Mistaken Goal: Where Student Affairs & Technology Meet

On Friday, Feburary 6 – just over a week ago – Ruckus shut down its online music service. Napster got out of the college campus business last summer and Cdigix threw in the towel about two years ago. Unless I mistaken, this means that there are no major online entertainment services that specifically cater to colleges and universities. Let’s think about what this means for American higher education.

First, let’s examine exactly what happened with Ruckus. The service was ostensibly shut down without warning but those who were observant saw some signs of potential trouble many months ago. When I briefly posted about Napster’s decision to shelve their “Napster on Campus” program last year, I also wrote:

In mid July, one of my colleagues at another institution posted to a public listserv that Ruckus has new sponsors and is changing direction.  In particular, they no longer have a sales or marketing department which means no more posters or advertising materials sent to participating institutions.

So the claims that this happened completely unexpectedly aren’t quite accurate.  However, participating institutions and students were not given any warning (unlike when Cdigix ceased operations) that the service was going belly up last Friday so the claim isn’t completely off-base.  And the ominous warning signs of last year are certainly cold comfort to students whose music service has suddenly ceased to be and the administrators dealing with this unexpected loss of a service.

It may be of some comfort, however, to know that music with an unexpired licenses (it’s all DRM-protected) should work until the license expires. Ruckus pulled the plug on the authentication servers, similar to what Microsoft and Yahoo! were planning to do last year when they decided to shut down their music stores. Microsoft and Yahoo!, however, relented in the face of intense public pressure and didn’t follow through with their plans to cut off their customers.  I would be very surprised if there were a similar outcry about Ruckus given that Ruckus did not “sell” the music to students and no money actually changed hands.  But this is another example of why some people strongly oppose DRM and its complications. (If you can’t tell, I am very sympathetic to their arguments; I’ve spent a lot of money on mp3s from Amazon and CDs from CDBaby because I value the transportability and compatibility of those formats.)

Second, let’s examine why this happened. According to interviews with The Chronicle of Higher Education, Ruckus shut down simply because it wasn’t making enough money. Fair enough.  That’s why Cdigix and Napster both pulled out of this market. It’s not just services in this particular market that are finding it difficult to compete: TotalMusic, a service created by two of the major music publishers, appears to be having trouble just getting out of the gates. Even satellite radio service Sirius is struggling as they totter on the edge of bankruptcy.

Competing with other services in this crowded market is tough, even if one ignores the unlawful services and means for obtaining music. As mentioned above, I’m a big fan of Amazon’s mp3 service and I’m sure that I’m not alone. Pandora is amazing, legal, and free (and quite popular among my friends and coworkers). MySpace is downright venerable and still a great way to discover and listen to music. There are thousands of other services.

The presence of these alternative services raises the question: Exactly how much impact does the closure of these college-specific services have on students?  I would guess that it has little direct impact as many students are likely using these other services. (Yes, I know that I shouldn’t guess as folks like Illinois State have data on students’ music listening habits and practices but I am skeptical of most data in this area as the scene changes so quickly and dramatically).

But this may have a significant impact on higher education institutions and administrators. The legislation passed last year reauthorizing the Higher Education Act included provisions that require institutions to “‘effectively combat’ copyright violations with ‘a variety of technology-based deterrents’ and offer alternatives to illegal downloading.” What does it mean for us when the “alternatives” are themselves drying up and disappearing even as we’re being pushed to adopt them? What does it say about the effectiveness and viability of these services that they can’t seem to survive even when congress pushes us to adopt and support them?

Finally, let’s step away from Ruckus for a moment to take in another fact of the changing landscape. The RIAA announced in December that it would not be filing new lawsuits against students. Instead, they are shifting their focus to working with Internet Service Providers to identify and warn those infringing music copyrights. So far, it appears that the RIAA is keeping its word; no new suits have been filed although ones already in process are still being litigated.

These two shifts – political pressure to adopt services that are disappearing and the cessation of RIAA lawsuits – are dramatic. One of my colleagues at an institution in the Midwest told me that these shifts have completely derailed their extensive and well-known educational campaign. It reminds me of a well-known curse: “May you live in interesting times.”

Comments(1)

A few days ago, P2P Blog reported that Napster is withdrawing from college and university campuses by ending its “Napster on Campus” program. This comes about a year and a half after Cdigix withdrew from this market. I can’t seem to find an official announcement from Napster but Vanderbilt and American University have their own announcements. Napster appears to be suffering internal troubles; I’m completely out of my element trying to understand that document but others have characterized it as Napster “put[ting ] itself up for sale again.”

