Difference between revisions of "Archive:Notes on Response to HR 4137/Draft"

From FreeCulture.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: == Introduction == Students and instructors 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 cul...)
 
Line 5: Line 5:
 
== Concerns ==
 
== Concerns ==
  
 +
* 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)
 
== Alternatives ==
 
== Alternatives ==
 +
 +
*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
  
 
== Conclusion ==
 
== Conclusion ==
  
 
== Relevant discussions and links to the web ==
 
== Relevant discussions and links to the web ==

Revision as of 22:44, 18 November 2007

Introduction

Students and instructors 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. Blah blah blah something else

Concerns

  • 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)

Alternatives

  • 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

Conclusion

Relevant discussions and links to the web