Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

College Funding Bill Passes House, P2P Provision Intact

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain dept.

Government 222

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the College Opportunity and Affordability Act passed through the House today with a vote of 354-58 and the anti-P2P provision is intact. That provision would require universities to filter P2P and to offer legal alternatives. They are claiming now, though, that universities would not lose federal funding if they fail to do this. Of course, an amendment that would have clarified that was withdrawn immediately after it was offered."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course (2, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354626)

Leaving things as they are will make (more) millions for (more) lawyers. So the government funded/susidized universities will be using gov't funds to fight the RIAA, and the RIAA will pay expensive legal bills to make sure they keep those "unrealized profits" as low as possible. Maybe one day they will wake up and...bleh, I am so sick of this argument.

Not really a win. (4, Interesting)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355344)

The part about filtering P2P is disturbing but there's are plenty of good legal alternatives to RIAA crap [archive.org] . I'd love to see every university mirror the Internet Archive, Creative Commons and promote work from people in their community. Let's take that part of this stupid law and make something cool that will continue to bleed the RIAA out of existence.

Clarification please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354652)

Can someone clarify whether the bill proposes that all P2P traffic be prohibited or just that which the school can identify as illegal?

Re:Clarification please (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354774)

How would you go about determining what type of traffic you're seeing on the network? If you can't weed it out, proposals like this end up causing access to be cut in whole.

Re:Clarification please (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354788)

Just run a google search [google.com] on "College Opportunity and Affordability Act". The information's right there in the first link. Kids today >:(

Here is some Clarification (5, Informative)

Bimo_Dude (178966) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354944)

Looking at the text of the bill [loc.gov] , it doesn't appear as though the institutions actually have to block p2p, but they "shall" [Must] develop a plans to explore options.

FTB:

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.

(a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--
(1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and
(2) 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.

See how your representative voted. [house.gov]

Even so... IMHO this still opens the door to more Orwellian legislation, and provides further evidence of how industry pwnes our government.

Re:Here is some Clarification (5, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355016)

Technically, they could say,

"Your alternative to illegal downloading is a ham sandwich. The plan is to have ham sandwiches be a mandatory part of the meal plan. "

and it would follow the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

There you go, every campus in the US. Where's my grant?

Re:Here is some Clarification (2, Insightful)

ameline (771895) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355202)

"develop a plan to explore"

If I tell someone I'm "developing a plan to explore" implementing X, what I mean is that I will probably never get around to *actually* implementing X -- X is likely to be implemented roughly at the same time hell freezes over -- I just want you to go away and leave me alone, as I have more important things to do *right now*. (like reading /., for example :-)

Re:Here is some Clarification (4, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355204)

Even so... IMHO this still opens the door to more Orwellian legislation, and provides further evidence of how industry pwnes our government.

Sounds like you are too young (or too old) to remember the 1984 (apt year eh?) National Minimum Drinking Age Act [wikipedia.org] which saw the US Federal Government force each state to raise the minimum drinking age to 21 ....... or face retaliation by way of reducing Federal aid for state highways. Hows that for Orwellian?

No Problem (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355306)

>to the extent practicable

Well, funding is pretty tight right now, but as soon as we free up some funds, we'll get right on that.

>(1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P);

Please refer to page 257 of the Miskatonic U. Freshman Handbook titled, "Distribution of Copyrighted Materials."

>(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property

Excerpt from page 257 of the Miskatonic U. Freshman Handbook titled, "Distribution of Copyrighted Materials": "Students may purchase software at the Campus Bookstore."

>develop...a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

The President has appointed a Blue-Ribbon committee consisting of faculty, library staff, IT management, alumni, student representatives, and two DJs from the campus radio station to explore such technology-based deterrents. We anticipate that the first meeting of the committee will be held any day now.

The phrase "intellectual property" (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355348)

[Each institution must] develop [1.] a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as [2.] a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.
Complying with 1 could begin with "Alternatives to illegal copying of music include iRate Radio, eMusic.com, iTunes Store, and dozens of other sites [goingware.com] ." But what worries me here is the use of the phrase "intellectual property" [gnu.org] instead of the more precise "copyrighted works". Which patent, trademark, and trade secret owners have lobbied for this wording?

Re:Clarification please (1)

Clete2 (823221) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355142)

My school already blocks BitTorrent completely. I only use it to download Linux. Bastards! I'm using it legally.

