhealthy trends. If this continues, that whole generation is going to be royally screwed, but because they are effectively children thrown into an adult world before they are fully prepared for the consequences, they are like the frogs that haven't noticed the water around them boiling. The kind of discussion about copyright here is just one symptom of a greater malaise, and the longer it goes untreated, the worse the prognosis becomes.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:But they're making it easier by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you think the pirate community is going to overcome the entire weight of the legal profession, the political players and the big money spinners through sheer force of arrogant denial, then I suspect some time in the next two or three years, you are going to learn a painful lesson. I'm only sorry that quite a few innocent people are going to be deeply inconvenienced when the remaining healthy tissue in the limb is sacrificed to be sure the disease is contained.

      You think they'll sacrifice computers and the internet to save the music and movie industry? Sorry, there's a lot of them who would like to, but it's just not going to happen. And the legal profession will fight for any side; they're hired guns in this, not interested parties.

    4. Re:But they're making it easier by tftp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think they will sacrifice the relatively free and open Internet we have today

      In context of this article it won't do a thing. If you have thousands of students living together, they don't need Internet to trade songs. The horse - an exact digital copy - has left the barn long ago; MP3 codec and pocket-sized multi-gigabyte players just make it practical. There is a a huge mass of music out there - essentially everything is there - and if the government introduces artificial scarcity by clamping down on copying then students will make sure to copy and store *everything* they come across, even if they don't like the music - just because it may be harder to do in the future.

      Internet is important only for geeks who don't meet anyone, ever. But such geeks are probably sophisticated enough to get what they need - the government will be using a pretty rough net; they can monitor standard ports, but they can't look into SCP traffic or decode everything that is posted in a.b.*.encrypted, or try to figure out why foo.o is 4 MB long and the linker says it's corrupted, while foo.c is just "void foo() {}" ...

      Laws are being proposed to mandate spyware, which you can bet will also restrict the use of "dubious" alternative systems like Linux and OSS if they get passed

      All the spyware in the world is useless on a computer that is not on the network. With prices of computers going down fast, it is not unreasonable to see more and more people having two computers - one for Internet and one without a network card. The government would need to set up a Computer Police to bust doors and search premises (since a 1 TB portable drive fits in a shirt pocket.)

  6. Re:A perk of college life? by mindbrane · · Score: 2, Funny

    life in the real world just doesn't spoon feed you.

    where did you hear that? is it an age thing? at what age should i be looking for that to kick in? is there an opt out? man that doesn't sound good.

    --
    ideopath @ play
  7. Sneakernet and LAN, bro by dcposch · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a sophomore undergraduate at a relatively large university in California, and the volume of filesharing I see my classmates engage in is enormous.

    Most of the discussion about filesharing (here on Slashdot and elsewhere) seems to focus on P2P, but in my experience BitTorrent/Gnutella/P2P darknets are just the tip of the iceberg.

    The vast majority of the filesharing volume I see here is by sneakernet and private servers. The house I live in has a server with upwards of 3 TB of movies and music; all of our residents can log in.

    I've seen people merge their own several-GB collections with the collection on the server. Last year, I lived in a frosh dormitory; there was no server, but it was common for people to lend each other iPods or merge media collections on each other's laptops. That kind of sharing takes a few minutes to transfer a few GB--it's on an entirely different plane from the type of sharing the RIAA and MPAA focus on, transferring one song or one movie at a time over P2P.

    Incidentally, the media server setup I described is not unique to the house I live in--most of the houses and some of the dorms at my university have one; nor is it unique to colleges and universities--the startup I interned at two years ago had one, too.

    So when the RIAA/MPAA sues a single mom for her kid's Kazaa downloads, I see it as beating a dead horse. The real sharing is on the scale of GB and TB at a time, not individual songs. On the rare occasion when I do find something missing from the media libraries I have access to, I'll torrent it using PeerGuardian to block corporate IPs, so I'm unlikely to show up on any logs the RIAA keeps.

