Federal rules on campus file sharing kick in today

[Steve R.]

CNET ran this article today: Federal rules on campus file sharing kick in today

This new law is simply another demonstration that our freedoms are being eroded in the name of this "war" or that "war". In this case the "war" against piracy.

One of the most obscene aspects of this law is that it was passed to protect the business model of a dying industry. Since when is government ever supposed to prop-up the business model of private enterprise.

This law raises issues with due process, "wiretapping", and forcing a university to act as a private police force for the sole benefit of the content industry.

Imagine this onerous hypothetical example. An RIAA executive taps you on the shoulder and demands that you break into the house he is pointing to, that you search the house for unauthorized content, if you find it that you bring it to him. Search warrant? None needed. How can he force you to break and enter someone else's house to "protect" his property that you have no interest in? If you refuse, you go to jail. Doesn't sound legal, but it seems we are headed that way.

 

[PNGBill]

Australia is trying to bring in laws that will allow your browsing history to be stored and viewed.

No one has a history of where you window shopped last year or what book or magazine you browsed through but it is in the Nations Interest to keep track of every internet site you stumble across

I would be shocked at some of the magazines I Glimpsed at when younger but thankfully I have forgotten most of them and there is no record - so far.

Of course men are less at risk here because we already are used to some of this history issue as our Wife can remember everything we said and did many years in the past. Just click the "wrong" button and you will get all available records

 

[statsman]

The question that needs to be addressed in this issue is a simple one. Is the University of Kansas (for example) giving this web service for free to their students or are they required to pay for it?

If its free, UK is responsible for the internet usage of the people who use the service.

If the students/staff are required to pay UK for this service, the University is not required to give out any information about the usage without a court order. There is plenty of legal precedent out there that states the ISP must make some effort to protect the privacy of its users.

 

[Vassago]

CNET ran this article today: Federal rules on campus file sharing kick in today

This new law is simply another demonstration that our freedoms are being eroded in the name of this "war" or that "war". In this case the "war" against piracy.

One of the most obscene aspects of this law is that it was passed to protect the business model of a dying industry. Since when is government ever supposed to prop-up the business model of private enterprise.

This law raises issues with due process, "wiretapping", and forcing a university to act as a private police force for the sole benefit of the content industry.

Imagine this onerous hypothetical example. An RIAA executive taps you on the shoulder and demands that you break into the house he is pointing to, that you search the house for unauthorized content, if you find it that you bring it to him. Search warrant? None needed. How can he force you to break and enter someone else's house to "protect" his property that you have no interest in? If you refuse, you go to jail. Doesn't sound legal, but it seems we are headed that way.

The government is controlled by these corporations. They line the money of the politicians. It's always been this way. Democrat or Republican, you're going to work for the people who support you, and I mean REALLY support your expensive eating habits...

Most of the government today is so out of touch with technology anyway. I remember once seeing a small clip of President Bush not understanding how a powerpoint presentation worked. These lawmakers have no business ruling on things they don't understand. My generation desperately needs to take this power away from them before they doom this country.

 

[Vassago]

The question that needs to be addressed in this issue is a simple one. Is the University of Kansas (for example) giving this web service for free to their students or are they required to pay for it?

If its free, UK is responsible for the internet usage of the people who use the service.

If the students/staff are required to pay UK for this service, the University is not required to give out any information about the usage without a court order. There is plenty of legal precedent out there that states the ISP must make some effort to protect the privacy of its users.

Unfortunately, all the RIAA had to do to get the names of people is provide "proof" that the user's IP shared content that they owned and the subpoena was instantly granted. There is so much wrong with this picture, it drives me mad. If I were to go to a court with a random IP and provide that kind of evidence, I would be laughed out.

 

[Vassago]

What really ticks me off is that I had to really dig to find news articles about it. They sure know how to push through stuff without the people it affects knowing, don't they...

I don't even see an article on Fox News or CNN about it.

 

[rustyCrVx]

I can't imagine this really making any significant progress in the "war" against piracy. Just looks like a stepping stone to really invading all of our privacy. All I see happening is students ending up paying even more... So dumb.

 

[Steve R.]

What really ticks me off is that I had to really dig to find news articles about it. They sure know how to push through stuff without the people it affects knowing, don't they...