In mid July, one of my colleagues at another institution posted to a public listserv that Ruckus has new sponsors and is changing direction.  In particular, they no longer have a sales or marketing department which means no more posters or advertising materials sent to participating institutions. I have not yet found independent corroboration of these assertions.

I would love to pontificate at length and offer observations but I’m afraid that there just isn’t enough information to offer much substantive, meaningful opinions other than the obvious ones: (a) it’s damn hard to compete with free and (b) your music damn well better work with everyone’s computers and mp3 players. I am, however, hopeful that the continued demise of these services will remind colleges and universities that their job isn’t to provide free or reduced music to students but to educate them. Even if students want free music and Congress pushes institutions to offer free music, institutions need to stand firm and treat students as intelligent citizens responsible for their own actions and not as captive consumers to be mollified with treats unrelated to education.

Comments(0)

Late last week, President Bush signed into law legislation to renew the Higher Education act.  There were some faint rumors (sorry, don’t remember where I read them) that he was not going to sign but he has, albeit without any comment.

In connection with the provisions in the law that pertain to online copyright infringement, ACE and EDUCAUSE have put together a few resources that should prove useful.  First is a memo released a few days ago detailing what the next steps in the legislative process will be as the details in these new provisions are fleshed out.  Second is a free webcast scheduled for Thursday August 21, 2008, at 1:00 PM EDT.  No registration is required; more details can be found here under the “HEA Webcast” tab.

Last week, the Chronicle of Higher Ed reported that we are becoming “exasperated” with the RIAA and their actions and tactics.  Shockingly, the article reports that the RIAA is trying a legal tactic that attempts to use an institution’s previous actions against it.  Specifically, an institution that complained in court that it was burdensome to continue to investigate the RIAA’s complaints was told by the RIAA that “everyone else does it” and the institution’s previous compliance was presented as proof that the investigations were not burdensome.  This seems to put colleges and universities in a really bad position because it appears to force them to decide, up front, if they want to comply with every subsequent RIAA notice and demand.  This doesn’t seem right as the RIAA’s argument seems to ignore the issues of scale and changing situations.  It may not have been burdensome to reply to the first few notices; replying to the 100th or 1000th such notice can easily be burdensome.

Like William Patry, I find this all very depressing.

Comments(0)

Rock on, Central Michigan University!

Comments(0)

Rumor around the water cooler is that we may see a vote for the Higher Education Reauthorization Act today. The House of Representatives has passed the Higher Education Reauthorization Act with similar action expected of the Senate very soon. We’ve been following this for quite a while with interest focused primarily on the portion of the act that focuses on peer-to-peer file sharing and online copyright infringement. For those who have not been following this bill or this portion of the bill, the version of the bill that has been negotiated between the House and the Senate requires colleges and universities:

• Educate students
  • Inform them that unlawful online copyright infringement is unlawful
  • Summarize the penalties for violating Federal copyright laws
  • Inform them about the institution’s online copyright infringement policies and disciplinary actions
• Develop plans to “effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the use of a variety of technology-based deterrents”
• “Offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property”

(The precise language can be found in the bill on pages 221-222 and page 237; be warned that this is a long and somewhat large pdf file.)

The Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed are both covering this story although their coverage is much broader than focusing on this one issue. William Patry, Google’s Senior Copyright Counsel, has blasted the online copyright infringement portions of this bill and I’m sure that there are others who are doing the same if you poke around; Steve Worona has done so from a particularly privileged viewpoint as EDUCAUSE’s Director of Policy & Networking Programs. EDUCAUSE has signed an ACE letter that fulfills Doug Lederman’s prediction from a few days ago that “groups will spend much of the next day or two carefully wording letters that neither badmouth the legislation (and by extension those members of Congress who crafted it) nor endorse it.”

As noted by Patry, the discussion from the participants in the conference meeting that resolved the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill is very interesting and informative. If you really want to dig into this, the relevant material can be found on page 558 of the relevant report (same document as above, same warning: long and large pdf file). Patry has copied and pasted, with comments and discussion, the relevant material on his blog if you want to avoid digging through the pdf.

It looks like the bill will pass both houses and be made into law so it seems to be time to accept the inevitable and being planning on how work with or around these new laws. It may be worth taking several steps back to view the bill in its entirety as it does appear to do many good things but it’s incredibly disappointing to see once again how money influences and corrupts our legislative processes and participants.

