Cyberlaw/Day 5: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== University Filtering (group exercise) == | == University Filtering (group exercise) == | ||
*General Counsel's perspective: | * IT/General Counsel's perspective: | ||
** What is the minimum legal duty to satisfy the record companies? | ** What is the minimum legal duty to satisfy the record companies? | ||
** What technical interventions are possible? | ** What '''technical interventions''' are possible? | ||
*** Install speed bumps: | *** (1) Install speed bumps: | ||
**** Block 'bad bits'. Reduce traffic in targeted areas. | **** Block 'bad bits'. [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=101659 Reduce traffic] in targeted areas. | ||
**** Block all bits. Result: it takes longer to download/upload the Daily Show. | **** Block all bits. Result: it takes longer to download/upload the Daily Show. | ||
**** Target 'unusual' activity. | **** Target 'unusual' activity. | ||
*** (2) Block certain [http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers ports] altogether. | |||
** What '''licensing solutions''' are possible? | |||
*** Penn State/GW model of charging students ~$10 apiece to set up legal file-sharing networks. | |||
*** Industries like this because they are building a future customer base. Can use music to leverage into other products. | |||
** '''Other solutions'''? | |||
*** [http://www.noankmedia.com/howitworks.html Noank] / [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001006----000-.html AHRA] model. | |||
*** Refuse to turn over information to RIAA. | |||
* University Professor's perspective: | |||
** 'Thank you for your letter. We've thought about it.' | |||
** Worry that imposing these restrictions creates a slippery slope to other kinds of blocks: indecent, seditious, etc. Hard to draw this line between acceptable and anti-free speech blocking. | |||
*** Concern = ''horizontal portability of tech solutions''. | |||
** Also, blocking an application on a campus might prevent good non-infringing uses from developing. | |||
Latest revision as of 18:03, 8 January 2008
- Pirate Bay Tries to buy Sealand
- Although Sweden is Homey, Sealand also appealed to the Pirate Bay.
- Jack Valenti's 1982 Congressional Testimony regarding Sony
University Filtering (group exercise)
- IT/General Counsel's perspective:
- What is the minimum legal duty to satisfy the record companies?
- What technical interventions are possible?
- (1) Install speed bumps:
- Block 'bad bits'. Reduce traffic in targeted areas.
- Block all bits. Result: it takes longer to download/upload the Daily Show.
- Target 'unusual' activity.
- (2) Block certain ports altogether.
- (1) Install speed bumps:
- What licensing solutions are possible?
- Penn State/GW model of charging students ~$10 apiece to set up legal file-sharing networks.
- Industries like this because they are building a future customer base. Can use music to leverage into other products.
- Other solutions?
- University Professor's perspective:
- 'Thank you for your letter. We've thought about it.'
- Worry that imposing these restrictions creates a slippery slope to other kinds of blocks: indecent, seditious, etc. Hard to draw this line between acceptable and anti-free speech blocking.
- Concern = horizontal portability of tech solutions.
- Also, blocking an application on a campus might prevent good non-infringing uses from developing.