- I located the A&M United Methodist Church webpage which is, http://www.am-umc.org/. Their webpage serves several functions such as: various information on their numerous ministries, a calendar, announcements, a map to their church, staff contact info, and their newsletter.
- Their webpage empowers members to take an active role in their church an to attend often, with various events and ministry opportunities.
- Compared to larger national relgious websites, the local A&M United Methodist Church webpage is quite helpful. With various tabs of information, that could tell anyone that didn't know much about their church, or their religion all they needed to know. Overall, I thought their webpage was useful, helpful and very well done. By Nathan Dysinger
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Lab Exercise 2: Technology & Religion
Lab Section Exercise: Technology and Political Econom
1) The challenges P2P technology bring to copyright protection on the internet are that individuals are illegally downloading music, games, movies, and software which are copyrighted by law. When they download any of these applications they are also opening a file share which they may not be aware of. By downloading and file sharing with out the copyright owners permission they are breaking the law and could receive a big fine or even jail time.
2) The DMCA's job is to sit around and check for people illegally downloading copyright information. When they find out if people are illegally downloading or file sharing they find out your IP address and your internet carrier and prosecute you. If you are prosecuted you can receive up to 3 yrs in prison and a fine up to $250,000.
3) With technology being the substructure will allow more people to explore the Internet. When they do this is may have a bigger impact on who illegally downloads and file shares which will determine the fines and penalties given by the superstructure DMCA. So the cause of one will be the effect of the other.
4) I think the 3 laws of dialectics do play a relationship between P2P technology and DMCA, because they are opposites. P2P is illegal and it is wrong but the DMCA is the organization out to stop the P2P from happening. The transformation from quantity to quality will have the DMCA knock down all the P2P users to lower the quantity and make the quality of the internet better. Finally the thesis- antithesis-synthesis could be how the DMCA planned to stop P2P sharing and how it is working, so in some ways they all are in common with the two.
5) The DMCA and TAMU have a very good relationship. The DMCA notifies TAMU of whats going on in the campus. I think its very good that TAMU cracks down on violators to help out with the DMCA. I think that if students are using TAMU computers to use it for illegal use, they should be in trouble by the University and DMCA. DMCA and TAMU are defiantly pulling the side of the copyright holder which is the way it should be, because its their work that can be purchased and TAMU is stopping people from stealing from them which fits the guide of the Aggie Code of Honor.
6) The DMCA interests are in protecting peoples work that is copyrighted on the internet from thieves. By cracking down hard on people breaking the law and not let anyone go this will help protect their interest and will defiantly show what they represent. It will get other peoples interest by getting fined if they are illegally using the computer or it will make the artists or publishers happy by doing this.
7) I would fine every user of P2P, and crack down on them hard so that no one will illegally download artists hard work. This will help the artists earn their pay check and it will teach people not to take whats no theirs because they would not like it if people where taking their pay check from them.
Ryan Cochrane
2) The DMCA's job is to sit around and check for people illegally downloading copyright information. When they find out if people are illegally downloading or file sharing they find out your IP address and your internet carrier and prosecute you. If you are prosecuted you can receive up to 3 yrs in prison and a fine up to $250,000.
3) With technology being the substructure will allow more people to explore the Internet. When they do this is may have a bigger impact on who illegally downloads and file shares which will determine the fines and penalties given by the superstructure DMCA. So the cause of one will be the effect of the other.
4) I think the 3 laws of dialectics do play a relationship between P2P technology and DMCA, because they are opposites. P2P is illegal and it is wrong but the DMCA is the organization out to stop the P2P from happening. The transformation from quantity to quality will have the DMCA knock down all the P2P users to lower the quantity and make the quality of the internet better. Finally the thesis- antithesis-synthesis could be how the DMCA planned to stop P2P sharing and how it is working, so in some ways they all are in common with the two.
5) The DMCA and TAMU have a very good relationship. The DMCA notifies TAMU of whats going on in the campus. I think its very good that TAMU cracks down on violators to help out with the DMCA. I think that if students are using TAMU computers to use it for illegal use, they should be in trouble by the University and DMCA. DMCA and TAMU are defiantly pulling the side of the copyright holder which is the way it should be, because its their work that can be purchased and TAMU is stopping people from stealing from them which fits the guide of the Aggie Code of Honor.
6) The DMCA interests are in protecting peoples work that is copyrighted on the internet from thieves. By cracking down hard on people breaking the law and not let anyone go this will help protect their interest and will defiantly show what they represent. It will get other peoples interest by getting fined if they are illegally using the computer or it will make the artists or publishers happy by doing this.