    By focusing their legal efforts on P2P users, I think that the media cartels may have drawn out the battle while losing the war. Yes, we're more reticent now to use BitTorrent. But we've merely moved to faster, more local, less traceable forms of sharing.

    1. Re:Sneakernet and LAN, bro by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have to ask: do you see filesharing to be kind of like pot-smoking, in that "some other people say it's wrong, but it isn't hurting anyone else, so who cares?" Do you believe it's wrong, but participate anyway? Or do you actually believe it's a right that's being wrongly suppressed?

      If it's either of the first of those, why do you think it is that nobody challenges the ethics of these private servers? Do you not have any peers whose moral code says "No, filesharing is wrong, you guys are ripping off my favorite band, I'm turning you in to the ethics board?" Are you're saying that really, out of the thousands of students your university, and of every other university situation you are aware of, that not a single student complains about the inappropriateness of it?

      I'm not trying to fish for snitches or get anyone in trouble with this question, but I'm just pretty much surprised that nobody complains. Not even the sons or daughters of (RI|MP)AA execs or artists, whose very education might be paid for by the media being copied?

      --
      John
    2. Re:Sneakernet and LAN, bro by dcposch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it's not a question of ethics, and here's why: you can't share a secret with a million people and expect them to keep it.

      The idea that you can "lend" something that consists purely of a stream of bits (such as a song or video) to someone, or sell it to them while preventing them from sharing it, is a myth. (Software is a bit different, because software is more than just bits; for example, MS does have partial success in getting people to pay for Windows by denying pirates the aspects of Windows that are a service, such as Windows Update.) It's fundamentally impossible; this manifests itself, for example, in the way DRM schemes consistently turn out to be weak.

      I think that actions can be moral, and they can be legal; fortunately, there is strong correlation between the two. However there are actions that are legal but not moral, and there are actions that are morally acceptable but not legal. I think that filesharing falls into the latter category. I think that most people on Slashdot would agree with me: copyright law is the result of corporations' desire for guaranteed profit, not necessarily the result of artist's needs and certainly not a reflection of moral truths.

      Information wants to be free. I see piracy as a temporary condition, a response to a legal system that's currently in deep denial. The sooner we fix it, the better, both for artists and for consumers.

    3. Re:Sneakernet and LAN, bro by macshit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to ask: do you see filesharing to be kind of like pot-smoking, in that "some other people say it's wrong, but it isn't hurting anyone else, so who cares?" Do you believe it's wrong, but participate anyway? Or do you actually believe it's a right that's being wrongly suppressed?

      If it's either of the first of those, why do you think it is that nobody challenges the ethics of these private servers? Do you not have any peers whose moral code says "No, filesharing is wrong, you guys are ripping off my favorite band, I'm turning you in to the ethics board?" Are you're saying that really, out of the thousands of students your university, and of every other university situation you are aware of, that not a single student complains about the inappropriateness of it?

      I'm not trying to fish for snitches or get anyone in trouble with this question, but I'm just pretty much surprised that nobody complains. Not even the sons or daughters of (RI|MP)AA execs or artists, whose very education might be paid for by the media being copied?

      I think that's pretty much reason that everybody around here seems so confident that the RIAA and their ilk are going to lose in the end -- for the vast majority of people, sharing of "trivial" stuff like music really isn't a bad thing; at most, it's just sort of "wink-wink-nudge-nudge wrong".

      Even the industry's attempts to demonize it (like happened with marijuana) are ineffective, because it's something that most people have already done themselves, so they know in their gut that it's a natural and healthy thing. The histrionic pronouncements and clumsy flailing about by the RIAA may even weaken their case, as they simply don't ring true.

      The pop music industry's traditional emphasis on trying to promote mega-stars may have hurt their case too, as it's hard to feel very guilty about copying a song by someone who's obviously mega-rich and flaunts their excessive lifestyle (and in many cases seems far more concerned with the lifestyle than the music). If it were humble local bands who were coming out against copying, maybe there would be at few pangs of guilt -- but AFAICT, it's the relatively unknown bands who are most likely to support sharing of their songs.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    4. Re:Sneakernet and LAN, bro by plover · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's not a question of ethics, and here's why: you can't share a secret with a million people and expect them to keep it.