Why doesn't the IT department mirror Ubuntu? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355390)

My school already blocks BitTorrent completely. I only use it to download Linux. Bastards! I'm using it legally.
If you can prove that you need a copy of a GNU/Linux operating system to complete course work, then perhaps the school's IT department could mirror Ubuntu on students' behalf. If it does not, please tell the rest of us which school has a dain-bramaged IT department.

Re:Why doesn't the IT department mirror Ubuntu? (1)

Clete2 (823221) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355504)

Sadly, I can get it through HTTP and FTP, so it's a moot point. :(

No responses yet? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354654)

I see no responses yet? Is /. broken?

E Pluribus Denarium (4, Insightful)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354664)

Our young adults are learning an important lesson - money talks.

GOOD (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354684)

Colleges are for education, not filling your ipod with illegally downloaded music. Any students who think this is the most important issue in education are sadly ill-informed.

Re:GOOD (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354750)

Matt, go home and kill some more puppies.

Re:GOOD (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354802)

perhaps you havent been to college yet, but the students actually live there. a good deal of time is spent not studying, for example after they're done studying.

a college is not a classroom.

Re:GOOD (3, Funny)

pragma_x (644215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355388)

a college is not a classroom.
Agreed. It's more like a very large laboratory... with beer.

Regretably, some students treat it like a large lavatory, especially after the beer part is factored in.

Re:GOOD (1)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355622)

Did you study for class every waking hour that you did not actually spend in class while in college? Right. I thought so.

*sigh* (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354696)

Cue rants about corruption, stupid politicians, the MAFIAA, etc.

Re:*sigh* (4, Funny)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355406)

Now now. Here at slashdot we have balanced discussion where most people read the articles, keep the discussions on topic and don't bring up stupid 'memes' (that they think are clever).

What's needed for this madness to stop (5, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354702)

We need to find a way to make P2P distribution models legitimately profitable for the corporations that lobby in Washington for these asinine laws. I was under the impression that the Warcraft folks already had some kind of a P2P model going for distributing their patches and suchlike--perhaps other companies could be induced to do the same?

Elsewise, it might become very popular and profitable to set up some kind of P2P-friendly VPN service, with endpoints just outside the DMZ of various college networks...

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354814)

They are just asking for completely decentralized encrypted network. Soon they'll get it.

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354836)

Y'mean like Freenet?

Needs work before it's ready for primetime, really. It's a good idea, though.

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355334)

Y'mean like Freenet?

Needs work before it's ready for primetime, really. It's a good idea, though.
Or Gnutella? Or PERFECT DARK? Or Share? Or that one by Nullsoft before AOL had a conniption?

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355336)

Waste already works well.

Growing the network from one person is tough, but it gets rather big when it hits critical with a bunch of friends at college.

The best thing is to share the key liberally so that casual friends can get on. Then go from there.

What's needed for this download to stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355122)

Interesting. How does that fit into the slashcomplaint that broadband is a monopoly?

"They are just asking for completely decentralized encrypted network. Soon they'll get it."

No, the only thing you're asking for is for Internet access to at worst be taken away completely or at best highly restricted. Being too clever or a rebel just may backfire.

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354922)

Yeah blizzard uses a patcher that functions much like BitTorrent.

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (3, Informative)

Palpitations (1092597) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355190)

Yeah blizzard uses a patcher that functions much like BitTorrent.
It is BitTorrent, with HTTP to fall back on if needed. The patch downloader is a BT client with the .torrent file built in. It's trivial to extract the .torrent and use a client of your choice - and in my experience I get much better download speeds as well (see this (BASH) [dbservice.com] or this (perl) [progenitus.com] or this (python) [pastebin.com] or this (Win executable) for examples). [capnbry.net]

We? You and I? (1)

alandd (243817) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355090)

"We need to find a way..." Who is we?

The RIAA or anyone else is not about to figure out a business model for ME so that I can make lots of money. And I'm NOT willing to prop up the RIAA just so that I can continue to download bittorrents of Linux or other legally distributed copyrighted works. I'll not purchase my freedom by helping a bunch of knot-heads figure out a new reality.

I'll not be extorted!

Re:We? You and I? (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355186)

Those of us who want to continue using P2P without having to jump through all sorts of hoops.

And I wouldn't want the RIAA to endorse using it...but I would, for instance, want Sun or IBM or any of the various game manufacturers to distribute their various products on a P2P model.