7) I would fine every user of P2P, and crack down on them hard so that no one will illegally download artists hard work. This will help the artists earn their pay check and it will teach people not to take whats no theirs because they would not like it if people where taking their pay check from them.
Ryan Cochrane
Technology and Political Economy
Anyone with an internet connection can share their music files. This in itself is why it is so difficult to enforce the copyright rules. No one wants to pay a lot of money for something that can be obtained for free which to most people think is ok. The only reason there has been a decreased in illegal downloading is the fear of being sued. When there was no fear, there was no moral issue. So is this really a moral issue or just an issue of people looking out for their own interest? If there was no chance of being sued, everyone would have continued and musicians would not be millionaires New internet businesses search out ISP addresses that appear to be sharing and then pursue legal actions such as jail time and or fines. P2P technology fuels the DMCA. The DMCA is the law and the P2P is the crook. That is the black and white relationship between the two. I agree with the law. You should not download songs off the internet because it is stealing. However, I would argue that charging customers 13 dollars for a CD is outrageous. The price is the simple reason that most turned to P2P programs in the first place. iTunes is a step in the right direction because now you can get the songs you want for a better price instead of being forced to buy the whole CD.The DMCA protect the artists. They are the ones who get the money in the end. The DMCA law does not care about the price of CDs. However, it can also be argued that if the artists didn’t get paid that they wouldn’t produce. So that could be in a since protecting the listener, but that does not help out with the pricing of songs.I would implement a policy that had no mercy if I were a policy-maker. It is not fair to the law abiding citizens who pay for their songs to have their neighbor get the same stuff for free. Everyone should know that it is illegal to steal songs and should face the consequence if they choose to keep stealing.
Technology and Political Economy
1. Peer-to-peer technology can often times lead to violation of copyrighted materials. Although you may not realize that you are violating these laws, the technology of file sharing programs could get you in trouble with the law with out you even being aware of it.
2. Because of the continuous illegal downloading of copyrighted materials the DMCA(Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998) enforces punishment to those that download and share copyrighted materials. These are often times found on programs such as Morpheus and Kazaa. There are now internet businesses whose sole objective is to seek out and punish these offenders.
3. With the definitions of substructures and superstructures, we can assume that the DMCA plays the role of a superstructure in which it regulates the production and distribution that the substructure of technology brings about, a.k.a. the internet sites such as Morpheus and Kazaa.
4. Considering these two party's in the three laws of Dialectics we can see their relationship. We can only hope that the quantitive steps being made by the DMCA can eventually be a qualitive change to make copyrighted materials safer. We can also assume that these changes will unite these two opposing partys and create a harmonious relationship. This could be done by first examining the situation of illegal downloading and sharing as a thesis. Then assuming that the process of the DMCA is the antithesis in which we will see quantitive change. Then finally having a synthesis of negation of the negotiation, where we can find a middle ground or agreement.
5. Although TAMU's campus regulations may be trying to help protect student activity, I feel it only points out the offenders to the law. It almost feels as if they are only concerned with protection themselves from getting in trouble and pointing the blame on others. What may need to be done is more education about these copyright violating sites and the effects of file sharing data. Most students may not be aware of these technology's and how to prevent breaking the law in these cases.
6. The goal of the DMCA is to protect the interest of those whose copyrighted materials are being violated and distributed with out their permission. In doing this they are there in protecting their own interests because this is their job. However they do overlook the interest's of the "people" in which most people don't understand this type of technology and may be getting punished for shear ignorance. For example: if someone is not aware that free speech is not allowed in a certain country and they disagree with the president or ruler and are arrested and punished for this crime, this doesn't seem fair.
7. The policy's arranged for this type of illegal demonstrations are on the right tract to promoting a safe environment for copyrighted materials. However I would like to see a policy made to where first offenders are just charged with a small fine and maybe required to take an informational course on their offense. Sort of like defensive driving for speeding offenses and such. This way we are being educated on the technology in order to decrease the amount of repeated offenses.
2. Because of the continuous illegal downloading of copyrighted materials the DMCA(Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998) enforces punishment to those that download and share copyrighted materials. These are often times found on programs such as Morpheus and Kazaa. There are now internet businesses whose sole objective is to seek out and punish these offenders.