      The ease of doing a thing doesn't change the ethics of doing a thing. It's easy to drink and drive, too, but in doing so you place other people at risk. Ease doesn't make it ethical.

      The industry uses DRM to reduce the ease of copying. Breaking the DRM does not grant you the right to copy, only the ability. Whether the music is protected or not, copying it is still unethical.

      In the case of file sharing, you reduce revenue to the artist. Arguments about "I never would have bought it anyway" simply further attests to the ease of file sharing. If you have a copy and listen to it, it obviously has some value to you; but as the producers, they get to set the price. Supply and demand. If you disagree with their asking price, walk away. If you have a copy and don't listen to it, perhaps the next person to download it from you will find value in it. In any case it doesn't change the ethics of your having a copy.

      Complaints about industry greed are not valid arguments. Music is not a basic human need. They are under no obligation to provide you with music, and you will not suffer without it. They may dangle it enticingly in front of you. They may market it with videos of attractive people. But if you want it that badly, go play by their rules, as they created it. If they say "pay us $1,000 for a single song", whether or not they are behaving ethically doesn't change how the ethics apply to you. You always have the ethical choice of walking away without it.

      Complaints that "the industry profits but not the artist" are simply not your problem. If the artist chooses to sign a contract that gives them $250,000 plus 0.1% of all album revenue, and commits them to producing five albums, well, then the artist is stupid and gullible. The label is certainly acting unethically towards the artist. If you don't like it, your ethical choices include not purchasing from the label, picketing the label outside the record store, or creating a Hollywood campaign for artist's rights. Copying their music in no way helps the artist, (and simply further inflates industry arguments about "piracy.") It is in no way an ethical response to the mistreatment of artists.

      Note that it's also not legally permitted to "screw them because they tried to screw you." Our society does not permit acts of revenge or vigilantism. If you have been wronged, the application of justice is reserved exclusively to the courts. (I find it ironic that the movie industry makes billions of dollars off movies that show "villains getting what they deserve" yet complain bitterly when it happens to them.)

      Complaints about copyright law itself are similarly flawed. Copyright has existed in this country for two hundred years, and was not created at the behest of corporations but of artists and authors. The most recent changes have been around the extension of the law well beyond the death of the artist (granted by the Congress on behalf of the Disney corporation.) And the DMCA is primarily punishment around the circumvention of the existing copyright law and stiffer penalties for violations of the law, but didn't really change the foundations of copyright. The law has been there longer than the technology for recording music.

      But if you're saying that "numbers somehow make it ethical", now you're finally on to something. If you say that "90% of people think file sharing is OK, let's change the laws", great. Change the laws. Then it all becomes ethical. Until the law goes away, however, it is not ethical.

      --
      John
  8. My university is happy about our DC network. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At my university (40k students), we have a DC network and the IT here are not just aware of it, but some of the IT guys are the same guys who maintain it. Our university is happy to look the other way because the sharing is virtually undetectable outside the network, and we have plenty of bandwidth in network to move gig files around in seconds while not compromising the connection to the outside world. The less we share outside the DC network, the less letters they get from the RIAA (which they already ignore for the most part).

      By the way, its articles like this that shed light on these networks, which we certainly don't need.

  9. Legal Downloading - 57 Resources by Skapare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we mark off those resources for legal downloading (in the "comprehensive list of alternatives" link at the Educause site) that still don't work with FOSS platforms, how many remain? I know at least Magnatune is among them.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Legal Downloading - 57 Resources by agrif · · Score: 2, Informative

      Magnatune is a really under-appreciated source of good music. They have all of their music available free, online, as creative commons with a short audio blurb at the end. As such, they're totally cool with you using their music in a non-commercial CC work. Additionally, they have a monthly service for only about $15 where you can download as much music as you want in just about every format, including mp3, ogg, and lossless formats. The best part is they're not evil: half of everything goes directly to the artist.