Actually, minor non-RIAA studios could do well to distribute P2Pwise...the Radiohead experiment has shown that such a thing -can- be popular; perhaps distributing a torrent with the album art and a little nag-document (go HERE to pay us so we can keep doing this!) via P2P channels would work well to circumvent most of the primary 'objections'

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355414)

We need to find a way to make P2P distribution models legitimately profitable for the corporations that lobby in Washington for these asinine laws. I was under the impression that the Warcraft folks already had some kind of a P2P model going for distributing their patches and suchlike
I went to Rose-Hulman for four years. The resnet TOS banned online gaming connections over the Internet link without the IT department's consent, though this was rarely enforced.

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355496)

You understand that Blizzard does not profit from WoW patches, right? If the record labels already gave away all their music for free, I'm sure they could use PtP, too.

Re:What's needed for this madness to stop (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355554)

They profit from World of Warcraft subscriptions, and the P2P distribution model cuts their costs--hence increasing their profits.

Sigh... (4, Funny)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354710)

Hands up all who are surprised and shocked. Hokay, slap yourself in the face nooby. My goodness delilah, I cannot believe you actually put up your hand! Are you so attention starved that you would willingly humiliate yourself in front of EVERYBODY in a manner that is as degrading as that!? Now stop staring at me with those fish eyes of yours and go uninstall all those supposed "legal" computer software that is crawling through that porn infested pile of junk you call a PC. Do you really think you'll be a programmer one day? *storms off in a huff* /cox rant...

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355160)

But where we find all those penguins.

What Will Harvard Do? (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354742)

This should make for some interesting drama over the next year. I wonder what Harvard, which RIAA appears to be avoiding wrt lawsuits [arstechnica.com] , will do about this bit of legislation if it becomes law?

Re:What Will Harvard Do? (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354850)

Harvard is a private Uni, so it should be unaffected.

Re:What Will Harvard Do? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355506)

Harvard is a private Uni, so it should be unaffected.
Harvard, like most private schools, receives Federal (and State) funds.

It doesn't how it is claimed a law will be used (2, Interesting)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354754)

What matters is the worst possible case scenario for how a law could be interpreted, and how the scope of the law could creep. DMCA, Patriot[sic] Act, Commerce Clause [wikipedia.org] , etc...

In this case: even if the removal of funding doesn't occur immediately, if it is in the law it will most likely be used.

When was the last time that the government said "no, I don't need more power"?

A few major ones are Prohibition [wikipedia.org] and the 55 MPH speed limit [wikipedia.org]

I've Pirated Everything (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354764)

Go ahead and shut the barn door. A fat pipe and insanely cheap harddrives have given me a collection of music and movies so large I don't think I will be able to work my way through it before the heat death of the universe.

500 gig drives packed with goodies make such nice presents. We call them RIAA specials...

Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354768)

I find many students to be very hypocritical. They'll rant and rave how buying music makes them poor, then they'll go out and literally spend $1000 on video games. I've seen some students which the shelf is full of video game boxes.

I think this is a push in the right direction, even though its horribly wrong the way it was pushed through via the bill.

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (0, Flamebait)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354820)

Rubbish. As a student I wasn't in the least bit hypocritical. Buying music, games and high-end software for my course would have made me poor and unable to afford tangible things such as beer.

Naturally I pirated it all. Man that was a long time ago now, back when kazaa wasn't all spammy.

Get Off My Lawn! (3, Funny)

Bimo_Dude (178966) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355032)

Oh yeah?

Back in my day, we walked bare-pegged, uphill both ways, in shattered-glass covered knee deep snow in the desert, to trade 300 lb. boxes of punchcards!

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (3, Insightful)

reidconti (219106) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354854)

Yes, clearly these are the same people complaining about not being able to afford music. Bravo.

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354934)

I could not afford music in college. I had no video game systems, and ran Linux because I could not afford any commercial software--not even the 'student version'

Those students I knew who could afford those things usually did not have much impetus to pirate music.

You're railing against a strawman, Anonycoward, and that's not good debating form.

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (4, Insightful)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354960)

It also comes down to value for the dollar. A student can get much more entertainment value out of a $60 game than out of 4 music CDs.

The fact of the matter is, music has COMPETITION. The days of the $12 CD making sense are long, long gone. People aren't sitting around hoarding their money. No, they spend it on *other entertainment products* such as DVDs and video games. Look at how CD sales have dropped and how DVD/VG sales have risen over the past few years. To call it hypocrisy is BEYOND STUPID. You would have to stone cold batcrap bonkers to not realize it's a matter of the music industry being unable to compete for the entertainment dollars of its demographic.

