EPIC Response To RIAA Letters

Mephie writes "News.com is reporting that, in response to letters the RIAA sent to universities warning about P2P file sharing, the Eletronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is sending letters to universities warning against cracking down on file swapping. EPIC calls attempts to do so "fundamentally incompatable with the mission" of "foster[ing] critical thinking.""

sheesh

[Green Light]

What a big stinkin' pile. The universities aren't stifling "critical thinking", they are rescuing their bandwidth from the pr0n-swappers.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Err...

[0x0d0a]

I have to say that while I'm not a tremendous fan of monitoring, and the RIAA/MPAA have definitely been pulling dirty stunts before, EPIC's claim about them damaging "critical thinking" is kind of bogus. The "chilling effect" bit is kind of silly, as is the attempt to squeeze in fair use (which is quite important, and is even relevant to some of the things the RIAA/MPAA has done, but has nothing to do with Britney Spears music bootlegging on a campus connection).

Also, I suspect that most univ. administrators couldn't care less about potential "security" or "privacy" issues that EPIC is calling "purported risks of P2P". They care about massive bandwidth usage, though.

Frankly, EPIC would be better off going after legislation (which *is* an issue) that our *AA friends are trying to push through.

Re:Err...

[GuyMannDude]

EPIC's claim about them damaging "critical thinking" is kind of bogus. The "chilling effect" bit is kind of silly...

I don't think you understand their position. They are claiming that once electronic surveillance measures that "read" the contents of file transfers is installed to thwart trading of copyrighted materials, that same technology could be easily modified in the near future to block the transmission of ny other digital information. Knowing that the university is reading every single thing you send or receive is likely to put a chill into most people, even if what they are "saying" over computer networks is relatively benign.

GMD

Re:Err...

[dirk]

I don't think you understand their position. They are claiming that once electronic surveillance measures that "read" the contents of file transfers is installed to thwart trading of copyrighted materials, that same technology could be easily modified in the near future to block the transmission of ny other digital information. Knowing that the university is reading every single thing you send or receive is likely to put a chill into most people, even if what they are "saying" over computer networks is relatively benign.

Except this is in no way what goes on when a university bans something like Kazaa. They have no idea what is in the packet, they just no the packet is on port X. If it is on port X, they will not allow the packet to go anywhere. The packet could being bomb plans or the newest Britney MP3, they have no idea. This type of FUD is no better than that put out by the RIAA.

Re:Err...

[octalgirl]

Read closer - it clearly states monitoring for bandwidth usage and security is appropriate, it's peeking into the content that is not. That's where the line is crossed between managing a network resource, and invading ones privacy and freedom of speech. The RIAA and such clearly want them to monitor the content too.

"While network monitoring is appropriate for certain purposes such as security and bandwidth management, the surveillance of individuals' Internet communications implicates important rights, and raises questions about the appropriate role of higher education institutions in policing private behavior."

missing the point?

[imsmith]

Is this response missing the point, or is it just me? I mean, the issue is really whether the colleges are responsible for the behavior of the users of their networks, and whether they have to be proactive in that policing. Like it or not, as it currently stands, P2P files sharing is a form of re-distribution, and copyright exists to prevent re-distribution. Like it or not, as long as the case-law supports the application of analog media rights to both the digital form of analog works and wholly digital works, the copyright holders are entitled to reparations. The issue is who is responsible for the police work required to cite and punish offenders. The government doesn't want to do it. The copyright holders would like to, but that amounts to vigilantism, so no one thinks that is a good idea. The ISP's and GSP's are common-carriers, so can't be held responsible for the behavior of users. So, of course, corporate and educational WANs, with their many users and fat-pipe connections are logical targets. The argument against imposing such responsibilities upon these institutions aren't so much about privacy, its about not having to be proactive. Being proactive incurs expense without return, and these Institutions are only liable for the behavior of members when they act in the name of the Institution, not when they abuse internal resources to engage in private activities. There is little incentive to crack down on these internal abuses because the cost of enforcement is, in the big picture, greater than the return. They should say to the copyright holder, "Without violating the integrity of my network, bring me the hardware address of the suspect, and we will grant them due process, and if we believe they are in violation of the law, we will give the appropriate logs to the civil prosecutor in our jurisdiction." If the technology isn't available for the grieved party to identify their aggressor, then perhaps they should not release their digitized-analog and wholly-digital works into the wild. (Shepherds are not compensated for sending their flocks into the domain of the lion and wolf without protection, they are chastised.)

RIAA letters

[L-Train8]

So I went and read the original letters, in response to which the EPIC letter was written. One was from "America's creative community," that is, the RIAA, MPAA, National Music Publishers Association, and the Songwriters Guild of America. The other letter was from the presidents of various acedemic organizations, like the Association of American Universities, and similiarly named organisations.

The first letter uses the term piracy quite liberally, while the second discusses "the inappropriate use of campus facilities to disseminate copywritten materials."

The Bigger Issue...

[aerojad]

Why does bandwidth cost so much money to begin with? Has anyone taken a look into price fixing for bandwidth? Nope. Anyone see any concrete figures on how much bandwidth costs? Show me what this "cost" supposedly is, why is it so high, who is keeping it high, and then... maybe then... I'll let you whine about P2P taking up too much of this "expensive" bandwidth.

Re:The Bigger Issue...

[Usefull Idiot]

"Why does bandwidth cost so much money to begin with?"

I could take a stab at this one... Let's see, in order to run communications lines anywhere in the US you have to acquire right-of-way permission from local jurisdictions. In most places this can be extremely costly (you need a PR campaign, lobbying, etc). You need to develop a backbone with equipment and high speed lines (fiber optics are VERY EXPENSIVE) which you need to maintain. You need technicians, customer service reps, administrators, PR reps, marketing reps, lawyers, etc. You need to deal with the FCC and FTC and all their regulations. That's only what I know about it, and I haven't even worked directly in the communications industry. All of that sort of leads to a barrier to entry into the industry (which helps create monopolies) and helps create large costs for communications companies.

Get real

[drix]

Oh come on EPIC, let's call a spade a spade. "Fundamentally incompatible with the mission of educational institutions to foster critical thinking and exploration?" I am a third year college student, and I have never, not once in my entire life, met a fellow college student who used peer-to-peer filesharing to do anything but a) view pornography, b) steal music, or c) download copyrighted software. This is not so say that there aren't any college students out there using P2P to explore and think critically. But the vast majority--like, probably in the high 90s--aren't. Ditto the "potentially harming overall network integrity and performance" trope in terms of overall bullshit-level. Having personally witnessed a 45mbps connection being brought to a literal standstill at the height of Napster as 5000 college freshmen set out to download the latest Eminem single, I can say that the RIAA is clearly correct about P2P apps' consumption of campus bandwidth. It's hard to imagine network integrity and performance getting much worse in the absence of a cap or limiter.

And philosophically I'm actually aligned with EPIC on this one; I am completely opposed to RIAA because I know that when they try to stop users from "stealing IP from artists," what they are really concerned with is preserving their own distributional monopoly over music in the United States and not with the individual artists at all. But EPIC engages in the exact same type of doublespeak when they advance claims like a few contained in this letter, thus lowering themselves to the level of that which they are opposing. And that doesn't help us--me--those opposed to RIAA--at all.

Its too late

[ninthbit]

Pandoras box has already been opened. All monitoring will do is have the P2P traders just encrypt the connections, thus adding more overhead. In addition the personel the Univ. is going to hire is going to be the same students that are transfering the files.

The only way they will stop it is to get involved in the file sharing and start going after people. People have the 'I won't get caught' mentality.... actully is it even illegal yet? Since no one is charging and all.