So true!!!!! I don't have the "space" to disgorge all my ill feelings. But the New York Times, your totally biased left-wing paper, on this type of issue is totally right-wing (pro-copyright) concerning the issue of so-called intellectual property. Schizophrenia.

I believe the following was in the NYT, but I can't remember. There was an inflammatory article concerning the use of smart utility meters. The article claimed that the use of smart meters would be an invasion of privacy. (Utility companies have been reading meters for a long time) Yet when it comes to an actual law that will invade your privacy for purposes of "intellectual property" using dubious legal tactics, the paper is amazingly silent!!!

So much for honest in-depth reporting.

 

[Vassago]

So true!!!!! I don't have the "space" to disgorge all my ill feelings. But the New York Times, your totally biased left-wing paper, on this type of issue is totally right-wing (pro-copyright) concerning the issue of so-called intellectual property. Schizophrenia.

I believe the following was in the NYT, but I can't remember. There was an inflammatory article concerning the use of smart utility meters. The article claimed that the use of smart meters would be an invasion of privacy. (Utility companies have been reading meters for a long time) Yet when it comes to an actual law that will invade your privacy for purposes of "intellectual property" using dubious legal tactics, the paper is amazingly silent!!!

So much for honest in-depth reporting.

I think it's less the reporters fault, more the politicians. They have been keeping this entire case very silent and most people that pay attention to politics don't understand the issue. Like I said before, my generation seriously needs to get more into politics and get into office.

 

[Steve R.]

This story only gets worse. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports: "Ticketmaster's Terms of Service Cannot Make You a Criminal". The link between campus file sharing and Ticketmaster's is that private companies seem to be increasingly able to use the power of the State to "protect" their business interests.

Briefly the EFF writes: "Newark, New Jersey - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of academics and public policy groups are urging a federal judge to dismiss a criminal indictment that could give websites extraordinary power to dictate what behavior becomes a computer crime.

The four defendants in this case are the operators of Wiseguys Tickets, Inc., a ticket-reselling service. In its indictment, the government claims the four purchased tickets from Ticketmaster by automated means, violating Ticketmaster's terms of service and therefore the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). In an amicus brief filed today, EFF argues that this prosecution expands the scope of the CFAA beyond what Congress intended, grounding criminal liability in whatever arbitrary terms of service that websites decide to impose on users." (emphasis added).

This is appalling, and I won't even get into the issue of how one-sided terms of service should not even constitute valid contracts.

 

[ChipperT]

I don't see the issue here. The anti-piracy effort here is directed at CAMPUS computers, not personal ones. It behooves all public and private institutions to protect themselves from the possibility of lawsuits, especially over possible copyright infringement issues. Universities are the bedrock of intellectual property. Is it not right that they go out of their way to attempt to protect it?

 

[Vassago]

I don't see the issue here. The anti-piracy effort here is directed at CAMPUS computers, not personal ones. It behooves all public and private institutions to protect themselves from the possibility of lawsuits, especially over possible copyright infringement issues. Universities are the bedrock of intellectual property. Is it not right that they go out of their way to attempt to protect it?

No, it is also directed at campus provided internet service to personal computers. It basically forces the college to "police" the service they provide, whether the students pay for it or not.

 

[ChipperT]

Well then, the answer is simple. If you don't pirate, you have no worries. If you do pirate, do it somewhere else.

 

[Vassago]

Well then, the answer is simple. If you don't pirate, you have no worries. If you do pirate, do it somewhere else.

It's not about pirating. It's about the law forcing colleges to police copyright interests for a third party business. It shouldn't be their responsibility. There is way too much wrong with this.

 

[Steve R.]

Well then, the answer is simple. If you don't pirate, you have no worries. If you do pirate, do it somewhere else.

The issue is deeper than simple piracy, what we are seeing is the presumption that private industry and the government have an implicit "right" to spy on everyone and anyone in the name of fighting privacy. So, in the noble quest of fighting piracy you would willing to have a product similar to Sony's rootkit being secretly installed on your computer? As you are probably aware, besides spying, this product actually damaged (disabled) computers that were doing nothing illegal. Sony BMG CD copy protection scandal.

Not only that, but they are also pushing for the ability to "filter" your data-stream. So if the ambiguous "they" don't like you connecting to certain services, even if the service is legitimate, they will stop you from connecting. Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?. The preceding is only one example, but it is an indication of what can happen.

