Archive:Notes on Response to HR 4137/Draft

From FreeCulture.org
Revision as of 22:44, 18 November 2007 by Christopher (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

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