      The music's great too. They have a fine selection of classical, but a lot of other genres too. Off the top of my head I recommend the Seldon Plan, Chris Harvey, and those featured in Braid (Jami Sieber et. al.)

      Okay, sorry about the ad speak. I have a tendency to go overboard about Magnatune... but I just love them so much!

  10. Why students piracy: by Tei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Students don't have much money (much less than people with jobs), but still have the same needs, created by the industry and our dynamic culture. The only way for these people to fullfill these needs is to piracy. I don't condone piracy.. but I have to say that the other option is frustration.

    I don't theres any solution. But theres also no damage either: these people will not buy anyway. Once these people finish his studios and get a job, these same people will start buying things again, wen buying is easier.

    Let students warez his music, there are things more important for us.

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

    1. Re:Why students piracy: by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Students don't have much money (much less than people with jobs), but still have the same needs, created by the industry and our dynamic culture. The only way for these people to fullfill these needs is to piracy. I don't condone piracy.. but I have to say that the other option is frustration.

      I don't theres any solution. But theres also no damage either: these people will not buy anyway. Once these people finish his studios and get a job, these same people will start buying things again, wen buying is easier.

      Let students warez his music, there are things more important for us.

      You used the wrong word above when you said "needs". Music and movies are not needs. They are "wants". They are wants that are skillfully created by advertisers, marketers, producers, and talented artists and engineers, and they are presented as needs and sold as needs, but they are not. Any confusion you have between needs and wants is a lesson you really should learn now in order to survive in the modern world without going head-first into debt. People who don't learn this lesson soon think they need a sports car, and they need a big TV, and they need a mansion. Then they find they need shovels full of money to pay their debts. Then they go bankrupt, and discover that nobody will even put gas in their car without cash up front.

      So there's a perfectly workable solution that's existed since the dawn of trade: if you can't afford to pay for a thing, go without it. You do not need music to survive. You will not perish or get kicked out of school for not having a copy of Avatar. You will not starve, you will not freeze to death, you will not go homeless because you don't have a copy of the latest movie on your iPhone. If you still think music is a need, go petition your government representative to have them hand out "welfare music" to homeless people so they don't die of inadequate culture. See how far that proposal goes.

      --
      John
  11. It's what we did too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and I'm WAY too old for this, there was no internet to speak of when I was in college. We pirated music the old fashioned way, which analog cassette tapes. One guy would buy a new album (an "album" was like what we now call a compact disk, but it was about 1 foot in diameter and made of black plastic) and bring it back to the dorm, and pretty soon everyone who wanted it would have a second or third generation cassette dub (and yes, these were perfectly listenable). That was actually better than file sharing because it meant you spent a lot of time actually listening to music with your friends while making these dubs, instead of being an antisocial geek copying files over a computer.

    Now get off my lawn.

  12. I'm old, but by speedlaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Back in the day, we'd hook up five or so cassette tape player in a row when someone got a fresh album, and make five tapes. We had lots of posters in the Student Union (we could even get beer there, that's how old I am) which said "home taping kills music". When CD's came out for twice the price of the vinyl, we saw how true that was. NOT. I've advised my kids to not upload, and share only with those they know in the real world. So far, I now have more music than I could listen to in a a normal lifespan, with no p2p or dodgy websites. Students hiding data from the RIAA (actually their terrified school ISP)-imagine that ! I have no fear for the new generation.

  13. Shock! by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Students trying to get stuff for free? Never!

    I had a friend at uni who used to buy packaged foodstuffs and then send them back to the "If you're not completely satisfied" address with a fictional complaint. 9 times out of 10 he'd get a crate of said product by way of compensation; he survived for 3 years, barely paying for anything he ate or drank in this manner and you're amazed that people are swapping music without paying for it?

    If any single group of people can find a way to get things without paying for them, it's student. Intelligent, poor, lots of free time = win.