And yes, buying music like that would indeed make someone poor, or at least *feel* poor, because it is a POOR FINANCIAL CHOICE in the face of what the competition is offering. A movie costs as much as, or less, than its soundtrack much of the time. A game can offer a dorm's entire floor hours of entertainment and the game industry THRIVES on that, whereas the music industry does what it can to make sure that if a dorm's entire floor is to enjoy hours of music, it will cost not $60 but far more, trying their best to tie it not only to an individual, but to a particular device that individual owns.

I don't even know why I'm taking the time to post this reply; if you had the intellectual capacity of a dixie cup you would have the sense to not post what you did.

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (2, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355312)

I'm 26 years old, still at the Uni.

I just paid 35$ and 40$ for 2 cd's. Before I hear how stupid I am, listen.

They usually go for 3000 yen.. in Japan. They were on sale for 2700 yen, and shipping ate up the rest. Now, who are these people who I'm willing to spend ~=80$ for? Ali Project. They did the opening for Hack//Sign roots, Noir, and many other anime. They are also incredible (to my standards).

I found the first songs (from aristocracy and noblerot) on WinMX years ago.. and recently found the Ali Project Incomplete torrent pack. After downloading that, I wanted the other new songs that the pack didn't have. Youtube had them in vid format, but I wanted the pretty artwork also, so I ponied up the money. I dont feel ripped off in the least, and I'm happy with the quality.

Because I heard them on a fansubbed anime, I found the torrents. Because of the torrents, I bought, from Japan no less, 2 CD's. That's money they made cause I was exposed to their music (and I didn't have a credit card since I was 25.. dont need the debt cause school has enough).

The higher the quality of what I like, the more chance to get my money. Better work for it ;) Bonuses that arent easily reproducible are also good ways to do so. NWN did something like this by including that cloth map in the game.

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355520)

I'm 26 years old, still at the Uni.
Which explains why your post was completely irrelevant to the points in the post you were responding too.

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355632)

Hah, well sometimes if something is liked enough it will command whatever price to a person, but for the most part CDs are at a price point that is just too high for the market. Quality being subjective, it's hard to say that if something is "good enough" it can cost $X and stuff that's "worse" should cost less. Regardless of quality or feature set, an item should only cost as much as the market can bear. Any more than that and it will lose sales to competition.

If someone wants any item enough, then for that person it isn't a question of other items "competing" for his/her entertainment dollars. But if you are deciding whether to load up on some new CDs, or get a new game, or get a season of whatever anime caught your fancy, you are likely to go with whatever gives you the best value for your money. And CDs simply don't for most people these days.

And in my opinion, CDs in Japan are WAY overpriced. 2700 to 3000 Yen for an album, 1200 or so for a single... that's crazy. I have no idea how CD sales don't go down the toilet altogether over there. On occasion you can get a good deal ($20 for Chrono Cross 3-disc OST wasn't bad), but if you want something like the latest L'Arc En Ciel or whatever, you need to pony up. The amount of money the record labels make per-CD in Japan is shameful.

Re:Students will pirate music, yet buy $60 games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354978)

Well, if we could get those games of the P2P network we would.

You are smarter than I am (1)

OMNIpotusCOM (1230884) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355218)

Thank gawd you posted that anonymously, because that's probably the dumbest thing I've read today (and I've been on CNN.com... so yeah)

To banish P2P because it can be used illegally is the first step. Next we will banish government, economics, networking, programming, graphic design and marketing... ok, maybe not marketing (it's mostly harmless), but all the others are dangerous and can make people lose money/power. 10 years and all you'll be able to major in is French and marketing.

Enjoy.

bad summary (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354770)

Read the bill itself:

http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf [house.gov]

The relevant section:

(a) DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RE-
LATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.--Section
485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended--
        (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subpara-
    graph (N);
        (2) by striking the period at the end of sub-
    paragraph (O) and inserting ``: and'' ; and
        (3) by adding at the end the following new sub-
    paragraph:
              ``(P) institutional policies and sanctions re-
        lated to copyright infringement, including--
                  ``(i) an annual disclosure that explic-
              itly informs students that unauthorized
distribution of copyrighted material, in-
cluding unauthorized peer-to-peer file shar-
ing, may subject the students to civil and
criminal liabilities;
      ``(ii) a summary of the penalties for
violation of Federal copyright laws;
      ``(iii) a description of the institution's
policies with respect to unauthorized peer-
to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary
actions that are taken against students
who engage in unauthorized distribution of
copyrighted materials using the institu-
tion's information technology system; and
      ``(iv) a description of actions that the
institution takes to prevent and detect un-
authorized distribution of copyrighted ma-
terial on the institution's information tech-
nology system.''.
which is a patch to this [cornell.edu] .

