University Report On Dealing With Plagiarism... Plagiarized!

from the how-about-that... dept

Been meaning to write this one up for a bit, and finally got to it. Michael Scott points us to an amusing story about how Southern Illinois University was dealing with some plagiarism problems and decided to put out a report on how to deal with plagiarism. That report included a nice description of plagiarism that turned out to be (you guessed it) plagiarized. Hopefully that makes Southern Illinois University rethink its position on plagiarism... but that seems unlikely.

Filed Under: plagiarism, universities

More Trouble From Universities And Patents: Lawsuits Between Universities And Professors

from the sharing-the-knowledge-or-grabbing-for-profits dept

We recently discussed how the Bayh-Dole Act, which encouraged universities to look at patenting their research, has done more harm than good for many universities. Because of the Act, many universities set up "tech transfer offices" to try to "commercialize" the research going on at those universities. However, the majority of universities have found that the tech transfer offices have lost them money. That's because (once again) they overestimate the value of the patents themselves (and underestimate the costs of running the transfer office). Now, the Associated Press is highlighting a second problem coming out of this focus on patenting every bit of research: lawsuits with professors.

You would think that a university, whose mission is to help disseminate knowledge, would want to help share ideas. But Bayh-Dole turned many of them into idea-hoarding factories, believing (often incorrectly) that hoarding ideas would bring them profit, thus often stifling research. In the main case described in the article linked above, the University of Missouri gave up trying to commercialize a certain patent developed by a professor at the university. Even so, when the professor tried to reclaim the rights to his own research, for the sake of doing his own startup, the University tried to put in all sorts of strict rules and conditions -- well beyond what it even requires of other organizations it licenses patents to. Thus, the two sides are now engaged in a big lawsuit.

This, of course, hurts everyone. Rather than focusing so narrowly on patenting every bit of research and then trying to squeeze every penny from those patents, you would think that there are much more beneficial ways for everyone to benefit from the research. The professor could build his startup, and the more successful it is, the better it reflects on the University -- who can tout that the research initially came from the university. This, in turn, can lead to new (and bigger) grants and funding for new research, as the university's reputation is greatly enhanced. If the professor remains connected to the university in some fashion, this works out even more. And all of this can be done without patents. In fact, without having the professor license his own research, it keeps the costs down for the startup, making it easier for that startup to succeed. Plus, this would fit well with the recognized value of sharing ideas that come out of academia, rather than trying to hoard them for profit.

Filed Under: bayh-dole, innovation, patents, universities
Companies: university of missouri

Ruckus Music Service -- Which Was Supposed To Save The Industry -- Now Dead

from the how-about-that dept

Remember Ruckus? That was the attempt by a former recording industry guy and a former Napster employee to create an online music service that colleges would pay for, but which students could use for "free" (free in the sense that students wouldn't be paying for it directly). When we pointed out how lame the service was, we actually got angry emails from some folks who insisted that it really had revolutionized the campuses who had bought into it. In fact, the recording industry used this argument in its big push to force universities to sign up for Ruckus.

Apparently the revolution was short-lived -- and without government help to force colleges to subscribe, Ruckus has shut down. For some of those who got their music from Ruckus, the DRM on the tracks means that the music will be unplayable. Some tracks are still playable, but will apparently die once they hit their "renew date" and can't find a DRM server to renew. Yet another recording industry backed solution to the "piracy problem" that wasn't. At what point does the industry finally realize that piracy isn't the problem at all?

Filed Under: music, online service, recording industry, subscriptions, universities

Student Cleared Of Charges She Spammed Teachers At Her University

from the common-sense-prevails dept

Back in December, we wrote about a student at Michigan State University, who was disciplined by the school for spamming, after she sent out an email to all of the professors at the school concerning a schedule change that would impact their class schedules in a future semester. One teacher complained, and the student was found to have violated the school's anti-spam policy, which said you couldn't email more than 30 people at a time. This seemed silly, as the message was clearly not spam in the traditional sense at all. After a widespread public outcry, and the EFF preparing a lawsuit on the student's behalf, the school has backed down and cleared the woman of any wrongdoing, and said that it will review and potentially change its anti-spam policies.

