Online Quiz As a Gateway to P2P

Andy Guess points out an interesting approach taken by a Missouri university to limiting (and limiting legal exposure because of) on-campus, on-line copyright violations, as described at Inside Higher Ed: "In order to download (or upload) files on any peer-to-peer network whatsoever, all on-campus users at Missouri S&T have to pass an online quiz on copyright infringement. But not just once. Passing the test — with a perfect score — enables peer-to-peer access for six hours on the user's on-campus registered machines."

Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[grub (11606)]

Test software: Hello Mr. Manson, 1) Is murder legal?
Charles Manson: no

Test software: 2) Is murder bad?
Charles Manson: yes

Test software: 3) Would you feel bad if you murdered someone?
Charles Manson: yes

Test software: 4) Do you presently feel like murdering?
Charles Manson: no

Test software: 5) murder, Murder, MURDER!!!
Charles Manson: no, No, NO!!!

Test software: Congratulations, you have scored 100%. You now have 6 hours of access to the cutlery drawer.

Re:Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[hansraj (458504)]

I don't think the idea is to know the intent of the users. Like you humorously pointed out, that would make no sense. Upon trying to make sense of this policy, I could come up with the following possible explanation. Of course I might be mistake :-)

I suppose the motives (or rather hopes) are based on two ideas:

1) By making the system inconvenient (even mildly so), discourages the "casual" p2p users. I have no idea what fraction of users are "casual" though.

2) Cognitive dissonance. Probably the idea is that once the users are forced to repeat certain beliefs in their head (even when they disagree with them), many will actually feel a psychological dissonance simply because the reward is not too great. One way to get rid of it, would be to actually start believing whatever they replied in the questionnaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Induced_compliance_studies [wikipedia.org]

Of course cognitive dissonance does not seem to be the perfect phenomenon in use here, I wouldn't be surprised if something very similar was going on. Any psychologists in the house today?

Re:Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[veganboyjosh (896761)]

I didn't get the cognitive dissonance angle at all from this. I figured it's more like one of those waivers you have to sign at things like rock climbing gyms, or high risk activities, where you don't just sign your name at the end of a stack of papers, but you initial every paragraph. I've even seen one where I had to rewrite by hand an entire paragraph about how I wouldn't sue the place if I got injured, etc.

If they include this quiz, and only allow users who score 100%, then maybe the network can't be held responsible for copyright infringement, since they've screened for users who don't know what's off limits.

Re:Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[cp.tar (871488)]

So how did "Click here if you're over 18, we can't allow access to kids" cognitive dissonance work?
A blazing success, I hear.

Re:Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[Tanktalus (794810)]

I clicked those all the time when I was 17. After a year of doing this, I started actually believe I was 18. Even fooled my parents into thinking so!

Re:

[BarryJacobsen (526926)]

I clicked those all the time when I was 17. After a year of doing this, I started actually believe I was 18. Even fooled my parents into thinking so!

I'm always amazed at what people can accomplish with the power of the mind. Were you able to keep them fooled for long, or did they stop believing you were 18 after a few season changes?

Re:Yeah, everyone will answer that quiz honestly.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why are you being modded funny?

I think it has something to with the fact that those of us who aren't bordering on autism laughed when we read it.

Re:

[gardyloo (512791)]

Definitely, definitely.

Re:

[jonaskoelker (922170)]

Definitely insightful. Def-def-definitely insightful.

Re:

[AK Marc (707885)]

Informative? There is nothing informative about a fictional account. It conveys no facts. It gives no actual information. It may be interesting. It is funny. But it informs me of nothing.

Question 1

[cjb658 (1235986)]

True or false: Copyright infringement is stealing?

Guess I'd fail. :)

And I love the illogic applied by them.

[khasim (1285)]

From TFA:

"Based on the amount of grumbling it's actually working pretty well," Lutzen said.

Are they referring to an increase in complaints or a reduction?

I have taken many tests and I have found that getting a perfect score is not so much about knowing the material as about knowing the expectations of the person who wrote the test.