3. With the definitions of substructures and superstructures, we can assume that the DMCA plays the role of a superstructure in which it regulates the production and distribution that the substructure of technology brings about, a.k.a. the internet sites such as Morpheus and Kazaa.
4. Considering these two party's in the three laws of Dialectics we can see their relationship. We can only hope that the quantitive steps being made by the DMCA can eventually be a qualitive change to make copyrighted materials safer. We can also assume that these changes will unite these two opposing partys and create a harmonious relationship. This could be done by first examining the situation of illegal downloading and sharing as a thesis. Then assuming that the process of the DMCA is the antithesis in which we will see quantitive change. Then finally having a synthesis of negation of the negotiation, where we can find a middle ground or agreement.
5. Although TAMU's campus regulations may be trying to help protect student activity, I feel it only points out the offenders to the law. It almost feels as if they are only concerned with protection themselves from getting in trouble and pointing the blame on others. What may need to be done is more education about these copyright violating sites and the effects of file sharing data. Most students may not be aware of these technology's and how to prevent breaking the law in these cases.
6. The goal of the DMCA is to protect the interest of those whose copyrighted materials are being violated and distributed with out their permission. In doing this they are there in protecting their own interests because this is their job. However they do overlook the interest's of the "people" in which most people don't understand this type of technology and may be getting punished for shear ignorance. For example: if someone is not aware that free speech is not allowed in a certain country and they disagree with the president or ruler and are arrested and punished for this crime, this doesn't seem fair.
7. The policy's arranged for this type of illegal demonstrations are on the right tract to promoting a safe environment for copyrighted materials. However I would like to see a policy made to where first offenders are just charged with a small fine and maybe required to take an informational course on their offense. Sort of like defensive driving for speeding offenses and such. This way we are being educated on the technology in order to decrease the amount of repeated offenses.
technology and political economy
Satara Williams
1) The challenges that P2p technology bring to copyright protection on the internet consist of individuals illegeally download and use file-sharing of copyrighted material ( software games,music, videos) to others without the permission of the distributor/copyright owner by the use of the internet.
2) DMCa regulates the use of P2P technology by monitoring isp addresses that share unauthorized copyrighted software, music, etc. Individuals who are found to have illegally downloaded material are fined.
3) P2P determines DMCA. The DMCA influences P2P as well. For instance, s long as the unauthorized peer to peer technolgy exist, than the DMCA will also continue to exist. However, the DMCA influences the use of P2p technology, by enforcing laws that make it illegal to share and download copyrighted material without the distributor's permission.
4) The 3 laws of dialectics apply to the relationship between P2P and DMCA. The transformation from quantiy increases as quality of music decreases. Both sides are opposites ( for file-sharing vs. against it). Also the thesis-antithesis-synthesis exist ( it should be the right of indiduals to downlaod copyrighted material vs. copyrighted material should be illegal to download without permission).
5) I do agree with DMCA and Tamu's campus regulations because they help protect the rights and the materials of the copyright owner.
6) DMCA reflects the interest of the copyright owner/distributor because they're purpose is to stop the illegal useage of sharing copyrighted files and materials. They demonstrate they're interest by enforcing laws that punish those that download unauthorized material. The DMCA does overlook the individuals who want to illegal download material for free.
7)As a policy maker I would make a law that says that any websites that advertise illegal downloading or file-sharing is punishable and would be fined. Therefore, if people don't hear about it, than people won't use it.
1) The challenges that P2p technology bring to copyright protection on the internet consist of individuals illegeally download and use file-sharing of copyrighted material ( software games,music, videos) to others without the permission of the distributor/copyright owner by the use of the internet.
2) DMCa regulates the use of P2P technology by monitoring isp addresses that share unauthorized copyrighted software, music, etc. Individuals who are found to have illegally downloaded material are fined.
3) P2P determines DMCA. The DMCA influences P2P as well. For instance, s long as the unauthorized peer to peer technolgy exist, than the DMCA will also continue to exist. However, the DMCA influences the use of P2p technology, by enforcing laws that make it illegal to share and download copyrighted material without the distributor's permission.
4) The 3 laws of dialectics apply to the relationship between P2P and DMCA. The transformation from quantiy increases as quality of music decreases. Both sides are opposites ( for file-sharing vs. against it). Also the thesis-antithesis-synthesis exist ( it should be the right of indiduals to downlaod copyrighted material vs. copyrighted material should be illegal to download without permission).
5) I do agree with DMCA and Tamu's campus regulations because they help protect the rights and the materials of the copyright owner.
