Mistaken Goal: Where Student Affairs & Technology Meet

As educators, we know that we have an ethical obligation to make our technical services and media accessible to all of our students, potential students, and community members. There’s a great business case to be made for most accessibility initiatives and technologies, including the many gains in usability and productivity for all of our users. Further, most or all of us have a legal obligation to make our materials accessible.

But here are some other reasons to not only make your systems and services accessible but also get you excited about technology and its ability to connect people.

1. Videos, particularly video blogs, made by deaf persons. I’ve mentioned this a few times already but it’s such a fascinating application of technology that I can’t help trotting out this example once again. Just check this stuff out – how can you not get excited about it?! Not only are these technologies allowing deaf persons to easily communicate with one another in their natural language but they can also allow those who do not know sign language to have a peek into their life and culture.
2. Video and text as a bridge between those who speak and think very differently. Andy Carvin at PBS’s learning.now recently wrote about Amanda, a severely autistic person who best communicates with us via her blog, Second Life, and video. Please, go read Andy’s post and watch the video to which he links. It’s amazing and shocking. It’s the kind of thing that keeps you awake at night questioning things you thought were pretty well-understood and fundamental in your world view. I’m incredibly ashamed to admit that Amanda’s right when she says that I would dismiss her as a non-person unless she were able to communicate using those tools. It’s incredible that these technologies allow her to communicate with us and express herself in a language that I can understand and we’re all richer for being able to cross this bridge.

Do you think this was what anyone envisioned when the Web, webcams, YouTube, or any of the other technologies were created? Probably not. But if the technologies were not accessible and on some level open (cue “Net Neutrality” sermon), these incredible connections and communications would not be able to take place. We can’t envision what people will do with our systems and services. So let’s not lock them up lest we shut out those who desire and need our services.

Comments(0)

In a letter entitled “On Cdigix and Digital Media on Campus,”Cdigix. Inc. CEO Larry Jacobson explains why his company is ceasing their online entertainment service. Among other themes they hear from their customers are (a) “Legal music services on campus are not core to our school’s mission” and (b) “Our legal music service is getting only moderate interest from students.” These mirror some findings from last year’s ResNet Applied Research Group’s multi-institutional survey; they certainly mirror my own experiences and discussions with many higher education administrators.

One issue not addressed by Jacobson is the timing of this change. As noted by the Chronicle, “some colleges may be left explaining to their students why they will suddenly be denied free music” in the middle of the academic semester. One issue clearly addressed by Jacobson, however, is that “the record labels and digital music retailers have failed to create a business structure that can satisfy market demands and one that has seen little change since…2004.” And that is a great segue into our next topic…

The Associated Press reports an update on the RIAA’s relentless campaign to issue DMCA takedown notices to college and university students allegedly infringing their copyrights. As noted by the AP, “the music industry is sending thousands more copyright complaints to universities this school year than last. In some cases, students are targeted for allegedly sharing a single mp3 file online.” At many institutions, the number of DMCA notices has significantly increased during the 2006-2007 academic year. The RIAA made available to the AP a list of the top 25 institutions to which it has sent DMCA takedown notices (the Chronicle’s list is well-formatted and easier to read). Remember, though, that DMCA do not measure copyright infringement.

I’m not real sure where all of this leaves us. With Cdigix gone, Ruckus is effectively in command of this market. I have also been told that federal legislators are still interested in this issue (with Berman in charge of the House subcommittee most interested in this issue, I’m sure it will continue to be an issue). Further, I have been told that some of those intimately involved with the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities are very displeased with the committee and its direction. Others will erroneously cite the evidence discussed above (record DMCA takedown notices to colleges and universities) as evidence of a continued rise in copyright infringement.

It’s a bit of a mess and I don’t know how it will shake out.