Filed Under: email, free speech, spam, universities
Companies: michigan state university

Warner Music Pitches Music Tax To Universities: You Pay, We Stop Suing

from the pay-us-not-to-sue dept

Back in March, we noted that Warner Music Group had hired Jim Griffin, a music industry guy who has been pushing the concept of a "blanket license" for file sharing. The idea would be to get various ISPs to simply add an additional fee to everyone's internet access, have that money go into a pool that the recording industry would be responsible for paying out -- and then let people have free reign for file sharing. This is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. It's basically a music tax -- allowing the record industry to be lazy. Someone else gets to go out and collect all this money and hand it over to the industry to distribute (or, actually, not distribute). It effectively sets the business model of the recording industry in stone, and harms better, more innovative business models by inserting the recording industry (and not the musicians) into a role where they don't belong.

We hadn't heard much about this music tax lately, but apparently Griffin has been focused on getting universities to buy into the plan first. An anonymous reader passed on some details, saying that Columbia, Stanford, University of Chicago, University of Washington, MIT, University of Colorado, University of Michigan, Cornell, Penn State, University of California at Berkeley and University of Virginia have expressed interest and talks are under way. A basic presentation that's being given to these universities is below (if you're reading via another site, click through to see it): There's obviously something appealing about ending the lawsuits and letting people file share freely. But, it's quite problematic to add an effective "tax" when none is necessary. Plenty of other business models, such as those we've outlined here and elsewhere can suffice to fund the creation of music. On top of that, giving the proceeds of this tax to the very industry that has so badly mismanaged musicians for so many years is a travesty -- sort of like bailing out the failed auto industry or banking industry. The presentation says that a nonprofit has been set up to handle the money, claiming that it's "to be clear we intend to operate with good intentions and not profit as a motive," but given the way the industry has acted in the past, that's difficult to take at face value. Also, this isn't really a license. It's a "covenant not to sue" -- meaning that lawsuits could still result.

Of course, while the introduction frames this as a "voluntary" blanket licensing program, the presentation also mentions that they'll need some way to get all ISPs and universities to buy into the plan, or they'll have to work out a way to "avoid massive leakage." So, basically, it's not voluntary at all. It's either join, or get saddled with significant limitations. In other words: all ISPs and universities need to agree to pay a huge tax to the very industry that hasn't been able to adapt, and then trust them to distribute the funds fairly.

Update: Warner Music got in touch and sent us a statement concerning this presentation from Jim Griffin:

"This presentation belongs to someone outside our company and represents that individual's interpretation of issues discussed at meetings held several months ago. It was not made by me or anyone at Warner Music Group. Of course, we are actively engaged with universities and other parties to seek a constructive resolution to a complex issue - how to assure artists appropriate compensation while enabling the widespread dissemination of their work among fans. Therefore, we are undertaking an effort to develop new voluntary business models that seek something other than - and we believe, better than - a litigation-based approach. This is exactly the type of solution that several universities and their associations have been asking for. We recognize that there are many different potential solutions to this issue, and we are determined to continue to think creatively and cooperatively with other parties in order to find the best ones. At this early stage, many ideas may be discussed and discarded, but efforts to prematurely label or criticize the process only hinder achievement of constructive solutions."

Filed Under: jim griffin, music tax, universities
Companies: warner music group

Nathan Myhrvold Now Capitalizing On Failed University Patent Intitiatives

from the privatizing-publicly-funded-research dept

We've discussed, in the past, the infamous Bayh-Dole Act, which tried to push universities to patent more of their research, with the idea that it would make research more commercializable. In fact, the unintended consequences were to significantly harm university research. Universities quickly set up "technology transfer" offices, with the idea of selling off patents for tons of money, but the vast majority of universities discovered that such technology transfer offices cost a lot more than they made, and so they were a drain on university resources (you know, which could have gone to basic research). On top of that, the new focus on patenting everything caused researchers to be much more afraid to share ideas and concepts with colleagues, greatly diminishing the value of research or the ability of researchers to explore other areas where colleagues might have already applied for patents, for fear of "infringing."

