[El Scorcho]

Two Congressional representatives [Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)] have introduced an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965. It's a massive amendment proposing a slew of changes, one of which is of particular interest to people like me, so I thought I'd share.

In this bill is a measure, introduced on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America. This measure would require all higher education institutions that receive federal funding/aid to do three things. First, it would require them to make students aware of school policies regarding file-sharing, peer to peer network traffic and the possible criminal penalties for copyright law violations when they are signing up for financial aid. Second, it would require the university to take (and prove to law enforcement that they have taken) technological measures to stop peer to peer and file-sharing traffic on their campus. Third, it would require the universities to provide (at their own cost) a legal alternative to illegal file sharing, such as the Rhapsody or Napster subscription services (neither of which are iPod compatible). Failure to do any one of these things would result in a loss of all federal funding.

The Association of American Universities and Educause are both fighting this, but it appears to have pretty good support in Congress. (Which means the RIAA has done their lobbying work this month.) I can't even begin to explain how wrong I think it is that a private industry can have such an influence over government and education. Even if that weren't the case, I think the technical details of the bill are ludicrous.

This is bad news for education all the way around. If you care at all about any of the things mentioned here, I'd urge you to contact your Senators and Representatives. By all accounts this will be signed if it hits the President's desk.

If you want to read the full bill you can check it out in <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... >plaintext format</a> or in <a href="http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReaut ... ext.pdf">a PDF file</a>. (Warning: It's a massive document.)

ArsTechnica also has <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... ps.html">a great summary of the situation</a>.

[thepostman]

another reason why the RIAA is freaking ridiculous...i understand trying to protect an artists work...but this is not the way to go about it. Go after the illegal sites and just keep shutting them down and charging the ones that start them...it will never end...but making schools pay for legal peer to peer services is not going after the people who are creating the problem

[PAmedic]

I hope Limewire isn't on the list

[El Scorcho]

another reason why the RIAA is freaking ridiculous...i understand trying to protect an artists work...but this is not the way to go about it. Go after the illegal sites and just keep shutting them down and charging the ones that start them...it will never end...but making schools pay for legal peer to peer services is not going after the people who are creating the problem

I think the thing that upsets me the most is that the RIAA knows they can't afford to keep suing everyone in the country, so this is their way of pushing the costs off on someone else. They want schools to pay out of their own funds to do their copyright policing for them. This is not something that universities should be charged with or be responsible for paying for. It makes me incredibly frustrated.

[thepostman]

another reason why the RIAA is freaking ridiculous...i understand trying to protect an artists work...but this is not the way to go about it. Go after the illegal sites and just keep shutting them down and charging the ones that start them...it will never end...but making schools pay for legal peer to peer services is not going after the people who are creating the problem

I think the thing that upsets me the most is that the RIAA knows they can't afford to keep suing everyone in the country, so this is their way of pushing the costs off on someone else. They want schools to pay out of their own funds to do their copyright policing for them. This is not something that universities should be charged with or be responsible for paying for. It makes me incredibly frustrated.

exactly...why should colleges be the ones to pay the costs?? It just doesn't make sense, they aren't breaking the law and should not be held accountable...this extra cost of course will be put on the students and once again the cost for education goes up. In a country where college education is needed so much to make something of yourself in this country you would think these extra things that will make college that much more expensive would be frowned upon....I just don't get it

[kentuckywildcats]

typical democrat policy. they talk about how they want to be for the poor, for makign education cheaper, and a bunch of other stuff like that but they keep doing stuff to make it more expensive.

[TDDance234]

typical democrat policy. they talk about how they want to be for the poor, for makign education cheaper, and a bunch of other stuff like that but they keep doing stuff to make it more expensive.

Bingo.

[LUconn]

hey, this is The College Opportunity and Affordability Act. It doesn't say whether the act is to make it more or less affordable.

[El Scorcho]

typical democrat policy. they talk about how they want to be for the poor, for makign education cheaper, and a bunch of other stuff like that but they keep doing stuff to make it more expensive.

Do note, however, that this bill has bipartisan sponsorship. The RIAA lobby shows no preference as to which side of the aisle they make campaign contributions to.

[mrmacphisto]

I think I now know what the Fourth Branch is.