Looks like it simply means that the institution must disclose the policies etc. So they could simply say "we're doing nothing" and comply with the law.

Err, you may not remember the prior story... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355036)

You're correct that that's the bill, although there's the question of whether "we plan to do nothing" is actually a plan per the legal meaning of the bill. This includes not only the legal meaning of words (lawyers have Black's Law Dictionary to list the extra meaning of otherwise ordinary words), but the intent of Congress and a number of other things. Clearly, the point of this bill is that universities should have a plan and that that plan should be to stop infringement by students and offer legal P2P alternatives. Moreover, there wouldn't be much point in offering an amendment to clarify it if it was clear, and you can see that one was, in fact, offered. The person who offered it gave an excuse involving their travel schedule en and you'll see that the Ars story links to their prior article. I'm pretty sure that I submitted it to Slashdot, too.

You see, I don't believe in imaginary property.

HOWTO: new regulations compliance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354780)

OK, here we go...

step one: blocking...

make some ACLs and throw them on your firewall to block the most-used bittorrent, emule, etc. ports. You are now taking steps to block p2p traffic.

step two: provide a legal alternative [etree.org]

I've got your compliance right here!

Re:HOWTO: new regulations compliance. (1)

liquidf (1146307) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355548)

then maybe you could help out with this, i've tried to block every known port that torrents use and it still did not defer any of that traffic.. i think you'd almost have to go out and have an application policy that denies the entire app, not just ports. i suppose the first time a student connects a wkstn to the lan it could redirect to an internal site that would install a firewall, for instance sophos, that has application policies. come to think of it, i believe cisco's asa has an addon for network application compliance or something, no? anyway what do i know, i have yet to have anything over smallbiz experience.

"Legal alternatives" (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354784)

That provision would require universities to filter P2P and to offer legal alternatives.


Since P2P filesharing is legal (though sharing particular files may not be), and there are no other alternatives with the same features, this seems to be nonsense.

Re:"Legal alternatives" (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354946)

I don't see why students couldn't simply get some cheap wireless broadband and completely circumvent the schools IT infrastructure when it comes to P2P, if it comes down to it.

Re:"Legal alternatives" (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355050)

Because they are students and are poor. Most universities provide internet access without charging the students anything additional. And as the discussion proves, students are cheap and if something is free they will take it over something that isn't.

Re:"Legal alternatives" (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355116)

Because they are students and are poor.
Then tough break, it's going to take hard work to either A.) Pay for your own internet Access, or B.) To get out the vote to help elect a more citizen (not corporate) friendly government.

Re:"Legal alternatives" (1)

Bob-taro (996889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355292)

Most universities provide internet access without charging the students anything additional.

I don't know if it's an actual itemized charge like it was when I was in school (it's been a while - think "gopher"), but I'm sure the students' tuition is paying for the campus network and internet access.

And as the discussion proves, students are cheap and if something is free they will take it over something that isn't.

Are you suggesting that the rest of us prefer to pass up free stuff?

Re:"Legal alternatives" (0, Flamebait)

shark72 (702619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354974)

"Since P2P filesharing is legal (though sharing particular files may not be), and there are no other alternatives with the same features, this seems to be nonsense."

The Ars Technica article was using a bit of condensation for readability. I think the context here is understood: use of P2P for trading unauthorized files. I believe the Ars audience understands that P2P applications can be used legally, that's not the application of choice for most college students.

I don't think the colleges are obliged to offer an alternative "with the same features" (ie. DRM-free MP3 files provided at no charge) as P2P. This may seem unfair, but we do not have a God-given right to our own free MP3 file of any song we desire. What I believe will happen is that the various legal services will step up with a subsidized service that offers streaming and/or DRM.