True or false: Copyright infringement is stealing?

The answer would vary depending upon how well the person "grading" the test understood "stealing" and "copyright infringement" and your local, state and national laws.

Re:

[Penguinisto (415985)]

I have taken many tests and I have found that getting a perfect score is not so much about knowing the material as about knowing the expectations of the person who wrote the test.

For some odd reason, my experiences with the MCSE tests for Windows 2000 come to mind (e.g. chanting: "The Gospel According to Bill" allowed me to easily pass all of the Win2k ones on the first go - in spite of the massive suspense of disbelief required to do it).

/P

Re:And I love the illogic applied by them.

[interstellar_donkey (200782)]

One was along the lines of Q: Downloading software is A: okay/bad.

And that's what makes this so silly. Downloading software is usually just fine. It's knowingly downloading applications that you don't have permission/license to run on your computer is bad. Yet, for many people any time an application is downloaded off the Internet, it's bad (be it for copywrite infringement, fear of viruses, whatever).

There's just this blanket fear of software that doesn't come off a CD-Rom that demonstrates the ignorance of so many people, including, sadly, system administrators.

In the same tone, there's this blanket view of P2P that it's all bad. Now, I won't argue that much, if not most of p2p traffic isn't to share copywrited materials. But there's still enough legitimate traffic to make it a protocol worth keeping around. If there wasn't such a negitive connotation with P3P, a heck of a lot of bandwidth could be saved on the corporate end (imagine using torrents to distribute television programs offered for free viewing from a major television network)

Re:Question 1

[Darkness404 (1287218)]

Exactly, these questions that will surely be asked on the test will try to make it seem like copyright infringement is stealing as much as 2+2=4 rather then asking a moral question that can be taken either way. I am surprised to see that whenever a professor expresses views that might be objectionable the media attacks them, but with "piracy" they seem to make it seem like it is stealing when it clearly is not.

If the question is why is stealing bad, the answer would be that the person being stolen from doesn't have what got stolen. For example if someone stole your car, the bad part wouldn't be that someone has a new car but rather you don't have a car. With piracy though its the opposite, for downloading a song no one has any less songs as they can be copied and you have a new song, the RIAA seem to punish the fact you have a new song rather then the infinite supply of songs is running out. This seems to beg the question, if we can ever create a replicator that will make a perfect copy of things without doing any harm to the original will making a new item be called stealing? Because, has history is showing us, in a way that already has happened just with music and not physical goods.

Re:

[Anonymous Psychopath (18031)]

That argument only makes sense in the context of every content creator (note that I did not say distributor) subscribes to the same principals and personal philosophy that you do. Which is a pretty arrogant assumption.

Illegal is defined by the law.

Immoral is defined by society.

Lots of interesting things happen when these two get confused. The US government, for example, doesn't generally understand that there's a difference. Something can be legal while being immoral, and vice-versa. I think that your argum

Re:

[lastchance_000 (847415)]

I would disagree, albeit slightly.

Illegal is defined by society via the law.

Immoral is defined by the individual.

I would agree that there is a distinction that is lost on many.

Re:Question 1

[susano_otter (123650)]

When you exercise a privilege to which you are not entitled, you negate the value of the privilege for those who are entitled to it.

Law, and custom, dicate that the creator of an artistic work is entitled to the privilege of sole distribution rights to that work, and sole rights to profit from the distribution of that work. When you appropriate that work without their permission, they no longer have the privilege granted to them by law. You are, in fact, taking something away from them.

Re:Question 1

[orclevegam (940336)]

When you appropriate that work without their permission, they no longer have the privilege granted to them by law. You are, in fact, taking something away from them.

