Archive:Notes on Response to HR 4137

Formatted

 * Problems with filtering
 * Fair Use/infringement issue
 * Costs
 * Hardware
 * Gratis software requires upkeep and maintenance
 * Aggregate man-hours involved with implementing
 * Mission of the university
 * Makes the network worse, not better
 * Backing up data
 * Moving large amounts of data
 * Doesn't just affect College students, but all members of universities


 * Alternatives
 * Compulsory licensing or license agreements with universities to provide a subscription as part of a university fee
 * Would have to be DRM-free
 * Would have to be fair payment, perhaps with the idea of willing buyer, willing seller

Criticism

 * Filtering would have to distinguish between Fair Use and infringement : impossible
 * Not w/in mission of University to be responsible for this - their purpose is to encourage learning. The proposed interferes with that mission
 * does not push forward the efficacy of the university project
 * Costs are very high for monitoring/ filtering/ managing this effort
 * hardware costs
 * even gratis software requires upkeep, maintenance
 * more work for IT / admin
 * Vague language in bill
 * plus / minus
 * Blocking legit traffic
 * fair use
 * moving large data (slow down)

Looking forward

 * Grant money could go to legit, free projects rather than filtering projects

Alternatives to 'Illegal' Filesharing

 * These need to be repositories of freely shareable content, rather than subscriptions to DRM.
 * We should advocate for a distinction between alternatives such as Napster and alternatives such as The Internet Archive.
 * Ideally, the legislation would not require any for-profit DRM-laden service, but only a obligation to encourage free culture on campus. This is our definition of "alternatives".
 * Vague language could be interpreted in a way that supports to free culture

Web at large

 * Static page for people to link to

Deadline

 * Tuesday morning

HR 4137

 * H.R.4137 on OpenCongress.org
 * Press Release: House Education Committee Approves Bill to Address Rising College Prices & Remove Other Barriers to College Enrollment, Thursday, November 15, 2007
 * Public Knowledge blog post

It calls those who oppose the Act â€œsupporters of intellectual property theftâ€. Amazing that this House Committee is calling those that take issue with a piece of legislation that is very controversialâ€”the very institutions that this Committee financially supports, tantamount to criminals. Just a few names of institutions that wrote letters criticizing the Actâ€™s provisions include: University System of Maryland, Stanford University, Yale University, The Pennsylvania State University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


 * Seltzer blog post
 * Anti-P2P bill gets warm welcome from Ruckus.com, CNET, November 13, 2007 :

A letter sent last week to House Democrats charged: "Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid--including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy." It was signed by the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, the president of Stanford University, the general counsel of Yale University, and the president of Penn State.


 * MIT / IST response

"MIT's Information Services and Technology Department has not yet found a set of tools and technologies that is effective in blocking unauthorized file sharing while still allowing or facilities sharing of information for research and teaching."


 * Politicos near vote on anti-P2P rules for universities, News.com, November 14, 2007

University officials have voiced alarm at the prospect of losing a combined total of some $100 billion in federal financial aid if their plans don't pass muster. The Association of American Universities has voiced its disapproval to committee leaders through a letter last week, and Educause, a non-profit organization that focuses on technology use in education, has issued an action alert urging the requirements to be dropped.

Related info

 * "Get Legal", UCLA/ Ruckus project, October 2007
 * Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities Technology Task Force
 * Purpose and Scope of the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities

Relevant language
SEC. 487. INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE INFORMATION FOR STUDENTS.

(a) DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RELATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.â€”Section 485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amendedâ€” (1) by striking and at the end of subparagraph (N); (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (O) and inserting : and ; and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: (P) institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement, includingâ€” (i) an annual disclosure that explicitly informs students that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to civil andcriminal 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 institution's information technology system; and (iv) a description of actions that the institution takes to prevent and detect unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on the institution's information technology system..

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.

Part G of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new section: ''SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION. ''(a) IN GENERAL.â€”Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicableâ€” ''(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. ''(b) GRANTS.â€” ''(1) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.â€”The Secretary may make grants to institutions of higher education, or consortia of such institutions, and enter into contracts with such institutions, consortia, and other organizations, to develop, implement, operate, improve, and disseminate programs of prevention, education, and cost-effective technological solutions, to reduce and eliminate the illegal downloading and distribution of intellectual property. Such grants or contracts may also be used for the support of a higher education centers that will provide training, technical assistance, evaluation, dissemination, and associated services and assistance to the higher education community as determined by the Secretary and institutions of higher education.

Introduction
introduce the provision briefly, complement it's strengths and suggest that this problematic issue could potentially hold back the good stuff

Students and teachers who oppose HR 4137's illegal file-sharing provision do so out of a concern of what its language will encourage and how this will change the culture of our universities and their neutral networks. HR 4137 goes beyond the progress made through the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities (JCHEEC) in that it mandates that universities 'explore' technological deterrents, which means filtering. The JCHEEC not only represents the work of universities and their own agreed best practices but also entertainment concerns, such as the RIAA, Warner Music Group, and the MPAA.

note existing statements by univ. leadership

In their statement of purpose and scope they come to the conclusion that universities will "seek ways to reduce the inappropriate use of P2P technology without restricting free speech and expression, invading privacy, or limiting the legitimate uses of P2P."

Concerns
Not all of those making copies of copyrighted works over a network are illegally infringing a copyright. Especially at universities there are many uses currently being used in and outside of classrooms that fall under Fair Use. Likewise, it's certainly legal to make a backup of material that you have been licensed. (example of what a paragraph would look like here)


 * Note the variety of situations in which legal copying occurs on a university network:
 * fair use
 * public domain
 * cc
 * other non-(c) licensed material (e.g. experimental data)
 * Filtering would have to distinguish between Fair Use and infringement : impossible
 * Not w/in mission of University to be responsible for this - their purpose is to encourage learning. The proposed interferes with that mission
 * does not push forward the efficacy of the university project
 * Costs are very high for monitoring/ filtering/ managing this effort
 * hardware costs
 * even gratis software requires upkeep, maintenance
 * more work for IT / admin
 * Vague language in bill
 * re: use of "theft"
 * advocate for clarification among various unauthorized uses
 * unauthorized is one possible neutral word
 * the text of this bill should not determine the legality of activities on a network, thus neutral language is necessary
 * Blocking legit traffic
 * fair use
 * moving large data (slow down)

Alternatives

 * These need to be repositories of freely shareable content, rather than subscriptions to DRM.
 * platform lock-in (ruckus, etc)
 * drm prohibits fair use
 * drm incompatible with university mission
 * imposing a single commercial
 * We should advocate for a distinction between alternatives such as Napster and alternatives such as The Internet Archive.
 * Ideally, the legislation would not require any for-profit DRM-laden service, but only a obligation to encourage free culture on campus. This is our definition of "alternatives".
 * Vague language could be interpreted in a way that supports to free culture

Conclusion
As it stands now, the P2P provision is vague in which it requires,

Relevant discussions and links to the web

 * http://www.aau.edu/intellect/JointP2PCMR.pdf