University of Kansas Adopts 'One Strike' Copyright Infringement Policy 397
NewmanKU writes "Eric Bangeman at Ars Technica writes that the University of Kansas has adopted a new, and very strict, copyright infringement policy for the students on the residential network. The university's ResNet website states that, 'Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is against the law. If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever. No second notices, no excuses, no refunds. One violation and your ResNet internet access is gone for as long as you reside on campus.' According to a KU spokesperson, KU has received 345 notices in the past year from organizations and businesses regarding complaints about copyrighted material downloading."
Re:Due Process (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lack of Caring (Score:4, Informative)
This is typical slashdot behavior. Take everything out of context so everybody can get riled up about it. Sure the front page says 'copyrighted material', you think they'd put the full legalese on the frontpage or just a blurb saying "Its Bad, mkay"?
But if anybody would take the time to actually *READ* the subject at hand, you would find this paragraph:
And even if you fail your appeal, you just lose your ResNet access, you can still use computer labs on campus.
Re:Oh crap... (Score:5, Informative)
*All* works, unless they carry a notice explicitly putting them into the public domain, are automatically copyrighted by the author[0]. They do not need a copyright notice for them to be copyrighted.
Now, as the author, you may make your work (web page) available for people to download for free; that is your right. And because you, as the copyright holder, are the one who has made the work available, the end users aren't breaking copyright by downloading it.
*However*, they are still *downloading copyrighted materials*. They may be doing so legally, but that is not what the rule cares about. The rule states that merely downloading copyrighted materials is grounds for account termination.
[0] Or, if it is a work-for-hire or similar, the work might be copyrighted by an entity other than the author. But it is still copyrighted.
Typical Slashdot Sensationalism (Score:5, Informative)
Let's take a look shall we:
1) You get a notice
2) You get a 5 day suspension
3) You have those 5 business days to submit an appeal if it was erroneous
4) If your appeal is denied (or you didn't submit one) your ResNet access is terminated.
It's the end of the world . . . oh wait . .
So you lose your dorm access, but can walk down to a computer lab . . .
So I guess the moral of the story is, don't get caught, or don't use the schools network to download your movies
Did they think this through? (Score:5, Informative)
We've already seen that anyone outside the U.S can send a bogus DMCA takedown notice without penalty. Not often the US passes laws that prosecute Americans and give non-Americans free reign but there you go. Here are two recent cases showing how easy it is:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20
Now Kansas University has said they'll shut down students account if *anyone* sends a DMCA notice, with right of appeal. So if someone outside the US was to take the University's mailing list and generate a bogus DMCA notice for each one, the
entire University would voluntarily shut itself down. This hole in DMCA has been suggested before, so it's hardly new.
Who dreamed up this nonsense? Didn't they think it through to its logical conclusion? Don't Universities teach critical thinking? I mean, Double Duh.
IT policy at U of Kansas is generally clueless (Score:4, Informative)
Two or three mistaken enforcements of this -- yes, that will happen with near certainty given past experience -- and the effect of this will be simply to drive students out of the dorms. Someone with an ounce of clue (necessarily, outside of ITS) will figure that it is a whole lot cheaper to stonewall the RIAA on most cases than to deal with the cost of empty rooms, the policy will be quietly dropped, and IT will go in search of something else they can screw up.
Re:Due Process (Score:2, Informative)
Only illegally obtained copyrighted material, you mean? I'd sure hate to get in trouble for downloading copyrighted stuff that is legally free/available...
HINT:Generalizations = fail
Too much credit to RMS and not enough to MIT. (Score:3, Informative)
Open Source Software owes at least as much to Berkeley's liberal attitude, *and* MIT's liberal attitude, as to RMS. RMS has effectively and unfairly demonized the AI lab, and he's been given too much credit for being one of the more visible rocks in an avalanche of open source software that was already in motion well before he penned the GNU manifesto.
The idea that MIT-AI, MIT-MC, and the rest... running an OS that let any user be "root" and giving accounts to outsiders (including Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle)... were insufficiently "liberal", or that there would be no FOSS without RMS... is distressingly common today, and completely at odds with what the growing open-systems and free-source software community was actually like at the time.