November 2012

S M T W T F S
    1 23
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
lifeonqueen: (Anglophilia - Asshole by Pgit)
Thursday, December 20th, 2007 12:35 pm
According to this column on Comic Book Resources, two Democrats, George Miller (D-California) and Reuben Hinojosa (D-Texas), inserted a clause in the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R. 4137) that would strip American colleges and universities of their federal funding if a single student downloads pirated music or video regardless of what computer network they use (their own, the college's, the local Starbuck's). I understand it will also require students to enroll in a legal music-sharing service, regardless of whether or not they want to download music and make the entertainment industry responsible for deciding what constitutes a violation, so they can bypass the courts and go straight to the Department of Education.

The relevant section of the bill - "SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION" - states:

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.

Part G of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`(a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--

`(1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and

`(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

`(b) Grants-

`(1) PROGRAM AUTHORITY- The Secretary may make grants to institutions of higher education, or consortia of such institutions, and enter into contracts with such institutions, consortia, and other organizations, to develop, implement, operate, improve, and disseminate programs of prevention, education, and cost-effective technological solutions, to reduce and eliminate the illegal downloading and distribution of intellectual property. Such grants or contracts may also be used for the support of a higher education centers that will provide training, technical assistance, evaluation, dissemination, and associated services and assistance to the higher education community as determined by the Secretary and institutions of higher education.

`(2) AWARDS- Grants and contracts shall be awarded under paragraph (1) on a competitive basis.

`(3) APPLICATIONS- An institution of higher education or a consortium of such institutions that desires to receive a grant or contract under paragraph (1) shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information as the Secretary may reasonably require by regulation.

`(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2009 and for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.'

Unfortunately, I can't figure out United States Code to tell whether or not the amendment would do what Steven Grant says it would do.

Still, anyone interested in keeping the RIAA/MPAA from riding roughshod over the privacy and education rights of millions of American students might want to call their representative and ask what the fuck is going on?
lifeonqueen: (POTC - Captain Jack Sparrow)
Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 12:49 pm
I think I've just passed through some piratical rite-of-passage as the trailer for a film I've already watched via *a-chem* was just released today. Then again, it's a British film, which means there is weirdness in the release dates. Not alas, a particulary good film, even by my "I rewatch King Arthur every three or four months" standards.
lifeonqueen: (Default)
Wednesday, February 21st, 2007 05:26 pm
This month's Vanity Fair, the annual and ever-bloated "Hollywood Issue", had a good and remarkably balanced article about US attempts to shut down The Pirate Bay - at least some of which is available for free on the VF site (http://www.vanityfair.com/ - and, while I'm at it, thank you VF for finally putting up a decent site). The article concludes, as so many on this subject do, that the US recording and movie industries are fighting a losing battle against piracy mostly due to their own laggard embrace of webtech to share their product.

ramble on movie and dvd piracy )

All of this is by way of a thought I had while I was listening to my pirated copy of The Long Blondes, "Someone to Drive You Home." Downloading pirate copies is a far better way of discovering new music than a 20 second clip on iTunes and they don't time out if you forget to back up youy iPod for a week or two (fuck you DRM). But it's too bad that there isn't a paypal link or something similar that I could click and give the money for the album directly to the band rather than splitting it with their corporate masters. I wonder if something like that would work....
lifeonqueen: (Default)
Monday, February 12th, 2007 04:05 pm
From Crooks and Liars.com:
A bill introduced last week by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) is beginning to raise eyebrows.

[It] would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.

The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records.

This is a terrifying development and it must be stopped before it gains any significant momentum. Background, Action items and contact information below the fold.

Under the guise of reducing child pornography, the SAFETY (Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act) Act is currently the gravest threat to digital privacy rights on the Internet. Given the increasing tendency of people, especially young people, to use the Internet as a primary means of communications, this measure would effect nearly all Americans in ways we are only beginning to understand. Also, given the fact that the Act requires all Internet Service Providers to record the web surfing activity of all Internet users, this amounts to the warrantless wiretapping of the entire Internet.

Does this worry you? Good. It should. If this continues, it is an OUTRAGEOUS violation of our privacy and civil liberties.
Looks like someone just turned the heat up under the kool-aid.

From The Agonist.org:
The original SAFETY Act, introduced in June of 2006 by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), was shot down due to free speech concerns over aspects of the bill other than the ones I've focused on here. At the time, the Center for Democracy and Technology wrote that the bill  )