However, it looks like Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures, which we've discussed at length, in the past, is looking to take advantage of this situation. With so many university technology transfer offices losing money, IV has been going around and signing deals with universities. Basically, IV gives those tech transfer offices some money upfront, allowing IV to effectively add each university's patent pool to its own portfolio that it uses to go around demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from companies to "protect" them against any future lawsuits.

Effectively, the end result is less actual research being done at universities, while some guys who don't actually build anything get rich. And, oh yeah, the companies that actually do stuff are poorer. Doesn't something seem highly suspect about this scenario?

Filed Under: bayh-dole, nathan myhrvold, patents, universities
Companies: intellectual ventures

RIAA Gets Tennessee Law To Force Universities To Filter Networks For Copyrighted Content

from the the-riaa-never-sleeps dept

After more than a decade of watching the entertainment industry (mainly the RIAA and the MPAA), one thing I've learned is that the organization never gives up in pushing its legislative agenda. If there's a setback in one area, you can be sure that others from the organization are eagerly pushing the exact same rules through some other angle. The typical MO is that they try to get federal legislation passed in their favor. However, if that fails, they switch to the fallback plans which involve international treaties and state laws. Both of these are great because they tend to get a lot less scrutiny. State laws are a bit of a pain, because you have to get a few of them approved to create the "groundswell" that makes other states jump on board, but changes to state laws can often pass through under the radar.

That appears to be what's happening in the effort to force universities to install filters monitoring their networks for any unauthorized transmissions. You may recall that the RIAA pushed strongly to get Congress to pass laws requiring filters. Basically, the entertainment industry first flat-out lied (yes, lied) about how big a problem file sharing on campus was, and that got some Congressional Reps (with plenty of campaign contributions from the entertainment industry) to introduce legislation punishing universities if they didn't filter their networks. Widespread outcry against that legislation helped water it down, but it appears the industry just moved on to state legislatures.

The RIAA is now celebrating the fact that Tennessee has passed legislation that requires universities to install filters if they've received at least 50 DMCA requests. Considering the massive number of DMCA notices that the RIAA has been known to file, this is hardly a large hurdle. The law will cost Tennessee taxpayers nearly $10 million in the first year, and another $1.5 million each year -- based on the state's own estimates. And for what? To put in filters that won't work, just to try to prop up an obsolete business model from legacy players in an industry that needs to learn how to adapt to the market?

Filed Under: copyright, filtering, tennessee, universities
Companies: mpaa, riaa

University Bans Access To Facebook; Claims It's A Security Issue

from the really? dept

We've seen plenty of stories of silly politicians trying to ban access to social networks in high schools, but in colleges especially things like Facebook are basically the way students communicate with each other. So it's rather surprising to find out (via Michael Geist) that Concordia University has banned access to Facebook on any computer connected to the university network via a wired connection. If you're using WiFi, the university allows it. First of all, that seems like a really strange split. Why should it matter whether the connection is wired or wireless? Even odder is the explanation for this:

The university has decided to implement these restrictions because of concerns that the continuing reliability of the Concordia network could be compromised because of spam, viruses and leaks of confidential information related to Facebook use.

There are spam, viruses and leaks of confidential info all over the internet. So why ban Facebook? And those same issues face wireless users as well as wired users. The whole thing sounds like someone who was very confused overreacted to something in the wrong way.