It may be an unpopular opinion around here, but free MP3s aren't exactly oxygen. The biggest rationale (besides the most honest one: saving money) is that P2P allows us to sample and learn about new music, some of which we might buy. But I've had incredibly good luck in finding lots of great music and broadening my music horizons using Pandora, last.fm, and iTunes' search and exploration features. Nutsie.com is my new toy of choice. Again, once we acknowledge that we don't have a God-given right to free MP3 files, we can find plenty of acceptable substitutes to enjoy all the music we want freely and legally. Anybody who claims that they need P2P to explore new music in a "try before you buy" mode either isn't being honest with themself, or simply hasn't done their home work.

"Legal 'I don't know what that word means'" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355020)

Gee what's nonsense about setting up a legal cache?

The RIAA will sell universities DRM'd music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355338)

They want the colleges to make deals with them to sell DRM'd music. The students would lose access to it after college (unless they buy it again or break the DRM), and the RIAA would get paid for it whether or not the students used it.

Okay, so it's not the RIAA itself selling it, it's their partners, but the RIAA would still make money and I think you get the idea here.

Stupid laws (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354798)

I wonder if the idiots that thought they could effectively block P2P have a brain?

If you block it, it will find a way around you one way or another. You could run P2P over DNS if you wanted to. Once that happens, 2 choices, break the law or cut the universities off the internet.

Can the universities send the RIAA the bill?

Re:Stupid laws (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355178)

I say run everything over port 80, with everything wrapped around <html><body>encrypted data you cant see</body></html>

Then add in open and close brackets every so often to make it look legit, so it bypasses proxies and other munging servers.

When it passes all the layers of detection from ordinary traffic, the shit will hit the fan.

Re:Stupid laws (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355256)

Easy ... using stuff you can't change :

1) the destination address will have very clear patterns (obviously)
2) the bandwidth
3) put you behind nat

Furthermore ... this would require YOU to redesign (and market) a successfull p2p application ... every month orso (or every day once symantec starts paying people to update their filters)

Good luck

Re:Stupid laws (2, Informative)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355530)

---1) the destination address will have very clear patterns (obviously)

As bandwidth in/output rises, CPU time to investigate packets rises rather fast. It's easy with 1 or 10 hosts, but you start playing with N students where N = 50000... And as long as the source and destination know who is who, packets can then be munged heavily to hide the source, along with other TCP/IP tricks.

---2) the bandwidth

That's the reason for encryption. Plausible deniability.

3) put you behind nat

And as SKYPE and others have shown, NAT only makes a problem a bit harder, not impossible. I'm right now behind a NAT using bittorrent. I'm still getting 200 KBps down and 75KBps up (max for this connection is 310KBps down/125KBps up).

---Furthermore ... this would require YOU to redesign (and market) a successfull p2p application ... every month orso (or every day once symantec starts paying people to update their filters)

As for data inspection, the data would be encrypted within a standard HTML page, with configurable tags to simulate real websites. It would not be hard to have a handshaking that agrees upon say, 10 unique websites and use that schematic for the session (there's plenty of techniques one could agree to share hidden data, I'm just stating a basic one). Really, how much bandwidth would the overhead take to hide what you're doing, along with encryption?

Do you actually think that the tags would be static? Hardly... rotate them as if they were real websites: polymorphic data encoding. Yum ;)

The reason this was passed (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354804)

Politicians took a look at the name of the bill and realized they couldn't vote against it no matter what it said.

Re:The reason this was passed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354900)

Yes, the "Reduction of Privacy to Further Special Interests" Bill doesn't quite have the same ring.

Just like them politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354816)

to name something the exact opposite of what it is.

Opportunity and affordability my ass

Re:Just like them politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22354940)

Someone posted here the idea that the people who are against a bill ought to be the ones who name it.

Free speech considerations.... (3, Insightful)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354866)

So, now the Federal government is supposed to require institutions to deny my free speech rights, by setting up filtering regimes that may or may not allow me to share copyrighted materials peer to peer-- even if I own the copyright on the stuff I am sharing.

Anyone else besides me think the SCOTUS would wipe that particular provision off the books the moment that Harvard, Yale, et. al go to war with the RIAA? Hint: those two schools alone have more legal ability backing them and all the financial resources required to go to legally go to war, and in fact, more than all the RIAA companies combined. Not to mention that the RIAA really really really doesn't want to piss of Stanford, because the majority of the RIAA companies are in California, and it's not that far a drive from Stanford to any State court where they would choose to go to war themselves.

My question is, why aren't our congressmen and women smart enough to vote that particular piece of junk OUT of the bill?