Which is of course an illegal act with a specific name of copyright infringement. It is not stealing as that applies to physical goods. Depriving a person of a right is not stealing that right from them as by definition it's impossible to "steal" a right. Normally I wouldn't argue semantics, but in this case it's a valid point because of the extreme social stigma attached to theft. I don't think anyone is arguing over the legality of copyright infringement (or stealing for that matter), what's under question however is the morality of it. Even more to the point, is the question of whether all copyright infringement is immoral, or only some, or only in certain quantities. Would downloading a copy of last weeks sitcoms because you were busy and missed seeing them carry the same weight as downloading a couple CDs because you want to listen to them? What about downloading an artists entire library? Is it less moral to download an independent artist CDs versus those of a major record label?

Re:

[Em Adespoton (792954)]

This is a very simplified argument: copyright isn't just about making money. It is possible someone has produced something they don't want anyone else to see/hear.

Copyright is about protecting the artist against exploitation in exchange for enriching society. I think what is causing problems now is that many people feel that the artists are all being exploited anyway and society isn't being enriched.

Copyright is not about allowing the creator of a work to force scarcity on a market thereby creating larger

Are there ways around it?

[The Ancients (626689)]

How long before some smart kids come up with a script to automatically complete the quiz? (and possibly sell it to fellow students)

Re:

[CogDissident (951207)]

Encrypt your traffic, done.

Re:Are there ways around it?

[Shagg (99693)]

Not long. Do you want a copy?

Re:Are there ways around it?

[Kaenneth (82978)]

They might sell it to a couple students, but then those student would give it to their friends for free.

Re:Are there ways around it?

[Rosco P. Coltrane (209368)]

Yeah but then those students would upload the script on P2P to give to their friends, but the friends need the script to access P2P, which contains the script needed to access P2P, which is needed to access P2P...

I'm so confused now...

We need a V-K test

[Erandir (578490)]

Yes, we need a more sophisticated test, one measuring true underlying intention. I can imagine it going like this:

Holden: You start up DC and notice that copyrighted files are being shared, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Prof Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The files are being shared, and other students are rapidly downloading them. We can't stop them without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: WHAT DO YOU MEAN, I'M NOT HELPING?
Holden: I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response. (pause) Shall we continue?

Script it!

[eln (21727)]

So how many seconds will it take for someone to write a script to automatically take this quiz for you every 6 hours?

Re:

[mckorr (1274964)]

And of course said script will be the first thing shared P2P...

Re:

[eln (21727)]

So I should make sure I get a good list of porn torrents before taking the quiz, so as not to waste any of the precious little time I get.

As for your little suggestion to "RTFA", you must be new here. I have an allergy to articles posted on Slashdot. Reading them gives me hives or, in this case, uncontrollable blind rage. So you see, it's best for everyone if I avoid reading them.

Proof once again...

[sm62704 (957197)]

Education is no substitute for intelligence, as people who run institutions of higher education are usually well educated.

Of course, if I saw a check from the RIAA's bank made out to the university President, I'd have a higher opinion of the intelligence of the people running Missouri U.

How pointless....

[Darkness404 (1287218)]

How pointless is this? First off, people need to know that P2P != Illegal. Seriously, because I can download ROMs and other copyrighted work easily over HTTP should that be banned too? I can download others via FTP. I can download still others over various chat programs. The fact that P2P can allow you to easily download files quicker with less cost then with HTTP suddenly makes this technology "evil"? And before anyone says "Oh but most people download illegal things via P2P!!!", how many more illegal things do people download via HTTP? Im guessing a lot more, with "pirated" YouTube music videos being posted all the time (yet thankfully the RIAA isn't suing the users of YouTube... yet) And also, has anyone tried to download Linux ISOs of a popular distro a day to a few weeks after release via HTTP? You are lucky to get 30 KB/Second whereas with P2P you can top 200 KB/Second easily.