Comments(1)

Please accept my apologies if this blog is not being updated as often as one might hope or expect. Please do not have any expectations for update frequency – when there is something is interesting and appropriate and I have the time, I’ll write about it. Contributing to the rather low frequency of updates recently has been my quest to leave my full-time job and return to school full-time in the fall to pursue a doctorate. That is not a process that one lightly begins or finishes and it takes time to apply, evaluate offers, figure out financial aid (i.e. graduate assistantships), visit campuses, etc.

In the meantime, here are two interesting projects on which I am collaborating with others:

1. Qualitative content analysis of programs presented at the ResNet Symposium from 1995-2006. In the past few years, the ResNet Applied Research Group (RARG) has conducted some pretty intensive research. I would characterize our past research as “outward looking” as we have examined issues that affect and define residential computer networks. I would characterize our current research project as “inward looking” as we’re examining the ResNet Symposium itself. As with all of our research, I think that this is an extremely important part of the continuing professionalization and maturation of both the organization and the profession as a whole. Further, I think that this particular research effort will make a huge contribution to the historical study of both residential computer networks and student computing support in higher ed in general. I hope that we, collectively, can continue this kind of research and extend it further to help us understand where we have come from so that we can understand where we’re going. We’re also running into some very interesting methodological challenges with this research as it appears to be pretty unique in many way; we’ve only found one other similar research project and we’re borrowing most of our methodology from media analysis, specifically David Altheide’s Ethnographic Content Analysis methodology.
2. Analysis of YouTube and its impact on and recommendations for student affairs practitioners. A colleague and I are working together to write an invited article for a non-peer-reviewed student affairs publication describing YouTube and related issues. It’s a very interesting topic and I’m very excited to be a part of this effort. There are tons of potential topics to discuss in this article and I think that narrowing down our list and keeping our article to a manageable size is our biggest challenge. Leaving aside core student affairs issues such as student development and the interaction of YouTube with student affairs administration and policies, other issues that may be discussed include media literacy, citizen journalism, increasing bandwidth demands, legal issues, public representation of institutions, and the general growth of social networking. I hope that we can find a way to not concentrate on just YouTube but on all similar sites but finding a balance between generalities and specifics will be quite a challenge.

I know some of this has been a bit vague but I’m sure that you can understand that all of these are works in progress. I’ve got other things brewing and I will announce them as appropriate.

Comments(2)

Am I the only one who noticed that the Chronicle posted an audio interview with Robert R. Davila, interim president of Gallaudet University?  What’s the catch?  He doesn’t speak! Gallaudet primarily educates those who are deaf or hard of hearing; Davila is a deaf person who signs and his “voice” in this interview is actually that of an interpreter.  I’m sure the many deaf and hard of hearing students and alumni at Gallaudet appreciate the Chronicle posting the written transcript but wouldn’t a video of Davila signing have been much better (and much cooler)?  The interview even specifically mentions and links to the video blog that Gallaudet produces to communicate with students and alumni.

What a curious mixture of unintentional comedy, insensitivity, and a missed opportunity!

Comments(4)

Allegations of widespread online copyright infringement on college campuses continue to flourish. Two recent developments:

1. Word on the street is that online entertainment company Cdigix is closing its doors and shutting down its service. Along with Ruckus, Cdigix was one of only two online entertainment services that specifically and exclusively targeted college campuses. It’s been a busy few weeks for Cdigix and Ruckus. Just a few weeks ago, Cdigix announced that they had joined Internet2. Days later, Ruckus began allowing all American college students to install their software and download music. One wonders how these events are all connected. One further wonders if Ruckus’ new business model will prove to be more successful than Cdigix’s. Finally, one must wonder what impact these events will have on the perception and evolution of this phenomenon, particularly their potential impact on legislators interested in this topic and those who influence them. (Update: The Chronicle has a story about this with some choice quotes – more on this later.)
2. A few recent articles in the popular press continue to cloud this issue with unsupportable claims and ridiculous hyperbole. In particular, I deplore the (distressingly popular) practice of conflating copyright infringement with piracy. Without going into a discussion of why we have separate laws regarding theft of physical goods and infringement of copyright, I think it’s clear to everyone that comparing someone accused of downloading or distributing a song with his or computer with one who plunders a ship on the high seas is, at best, silly. Language is powerful. Labeling one who engages in copyright infringement a “pirate” to take advantage of centuries of emotional connections and imagery associated with piracy is inaccurate, misleading, and dishonest. Copyright infringement is unlawful and often unethical; we don’t need to confuse the issue with inappropriate, emotional, and dishonest language. If the Columbia Missourian can get it right, why can’t the Chronicle of Higher Education and other more popular and mainstream publications?