6) DMCA reflects the interest of the copyright owner/distributor because they're purpose is to stop the illegal useage of sharing copyrighted files and materials. They demonstrate they're interest by enforcing laws that punish those that download unauthorized material. The DMCA does overlook the individuals who want to illegal download material for free.
7)As a policy maker I would make a law that says that any websites that advertise illegal downloading or file-sharing is punishable and would be fined. Therefore, if people don't hear about it, than people won't use it.
Lab Exercise: Technology & Political Economy
Technology & Political Economy Lab Exercise
Written by: Melissa Cooper
*What challenges do P2P (peer-to-peer) technology bring to copyright protection on the Internet?
P2P programs allow users to share files (including music, movie, software, and picture files) with other users free of charge. With this capability users may download files from other users without having to purchase copyrights from the copyright owner. This causes challenges for the copyright owners because they have no way of protecting their materials from user-to-user exchange.
*How do DMCA regulate the use of P2P technology?
DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998) prohibits individuals from sharing files without the permission of copyright owners. Violation of the DMCA (the online infringement of copyrighted material - upload/sharing), can be punished by up to 3 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to 6 years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable (regardless of whether the activity is for profit) for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright.
*Considering p2p technology as substructure and DMCA as superstructure, please explor their relationship.
If p2p represents the "economy" and DMCA is the "political" superstructure of society--then, in accordance to this analogy--p2p ultimately caused the creation of the DMCA laws because without the abuse of copyright infringement DMCA would not be in existence--therefore, with it's creation, DMCA influences how p2p is limited and controlled
*See if three laws of dialectics are played out in the relationship between p2p technology and DMCA. How?
Yes, they are. Transformation from quantity to quality is played out in p2p's unlimited amount of filesharing capabilities...DMCA there-in limits the amount of quantity and controls the quality of distribution. Unity of opposites is played out in the development in the counterbalance in legalities. Finally, thesis-antithesis-synthesis is transfigured into illegal p2p-DMCA laws-legal control and punishment for infringement.
*Make comments on DMCA and TAMU's campus regulations. For example, do you agree or disagree with them? Are they fair to individual Internet users or copyright holders?
I believe that in the perspective of the music artists, these laws play fairly for their rights of ownership. However, for the common public, these laws place barriers for the enjoyment and availability of music for the common good. All-in-all, as a member of society I cannot say that I agree with them because I feel that I should have the right to listen to music that I enjoy without having to pay ridiculous amounts of money on the entirety of an album that I will not listen to. It all relies on use-value in accordance to product-value.
*Whose interest do DMCA reflect and protect? How could DMCA be made to represent and protect their interests? How about the other people's interests, which are overlooked by DMCA?
DMCA laws reflect and protect the rights and interests of the individual whose pocket-book gets damaged. Since the economic aspect is getting damaged, the law must effect the individual who is causing this monetary problem. DMCA could be changed to give the profit which was lost from the exploitation of their product back to them through legal fees taken from the abuser. However, the interests of the public are way overlooked by DMCA because it is not their money that is getting taken anymore since there is now a way for them to listen to music without having to pay unreasonable prices for the product.
*If you are a policy-maker, what kind of policy do you want to create to regulate p2p technology? Why?
I would institute an annual fee for the use of p2p programs. Instead of charging users for individual songs, I believe a system in which users must pay for the use of the software rather than the products they are receiving would result in better user-product relations. People do not want to pay for each song they are downloading, but I do believe that a more acceptable response would result from a yearly fee for the use of p2p programs.
Written by: Melissa Cooper
*What challenges do P2P (peer-to-peer) technology bring to copyright protection on the Internet?
P2P programs allow users to share files (including music, movie, software, and picture files) with other users free of charge. With this capability users may download files from other users without having to purchase copyrights from the copyright owner. This causes challenges for the copyright owners because they have no way of protecting their materials from user-to-user exchange.
*How do DMCA regulate the use of P2P technology?
DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998) prohibits individuals from sharing files without the permission of copyright owners. Violation of the DMCA (the online infringement of copyrighted material - upload/sharing), can be punished by up to 3 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to 6 years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable (regardless of whether the activity is for profit) for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright.
*Considering p2p technology as substructure and DMCA as superstructure, please explor their relationship.
If p2p represents the "economy" and DMCA is the "political" superstructure of society--then, in accordance to this analogy--p2p ultimately caused the creation of the DMCA laws because without the abuse of copyright infringement DMCA would not be in existence--therefore, with it's creation, DMCA influences how p2p is limited and controlled
*See if three laws of dialectics are played out in the relationship between p2p technology and DMCA. How?