Re:Free speech considerations.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355166)

" Not to mention that the RIAA really really really doesn't want to piss of Stanford, because the majority of the RIAA companies are in California"

Nonsense, RIAA just served 15 settlement letters to the Stanford students. Stanford legal counseling advised student to cough up the money. No legal wars. Period.
Private universities get their money from government grants and private donations. Thus every university wants to keep big buisness and government happy. So, do not expect some one to stand up for you.

Free BS considerations.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355242)

Free speech rights? Look once you get past high school. Higher education becomes a privilege not a right. That means you have to start acting like an adult. Internet access is a privilege and when privileges are abused in our society they are taken away or otherwise restricted. AS for your "but I own the copyright". One no one's stupid. Most of the P2P traffic isn't material owned by either endpoints. Two filehosting is dirt cheap, use it.

Re:Free speech considerations.... (5, Informative)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355302)

"Anyone else besides me think the SCOTUS would wipe that particular provision off the books the moment that Harvard, Yale, et. al go to war with the RIAA?"

Not this SCOTUS. Bush loaded that quite well with pro-business judges. Young ones, too, so they'll be a probem for a half century or even more. Do not look for relief from the Imaginary Property crowd from those five. Reference Lawrence Lessig's noble attempt to void the 100+ year copyright by pointing out it was effectively eternal and thus violating the Constitution's design to release works into the public domain. The court's majority - not just Bushies, either -- stated that since the 100 years was a finite time period, the lockup was not technically eternal thus not violating the concept of release to the public domain. The sane counter that in 100 years time our descendants would not even understand what public domain was anymore, or that the future law would simply add another 100+ years, was lost on their ears. They are pro-business and pro-Imaginary Property.

You say you own the copyright. Prove it. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355486)

So, now the Federal government is supposed to require institutions to deny my free speech rights, by setting up filtering regimes that may or may not allow me to share copyrighted materials peer to peer-- even if I own the copyright on the stuff I am sharing.
But how do you plan to prove that you own a valid copyright? If you write a song, can you prove that you didn't accidentally copy something you had heard a decade ago on the radio [wikipedia.org] ?

Anyone else besides me think the SCOTUS would wipe that particular provision off the books the moment that Harvard, Yale, et. al go to war with the RIAA? Hint: those two schools alone have more legal ability backing them and all the financial resources required to go to legally go to war
But do Harvard and Yale receive a lot of federal funds, compared to state universities?

How is this going to make it any difference (1)

The Analog Kid (565327) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354870)

A lot of schools already block P2P anyway because they only have so much bandwidth to go around, and educational use of it comes first. What's really going to change?

Ask Slashdot... (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354880)

Dear Slashdot,

Can you help me figure out a way to ply the illegally gotten contents of my hard drive against my almost 10 years old student loan? I would have pirated this stuff back then, if I could have...

Thanks!

I know one thing. (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354886)

Off-campus housing is going to triple in price. (Fortunately I've already signed my lease for next year)

College = education. (0, Troll)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22354942)

I know I'm going to get modded to hell for this, but: if you're in college, you should be studying - not leeching from TPB.

Note: ebooks don't count, of course. :)

Re:College = education. (3, Interesting)

eli pabst (948845) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355106)

I don't think it is that absurd for a college CS major to be downloading a linux ISO from bittorrent. I don't mind Universities helping copyright holders protect their works, but denying all P2P traffic is a ham-fisted way of doing it. If they want to filter based on content, that's fine, but even that isn't fool-proof. You have to be very careful in how you legislate this because its people who can't afford to go to college without university support that are going to be paying the price.

I think examples such as the DMCA should make us wary of how well-intentioned legislation can go wrong when you have technologically illiterate politicians guided by industry lobbyists doing the writing.

Re:College = education. (0, Flamebait)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355214)

I was going to include something to the effect of "don't give me the bullshit about linux and bsd isos", but I assumed no one would even dare try that stale, simple defense. Seems I was wrong. hm.

The defense raises an interesting point, tho: what gives you the right to waste the bandwidth of the school? Downloading, if it is for study, is one thing... but uploading...? Not so much.

Re:College = education. (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355428)

Here's a thought... who gives two monkeys if someone's seeding a linux ISO? Why is the school's bandwidth there? Make a peak usage policy. Problem solved.