Comments(2)

A recent article by Jason Ryan in The State proclaims the “[University of South Carolina] a top pirate among colleges.” Ryan reaches this conclusion because “the [RIAA] has sent 914 notices of copyright infringement to the university this year — the highest number in the state and one of the highest among colleges nationwide — for illegally downloaded songs.” Ryan’s conclusion is false as one can not measure the rate of alleged copyright infringement on a given campus or among the customers of an ISP by the number of DMCA takedown notices received.

As I understand it, the primary problem is that copyright holders in the United States are not required to defend their copyrights; they can, instead, selectively enforce their copyrights (this differs from trademarks that must be defended or they can be diluted and essentially “lost”). In fact, this is exactly what the RIAA has done. “Owing to the impracticality of filing lawsuits against every individual file sharer, RIAA has chosen to focus on a relatively small group of individuals and maximize the publicity surrounding its legal action to discourage the overall participation in file-sharing networks.” Hence the number of DMCA takedown notices or lawsuits can not be used as a measure of alleged copyright infringement

Can one reasonably assume those numbers, summed together, are an upper limit of alleged copyright infringement? In other words, can one say that such a number represents the totality of alleged infringement? No. Only the works of those copyright holders who (a) believe their copyrights are being infringed and (b) who care to take action could be included in such an analysis. It is entirely possible that other works are being infringed but they’re simply owned by other parties than those pursuing these particular legal actions. In the USC example, it’s possible that students (and staff and faculty, oh my!) are infringing the copyrights of non-RIAA music publishers, artists, and rights holders. It’s even possible that USC persons are infringing the copyrights of other media such as movies, software, and books. Further, copyright holders who believe their copyrights are being infringed may elect to take no action or take action other than send a DMCA takedown notice or file a lawsuit. Therefore the number of DMCA takedown notices and copyright lawsuits can not be taken as a measurement of the upper limit of alleged copyright infringement since other infringement not covered by the current notices and lawsuits may be occurring.

Can one reasonably assume those numbers, summed together, are a lower limit of alleged copyright infringement? In other words, can one say that such a number represents the minimum level of alleged infringement? No. Even though DMCA takedown notices are submitted as truthful “under penalty of perjury,” mistakes still happen. For example, some institutions have received takedown notices for non-existent or impossible-to-use IP addresses. One should also take into account the legal and ethical principle of “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” In other words, one should not assume that the asserted activity in a given takedown notice or lawsuit has actually occurred. Not only would that be mistaken in the face of the already-mentioned mistakes and errors that occur but it would also be damaging to the ethical environment on a campus if administrators take, as a matter of course, the word of an external and biased person or group over the word of campus community members. In other words, one must perform due diligence before assuming that an allegation of copyright infringement is true. I will, however, grant that the number of “false positives” and mistaken reports are low and the number of takedown notices and lawsuits is likely to be relatively close to the lower limit of alleged infringement activity but to outright accept the proposition is factually and ethically mistaken.

Where does that leave us? How can one know the true level of alleged copyright infringement? I assert that it is very difficult to discover and keep track of this activity. I do not know of any easy, replicable, and reliable methods for doing so. I hypothesize that such methods might include a combination of measurements of network activity, legal and judicial activity, and qualitative methods of research and assessment. I leave the question of “should we care?” for another day. Suffice it to say that we are under significant legislative pressure to appear to care and to “do something” and that reason alone may be enough for most of us.