In the name of noble quest of fighting "piracy", do you really want to have the government and private enterprise spying on you and restricting your ability to use the internet?

 

[ChipperT]

In the name of noble quest of fighting "piracy", do you really want to have the government and private enterprise spying on you and restricting your ability to use the internet?

Hmmmph! They already do. You don't own the broadband any more than you don't own the airways (radio spectrum). It is all owned and leaded by the government. Privacy is a fiction, a fallacy. Drive down the street to the mall. I will guarantee that you have been videotaped numerous times on the way. Pay a bill, purchase something by check, debit or credit card. You have been tracked. Withdraw cash or do any banking. Tracked again. Be employed, do any commerce, live. You have been tracked. I am not saying all this is right, it is just a fact. Rather than tilting at windmills maybe we need to figure out how this Brave New World operates so we can survive.

 

[Thales750]

This entire conversation echoes of nineteenth century thieves, sitting around drinking beer, and complaining about the new advanced locks people are installing.
I say a company can do anything to keep thieves away from the safe, and if that means involving government, which I believe police around the world ,are employed by government; well so be it.
Maybe the music industry wouldn’t be suffering so much if so many people hadn’t stolen the kitchen sink from them.
Most of these thieves wouldn’t even consider stealing from the local drug store, but sharing music is ok. Furthermore, most people think it’s like Robin Hood, stealing from the rich. Well studios employ floor sweepers too.
Some day if you successful enough, someone will steal your intellectual property. You’ll go running willy-nilly to the FBI, crying foul.

 

[Steve R.]

I say a company can do anything to keep thieves away from the safe, and if that means involving government, which I believe police around the world ,are employed by government; well so be it.

While fighting thievery has a great deal of populist support one has to ask that old question of be careful of what you are asking for, you might not like the results.

Now, I am not going to go into all the minutia here. You may want to see what others are writing here Techdirt and Against Monopoly.

1. The expansion of copyright has made formally acceptable uses unacceptable potentially making that activity subject to criminal action. Those who want to defend "strong" copyright never seem to get around to acknowledging that they themselves are stealing from the public.

2. Due process is being abused by those who want strong copyright. Apparently due process is not part of your equation by the phrase "a company can do anything to keep thieves away". By extension that means the RIAA or the MPPA could have "representatives" siting in your house to supervise your at-home computer activity.

3. Those who favor "strong" copyright have gotten some legislation passed that forces third parties to protect the business model of some content producers. Again by extension, would you accept the mandate that you break into someones house on the mere assertion that that person could be doing something wrong? What if you were on the receiving end?

 

[Vassago]

This entire conversation echoes of nineteenth century thieves, sitting around drinking beer, and complaining about the new advanced locks people are installing.
I say a company can do anything to keep thieves away from the safe, and if that means involving government, which I believe police around the world ,are employed by government; well so be it.
Maybe the music industry wouldn’t be suffering so much if so many people hadn’t stolen the kitchen sink from them.
Most of these thieves wouldn’t even consider stealing from the local drug store, but sharing music is ok. Furthermore, most people think it’s like Robin Hood, stealing from the rich. Well studios employ floor sweepers too.
Some day if you successful enough, someone will steal your intellectual property. You’ll go running willy-nilly to the FBI, crying foul.

You are completely missing the point here. No one is being labelled a criminal or even charged with a crime in this situation. There is no due process. If the RIAA comes back to the school and says, "So and so downloaded this," then the school must adhere to it and penalize the student, or face government penalties. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It's just like the lawsuits the RIAA pushed out a few years ago... suing people that couldn't afford to prove their innocence in court, since it wasn't a crime they were being charged with... it's ridiculous.

And the only reason why the RIAA gets away with this and no one else can is because of their position in this country as a monopoly and government funder. Let some private smaller label that's not part of the RIAA try to order a school around and get the government involved, they would say it's not their job to police copyright.

 

[ChipperT]

And the only reason why the RIAA gets away with this and no one else can is because of their position in this country as a monopoly and government funder. Let some private smaller label that's not part of the RIAA try to order a school around and get the government involved, they would say it's not their job to police copyright.

Just a minor point... if the RIAA were indeed a monopoly then there would be "some smaller label that is not part of the RIAA". They are without doubt powerful and megalithic but they are not a monopoly. Not in the legal sense anyway.