Another thing too... I don't see seeding a distro (or what do I care, a movie) as "wasting bandwidth" or hindering education... I remember ftping the latest and greatest Slackware distro (all the floppies) when I was in college... and I also remember mooching oodles of copyrighted pictures off usenet too... (tin, baby!) And I remember getting a pirated version of MS-DOS 6.0 weeks before it hit the store shelves... The school survived the "bandwidth crisis" and did fine... even in the days where a fat pipe meant a 28.8 modem. And guess what? I got my degree and _still_ used the computer labs to play Rise of the Triad and Doom in the evenings... not to mention various MUDs and finding craploads of useless text files on obscure computers all over the world (BEFORE the WWW had more than 3 webpages...)

I learned how to use Unix, shell scripting, writing stuff with curses... not to mention how to maintain a SLIP connection to school (while using a dead IP from the host file), and discovered IRC warscripting at the same time I learned the stuff I went to college for. :)

Life's good when you have the freedom to explore...

Re:College = education. (1)

the brown guy (1235418) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355172)

"if you're in college, you should be studying - not leeching from TPB" Is seeding still okay mom?

What REALLY concerns me... (3, Insightful)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355038)

...is that the schools would be required to promote "legal alternatives" for music to students, i.e. iTunes, Napster and the like. Most universities already monitor their network to curb file sharing. But the university being forced to push commercial services on students is way over the line. These are supposed to be institutions of learning, not free advertising. Now you've got student tuitions and tax dollars being spent on the recording industries PR campaigns. The whole thing makes me sick.

Re:What REALLY concerns me... (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355508)

...is that the schools would be required to promote "legal alternatives" for music to students, i.e. iTunes, Napster and the like. Most universities already monitor their network to curb file sharing. But the university being forced to push commercial services on students is way over the line.
Who said they have to be commercial services? The plan could start with Michael Crawford's list [goingware.com] .

On a side note (1)

samwh (921444) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355084)

Guess who voted No from Texas's fourteenth congressional district?

Only hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355088)

Now we can only hope Bush vetos it by accident...

An iPod in every ear (0, Flamebait)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355138)

The new "basic" and indispensable appliance, is not it?

Let's see, the "poor" must be able to afford (at somebody else's dime, of course) food, shelter, medical care, a TV, and a car. Now the ability to "share" somebody else's music is also viewed as important by Slashdot's illiberal crowd...

It is called TOR (1)

chrishillman (852550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355188)

Even if they do block the "wicked p2p" networks (of course they only have a single purpose, piracy), laugh and start up TOR or a SSH proxy and... Move on.

Dear Colleges, don't let the RIAA bully you (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355332)

Please do not allow the RIAA to bully you into promoting their affiliated eStores (e.g. iTunes) on your campuses. In order to provide legal alternatives, please work with smaller entities or even free services to grow and promote them and firmly raise your finger to those who buy our politicians and make our children targets for litigation.

Soap, Ballot, Jury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355356)

Looks like the first three have failed. People have spoken out, to no avail. Our elected legislators do nothing to help the people. People are capitulating and settling left and right because they can't afford to get to a jury.

Save the country, shoot an RIAA lawyer.

Once a few of them meet a pissed off, heavily armed citizen, maybe they will think twice about threatening to destroy people's lives.

So they finally put it in writing? (1)

walmartshopper67 (943351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355408)

This doesn't change anything really - colleges have been acting as an enforcement arm for the RIAA for years now. Here at RIT they've almost admitted as much - students are told straight up that RIT will give the RIAA the names of anyone they ask for, no subpoena or court action required. It's hard to blame the colleges themselves though, when the RIAA has the FBI and DOJ their enforcing too.

Love the bill title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22355464)

College Opportunity and Affordability Act? The bill requires universities to filter P2P. The universities will have to pay to do that/set that up. Guess who gets the bill for that? The students.

Thus continues the fine tradition of bills such as CAN-SPAM or PATRIOT act, that actually do the opposite of the title. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Illegal? Where's the law. (3, Insightful)

nsanders (208050) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355472)

That provision would require universities to filter P2P and to offer legal alternatives.


I was unaware that P2P is illegal. What law am I violating when I download Linux ISO via bittorrent? Or use World of Warcraft's built-in torrent system to download updates to my game?

Obama said today in Seattle he won't do that (2, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22355580)

And the Bush restrictions are out the window once he's President, along with $4000 a year for college students who sign up to work in hospitals or the peace corps.

So I wouldn't worry about the privacy restrictions being in effect for very long.

Think someone may have YouTubed it - I was there for three hours and just got back.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?