  14. at certain points in history by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the entire legal system may bow down to one woman sitting on a bus.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  15. Not always... by Bensam123 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    See, I'm on the other side of the bridge with this one. I came from one of the new campuses that provide notebooks to all their students. They do hand off MPAA and RIAA letters to students and I, as well as other friends of mine, have gotten at least one. It goes from 'we shut off your connection' to 'we will put you on academic probation' to 'we will actually kick you out' based on media influences outside of the school. They actually have a scanner on campus that scans open SMB directories for infringing material and shut off your connection and they have a eMule server that sends out random bad data... right on campus.

    Coming from a more tech oriented campus they decided to be on the bleeding edge of copyright protection as well. Even though I was well aware of file sharing on campus, we never had anything on the scale of DC servers everyone knew about... at least outside of little circles that no one knows about except for a handful of people. Maybe everyone on a floor in a dorm, but it never got bigger then that. Our local LAN club also had copious amounts of sharing going on during actual events, but that usually ended when the event ended.

    Our network admins are either retarded, confident they're doing the right thing, or more then likely they're receiving fringe benefits through large copyright holders for making sure the campus is 'free' of bad stuff.

  16. You'd die without your probiotics by Rix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Much like culture would without piracy? ;)

  17. Product placement by Tempsi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Pirates" are in fact paying for some content by exposing themselves to product placement in movies and TV-shows. Anheuser-Busch doesn't care whether the viewer sees their product "legally" or "illegally", as long as they see it.

    In fact, I have personally even downloaded (illegally!) some superbowl commercials intentionally for my viewing pleasure! I'm pretty sure the copyright holders don't really mind though. Or if they do, they are mentally insane.

  18. Re:Now this is interesting! by BLKMGK · · Score: 2, Informative

    Okay so I've done some research...

    First the client does most of the work not the hubs. I'm using and playing with uHub, runs on Linux. Simple compile but config is ALL via text files - ick. Gee it's Linux so no big surprise - have their web site handy for config help. DC++ is the client I'm using but I will likely look for another since it cannot handle UNC shares as targets. It chunks up transfers like a torrent does so if things drop you can restart and pull from multiple sources if needed.

    Anyway, the client does the heavy lifting in this scenario with the hub just sort of pointing users at one another. Some of the software out there to run hubs looked interesting but also fairly old and this one seems to work pretty well. I have yet to get uHub working with SSL, it has to be compiled with a switch to enable the support, yup Linux!

    Bottom line, pick a good client and this software seems pretty light to run if you have a Linux box around - mine is an ATOM HTPC and the load is negligible. Not sure this is the solution to my particular issue but it does seem to work fairly well...

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  19. Same Story here in Canada by stevo3232 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I go to a university in Canada with about 25000 students. The exact same thing happens here, people who run resnet know DC++ exists and they look the other way. They actually moderately appreciate it because it means that fewer people are grabbing files from outside the network which a) means the RIAA is going to send them fewer legal threats and b) the university uses less bandwidth, since everything within resnet costs them nothing.

    Students will ALWAYS find ways to download files.

    --
    s.clementmonkey@sympatico.ca, remove the 'monkey'.
  20. Different burden of proof by justinlee37 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thats another thing to figure out; how can the school punish when the police cannot find any evidence to make a case?

    The school is not required to use the same burden of proof that the police are required to use in order to convict in a criminal case. Criminal cases usually require evidence proving the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil cases usually require evidence to prove the wrong-doing beyond a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning there must be a 51% or greater chance that the wrong-doing occurred. This is why O.J. Simpson was convicted in civil court of killing his wife, but not in criminal court.

    At my school, the school punishes infractions of the student code if the Dean feels that a "preponderance of the evidence" supports to disciplinary action. Your school probably has a similar standard, and although it could be more or less than a preponderance, it is most assuredly a lower standard than that required to convict someone of a crime in a court of law.

    IANAL, but I did do competition Mock Trial in high school, and this stuff is basically common knowledge.