Comments on: Hollywood's new lesson for campus file swappers

Entertainment companies are pushing new antipiracy technology that could make it easier to remove suspected pirates from campus networks.

Universities NOT liable for students

Universities can't be held liable for illegal student behavior over their networks, protection is provided through the DMCA. They aren't any more liable legally than ISPs are. Please get your facts in order, cnet.

stupid

In other words... just don't attend these schools. Well, I know it's not that easy, but I'm sure the schools will get crap from the students for it. Isn't it your business, what's on your pc? It seems invasive to tell someone that they can't have a file on their computer... "Whoop, you can't have this Kernel32.DLL on your computer, because it might allow you to use your computer." Not all music traded on the internet is illegal either... how do they plan to deal with that?

It's a stupid system.

This is a crock of s#@$

First of all, it is not up to the university to do anything about file sharing, legally. The best they can do is simply limit the bandwidth to certain applications to keep the network speedy. Other than that - They should do nothing... And I'd like to see them get past my proxy server!!!

Sample XML

The issue is not how fast the media companies can shut down
students--the issue is when they are going to make their
shutdown notices *accurate*. The Universities are right--there
has to be an appeal process--none of this "shut it down now".

If you want an example of a typical shutdown notice (XML
included) see here:

http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/2004/
TechnoLegal.Universal.St.html

This was Universal's second attempt to shut down my internet
connection by complaining to my ISP about things which had
absolutely nothing to do with me.

And they want to be able to just flick a switch and shut things
off without appeal? Would you give a light switch to someone
who doesn't know what a light bulb looks like?

Link Failure

Kee, you need to repost that file elsewhere. Access permission to the file was denied by the server you have it stored on.

interesting...

I read through the emails you posted on your site. Very interesting. Kudos on kicking their *****.

[benwolfe54]

Oxymoron?

Isn't an oxymoron to patent an open source, royalty-free syste? Maybe the RIAA wants everyone to adopt it and then they will charge out the wazoo for having it installed.

"ACNS is an open-source, royalty-free system that universities, ISPs, or anyone that handles large volumes of copyright notices can implement on their network to increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of responding to the notices," according to a technical summary.

ACNS was jointly designed by Vivendi Universal Entertainment and Universal Music Group in response to an open call for technical solutions to peer-to-peer piracy. The two groups are still talking to universities, ISPs and technology companies about offering it as a pilot program. They have also applied for a patent on the piracy notice and prevention tool.

[jcolletta275]

Exactly.

That's just the point. They DON'T think of these things. It's a clear violation of your right to privacy, but thanks to the DMCA, Patriot Act, etc., that right practically doesn't exist anymore. The RIAA, MPAA and other groups backing this plan know that. That's why they're taking advantage of the huge window of opportunity open for them now (and abusing the privelege). MY next question is, how are they going to determine not only what music isn't copyrighted, but what music was downloaded legally? I could have half my hard drive filled with music I got from iTunes or Napster. Would they try to cut off my Internet access for having THOSE on my hard drive? I think it's about time we voted out those in public office who are going along with this crap. Anyone else feel the same way?

It's about time

Whoever is complaining about privacy shouldn't worry. If you
read the article, only flagged copyrighted files will be detected if
they are shared. If they are detected on your computer, you give
up your privacy rights just as if you were to get arrested by a
police officer. I am tired of all the P2P software, viruses, spyware
and adware. You can say whatever you want about which
version, Lite, copy or whatever. The are all the source and
contribute to this growing infection on the internet.

The real source of all illegal files has never been P2P software.
However, it has become the largest source of mainstream files
simply because any fool could download any song or movie and
most programs. Try converting everyone over to IRC, well, that's
not gonna happen. Plus, I don't even think a 1/3 of people using
Kazaa recognize the threat of being caught. Well, you are going
to see thousands get caught within the next 6 months. When
several companies, different industries with government support
all get together to crack down you are gonna have them coming
after you. I feel no remorse for all your mass piraters and
redistributors.

What everyone seems to overlook

Okay, I just have to mention one aspect of the P2P smack down
that none of the companies seem to see, or want to look at.
They state that college campuses are "ground zero" for illegal
downloaders because of bandwidth, I'm a recent college grad
and I can tell you first hand that of all the downloaders I know,
none of them do it because of the bandwidth. The #1 reason is
the high cost of such small goods. College sudents, myself
included, tend to have little or no money while i school.
Spending $10-20 on a CD is not going to happen, we all would
choose food over music. If the companies would stop illegal
downloadings as of today, their business wouldn't benefit one
bit. Two reasons why: 1) Students would not fall back on
purchasing CDs, they can't afford to. So what would happen is
they wouldn't buy anything or they'd esort to digitizing audio/
video from other sources to listen to. 2) The industry would
suffer because most file swappers tend to use the P2P channels
ad testing grounds for music. If they like it, they'll buy the
album, if not they'll keep he one or two mp3s or delete them all
together.

I'm getting tired of hearing about companies taking their
customers to court hoping it will turn their business around. On
a common sense level that make none at all. I don't think it
takes a brilliant person to see the trends and realize that te
industry just need to cut their losses and try to redesign their
business models to fit customer wishes as opposed to their own.
What ever happened to "The customer is always right?"

[Fray9]

Exactly

Your exactly right in that aspect. Thats why ever since thise whole thing started I vowed to never buy a single product from the RIAA again whether it be a CD tape or even 8-track.

If I want to hear a band Ill go see them perform live. Thats what musicians do after all.. they are performers, entertainers.. not artists.. its not a painting its music.

As for someones analogy about the police you are incorrect. Even if you are suspected of doing something illegal they cannot search your house or your hard drive without a warrant or your express permission. Theres where the privacy issue comes into effect. Searching your computer just like searching your house to see if your doing something illegal without probable cause or a warrant is an invasion of privacy and highly illegal.

[mcugaedu]

Penalty without hearing? Legal problem

I'm alarmed at the idea of penalties sometimes being imposed automatically by software, without giving the accused person any kind of hearing. What if the system malfunctioned?

All the computer usage rules that I helped frame for The University of Georgia (www.uga.edu/compsec/use.html) revolve around the notion of human accountability and the right to defend oneself in some kind of hearing. Punishment for misdeeds should not be automated.

[Fray9]

Thats not the only problem

Theres also the fact that searching a persons hard drive without a warrant, permission, or probable cause by a law enforcement agency is illegal as is intercepting a data transmission without the persons permission, whether explicit or implied. That would either fall under traditional wiretapping laws or one of the many computer hacking laws.

Theft???

Your Text (block 7):"Universities have an incentive to cooperate with the technological solutions because they can be held liable in lawsuits charging their students with digital theft."

Outtake of the document "Philosophy" from the Author of "Freeme":
One of the big successes of publishers such as the RIAA and MPAA has been a steady erosion and public brain-washing regarding the point of
copyright. A simple but effective measure has been the modification of terminology that is used for copyright violations: they speak of people "stealing intellectual property" or "theft of copyrighted music" in the trading of MP3s. The wide-scale copying ala Napster clearly is copyright violation, but "theft"? The definition of something being "stolen" means that it is taken from the rightful owner - and the owner no longer has possession of that item.

Well as you can see, you actually did fall into the Moustrap, didnt you....