Re:

[CynicTheHedgehog (261139)]

Well it does serve to educate the student about copyright infringement and prove that the student is fully aware of the consequences of his actions in the event that he does engage in piracy. This could be a move to limit the school's liability in civil suits involving its students. If the school forces the students to continually and consistently demonstrate that they understand what copyright infringement is, then the school wouldn't necessarily be liable for the actions of its students. (I hesitate to

48 hours a month

[by Anonymous Coward]

Passing the test -- with a perfect score -- enables peer-to-peer access for six hours on the user's on-campus registered machines, presumably enough time to download that (legal) song, TV show or e-book. The next time, the student, staff or faculty member has to go to the intranet Web page and take the randomized test again, for a maximum of eight uses per month (which, kind of like vacation days, can accrue to at most 20).

So basically, their students can access the internet for 48 hours a month. Sounds great.

Re:48 hours a month

[Tenebrousedge (1226584)]

That sound you heard was 1500 students going to another university this fall.

Re:48 hours a month

[orclevegam (940336)]

I imagine most of the CS department would bail. You'd be left with the two ends of the bell curve though. On the one side you'd have the ones so technically inept that the loss of a major chunk of the internet wouldn't even register on them. On the other end you'd have the ones who've already setup encrypted tunnels out of the schools network and are completely un-constrained by anything the school could possibly do short of physically cutting their network (or killing any encrypted traffic, but that would negate any secure web browsing). It's fairly simple to bounce a port through SSH running on 443, although it does eat up bandwidth on a server somewhere. You could also encrypt the P2P traffic without proxying the connection, but that's a good bit simpler to detect (unlike using a port 443 proxy where there's only 2 ways of detecting it, decrypt the stream, or fingerprint the remote server).

What a lost opportunity

[Rosco P. Coltrane (209368)]

all on-campus users at Missouri S&T have to pass an online quiz on copyright infringement

If I headed this university, I'd make my students take quizzes on math, chemistry, physics and whatever else the university teaches, to get access to P2P. I mean, if they want their music bad enough, they'd have a great incentive to do well at school.

But quizzes on copyright infringement? talk about brainwashing. As if they had nothing more productive to cram their brains with. Sheesh... On top of it, it's a trap: if a student is caught downloading illegal material, he can't claim ignorance.

All in all, a rotten idea that could have been a great one. You can feel the twisted minds of **AA execs behind this sorry scheme...

Re:and in 2 years..

[denis-The-menace (471988)]

And in 2 years the quiz will ask student to enter the name of one or more criminals "stealing" music/movies.

Police State U: turning in a friend, today!

test eh?

[geekoid (135745)]

Let's see this 'test'
Is it a test of the specific actual copyright law? Os it some thing put together by someone who thinks they know copyright law?

I would love to see a copyright attorney go over the test. One that isn't employed by a media company.

Every 6 hours is just stupid.

Re:test eh?

[cjb658 (1235986)]

I've got a better idea: let's require everyone to pass a test before using the internet at all.

(brb, selling MySpace stock)

Re:test eh?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Here's an actual test I was presented with. I'm a Missouri S&T student.

Some files shared on Peer-to-Peer networks are actually viruses

        * False
        * True

Do you intend to infringe copyright?
        * Yes
        * No

If a student receives a first DMCA violation notice he/she will lose network access for a minimum of
        * 14 calendar days
        * None of these
        * All of these
        * Until he/she passes the "Safe and Legal Computing" course

What is the difference between copying a friend's CD and downloading music?
        * It is only legal to copy a friend's CD
        * It is legal to download the song
        * They are both legal
        * They are both illegal

Do you agree to abide by the Acceptable Usage Policy?
        * No
        * Yes

Copyright protection lasts for:
        * 14 years
        * Life of the creator
        * 25 years
        * Life of the creator plus 70 years

Re:test eh?

[SMS_Design (879582)]

Funny how question #4 doesn't differentiate between open/free music and commercial record-label music. The answer could be either C or D.

Well, I suppose it could be A or B depending on weird screwed-up license terms.

Re:

[noidentity (188756)]

They left out a few options on these questions:

What is the difference between copying a friend's CD and downloading music?

