Congress Moves Forward With Plan To Make Universities Copyright Cops

from the first-ISPs,-then-colleges dept

For a little over a year, there have been stories about how the entertainment industry has been pressuring Congress to make universities responsible for stopping copyright infringement on their network. This got a lot of attention late last year when Congress tried to tie such a mandate to a provision granting financial aid to students. In other words, the threat was that if universities didn't act to stop file sharing, their students wouldn't be eligible for financial aid. This got plenty of attention, and the bill never passed. The most interesting part of it, though, was that much of the reasoning for the bill was driven by MPAA claims that 44% of all illegal file sharing took place on college campuses.

There was just one problem with that: the number was completely wrong. Earlier this year, the MPAA admitted that it had made a small mistake, and the number was actually something like 15% (and even that could be argued).

You might think that would allow our Congressional representatives to focus their attention on something a bit more important -- but with super low approval ratings, the people they actually represent matter a lot less than their biggest campaign donors. So, of course, the bill to turn universities into copyright cops is back once again. It is somewhat toned down, but will still require universities to basically be the mouthpieces of the entertainment industry, repeating their propaganda and ignoring that the problem is the industry's obsolete business models rather than any legal issue.

However, as you read William Patry's post on this above, you see that the MPAA is also positioning the legislative history on the law so that next year or so, they'll be able to come back and insist on mandatory filters at universities. Basically, it looks like the MPAA tried to bite off too big of a chunk when it pushed for this law last year, so this year, it's taking half a bite, but getting everything ready to get the rest of what it wants next year.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright cops, intellectual property, mpaa, universities
Companies: mpaa

RIAA Massively Ramps Up Warning Notices To College Students Over File Sharing

from the last-throes... dept

While the RIAA has been sending threatening notices to colleges about student file sharing for a while now, it seems to have recently stepped up the attack. Various colleges are reporting a rather massive increase in these notices, despite no discernible change in file sharing activity. In some cases, they're suddenly getting as many notices in a day as they used to get in a month. Some universities are also pointing out that they don't see any corresponding activity in their log files that would indicate that industry insiders had actually checked to make sure these files were infringing.

One interesting theory is mentioned in the Wired article above. The RIAA has been using the number of such notices as some sort of indicator of how much piracy is occurring -- and even lobbying for laws that would require any university that got over a certain number of notices to install special filtering/monitoring software. So, by showing an increase, the RIAA can try to show how "necessary" this is, even if the notices are totally bogus. As one person points out in the article, it does not seem at all reasonable to judge how much piracy is occurring (or what actions need to be taken) based on an arbitrary number that is totally under the control of the RIAA.

Filed Under: notices, riaa, universities
Companies: riaa

House Approves Bill To Require Universities To Offer Students Music Services

from the mandatory-Napster? dept

Late last year, we wrote about a bill that would put pressure on universities to put in place an official approved music subscription service or risk losing federal financial aid support for students. This is a bizarre piece of legislation, as it effectively props up Napster and RealNetworks by basically requiring universities to sign up for such a service, even if they don't want to. Despite widespread criticism of the bill, the House has now approved it, even leaving out a promised amendment promising that failure to obey wouldn't threaten financial aid. Supporters of the bill claim that it wouldn't actually be used to cut off financial aid, but if that's the case, why include it in this bill at all? It would basically be a requirement without any repercussions for ignoring. At the same time, no one has clearly explained why universities should be required to sign up for a private music subscription offering. What possible public policy reason could there be for such a thing?

Filed Under: congress, copyright, file sharing, music subscriptions, universities
Companies: napster, realnetworks

Patents For University Research No Help In Increasing University Research

from the so-much-for-that-theory dept

If you've read David Levine and Michele Boldrin's excellent book Against Intellectual Monopoly (there's a new version available), you'll see study after study after study showing the same thing: despite the idea that patents are supposed to encourage more research, there's simply no data that stronger patent protections increases the rate of research. In fact, if anything, the evidence suggests the opposite: that stronger patent laws allow researchers to rest on their laurels and use monopoly control to slow down any additional research. Much of this research is available in chapter 8 of their book.