Yes, they are. Transformation from quantity to quality is played out in p2p's unlimited amount of filesharing capabilities...DMCA there-in limits the amount of quantity and controls the quality of distribution. Unity of opposites is played out in the development in the counterbalance in legalities. Finally, thesis-antithesis-synthesis is transfigured into illegal p2p-DMCA laws-legal control and punishment for infringement.
*Make comments on DMCA and TAMU's campus regulations. For example, do you agree or disagree with them? Are they fair to individual Internet users or copyright holders?
I believe that in the perspective of the music artists, these laws play fairly for their rights of ownership. However, for the common public, these laws place barriers for the enjoyment and availability of music for the common good. All-in-all, as a member of society I cannot say that I agree with them because I feel that I should have the right to listen to music that I enjoy without having to pay ridiculous amounts of money on the entirety of an album that I will not listen to. It all relies on use-value in accordance to product-value.
*Whose interest do DMCA reflect and protect? How could DMCA be made to represent and protect their interests? How about the other people's interests, which are overlooked by DMCA?
DMCA laws reflect and protect the rights and interests of the individual whose pocket-book gets damaged. Since the economic aspect is getting damaged, the law must effect the individual who is causing this monetary problem. DMCA could be changed to give the profit which was lost from the exploitation of their product back to them through legal fees taken from the abuser. However, the interests of the public are way overlooked by DMCA because it is not their money that is getting taken anymore since there is now a way for them to listen to music without having to pay unreasonable prices for the product.
*If you are a policy-maker, what kind of policy do you want to create to regulate p2p technology? Why?
I would institute an annual fee for the use of p2p programs. Instead of charging users for individual songs, I believe a system in which users must pay for the use of the software rather than the products they are receiving would result in better user-product relations. People do not want to pay for each song they are downloading, but I do believe that a more acceptable response would result from a yearly fee for the use of p2p programs.
Lab Exercise #2: P2P, DCMA, and TAMU
1. P2P technology challenges copyright protection because it creates an easy-to-use infrastructure for anyone to distribute any materials, whether or not that person holds the copyright. Previously, often only the corporations which owned copyrighted material had the bandwidth and server space to support downloads of their copyrighted material. However, P2P networks allow everyone to upload and download. Additionally, because P2P networks have no central server, only individual users connected to each other through a "hub," they are hard to prosecute. Copyright holders have to seek out individual users of the system, rather than simply shut one entity down.
2. DMCA regulates the use of P2P technology by creating penalties for people who violate copyrights, either by downloading, sharing, or uploading copyrighted files on a P2P network without the permission of the copyright holder.
3. DMCA was caused by P2P, and its implementation has in turn changed file sharing on the Internet. DMCA was created in response to P2P technology, and its perceived threat to copyright holders. On the other side, P2P post-DMCA is much more decentralized, to make it more difficult to litigate against.
For example, while the original Napster was effectively sued into submission by the RIAA because it had a central server which made an easy target, Grokster, a popular post-Napster P2P application, used a system which only connected users, making each user into an individual server and presumably shifting the responsibility for any infringement to individuals. However, copyright holder MGM still managed to win a lawsuit against Grokster for facilitating copyright infringement (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/). As a result, file sharing has shifted to the further decentralized BitTorrent networks, and other networks which try to escape copyright laws by basing their servers overseas.
While the DMCA was initially a response to P2P, since its inception it has consistently guided the development of the P2P industry. Their relationship is reciprocal to an extent, but DMCA is clearly the superstructure which ultimately determines growth and changes of the P2P substructure.
4. The first law of dialectics is played out in the realtionship between P2P and DMCA in that once DMCA made it riskier for people to download using P2P, the quantity of available materials declined, and only the higher-quality items endured for long periods. The second law is played out in that DMCA both restricts P2P technology and encourages the development of new P2P formats to dodge DMCA, which in turn restricts it. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is played out through the copyright holders using DMCA to stop downloading, making downloads available themselves but with strong copyright protection in the form of DRM, and now the blend of the two in that you can obtain DRM-free music not only from P2P but from the providers.