(Updated July 31 at 2151 EST to reflect passage in the House)

Comments(0)

Things are still busy on the copyright front. Among other interesting developments and relevant news:

• The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that lawmakers have reached a compromise on the online copyright infringement language in the Higher Ed Act. According to a draft being circulated by aides, “the compromise adopts the House’s requirement that colleges develop plans to ‘detect and prevent’ illegal downloading of music and videos on campus, including offering alternatives to illegal downloading. But negotiators provided a possible out for colleges, adding the phrase ‘to the extent practicable’ to the language.” So it appears that our concerns have been largely unheard or ignored and we will be expected to fund unproven programs and tools even as we’re severely criticized and chastened for increasing tuition and fees.
• In the past month, many college and university administrators have reported an increase in the number of copyright complaints sent by the RIAA. There has been traffic on some of the listservs and articles in the usual places. Many, including myself, have wondered aloud if there is a connection between this unexpected surge in notices and the ongoing legislative efforts (at the federal and state level) supported and pushed by the RIAA and others. Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, denies that there is a connection. Given this group’s history of dishonesty and deception I am extremely skeptical of Sherman’s claims. In addition, EDUCAUSE Vice President Mark Luker expressed EDUCAUSE’s position that “counting DMCA notices is a completely inappropriate measure of success in combating infringement and an equally inappropriate basis for comparing the amount of infringement taking place campus-to-campus or year-to-year.” I don’t recall if EDUCAUSE has previously stated this position but I am happy that we agree on this common-sense issue.
• Spurred by the attention stirred up by the increase in notices, the RIAA explained how they “catch” students by using the same software students use to share music online. Their investigative firm, MediaSentry, has automated much of the process although they do not actually download the songs. In addition, the anonymous (WTF?) person who gave the Chronicle of Higher Education a demonstration of the RIAA’s operation said that “the automated takedown notice program we have right now is solely university-focused. We’re trying to make universities aware that they have an issue with peer-to-peer file sharing on their network, and so we don’t send automated notices to commercial ISP’s, I think because they are generally aware that there’s a problem.” That, of course, clearly says that the RIAA doesn’t think that colleges and universities are “aware” of this issue. Either that statement is untrue and the RIAA knows that we take this issue seriously or the world views of these two groups – those who profit off of others’ creativity and creations and those who create and innovate – are so far apart that they are irreconcilable.
• Finally, to step out of the world of higher education and gain a glimpse of these issues from a different perspective, DailyTech reports that the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (PRO-IP) has passed through the House of Representatives almost unanimously (408-11). This bill would create a new cabinet-level position to coordinate “antipiracy” efforts and strengthen many laws related to copyright and its enforcement. This bill has been called “a bill that may be the most outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the U.S.” by William Patry and criticized by even the Justice department.

Update: The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting that Congressional aides are hoping to wrap up negotiations tomorrow (Friday), publish the bill on Monday, name the members of the conference committee on Wednesday, and hold a vote before Memorial Day.  Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is threatening to hold up the bill if “he is not allowed to offer an amendment that would waive some reporting requirements for colleges that agree to other accountability measures.”  Among his many experiences, Alexander was president of the University of Tennessee from 1988 until 1991, so one would imagine that he knows a thing or two about higher education.

Comments(0)

Members of the House and Senate are still wrangling over the two different versions of the bills renewing and “updating” the Higher Education Act they passed this session to bring them into harmony so they can send them to the president to sign into law. Remember that the House version includes language that would institutions to plan to install filtering or other technological measures to prevent online copyright infringement; the Senate lacks this language and only requires that institutions inform students of relevant institutional policies.

Recently, two important groups have taken a public stand on this issue and expressed their feelings to our elected officials:

• About a month ago, the American Council on Education (ACE) sent a pair of letters to the appropriate chairpersons and ranking members (the chairperson is the senior member of the majority party whereas the ranking member if the senior member of the minority party) expressing support for the Senate bill’s language. ACE is the most powerful education lobbying group in the United States and they often act as a coordinating body for other groups; 12 other groups have signed on to these letters, including EDUCAUSE. The letters specifically note that “the House bill would impose new costs and regulatory burdens on both the Department of Education and campuses while doing very little to address the problem” and urge the use of the Senate language of that section of the bill.
• Yesterday, the U.S. Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) – the U.S. public policy arm of “the world’s largest educational and scientific computing society” – sent their own letter to the relevant persons in the Senate and House. Their roots as a scholarly organization are clear in their letter as they focus largely on problems with network filtering, writing that “a Federal
  policy that promotes or requires filtering will indirectly add to the costs of education and
  university research, introduce new security and privacy issues, degrade existing rights under
  copyright, and have little or no lasting impact on infringement of copyrighted works.” Unfortunately, they do not make a very concrete recommendation other than to say that “universities are in the best position to determine how to address infringement.”

