backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by kotix.. on Nov 14 at 1:09 PM

Universities that don't, or won't, comply with copyright takedowns could risk losing government funding

The College Opportunity and Affordability Act (PDF) is a monster of a document, weighing in at 747 pages. The bill aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and buried deep inside is a nasty secret sponsored by the entertainment industry: universities would be required to help fight piracy or risk the loss of federal funding.

One section of COAA would force universities to publicly disclose their policies and procedures relating to copyright enforcement, and to develop plans for exploring “technology-based deterrents” and alternatives -- like Napster or the ad-supported Ruckus service. These requirements would be backed up with federal grant money, which would be authorized for the purchase and implementation of whatever programs a university may try to implement.

Another section of the bill is more familiar, as it bears a striking similarity to some additions attempted in the Higher Education Amendments of 2007. Under the new text, universities would be required to annually inform students of the “civil and criminal liabilities” of file sharing, provide a summary of the consequences for violating copyright laws, and provide a description of the university’s disciplinary policies if they’re caught.

Universities would also be required to tell students about the various countermeasures they may use to “prevent and detect” unauthorized file sharing.

University officials have been understandably alarmed, as the above provisions would put a potential $100 billion each year in federal aid at risk; failure to comply would cause the school to lose all of its financial aid for students, affecting even those students who don’t own a personal computer.

In a letter written on Wednesday and signed by the presidents of Stanford University and Penn State, and the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, university officials wrote:

Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid--including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy … lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal.

Officials also noted that while the higher education systems does indeed recognize the “seriousness of the problem of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing,” it noted that schools and universities represented only a “small fraction” of the overall P2P ecosystem.

University leadership is overreacting, said the MPAA, and noted that schools that actively implement P2P counter-measures see far fewer copyright complaints — sometimes as little as zero per month.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: What?
By mindless1 on 11/12/2007 6:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
I feel you are missing the point in that it is attempting to shift the burden to the school and then punish the school which primarily means punishing economically challenged students, the very ones would could not be causing the RIAA loss because they don't have the disposible income to buy all this content the RIAA feels they can insist (we'd?) buy otherwise.

Even if P2P sharing were decreased by 70%, the RIAA is still going to try to impose itself and lay blame elsewhere that they "should've made more money and it's all those damn pirates' faults". This attempt at passing the bill does not help the RIAA it only has the potential to cause harm. If the RIAA sees a large market in colleges then it's about time their marketing department instead of their legal department started targeting students instead trying to manipulate a legal system because the truth is it is a democracy and that means we the people including pirates are the majority, not the RIAA. Let them pursue when laws are broken but do not let it become the burden of others.


RE: What?
By mdogs444 on 11/12/2007 7:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I feel you are missing the point in that it is attempting to shift the burden to the school and then punish the school which primarily means punishing economically challenged students, the very ones would could not be causing the RIAA loss because they don't have the disposible income to buy all this content the RIAA feels they can insist (we'd?) buy otherwise.


So are you saying that since these people do not have the money to buy it, then they also are not committing copyright infringement by downloading it?

Whether they are causing potential losses or not is a topic to take against the RIAA/MPAA. The point is copyright infringement, not potential losses. And harboring those infringements while receiving federal money is a no no.


RE: What?
By Christopher1 on 11/12/2007 10:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
Only in your mind, and you are only 'harboring' when you know that someone is doing that. Now, do they know that some people are infringing on copyright? Yes. Can they reasonably stop it without spending massive amounts of money (re: the DRM mess)? No, they cannot, and should not be forced to even try if these companies THEMSELVES cannot do anything about it.

It is as I keep on saying: the prices have gotten too high, and consumers are voting with their wallets and with their modems. It's time for the companies to get the message, and change their prices and tactics.


RE: What?
By mdogs444 on 11/12/2007 10:16:15 PM , Rating: 1
The prices have been pretty constant for many years when it comes to CD's and Movies. This dates back to cassettes and VHS tapes. SO im not sure where you are getting this information.

If you cannot afford a $10 cd, then music should be the least of your worries.


RE: What?
By Spuke on 11/13/2007 2:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you cannot afford a $10 cd, then music should be the least of your worries.
Maybe afford is the wrong word here. But I think you understand the meaning. I can "afford" a $1000 Bluray player, does that mean it represents a good value for my money? I honestly think the actual $15 to $20 for a music CD is WAY too much.

Pricing seems to depend on who's doing the selling. A particular store VA charged $10-$12 for a CD but other stores charged $15-$20. I bought A LOT of music CD's for $10 from that store. I moved to CA and it's more like $20 for a CD so I don't buy them anymore. I buy individual songs from iTunes and Amazon's new site instead.

I haven't bought a CD in 7 or 8 years and that will continue until prices are dropped. If they never drop then I'll never buy a CD.


RE: What?
By clovell on 11/13/2007 5:36:15 PM , Rating: 1
And none of that addresses the point that piracy is illegal.


RE: What?
By mindless1 on 11/14/2007 5:15:35 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the point is that in a democracy the majory is supposed to rule and far more people share files than claim losses from file sharing!

This is a clear sign the industry is corrupt, when it can't exist based upon the choices of consumers and/or tries to increase profits against the will of consumers.


RE: What?
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 12:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actually the point is that in a democracy the majory is supposed to rule and far more people share files than claim losses from file sharing!

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
You are a complete idiot for even typing that.

quote:
This is a clear sign the industry is corrupt, when it can't exist based upon the choices of consumers and/or tries to increase profits against the will of consumers.

Um, have you ever heard of the term "FREE MARKET". It means you can charge as much as you want to for your products, and if people dont want them, they wont buy them. There is obviously a big enough market for $10-$15 music CD's, and $10-$25 movies. The consumer does have a choice here - if you dont think its worth it, then dont buy it.

If you seriously believe the bullshit you wrote, then you are so freakin retarded.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki