Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

University of Kansas Adopts 'One Strike' Copyright Infringement Policy 397

Posted by Zonk
from the hope-you-really-liked-that-cher-album dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

University of Kansas Adopts 'One Strike' Copyright Infringement Policy

Comments Filter:
  • Due Process (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:53AM (#19936433)
    Is there any clause to protect the due process rights of students?
    • Re:Due Process (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SamP2 (1097897) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:05AM (#19936477)
      Tough luck pal, due process only applies in court. They'd have to follow it if they decided to sue you, throw you in jail for whatever, or something like that.

      Cutting you off the campus net is an entirely private decision, no due process required by law.

      Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.
      • Re:Due Process (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Darkon (206829) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:14AM (#19936527)

        Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.
        On a free forum to which you have paid nothing this makes sense, but I'd imagine the students pay some quite hefty fees to the university in the expectation of receiving full access to all services for their money.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by giorgiofr (887762)
          Sure, as agreed upon and detailed in the plethora of documents they sign - which now include this notice.
          • Re:Due Process (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:49AM (#19936641)
            Sure, as agreed upon and detailed in the plethora of documents they sign - which now include this notice.

            Just because you put something in your TOS does not make it legal or enforceable. IANAL, but I am an admin on a university network and we are frequently reminded that the students are paying customers with rights and as such we cannot arbitrarily ban them from using the system. Without some kind of watertight right of appeal someone probably will get caught as a false positive by this policy, sue, and win.
            • On top of that, this rule is new. So I guess it was not in any of the TOS that have been signed so far.
              Even assuming the new rules are legal, I suspect (IANAL) that they cannot be retroactively applied to existing service contracts. So the university would have to cancel the existing contracts and probably refund or wait out any pre-paid access times.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Tony Hoyle (11698)
                Nearly all contracts contain wording to the effect of 'We reserve the right to make changes to this contract at any time' so yes they can make it apply retroactively.
                • by timmarhy (659436)
                  actually, you can't just change a contract to anything, anytime you like.

                  if you could, i could change my contract with the phone company that i pay them nothing and get a free big mac with my line rental.

                  the changes must be "fair" remmeber that the spirit of contract law is fairness no matter what rubbish you might have heard.

                • Re:Due Process (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @11:12AM (#19938153) Journal
                  Clearly, this is a great place to begin a multi-year commitment towards higher education.

                  They clearly place the interests of their customers first and foremost.

                  I'm going to send that university a letter telling them I'm not hiring any of their graduates because of their asinine behavior.
                  • Re:Due Process (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by Khaed (544779) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @01:29PM (#19939113)
                    So you're planning on punishing the students for the University being dicks?

                    Seems like you're just adding to the pile of crap the students have to put up with.
                    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                      by sumdumass (711423)
                      The candidate is always more qualified. It just might not be the level of schooling that makes them qualified. In the example I gave, the morals and ethics the school taught and how they taught the students it was proper to treat people under their control was insufficient or improper for the job I offer and where the other guy prevailed.

                      In this case, the education of stopping an activity in favor of just a claim and showing the students that this behavior is acceptable isn't the same values of ethics I wan
              • I'm guessing that the service contracts are renewed from year to year. So they can change the terms at their leisure.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                The rule is new, but it's summertime. Students will be well aware of this rule before paying tuition for the fall term, so you can thow that excuse out. It was smart of KU to announce this policy during the summer, when only those few students taking summer classes will be able to use the "you changed the rules after I paid" excuse.

                We've seen articles like this on slashdot regading Stanford, U. of Washington, etc (those KU's looks to be the harshest), and slashdotters say, "boycott the school, attend coll
                • Re:Due Process (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21, 2007 @06:17PM (#19941325)
                  "paid for by tax payers, in the case of public schools"

                  I didn't realize tuition was free.

                  No seriously, I wonder why copyright infringement was singled out. If you park illegally on campus, do they remove your parking privileges forever? If you take more than your fair share in the dorm cafeteria, can you no longer eat on campus?

                  Sounds just alleging copyright violations at KU carries one of the harshest penalties. I wonder if you don't properly attribute your sources in a paper if they break your fingers? Anyway, if I was on the internet at KU, I'd try to encrypt all my traffic. Some idiotic letter comes from an RIAA lawyer, and the next thing you know, you might as well leave school.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mbulge (1004558)
        The University of Kansas is a public school, which means that this is not and should not be an entirely private decision. This decision goes too far, seeing as how other Kansas schools and government facilities are not bound by the same restrictions.
      • In my opinion, I don't think so.

        In my opinion, even if someone signs a contract stating that evidence, not a conviction, is needed to terminate a service, that doesn't necessarily mean that is lawful.

        If they cut off someone's Internet access before conviction, so be it. But if they go to court and they are NOT found guilty, don't you think the school may have a lawsuit on their hands if they fail to re-enable the student's access?

        Sure, I can understand temporarily suspending (or limiting bandwidth) of someo
      • by vertinox (846076) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @08:20AM (#19937183)
        Cutting you off the campus net is an entirely private decision, no due process required by law.

        I dunno... Let's say I have this jock room mate that I hate because he always gets the girls (and brings them to the top bunk when I'm trying to get a good nights sleep) so lets just say I theoretically put P2P software on his unpassworded computer and share out some Boy George songs.

        Not only will he get booted off ResNet without recourse, but all the girls will think he's gay now when they look at his MP3 collection.
    • by nurb432 (527695)
      It doesn't sound like it.

      It sounds like a letter of *suspicion* from the industry is all it takes. I always thought 'innocent until proven guilty' was part of the rule of law here. ( yes, i realize this is civil and not criminal, but still, a simple letter 'we think user assigned to ipaddress xyz did something wrong' shouldn't be enough.
  • Oh crap... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FrostedWheat (172733) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:57AM (#19936443)

    From the universities page: (which I downloaded into my browser...)

    If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever

    And further down, on the same page! (Which my browser downloaded, remember)...

    Copyright © 2005 by the University of Kansas

    Wow, that is harsh! I guess that's me banned then :-)

    • Re:Oh crap... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NickFortune (613926) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:44AM (#19936617) Homepage Journal

      Yep. In fact, as a signatory to the Berne Convention, in the US copyright exists in every work not explicitly released into the publci domain. Which makes it a particularly stupid thing to say. I mean it is fairly obvious that they mean "no unauthorised downloading of copyright material", but if they really plan to implement a "no excuses, no appeal" policy, you'd think they'd take the 30 seconds or so it needed to phrase the thing correctly.

      Even then, it's still way OTT. Half the papers on Citeseer (for instance) are there in technical violation of the copyright of the journals where they were first published. The journals turn a blind eye, which is why the site can keep on, but I can see a lot of sudents getting banned, which considering how widely used citeseer is as an academic resource, is a but ridiculous.

      I suppose the only other way they could implement the policy as expressed is to rely on the word "caught". That way, if they don't look for downloaders, they don't find them, and selective enforcement becomes the order of the day. I suppose it might be useful if the they forsee needing a pretext to silence unruly students.

    • by hpavc (129350)
      I'll be waiting at the staff copier pool, ready to remove the violators.
  • Lack of Caring (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical.gmail@com> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:57AM (#19936447) Homepage
    If the students care enough, they will all cancel their accounts. When the University sees a drop in revenue, they will have to decide.

    Pulling authoritarian crap like this in a place where people are naturally rebelling against everything and anything is a good way to get egg on your face.
    • Re:Lack of Caring (Score:5, Insightful)

      by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:14AM (#19936529) Homepage
      Nah, students wont cancel the accounts because they need them, instead what needs to be done is someone file copyright infringement claims against *every* student, and since this rule applies to claims and convictions they will all be required to lose their accounts.. showing how stupid this sort of rule is.
      • by iluvcapra (782887)

        Everybody who buys a "class notes" book from the bookstore should write down the publisher of every work copied in the books, and confirm that the school indeed obtained permission from the publisher to make the copies, as well as noting how many people are in the class to see how many copies were made. Ditto all class handouts.

        • Everybody who buys a "class notes" book from the bookstore should write down the publisher of every work copied in the books, and confirm that the school indeed obtained permission from the publisher to make the copies, as well as noting how many people are in the class to see how many copies were made.

          At least at my university [ucr.edu], the need to obtain permission and license the copyrighted works appropriately is one of the reasons why course readers can be so unbelievably expensive. [I've seen 200 page reader

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "If the students care enough, they will all cancel their accounts. When the University sees a drop in revenue, they will have to decide."

      You wish. Students NEED those accounts and the "drop in revenue" is NOTHING compared to what record companies may sue for.

      Instead the students will behave. If they're in University, it's because they don't want to be burger flippers or janitors. Their future is at stake. They will suck it down and deal with it.

      Corporate America has them by the balls.
      • As a current student at another university, I can assure you that giving up quietly would not be my response to this sort of unreasonable policy. I'd be rounding up other students to determine what the most efficient protest technique would be.

    • If the students care enough they won't go to that University.
    • by nurb432 (527695)
      How about change schools? THAT would hit them in the pocketbook.

      Dropping internet service wouldn't make a dent in the schools bottomline, and besides, im sure the students need the access to get their assignments done so dropping it as a protest really isnt an option for them.
  • by iluvcapra (782887) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:07AM (#19936485)

    TFA mentions that Stanford and other schools charge high "Reconnection" fees after they block your MAC for sharing files. Why don't they just do something like that and make a load of money?

    "Zero-tolerance" is all about moralism, and rarely about correcting behavior, or "teaching" people anything. It'll have a good effect statistically, but the people who get their privileges pulled won't have their attitude changed, they'll just conclude the "RIAA-Nazis" blackmailed his school into screwing with his education.

    It doesn't matter how true it is, rules must give the appearance of fairness in order to be respected.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SamP2 (1097897)
      It's not that I support RIAA or anything, but your argument is invalid.

      Saying "The measure changes statistics but not attitude" does not mean the measure is bad.

      For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid, and thus less robberies are committed.

      Let's not get start on the whole "copyright infringement is not a crime" stuff, OK? Crime or no crime, it's something RIAA and co. want to root out. You can have an enti
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iluvcapra (782887)

        For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid

        We aren't talking about violent robbery, we're talking about copyright infringement. You can't equate a crime against intellectual property with violence. People who copy Content without paying for it are pretty far down the ladder of malfeasance, and spending a little effort to correct them might be worth it, compared to a violent felon. Most states don't depriv

      • by Zironic (1112127)
        Has that ever been proven? From my understanding there is no connection between the punishment and crime ratio. Americas high crime rate + Large jail sentences/death penalty vs countries like Sweden's lower crime rates and much milder punishments. Most people committing a crime doesn't count on getting caught. So far I've never seen any "effective" result from being "tough".
      • by ajs318 (655362) <(sd_resp2) (at) (earthshod.co.uk)> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @07:01AM (#19936903)
        Bollocks. Rule by fear always breaks down, sooner or later, because fear can be overcome. This is something that authoritarians don't seem to get. Fear of getting caught is not what demotivates the majority of people from committing crime. That's just a Tory oversimplification. If someone is really determined, they will analyse the balance of probabilities purely in terms of a favourable vs. unfavourable outcome with a cool head.

        Once you force someone into a corner, where the choice is "do something that you fear or die", they will choose to live, because they're more afraid of dying than of whatever you were going to do to them. In fact, the whole "overcoming fear" thing is how cave-men evolved into us. Oh, wait, you said Kansas .....
      • by 1u3hr (530656)
        For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid, and thus less robberies are committed.

        "Thus less robberies are committed", eh? How about "thus robbers are more more afraid of beinbg caught, so prepared to kill rather than leave witnesses"? Equally likely it seems to me. but being *tough* is fine if all you care is about them being *effective*

        And how is "being tough" working out in Baghdad? High probability

  • sounds crap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joe 155 (937621) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:09AM (#19936497) Journal
    I'm not American, nor a lawyer, so I could be wrong... but as far as I know the DMCA contains many crazy rules which would be insanely easy to break - even breaking DRM to get access to a file which you have bought. Would this mean that they could get banned from the internet (which would effectively force them out of the halls they are in, because of how essential the internet is at uni) for just converting a protected WMA file so you can play it on linux? what about installing ntfs-3g? what about using an unlicenced mp3 codec? any unlincenced codec? just using linux (assuming they believe MS's claims about infringement)? Using any computer (hell, there are that many patents flying around that all computers violate; GUI ones, for example)...

    Wouldn't all/most of these innocent things violate the DMCA? wouldn't that be enough to get you royally screwed?
  • How will they know? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by taxevader (612422) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:14AM (#19936525)
    Will they kick out students simply because the MAFIAA sent them a strongly worded letter? It would be the simplest and cheapest thing for them to do, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

    Even if they are 'guilty'.. what if someone downloaded a ROM of a NES game he has in his basement at home? A track from a CD that doesn't play anymore? A no-cd patch for a game so he can play it on his laptop wherever he goes? According to their draconian proposal, all of these would mean you are cut off from the internet.. forever. Is it me or is that f&*king crazy?

    A University should be fighting the powers that be, not aiding and abetting them.
    • by giorgiofr (887762)

      A University should be fighting the powers that be, not aiding and abetting them.
      A University should be *teaching*. No more no less. What is this crap about morality, fighting, powers that be etc? It's a plcae where you go to *study*. Everything else is BS.
      • by toQDuj (806112)
        Nope. A university should be a bastion of wisdom. They should correct, where others have accepted.
        Incidentally, it also teaches, but that's in room 3b, which doesn't exist.

        B.
      • A University should be *teaching*. No more no less. What is this crap about morality, fighting, powers that be etc? It's a plcae where you go to *study*. Everything else is BS.

        I don't think you've thought it through. A University is for far more than teaching - in fact I'd go as far as to say teaching is secondary to research. Schools teach, community colleges teach but a proper University must do far more than teach. It must be a community of teachers and scholars - Universitas.

    • by OverlordQ (264228)
      Will they kick out students simply because the MAFIAA sent them a strongly worded letter?

      No, might try reading [ku.edu] their policies [ku.edu] next time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lewisham (239493)
      When I worked for a ResNet that shall go unnamed, almost all students would admit to copyright infringement when asked in a formal setting. There was not a single case where the MPAA/RIAA fired off an email where the student was not guilty. I know it's terribly fashionable around these parts to protest that universities should be standing up for students and such, but it is one thing to be the university that won't hand over names with IP addresses, and quite another to be the one that the MPAA/RIAA decide
      • by jez9999 (618189)
        I disagree. If universities are gonna offer a net connection, they offer it, and set yourself up as a goddamn common carrier. It is not their job to be the moral police, or take this bullshit from big corporations' lawyers. If they insist on doing that, I encourage every university student to get their own independent net connection. That's what I did, and I've had none of this ridiculous trouble.
  • If you are caught downloading copyrighted material...
  • If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever.

    If i surf to any website, i start downloading copyrighted material, the moment i hit go. So it must read "downloading copyrighted material without permission of the copyright owner" and how on earth will this be enforced?

    Implicit permission? Explicit permission?

    How should Admin Eve know, that i phoned Alan Smithee in LA, and he gave me permission to download a 5 min .avi from his upcoming film "Gay Politicans go Hollywood" to include it in my essay about the corrupt politics in enforcing IP-Crimes?

    Look

  • The students or the cooperations? I kinda would have thought that Universities would do everything in their power to aid thei students en masse. Or do they somehow see a logically connection between aiding the blunt actions of these cooperations and the overall positive development of the students.

    It seems inuitive that having zero copyright law would be a bad thing, and rarely is any extreme action a good thing. But unless you are feeding young mouths with the revenue generated by these aggressive tatics

  • Looks like Kansas is finally going bye bye.
    • by Entropius (188861)
      Kind of ironic seeing that while visiting family in Alabama. AL has a constitution that's 2.5 times longer than the federal one, with around 900 amendments... ... and is corrupt as shit.
  • by OverlordQ (264228) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @06:14AM (#19936753) Journal
    Typical Slashdot sensationalist story about the DMCA and people get all uppity before checking the facts of the case.

    Let's take a look shall we:

    If the University of Kansas receives notice of a copyright violation (downloading or uploading copyrighted material including music, movies, games, software, etc.) tied to the IP address registered in your name, you will receive an email and written notice that your access to the ResNet Network has been temporarily suspended for 5 business days, during which time you may appeal if you believe the copyright infringement notice was received in error. You have 5 business days from the date of notice to provide written documentation supporting your appeal to the Office of the Vice Provost for Student Success, describing the nature of the error. If your appeal is denied, your ResNet service will be permanently deactivated for the remainder of the time you live in KU's residential housing facilities. The ResNet fee is primarily a connection fee and not a usage fee. If your service is permanently terminated, there will be no subsequent refund of the ResNet activation fee, regardless of when the violation occurred.


    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 . . .what's this?

    You will still be able to use computer labs on campus and will retain the use of your KU email account.


    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
    • So *you* have to proof you did nothing wrong? What will they considered sufficient "documentation supporting your appeal"? What *can* you write? "During that time, I was surfing the web, reading news sites, I have no idea why they would accuse me of downloading X"? What use does it have anyway?

      If you say you did the claimed things, you will get your access suspended and later sued by the copyright holder.
      If you say you did not do the claimed things (if true or not), you will get your access back and later s
    • by argStyopa (232550)
      Generally I'm with you on the Slashdot sensationalism thing, but in this case, it's somewhat justified.

      So, if I understand their system, the merest COMPLAINT will get you a suspension that will turn perma-ban if you don't appeal?

      Simple, people (including students, since the source of the ban doesn't have to be particularly valid) can FLOOD the U with complaints and allegations. They don't have to be PROVEN, merely asserted. Don't like the people in that dorm? A couple of hours with a computer and printer
    • by syousef (465911)
      So you think it's no problem because you have 5 business days to respond?

      Have you ever taken a vacation? Have you ever gone away for more than 5 days?

      Tool.
  • by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @06:16AM (#19936763) Journal
    > 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.

    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, 21563838-27317,00.html [news.com.au]
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_200 70329_001882.html [pbs.org]

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Which is why we should all send the University DMCA notices for the University of Kansas RESNET staff.
  • by Cheesey (70139) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @06:19AM (#19936777)
    Students often need to download copyrighted material to support their work. I wonder if Kansas U has considered the implications of their policy: if the RIAA can get you disconnected instantly for downloading an MP3, surely other publishers can do the same.

    In my own work, I often have to fetch journal and conference papers from digital libraries, e.g. a good one [acm.org]. Often I will find a paper is not available to me because it isn't covered by my University's subscription, like many of the papers here [ieee.org] or here [springerlink.com]. That situation is supposed to force a trip to the brick-and-mortar library (if it has the document), but sometimes you can find the paper online anyway, using a search engine. It might be on the author's website or Citeseer [psu.edu]. Sometimes people seem to "accidentally" leave copies of papers where a search engine can find them. This is extremely helpful for a researcher, saving much time, and it is known that online articles are more likely to be cited [psu.edu].

    However, except in special cases (e.g. the author has retained the copyright and distributed it for free), this is technically copyright infringement. The publishers want you to get everything through their paywall. That would be fine if everything was accessible, but the exhorbitant fees charged for full access by some organisations prevent that. Therefore, copyright infringement actually helps scientific research by allowing information to flow. At my University, nobody seems to notice (or care about) students digging up papers from elsewhere. But if the Kansas U management style spread here, a publisher could presumably get students instantly disconnected for "bypassing the paywall". You might lose your Internet connection -- for studying.

    Is this close to a situation where research is actively inhibited by greed [gnu.org]?

    "The content you requested is not part of your subscription, please pay $30 to download this 10 page article".
  • Copyright was fundamentally broken by the emergence of cheap, efficient, and world-wide broadband information networks. I don't even know where the best place would be to start reforming it. By my own preference I'd like to see a start with the restoration of fair-use rights including the right to modify something I've purchased. Moving your content among your own personal devices, lending your content to others for short periods, and other things such as removing copy protection from your software so yo
  • by ibn_khaldun (814417) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @07:14AM (#19936947)
    The IT "services" at KU are clueless in general, not just with this, and they consistently appear to have mistaken their windowless cubicles for Olympus/Valhalla. Over the last ten years they have periodically gone through phases of issuing draconian policies, only to find them unenforceable. My favorite (though by no means only) example was a policy that anyone caught writing down a password (passwords, of course, were required to be changed every 42 minutes, contain Mayan glyphs, etc) could be fired. Never enforced, much to the disappointment of local lawyers. They went through another phase of barging into faculty offices and imaging disks, except they would get the office numbers incorrect and leave the faculty member with an inoperable machine. And sometimes really picked the wrong office... The individuals involved are no longer in our employ, as the saying goes (and were last seen staked to the ground near an anthill, I believe...)

    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.

  • I wouldn't be surprised if signs saying only "tor.eff.org" start appearing around campus...
  • This is the state that wants to teach creationism in the classroom. This type of no tolerance = no intelligence policy is completely in keeping their right wing, my way or highway mentality.

    Some remind me why secession was such a bad idea.

  • My thinking on this is that:

    1. This is clearly not well thought out. I believe it will become a real problem for the school in several ways:

    A. First, how are they going to determine who is responsible for downloading something, (IE who was actually at the computer)?

    B. Once they do, what about the other students who share the room? Are they SOL?

    C. What about the student's classes? I am sure the net is quite integral, so basically they are removing a learning/research/interaction tool which I would say is nec
  • They probably read it as Divine Millennial Creationism Act.

    We've come a long way in my lifetime. I lived in a state college dorm that had a "don't hassle the marijuana users" policy in 1970. An RA lost his job for ignoring the dorm drug dealer when the college refused to accept his logic that the users wouldn't have anything to use without their dealer. Remember that the DMCA applies to using libdvdcss to watch a legally acquired DVD on linux. So an RA could be aiding and abetting a felon for failure to

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion

Working...