I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell this is the relevant passage in this Bill, which seem to be amending requirements on institutions receiving Federal education money:
(10) the support of efforts to establish pilot programs and initiatives to help college campuses to reduce illegal downloading of copyrighted content, in order to improve the security and integrity of campus computer networks and save bandwidth costs;
What is the definition of "support?" Who determines the nature and details of the "pilot programs and initiatives?" This seems to me to be an incredibly vague basis for denying financial aid.
If the "initiatives" are to include content filtering on university networks, this seems to me to be federally imposing censorship duties on colleges and universities. I love this country!
If as implied in the CNet story, "initiatives" is to include compulsory purchase of content to somehow sate their students hunger for copyrighted material, what is there to say but WTF? How is this not extorting money from universities to give to the RIAA and MPAA? How does this help higher education? If the problem is a sense of entitlement to free content, how does this really address rather than aggravate the issue?
Best to leave things vague so that the details of compliance are left to the Feds. There seems to be no "letter" in this law that would allow any institution to make it's own determination of compliance. The spirit of the law is this: "Play ball, or else!"
The ballgame in question looks to be letting the entertainment industry dictate policy and expenditures to higher education. What could go wrong there?
Pala, a 45-year-old musician who lives near the southern Italian city of Lecce, began studying Leonardo's painting in 2003, after hearing...all the media hype surrounding that damned Da Vinci Code book. Eureka! I have found (a paycheck!)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell this is the relevant passage in this Bill, which seem to be amending requirements on institutions receiving Federal education money: (10) the support of efforts to establish pilot programs and initiatives to help college campuses to reduce illegal downloading of copyrighted content, in order to improve the security and integrity of campus computer networks and save bandwidth costs; What is the definition of "support?" Who determines the nature and details of the "pilot programs and initiatives?" This seems to me to be an incredibly vague basis for denying financial aid. If the "initiatives" are to include content filtering on university networks, this seems to me to be federally imposing censorship duties on colleges and universities. I love this country! If as implied in the CNet story, "initiatives" is to include compulsory purchase of content to somehow sate their students hunger for copyrighted material, what is there to say but WTF? How is this not extorting money from universities to give to the RIAA and MPAA? How does this help higher education? If the problem is a sense of entitlement to free content, how does this really address rather than aggravate the issue? Best to leave things vague so that the details of compliance are left to the Feds. There seems to be no "letter" in this law that would allow any institution to make it's own determination of compliance. The spirit of the law is this: "Play ball, or else!" The ballgame in question looks to be letting the entertainment industry dictate policy and expenditures to higher education. What could go wrong there?
Pala, a 45-year-old musician who lives near the southern Italian city of Lecce, began studying Leonardo's painting in 2003, after hearing...all the media hype surrounding that damned Da Vinci Code book. Eureka! I have found (a paycheck!)