Finally, let’s return to the proclamation made in the first paragraph: USC has more received more DMCA takedown notices than other South Carolina institutions and thus has more persons (presumably students) engaged in copyright infringement. This simple argument is untrue as the (true) claim that “USC has received more DMCA takedown notices than other South Carolina institutions” does not, as discussed above, imply that “it has more persons (presumably students) engaged in copyright infringement.” One can say virtually nothing about the actual numbers of persons engaged in alleged copyright infringement at South Carolina institutions given only the number of DMCA takedown notices received by each institution. The race for the “top pirate” of South Carolina colleges and universities is still undecided; I recommend ship-to-ship combat on the high seas or perhaps a series of duels with sabers and pistols.

(There is also the intriguing issue of the RIAA employing Ginger DeMint, daughter of Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., as their director of government and industry relations. I leave discussion of this issue to those more well-versed in politics and conspiracy theories.)

Comments(0)

Last week, the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee held their 10th State of the Net Conference. C-SPAN has available on their website a recording of one of the panel discussions entitled “Child Safety on Web 2.0: Who Should Protect Our Kids?” The panel was extremely interesting and although much of the discussion centered on child pornography it was extremely well-reasoned and covered other topics with insight and wisdom.

The panelists included:

• Anne Collier, Co-director of BlogSafety.com
• Chuck Cosson, Microsoft’s Public Policy Counsel
• Tim Lordan, Executive Director of the Internet Education Foundation & panel moderator
• Mark McCarthy, Visa’s Senior Vice President for Public Policy
• Margaret Moran, UK Member of Parliament (Labour)
• Adam Thierer, Director of the Progress & Freedom Center’s Center for Digital Media

As often seems to be the case, the questions from the audience seemed to draw together many of the threads discussed throughout the panel. Allow me to summarize the responses to one particular question to give you a flavor for the discussions: How would you grade congress and administration on their Internet child safety efforts? Adam replied that he would give them a C or D as their efforts are not about education and parental empowerment. Chuck, however, noted that Microsoft is happy when lawmakers even think of this issue. Some federal bills have been good and states have significant opportunities (Virginia was mentioned a few times throughout the panel as particularly good in these areas). Margaret reiterated her main point that legislation must be accompanied, preceded, or even co-opted by governmental collaboration with industry and NGOs. This is apparently an effort she has led in the UK. Mark agreed with Margaret about industry collaboration being key but added that legislation is not always needed but legislative interest is extremely important.

Between the lengthy opening remarks, discussion, and question-and-answer session, many of the major topics in this area were covered: ISP and OS vendor efforts, parental responsibilities, government and industry collaboration, and the ethics and legalities of monitoring Internet users and children. A few of the highlights included:

• A few of the panelists referenced Youth, Pornography, and the Internet,” a 2000 publication by the Committee to Study Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content of the National Research Council. In particular, the following idea (paraphrased here and attributed to Dick Thornburgh) was discussed and presented as a model: Although we can erect fences and put up gates around swimming pools, the best way we can protect children from drowning is to teach them how to swim. Adam quickly linked this notion of “teaching our children how to swim” with media literacy and how it is or is not being taught to children. This is a current topic of discussion among some educators and the focus of current research.
• A panelist (our guest from the UK, I think) said that we must puruse “education without fear.” That is precisely the concept I believe we must promote in higher education as we try to educate one another and our students about Internet issues such as social networking, privacy, ethics, and online interactions. Although the particular phrase “education without fear” seems to be related to an educational movement to eliminate corporal punishment in schools we should hold it in our minds and hearts as I believe it applies directly to these educational efforts.

Those ideas, arming one another and our students with knowledge without sensationalizing or overblowing the potential dangers, are precisely the ones we should be pursuing in higher education. I would recommend anyone interested in these ideas, Internet safety, and the interplay between government and industry watch this video. I was very impressed with each of the panelists and their interactions. Further, many of their ideas are spot on and ones from which we can learn and on which we can build.

Comments(2)