• It is only legal to copy a friend's CD
• It is legal to download the song
• They are both legal
• They are both illegal
• Downloading it is easier

Copyright protection lasts for:

• 14 years
• Life of the creator
• 25 years
• Life of the creator plus 70 years
• An ever-increasing time, approximately current date - 1923

Explained

[tepples (727027)]

Everyone will be a fat lesbian with a famously MILFy mom?

Joke fails it.

The Chastity Bono Act is the name that I have always used to refer to the sequel to the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (aka the Sonny Bono Act). Some analysts interpret the Supreme Court's upholding of the CTEA in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) as giving Congress a blank check to extend copyright terms right when copyright in works first published in the 1920s is about to expire. This hypothetical bill would extend the U.S. copyright term by 30 additional years, to the life of the last

Re:test eh?

[compro01 (777531)]

further stupid is that the test can only be taken 8 times a month. 48 hours of access monthly...

Once upon a time...

[hyades1 (1149581)]

There was a time when university campuses were bastions of free thought and conscience. Of course, the administrations were usually composed of the worst variety pedantic, bum-kissing bureaucrat the academic version of Social Darwinism could produce.

I'm not sure about free thought and conscience anymore, but the administration part seems to be just about the same.

Re:

[Kijori (897770)]

There was a time when university campuses were bastions of free thought and conscience.

This isn't an issue of free thought, it's an issue of free movies, TV programs and music. Universities are places for discussion, discourse and intellectual and academic study. They don't exist to protect students who break a law that they are well aware of. This is in the same vein as the speech that every university student gets at the start of their course - the one that starts "The university doesn't condone...". The university doesn't want to be held responsible for the actions of students who repeate

As a Missouri S&T student...

[by Anonymous Coward]

As a student at Missouri S&T, there are a few things I didn't see in the article.

* Several of the questions use double negatives so you really have to stop and think about what a True/False question is really asking.

* If you don't get a perfect score, you have to wait two minutes before you can retake the test. And the questions are different each time. Sometimes the double negatives have been removed causing you to trip on the same question twice, just because it looked very similar to the one asked two minutes earlier.

Also, I wasted two of my six P2P sessions just trying to get my client set up to jump through all their hoops.

misguided nannying

[drDugan (219551)]

Google hit #1 for "Missouri University copyright quiz"
is
From http://mizzouit.missouri.edu/security/dmca-quiz.html [missouri.edu]

which states:

"If you have downloaded copyright-protected files without paying for them then, quite simply, you have broken the law."

No, quite simply, that statement is bullshit as well as many other statements on that page. It is under-informed fear mongering and spreading the big-media meme that downloading and sharing is somehow bad.

There are many options (including our site) for people who own copyrights to distribute creative works, get financial sponsorship, or distribute their works for free if they choose to - and furthermore to allow others to distribute their works for them if they license their work in away to enable it. While these issues (downloading, payment, redistribution, illegal actions) are all closely connected to the copyright on the content, making such a blanket statement is irresponsible.

Paying for content rarely enables sharing today. It is the *licensing* and the actual laws are the important part for users to understand when they download or redistribute content. People need to read and understand the licenses and the law to know if they are breaking them.

Next stop:

[Kissing Crimson (197314)]

In order to access the buildings that hold Philosophy, Biology, Archeology, Anthropology, or Sociology, a student must first pass a test regarding Theory vs Fact. Those who pass the test with a perfect score are allowed to attend one class session. This system has reduced complaints from supporters of Intelligent Design theories. Naturally there has been some 'grumbling' from supporters of Darwinian Theory. Overall the administration feels this method works.

Catch 22

[Hoplite3 (671379)]

This reminds me of "The Great Loyalty Oath Crusade" in Catch 22, where all of the pilots had to sign a loyalty oath to the USA at each meal, before each briefing, before take-off, and so on.

Yosarian points out that all that signing makes the oath meaningless. No one reads it or considers it, they do it like they wipe their nose. Catch 22 has a lot to teach us.

Even if I believed in intellectual property (which I don't), I would think this was a silly thing.