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

From FreeCulture.org
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Introduction ==
 
== 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
+
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. The bill goes beyond
  
 
== Concerns ==
 
== Concerns ==
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
== Conclusion ==
 
== Conclusion ==
 +
 +
As it stands now, the P2P provision is vague in which it requires,
  
 
== Relevant discussions and links to the web ==
 
== Relevant discussions and links to the web ==

Revision as of 22:51, 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. The bill goes beyond

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)


  • 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

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

Relevant discussions and links to the web