5. I think the regulations imposed by the DMCA and TAMU are trying to balance between the rights of the users and the rights of the copyright holders to profit from their work. However, I also think US copyright laws in general are too restrictive and that copyrights last too long. Our culture would benefit if more materials entered the public domain instead of being horded by corporations trying to squeeze every last cent out of them. That said, TAMU is just enforcing the law under DMCA, and if you don't break the law, you don't have anything to worry about. TAMU just needs to be sure every student accused of violating DMCA has a fair disciplinary hearing and no innocent students are punished.
6. The DMCA is protecting the interests of corporate copyright holders by punishing people who distribute their materials without authorization. DMCA overlooks the rights of people who are interested in sampling copyrighted materials under fair use provisions and the ability of artists to draw on each others' creative works for inspiration.
7. I would make P2P policy should be less restrictive. The corporations have a stranglehold on their material and prevent people from downloading it, even for legitimate reasons. For example, I work for a radio station, and I like to download a few tracks from a new band before playing them on the air and getting the station to invest in their album. However, I often run into places where songs have been removed from DMCA takedowns. If the songs had been available, I might have given the artist (and therefore the label) free publicity by playing them on my show. More and more artists are bypassing the record companies and simply offering their music for download on their websites. Independent filmmakers make significant sections of their films available online. Author Cory Doctrow offers free downloads of many of his short stories. DMCA is outdated, and the creators are already moving towards a more open system.
(sorry this is so late! I thought it posted, but it only saved as a draft. Oops.)
2. DMCA regulates the use of P2P technology by creating penalties for people who violate copyrights, either by downloading, sharing, or uploading copyrighted files on a P2P network without the permission of the copyright holder.
3. DMCA was caused by P2P, and its implementation has in turn changed file sharing on the Internet. DMCA was created in response to P2P technology, and its perceived threat to copyright holders. On the other side, P2P post-DMCA is much more decentralized, to make it more difficult to litigate against.
For example, while the original Napster was effectively sued into submission by the RIAA because it had a central server which made an easy target, Grokster, a popular post-Napster P2P application, used a system which only connected users, making each user into an individual server and presumably shifting the responsibility for any infringement to individuals. However, copyright holder MGM still managed to win a lawsuit against Grokster for facilitating copyright infringement (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/). As a result, file sharing has shifted to the further decentralized BitTorrent networks, and other networks which try to escape copyright laws by basing their servers overseas.
While the DMCA was initially a response to P2P, since its inception it has consistently guided the development of the P2P industry. Their relationship is reciprocal to an extent, but DMCA is clearly the superstructure which ultimately determines growth and changes of the P2P substructure.
4. The first law of dialectics is played out in the realtionship between P2P and DMCA in that once DMCA made it riskier for people to download using P2P, the quantity of available materials declined, and only the higher-quality items endured for long periods. The second law is played out in that DMCA both restricts P2P technology and encourages the development of new P2P formats to dodge DMCA, which in turn restricts it. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is played out through the copyright holders using DMCA to stop downloading, making downloads available themselves but with strong copyright protection in the form of DRM, and now the blend of the two in that you can obtain DRM-free music not only from P2P but from the providers.
5. I think the regulations imposed by the DMCA and TAMU are trying to balance between the rights of the users and the rights of the copyright holders to profit from their work. However, I also think US copyright laws in general are too restrictive and that copyrights last too long. Our culture would benefit if more materials entered the public domain instead of being horded by corporations trying to squeeze every last cent out of them. That said, TAMU is just enforcing the law under DMCA, and if you don't break the law, you don't have anything to worry about. TAMU just needs to be sure every student accused of violating DMCA has a fair disciplinary hearing and no innocent students are punished.
6. The DMCA is protecting the interests of corporate copyright holders by punishing people who distribute their materials without authorization. DMCA overlooks the rights of people who are interested in sampling copyrighted materials under fair use provisions and the ability of artists to draw on each others' creative works for inspiration.
7. I would make P2P policy should be less restrictive. The corporations have a stranglehold on their material and prevent people from downloading it, even for legitimate reasons. For example, I work for a radio station, and I like to download a few tracks from a new band before playing them on the air and getting the station to invest in their album. However, I often run into places where songs have been removed from DMCA takedowns. If the songs had been available, I might have given the artist (and therefore the label) free publicity by playing them on my show. More and more artists are bypassing the record companies and simply offering their music for download on their websites. Independent filmmakers make significant sections of their films available online. Author Cory Doctrow offers free downloads of many of his short stories. DMCA is outdated, and the creators are already moving towards a more open system.
(sorry this is so late! I thought it posted, but it only saved as a draft. Oops.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)