Filed Under: bans, security, social networks, universities
Companies: condordia university, facebook

How Patents Have Harmed University Research

from the a-travesty dept

When we talk about all the harm patents do, some people respond that even if the market can make up for cover the research costs for commercial products, without patents, basic research would never happen. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, there's increasing evidence that patents are harming basic research as well. The main arena for basic research has long been universities. Yet, back in 1980, what was supposed to be a "minor tweak" to the patent system, the Bayh-Dole Act, allowed universities to start patenting their research. And, patent it they did. However, as the NY Times notes, rather than foster new research and innovation, this resulted in much less collaboration, much greater secrecy and much higher costs to innovation.

As the article notes, the problem was in making the same mistake that many patent system supporters make, assuming that the invention stage is the most important part of innovation -- when it is not. Invention is just one part of the innovation process. Locking up the invention stage makes every other part of the process of innovation much more expensive, thereby limiting innovation -- and in fact, that's exactly what the Bayh-Dole Act has done:

Part of the problem has been a lingering misunderstanding about where the value lies in innovation. Patenting a new basic science technique, or platform technology, puts it out of the reach of graduate students who might have made tremendous progress using it.

Similarly, exclusive licensing of a discovery to a single company thwarts that innovation’s use in any number of other fields. R. Stanley Williams, a nanotechnologist from Hewlett-Packard, testified to Congress in 2002 that much of the academic research to which H.P. has had difficulty gaining access could be licensed to several companies without eroding its intellectual property value.

As for whether or not it's actually increased the amount of basic research, a study we wrote about earlier this year found that it had actually decreased basic research at universities. And, the story gets even worse, because it's not even as if this ability to patent university research has resulted in huge monetary windfalls for universities either. While some had hoped to hit the jackpot with patents, they failed to recognize just how costly it is to maintain patents and run a technology transfer office. A recent study found that the majority of tech transfer offices had lost money for their universities.

About the only good news in the article is the fact that the steady stream of studies and complaints from within academia about this impact is gradually waking up some to how big a problem the Bayh-Dole Act was in stifling research and innovation in the US. Unfortunately, just getting basic patent reform moving is difficult enough. And since the pharma industry likes Bayh-Dole (since it allows them to sweep in and get all the value from discoveries made at universities -- see The $800 Million Pill to learn about how pharma and biotech companies have abused the system for years), you can bet that they'll put up a huge fight to repeal this incredibly harmful bit of legislation.

Filed Under: bayh-dole, innovation, patents, universities

Universities Realize That The RIAA Is Taking Advantage Of Them In Lawsuits On Students

from the pushback-time dept

We never quite understood why various universities were cooperating with RIAA demands that they send "pre-litigation" letters to students accused of file sharing. These non-binding letters are often used to pressure students into paying fines, even if they're based on weak (at best) evidence of file sharing. It certainly wasn't in any university's best interests to basically help out a private organization in a business model dispute with its students. Yet, some university officials, falsely convinced by the RIAA that this was more than a business model dispute, decided to help out. And the response? The RIAA has increased the flood of notices, and then convinced Congress to move forward on legislation that would legally obligate universities to act as the RIAA's copyright cops.

It appears that more and more universities are realizing that they got shafted. The EFF points out that there's widespread anger among university officials who felt they were trying to find a middle ground by cooperating, but instead find themselves swamped with more and more notifications and this new legislation that increases their legal liability over a business model dispute. And, the worst part? Now that they're pushing back in court, the RIAA points out that dealing with these notices before wasn't a burden, so universities aren't being truthful that they're now a burden. How's that for a thank you for helping out originally?

If it hasn't become clear by now, the RIAA doesn't view universities as partners in all of this -- and any university that thinks of the RIAA as a partner is about to get steamrolled by the RIAA legal machine. It's time that more universities stood up not just for their own rights, but the rights of their students as well not to be targeted by questionable "pre-litigation" threat letters without more significant evidence. And, it wouldn't help for the RIAA to finally recognize that this entire battle has done nothing to deal with the real issue: its own inability to recognize that its business model needs to change.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, music, riaa, universities