The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Wired Campus blog is doing a pretty good job covering these events as they occur so it might be worth monitoring it for ongoing coverage. Their coverage is not in-depth but it is timely.

I also note that I can not recall any of the student affairs organizations – NASPA, ACPA, etc. – taking a stand on this issue.  It may be legitimately outside of their bailiwick but I’m not entirely convinced of that given the implications for rising costs of education and the close tie this issue has always had with student discipline.  So I’m a bit disappointed to not see any of these groups sign on to ACE’s letters.  If my memory is too short and these groups have taken an active and public stand that I’ve overlooked or forgotten, please let me know!

Comments(0)

I’m sure that everyone interested in this topic already knows that last week the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4137 the College Opportunity and Affordability Act.  This is the legislation that includes a section not only requiring colleges and universities to report to students their online copyright policies but also “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.”  The Senate version of the legislation does not include that language so this will have to be worked out between the House and the Senate before the final bill can be sent to the president.

In related news, it appears that Rep. Berman (D-CA) is stepping down from his position as chair of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.  He has been a very strong supporter of the music and movie industries.  We can only hope that Berman’s departure will start to bring this subcommittee closer to a balance between protection of copyright and the rights of citizens.

Comments(2)

The first item on the agenda of this year’s State of the New conference of specific interest to me and appropriate for this blog was a panel discussion of Internet content filtering. The panel was formally titled “Internet Copyright Filters: Finding the Balance” and it was moderated by David Sohn of the Center for Democracy & Technology. An audio recording of the panel can be found on the Net Caucus’ Web page.

The panelists were:

• Mia Garlick, YouTube: Garlick didn’t seem to play a very prominent role in this discussion. She seemed to be a bit overshadowed by some of the other personalities on stage.
• Greg Jackson, University of Chicago: Jackson is the CIO at the University of Chicago. He also spoke at one of the most recent congressional hearings on P2P.
• Gregory Marchwinski, Red Lambda, Inc.: Red Lambda is a company that has commercialized technology originally developed at the University of Florida to address online copyright infringement on its residential computer network. Marchwinski testified before Congress about a year ago in a hearing focusing on online copyright infringement on college and and university campuses.
• Cary Sherman, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA): Sherman is the president of the RIAA and he frequently appears on panels and before Congressional committees representing the recording industry.
• Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge: Public Knowledge is a non-profit advocacy group that has often taken the lead on copyright-related issues and legislation. Sohn is their president and she was a very lively and commanding presence on the stage.

The discussion was a bit confusing as it wasn’t always clear if the panelists were addressing the topic of mandatory filtering (which almost everyone seemed to agree would be a bad idea, even Sherman) or the more general topic of filtering.

The panel opened with a brief introduction from each of the panelists. Sherman repeated the worn-out line that “piracy is devastating the industry” and advocated for filtering because it (a) is a very targeted approach and (b) can distinguish between infringing and non-infringing uses. Gigi Sohn was next in line and she laid our her organization’s opposition to mandatory Internet content filtering based on three points: (a) it would block legal speech, (b) it would not stop determined pirates (yes, she called them pirates; I was so disappointed that she ceded that ground right away and confused the issue from the very start), and (c) it would cause network degradation. Garlick then introduced herself as working for YouTube and then gave an overview of YouTube; I was a bit insulted by her overview but I guess there may have actually been people in the room who didn’t know about YouTube. The interesting bit from Marchowski’s introduction was an acknowledgment that encryption is a big challenge for filtering. Jackson introduced himself by admitting that he agreed with much of Sherman’s position, particularly the idea that copyright infringement must be addressed with a multi-faceted approach.

