Mistaken Goal: Where Student Affairs & Technology Meet

On Friday, House Democrats introduced “The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.” Ostensibly intended to “address the soaring price of college” and “ensure [that colleges and universities] operate in the best interests of students and families,” the bill includes the worst provision yet regarding peer-to-peer filesharing. Unlike previous attempts that would have only required the “worst” institutions to adopt technological tools to address and prevent P2P filesharing, this legislation would require that all institutions that receive federal financial aid “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.” Unless I am misunderstanding this proposed law, it appears to be a blatant attempt to force all colleges and universities to pay a fee to the RIAA, MPAA, and others by requiring us to sign up for a service such as Napster or Ruckus (which, I know, is currently free; think that would last long if everyone were required by federal law to sign up to it?).

Other coverage of this proposed bill:

• The Chronicle of Higher Education includes praise for this misguided initiative by the MPAA (”a positive step in educating students and deterring illegal downloads and file sharing on college campuses”) and condemnation by EDUCAUSE (”we’re raising the cost of higher education by government mandate in order to transfer more dollars to the entertainment industry”).
• Inside Higher Ed’s coverage expands on the EDUCAUSE position by quoting them as saying that “Campuses that offer legal downloading services typically must charge a student fee to cover the expense. Taken across all campuses, this practice could represent a transfer of over $400 million annually from higher education to the entertainment industry while raising the cost of higher education.” Although it’s getting a bit old, our research into online entertainment services confirms part of that assertion.
• One of the most damning criticisms of this proposed legislation comes from William Patry, Google’s copyright counsel and one of the country’s leaders in copyright law. Patry asserts that “it is disturbing for the federal government to require educators to be policing enforcement issues for private companies on pain of loss of federal funds.”
• From the technology press come reports from Ars Technica, CNET, Campus Technology, and Daily Tech. In the CNET article, the reporters note that the MPAA has stated that institutions that employ technology to prevent P2P filesharing have experienced significant reductions in copyright complaints, “in some cases going from 50 a month to none.” Once again, I caution that the number of copyright complaints is not an indication of copyright infringement but an indicator of the copyright holder’s willingness to file a complaint as he or she is perfectly free to ignore infringements. Thus the MPAA’s assertion carries little weight unless the measure of success is “we’ll leave you alone - for now” instead of the actual reduction copyright infringement or change in students’ attitudes and actions.

The entire 747-page bill can be found here (1.2 MB pdf) for those who want to peruse it in all of its glory. It’s scheduled to be marked up in committee tomorrow (Wednesday). In addition to sending its own letter to members of the House, EDUCAUSE has once again called on its members to oppose this legislation by contacting legislators.

This is quite depressing. So let’s not discuss the other stupid P2P legislation recently introduced by a small bipartisan group of senators. Luckily, the “Pirate Act” appears to have little chance of passing as even the Justice Department doesn’t seem to be enthusiastic about this attempt to expand their workload to protect private interests.

Comments(2)

Several new resources and articles focusing on social network services (SNSs) (Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, etc.) have been recently published or released:

• A special issue of the Journal for Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC) focused on SNS edited by danah boyd and Nicole Ellison has finally been published. All of the articles are available online for free. Of particular interest to me are “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship” by danah boyd and Nicole Ellison and “Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites” by Eszter Hargittai. Hats off to danah and Nicole for pulling this together and seeing the project through to completion!
• The Online Computer Library Center, better known as OCLC, released the 280-page document “Sharing, Privacy, and Trust in Our Networked World.” Although the report focuses in part on libraries and library directors, it also includes significant sections on (a) User practices and preferences on their favorite social spaces, (b) User attitudes about sharing and receiving information on social spaces, commercial sites, and library sites, and (c) Information privacy: what matters and what doesn’t. The research appears to be largely based on surveys of several thousand individuals from Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
• The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) released the 36-page document “Security Issues and Recommendations for Online Social Networks” (1.8 MB pdf). Contributors to this document include many familiar names for those who have browsed my bibliography: Alessandro Acquisti, Fred Stutzman, Nicole Ellison, and Ralph Gross, among others. While the focus of this document (threats and recommendations) may be slightly different than that of interest to many of you, the perspective is very valuable and many of the issues identified will be familiar. Among the issues addressed are: difficulty of complete account deletion, SNS spam, profile-squatting and reputation slander through ID theft, stalking, and bullying.
• Karine Joly discusses a new Facebook feature, Facebook Pages, in the context of institutions of higher education seeking to market their institutions and connect with their constituents. Although intended primarily for commercial marketing purposes, Joly sees utility in this tool for higher education. Personally, I am becoming wary and weary of marketing efforts, particularly as they continue to infiltrate our personal lives and spaces. I recognize that much of that infiltration is occurring simply due to the blurring of boundaries between our personal and private lives but that does not make my any more comfortable with some of these developments.  Nor am I comfortable with the commercialization of higher education despite my understanding of the economic and social forces driving it.