Based on that, it should come as little surprise to see a new study coming out, suggesting that the infamous Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, that tweaked patent law to push universities to patent their research, did not actually cause greater research in the academic space. This is important, because many patent supporters point to the Bayh-Dole Act as being a key point in increasing the commercialization of research coming out of universities, thanks to the various patents. That now appears to be untrue. In the blog post linked above that discusses this, Institute for the Future blogger Anthony Townsend notes at the end "To their [Bayh and Dole's] credit, at least they didn't make things worse." Unfortunately, that's not true. They made things a lot worse. As we noted over two years ago, the Bayh-Dole Act has resulted in universities actively stifling research, using the monopoly powers granted to them under patents to prevent important basic research, driving up costs and slowing down innovation. Researchers are now less likely to share information, which has always been an important part in moving important research forward and figuring out how to build on each other's research for practical applications.

So, despite the common claims by some that Bayh-Dole's tweaks to the patent system helped drive better commercialization of basic research from universities into the market, we now have more evidence that it's done the exact opposite. It didn't increase the amount of research being done at the university level, and rather than encouraging greater innovation, the monopolies granted have helped to stifle innovative research, decrease information sharing and generally drive up the price of research and the commercial applications of that research. That's exactly the opposite of what the patent system was intended to do.

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

The University Of Google Needs Better TAs

from the If-Obscurity-Is-Good-Enough-For-Security,-It's-Good-Enough-For-Education dept

Professor Tara Brabazon, a lecturer at the University of Brighton, is fed up with shoddy student research papers and has dubbed the rampant mis-use of Google results as "The University of Google" -- condemning the practice of simply taking the first few search engine results and compiling them for homework assignments. While we've seen several cases of schools banning the use of Wikipedia, Brabazon even goes so far as to forbid students from using Google as well as other online resources. While the criticism that lazy students are relying too much on search engines is probably valid at many universities, the solution to ban the use of search engine tools and online references seems like an unjust punishment, as well as a disservice to the students who will likely need to use search engines after they graduate. Brabazon points out that students don't attend universities to learn how to use Google, but that doesn't mean the use of websites like Wikipedia and Google should be ignored. If anything, there should be a crash course on what Google is (and is not) useful for -- analogous to the math teacher's favorite little guide "Lies My Calculator Told Me" which details the pitfalls of blindly using a calculator. Students should be taught using all the available tools that can help them further their education, along with how to use those tools effectively. On Google's side, however, perhaps the search engine giant should create a knol that describes how to write a respectable research report using Google -- without getting caught.

Filed Under: ban, calculator, knol, search engines, universities, wikipedia
Companies: google

University Requires Students To Buy GPS-Enabled Phones

from the overkill? dept

When I was in college, the campus safety system consisted of a series of emergency telephone poles with blue lights on top. The deal was that from any place on campus you were supposed to be able to see at least one emergency blue light phone, and in the event of an emergency, all you needed to do was knock one such phone off the hook and campus police would arrive quickly. It appears that some universities are getting a more modern update on this idea, as Montclair State University apparently requires students to buy a special GPS-enabled mobile phone that can be used to report emergencies to campus officials. The phones come with special software, including a special timer system. A student can set the timer before walking home, and if he or she does not turn off the timer by the time it is up, the police will be alerted to the location of the phone. It's an interesting feature -- but is it really worth requiring all students to buy one? Apparently very few students actually use the system at all. It's certainly for a good cause, but it sounds like it's a bit of overkill that is resulting in very little usage. There's nothing wrong with offering such a deal to students who want it -- which will make it naturally appealing to those who are safety conscious and, thus, more likely to use it. However, forcing everyone to buy in seems unnecessary.

Filed Under: gps, safety, universities
Companies: montclair state university

MPAA Trying To Rootkit Universities?

from the how-nice-of-them dept

Just as the MPAA is strongly pushing for a new law that would require universities to take proactive measures to prevent unauthorized file sharing from happening on university networks, the group is also apparently pushing certain universities to install some MPAA-sponsored software to monitor network usage. However, after examining this "toolkit" some are noticing that it appears a lot more like a "rootkit" than a "toolkit." Depending on how a university's network is configured, it could actually reveal a lot of private info to the outside world. The software also phones home to the MPAA, despite promising not to report back any information. There are a few other oddities as well. While it could password protect some of the exposed content, it never prompts the user to do so -- and, at the same time, it disables logging who accesses the pages revealing all the info. While it could all be a coincidence, effectively the MPAA has made it so that it (and others) can spy on university network usage without being tracked in many cases. People in the article note the similarity to the Sony rootkit situation, where software designed to "protect" actually opened up huge security vulnerabilities.

Filed Under: mpaa, privacy, toolkit, universities
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Explains Why It's Okay To Tie Federal Funds To Blocking File Sharing

from the because-we-say-so,-dammit dept

While Congress' new bill on education funding may not be as bad as some are making it out to be, it still seems quite questionable that Congress appears to be regulating the idea that universities need to do the kind of marketing and educational campaigns that the recording industry cannot. We've asked supporters of the bill to explain how it could possibly make sense to mandate such things, and the MPAA's top lawyer, Fritz Attaway, has given his answer, claiming that it's because the internet is "used primarily to allow college students to traffic in infringing content," while being subsidized by gov't funds. It would be nice if Attaway or someone else at the MPAA could actually back up the claim that the primary use of the internet by students is infringement. While I wouldn't doubt that it's a popular use, to say that it's the primary use is hard to believe -- unless you count things like visiting Facebook pages, using Google and sending emails as "infringement." At the same time, this doesn't seem to support the reasons for this bill. After all, many kids on college campuses own cars -- and I'd imagine that most of those students break the speed limit frequently enough. Yet, we don't see any bills being proposed in Congress that would prevent financial aid funding unless universities start handing out more speeding tickets and put in place plans to offer public transportation. So why should they do that for copyright infringement?

Filed Under: congress, copyright, fritz attaway, mpaa, music, subscriptions, universities
Companies: congress, mpaa, napster, ruckus

Congress Moves Forward With Required University Subsidies To Napster, Ruckus

from the business-as-usual dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about how Congress had slipped a provision into the Higher Education Act that would require universities to put in place a plan to have published policies on unauthorized file sharing and to also "develop a plan" to offer "legal alternatives" such as Napster or Ruckus. Of course, some would point out that many file sharing systems, by themselves are legal. It's just that some people are using them for things that break the law. Really, what this bill represents is a gov't backed subsidy for Napster and Ruckus, forcing colleges to offer them even if their students don't want it. It's not clear, at all, why Congress should be in the business of demanding a particular type of music delivery system be offered on college campuses. The announcement of the bill resulted in plenty of attention, leading the House committee that was debating the Act to distribute a "fact sheet" that is anything but factual. It accused those criticizing the bill of being "supporters of intellectual property theft." That is not the case at all. In fact, it's rather insulting that Congress would automatically assume that anyone who questions why Congress is forcing universities to pay for commercial music distribution systems is a "supporter of intellectual property theft."

Of course, when the committee is calling anyone who opposes such a plan as being a supporter of theft, it's no surprise that they wouldn't take any of the criticisms seriously and moved forward with the bill without any changes to the controversial section. They also dismissed the claims that universities who don't sign up for Napster or Ruckus would lose financial aid funding, though, that's clearly what the bill allows to happen -- and you know that the RIAA and MPAA (and Napster and Ruckus, for that matter) will push to make it a viable threat.

Either way, it would be nice for Congressional supporters to answer this simple question: Why is it any part of Congress's business to mandate that universities sign up for a commercial music distribution service?

Filed Under: congress, copyright, music, subscriptions, universities

Would Congress Withhold Financial Aid From Colleges That Don't Offer A Subscription To Napster?

from the slippery,-slippery-slopes dept

It looks like the media companies are making good on the strategy they floated in June (and seems to have been mulling since at least March). A relatively well-buried section of this year's amendment and extension of the Higher Education Act places new requirements on schools whose students receive federal student aid — requirements that oblige them to lend Hollywood and the record companies a helping hand in their fight against P2P piracy. Needless to say, this is ridiculous. As Carlo's post argues, there's no reason why schools ought to be conscripted into propping up a troubled industry's business model.

As you might expect, the copyfighters are incensed by the idea. Fortunately, it doesn't look like the bill (pdf) is quite as bad as they're making it out to be: though the idea may be detestable, its execution in this case is less-than-complete. An affected institution is only required to "make publicly available to their students and employees the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials" and to "develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity" — and only to do so "to the extent practicable". It sure sounds like these provisions could be easily satisfied: posting regulations and drawing up a plan (but not necessarily implementing it) simply isn't that much of a regulatory burden. Is it a bad idea? Yes. Is it going to result in swarms of penniless scholars trudging, broken-hearted, away from the academy and toward a lifetime of menial toil? It seems unlikely.

Still, it would be a mistake to ignore the inappropriateness of the requirements, or the slipperiness of the slope we're presently on. This is, after all, an industry that's perfected the art of regulatory capture to such an extent that it could now be better described as regulatory taxidermy. If congress can be convinced to repeatedly hand our copyright system over to industry, there's little reason to doubt that it's willing to throw in the education system, too.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, music, subscriptions, universities