Jackson went further, however, in raising two very interesting points directly relevant to higher education. First, he wondered aloud if, given the size and complexity of the network at the University of Chicago, it would be cheaper to acquire a blanket license for music and movies than to attempt to effectively filter that content. He returned to this point later in the discussion by comparing network filtering with other kinds of filtering such as spam filtering. The primary difference between spam filtering and content filtering, he explained, is that spam filtering is done at the checkpoint(s) where e-mail enters and leaves the institution’s network. Network filtering, however, would have to performed on many thousands of network devices to be effective. However, Jackson’s point is valid only if we are seeking to filter content as it moves within the network; if we’re only interested in preventing content from entering or leaving the network, we can filter it at the chokepoints where the network connects to the Internet (or Internet2 or Lambda Rail or whatever) just as we do with packetshaping and other devices. Second, Jackson said that the majority of infringing content is not exchanged via P2P networks. I don’t know what research he was quoting but I need more detail to place his assertion in context. It sounds a bit fishy but if his statistic is limited strictly to P2P then we would need to know about network-based or -enabled infringement as to limit the discussion to P2P misses the point.

Many of the panelists agreed that encryption is a looming problem. Marchwinski compared the current arms race to a balloon: if you push on the balloon in one place, it simply expands in other places. Sherman acknowledged the problem and raised DRM and applications on end-user’s computers as a potential solution. However, he agreed that education is still the key (which makes one wonder: Why the hell isn’t the RIAA engaging in honest and effective education?). Gigi Sohn was quick to followup that education must not solely focus on what one can not do but must also include what one can do with copyrighted material. Sherman pleaded that we “not let fair use…be the excuse that stops the development of technology.” Jackson mentioned the University of Michigan’s “Be Aware You’re Uploading” program as an effective and interesting education effort.

Jackson raised several other interesting points during the discussion. One interesting datum is that he estimates that the University of Chicago spends between $100,000 to $200,000 responding to DMCA takedown notices (his own time, his staff’s time, and judicial affairs). He also reminded everyone that most organizations already practice some form of content filtering with our spam filters, anti-virus filters, and security-specific filters. The challenge is in how we decide what to filter.

One of the final points of discussion centered on potential First Amendment issues raised by an audience member. Gigi Sohn expressed that there may be implications even for non-governmental organizations given that copyright itself is enforced by the government. The larger point, she explained, is that “This is how people are communicating today. This is expression and it must be protected.”

There are issues that were not discussed during this panel that form important parts of the larger picture. Other panels discussed the concerns held by legislators and parents about content available to minors. The Morning Keynote by Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) focused heavily on intellectual property (but completely neglected fair use). Several speakers throughout the day were FCC commissioners and the prospect of government-mandated actions or restrictions seemed to loom over many discussions. However, it seemed to me that nearly everyone was in agreement that regulation for the Internet would be a bad idea (network neutrality crept up in a few discussions but seemed strangely absent the entire day as a substantive issue).

It seems to me that the principle problems with Internet content filtering are:

• It will never be completely effective. This is not a show-stopper as “must be 100% effective” is an unreasonable expectation or standard of review.
• It will never be able to distinguish infringing uses from non-infringing uses. Fair use is hard. It’s been argued that it’s intentionally complex in many ways to ensure that there are human beings, presumably learned and educated human beings (i.e. lawyers and judges) involved to ensure both the copyright holder and the alleged infringer are protected. Unless we dramatically change the laws to simplify fair use (which would probably be a bad thing, on the whole) we’ll never be able to programatically address fair use.
• Imposing filters and then requiring users to request exceptions, an approach advocated by many, seems to fundamentally and negatively affect innovation and creativity. Currently, we’re free to make use of copyrighted works without asking permission. We might be infringing on the copyright or we may be making fair use of it but the point is that we don’t have to ask permission; we can only be stopped afterwards and prevented from doing the same thing again. Requiring users to ask permission beforehand, even if permission were always given, would impose a barrier that is undesirable and harmful. Innovation and creativity must not be tied up by red tape and bureaucracy.

I haven’t covered all of the panel discussion and I feel that I haven’t covered it particularly well. I encourage you to listen to the audio of the discussion if you’re interested in this topic. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if special interests attempted to force colleges and universities to purchase, install, and use Internet content filtering. I would hope that such efforts would be defeated but if the trendline holds true then we’re due for some more ill-advised attempts to address the issue of online copyright infringement on campuses.  But, as Jackson mentioned throughout the panel, we already already filtering content on our campus networks; we need to figure out how best to decide what to filter.

By the way, I’ve been told that the House version of the Higher Education Act (HR 4137 the College Access and Affordability Act) might go to vote this week. Contact your representative and register your opinion.

Comments(0)

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)