Comments(0)

As the recording industry continues legal and quasi-legal proceedings against college and university students accused of copyright infringement, discussions and legal actions at colleges and universities also continue. A recent forum at Ohio University (video and Chronicle blog discussion) drew some attention although it is unclear if new ideas or initiatives will grow out of this event. The event was 2.5 hours long and I admit that I have not yet watched all of the video. (So far, I am unimpressed by the statements made by the songwriters invited to speak at this even; their view of copyright is limited and not legally sound and their view of our historical relationship with copyright is rose-colored and unrealistic).

The Chronicle’s Wired blog’s article about this event notes that “Stewart Harris, president of Edisto Sound, bemoaned the fact that some college students in the crowd shook their heads when he referred to copyright infringement as ’stealing.’” I have been consistent in criticizing the use of the word “stealing” when discussing copyright infringement. I make this criticism on both intellectual and ethical grounds. Intellectually, copyright infringement is simply too different from theft for it to be an accurate and equivalent comparison. More strongly, I believe that most who intentionally make this equivocation know that these activities differ; they make the comparison not as an accurate legal or technical description but to make a moral or ethical statement. Just as labeling large scale copyright infringement “piracy” invokes images of theft and bloodshed, conflating copyright infringement with theft invokes imagery that miscasts college students in their residence hall rooms as thugs using force to physically take things from people. We can and should discuss the pressing issues of copyright and the shifting meaning of property without intentionally miscasting some of the players or lying.

In an article published on the same day as the forum at Ohio University, the student newspaper The Post reported that the institution pays about $76,000 each year for its technological solution, AudibleMagic. As with the forum, the Chronicle’s Wired blog also discussed this item. The Chronicle’s post was entitled “The Cost of Copyright Compliance” but I assert that the quoted figure of $76,000 (”$60,000 [for] software and hardware…and…$16,000 for support, maintenance and regular database updates”) does not capture the full cost of dealing with allegations of copyright infringement by on-campus Ohio University residents. The only significant study analyzing these costs has been performed by Illinois State University as part of their Digital Citizen Project. Their study, limited to one institution at one period of time, found their costs to be $76 for first offenses and $146 for second/critical offenses. Those figures include staff time, computer systems, materials, and for second/critical offenses, student judicial proceedings.

During the Ohio University forum, several speakers noted that the moral and ethical tone and actions of the recording industry are playing a large role in the discussions and reactions of college students and others. That issue is brought up again by some of those responding to the Chronicle’s request for interview questions for Cary H. Sherman, President of the Recording Industry Association of America. I won’t repeat their questions here; read them for yourself.

Moving on from the Ohio University forum, we come to the Oregon Department of Justice’s motion to quash the RIAA’s subpoena of seventeen University of Oregon students. For the legal details of this motion, including links to the motion itself, I refer you to Ray Beckerman’s blog. In brief, this motion is recognition by the State Attorney General that the arguments made by many on the receiving end of these subpeonas - we often can’t positively identify the alleged infringer - are correct and legally significant. Moreover, the motion asserts that the university should be able to ask the RIAA for more information before students are served subpoenas in which they have not been properly identified.

Also superficially separate from the Ohio University: For a discussion of evolving copyright issues related to technology and corporations but not directly involving academia, check out this post by Mike Madison. Don’t miss the reply from Siva Vaidhyanathan, a noted cultural historian and media scholar. While that particular discussion begins with YouTube and Google’s book scanning project, the larger issue of “are corporations evil?” is directly related to the ethical, moral, and legal issues related to the RIAA and their actions.

Finally, I haven’t yet mentioned that the RIAA won their first lawsuit against someone accused of peer-to-peer copyright infringement. Many others have already written about and discussed this event so I won’t waste your time by repeating it all here. To me, the most interesting aspect of this case is that the judge allowed the jury to consider the mere making of material available equivalent to actual copyright infringement. The defendant plans to appeal the ruling and this particular aspect of the case may be key in the appeal; it’s certainly high on the list for the EFF as they plan to file a friend-of-the-court brief. As an aside, Wired’s continuing coverage of the RIAA is both very one-sided and amusing (for those who happen to be on the same side, of course) as well as being informative and interesting.

Update: Ah, I knew I was forgetting to add something to this post!  In September, American University’s Center for Social Media published a study entitled “The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy;” the study was funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.  The researchers interviewed teachers, professors and other educators and highlights the misunderstandings of copyright and fair use even among those who should know about them (the sample seems to include a lot of media specialists).  This study seems to support the statement I made in the first paragraph when I criticized some of the participants in the Ohio University making unrealistic assumptions about how others view and relate to copyright.

Comments(0)