Update fromthe Joint Committeeon P2P File Sharing

CNI Task Force – Spring, 2004Mark Luker

mluker@educause.edu

Steve Woronasworona@educause.edu

EDUCAUSE

2

Joint Committeeof the Higher Education

and Entertainment Communities

• Formed Fall, 2002, in response to Congressional pressure to deal with the problem (“before we do”)

• Graham Spanier, Cary Sherman• Task Forces: Technology, Legislation, Education• “To examine ways to reduce the inappropriate use

on campuses of P2P file sharing technologies.”• “To discuss their differences on federal

intellectual property legislation.”• www.educause.edu/issues/rfi

3

Membership: Higher Education• Graham Spanier, Penn State, co-chair

• Molly Broad, UNC

• John Hennessy, Stanford

• Charles Phelps, Rochester

• Dorothy Robinson, Yale

• Staff– Mark Luker, EDUCAUSE– Shelly Steinbach, ACE– John Vaughn, AAU

4

Membership: Entertainment• Cary Sherman, RIAA, co-chair• Roger Ames, Warner Music Group• Matthew Gerson, Vivendi Universal• Sherry Lansing, Paramount• Irwin Robinson, Famous Music• Jack Valenti, MPAA (retiring)• Staff

– Fritz Attaway, MPAA– Bruce Block, RIAA– Mitch Glazier, RIAA– Barry Robinson, RIAA– Jonathan Whitehead, RIAA

5

Purpose and Scope“We will seek ways to reduce the inappropriate use of P2P technology without restricting free speech and expression, invading privacy, or limiting the legitimate uses of P2P. The systematic implementation of thoughtful programs of education on copyright rights and responsibilities and appropriate and inappropriate uses of P2P technologies should be a central component of such actions. The development and application of carefully crafted policies and procedures for network management can also reduce inappropriate uses while preserving appropriate uses of those networks. As always, universities will respond appropriately to all legal requirements.”

6

Technology Task Force• 2 RFI’s

– Produce a knowledge base– Facilitate/solicit pilots– No evaluation, selection, rating

• RFI #1– Technology Opportunities for Addressing Issues

Associated with Peer-to-Peer File Sharing on the University and College Campus

• RFI #2– Opportunities for Online Distribution of Music,

Movies, and Other Digital Content on the University and College Campus

7

“Campus Action Network”• Sponsored, promoted by SONY• 2 elements

– Campuses should make an institutional commitment to one of the for-fee music services

– Campuses should use Audible Magic (for example) to block all unauthorized file sharing

• Being aggressively pushed to state governments– California– Maryland– Texas– Wisconsin– Others

8

Legislation Task Force• “Principles and Goals”

• Periodic reports to Senate– The Joint Committee is meeting regularly– The Joint Committee is making progress

• Piracy Deterrence and Education Act– No formal connection with the Joint Committee

or the Task Force– Reported out of House Subcommittee March,

2004– Among other things, authorizes FBI to initiate

actions against copyright violators

9

Education Task Force• 2003: “Background Discussion of

Copyright Law and Potential Liability for Students Engaged in P2P File Sharing on University Networks”

• 2004: “University Policies and Practices Addressing Peer-to-Peer File Sharing”

10

Policies and Practices• Not a survey

– Informal, non-scientific

• Not “best/effective practices”– “Illustrative, not prescriptive”

• Topics– Education– Network management– Policies– Enforcement

11

Noteworthy Quotes• “The fundamental challenge confronting colleges

and universities is how to reduce or eliminate illegitimate P2P use without sacrificing legitimate uses of P2P technologies and related activities or otherwise interfering with academic freedom or privacy rights.”

• “Each institution must decide on the combination of educational, technological, and disciplinary approaches that best meet its pedagogical, legal, and ethical needs and objectives.”

12

General vs Specific• “…many institutions have yet to adopt formal

policies governing use of P2P technologies. … Although most (but not all) institutions have formal copyright policies, far fewer have updated such policies to include provisions specific to P2P file sharing.”

• Steps for a “fully implemented institutional policy”– Adopt a general copyright policy– Include explicit definition of improper use of P2P– Publicize the policy to students, faculty, and staff

13

Education• Posters• Brochures• Paid advertisements in papers, on radio• Bulk e-mail• Video clips• Web sites• Open discussions & presentations

– Who, when

• Student government forums• Presentations to IT staff and other “enforcers”

14

Network Management• Bandwidth shaping

• Pre-emptive blocking of P2P– From/to where?– By whom?

• Examples– Emery– Florida (ICARUS)

15

Policies• “Institutions may wish to examine their

current copyright and computer use policies for the adequacy of their treatment of P2P file sharing.”

• Policy themes– Infringement is illegal– Illegal behavior isn’t tolerated– There are consequences

• Noted institutions– Harvard – Virginia– Brown – Northwestern

16

Enforcement• “In most cases of unauthorized student P2P

file sharing, colleges and universities are not directly implicated in potential copyright infringement; instead, liability … is typically an issue between copyright owners and … third-party users of university networks.”

• Issues– Specific penalties for P2P– Administration through IT or campus judiciary– Escalation

17

Discussion Questions - 1• P2P Policy: General “acceptable use”

provisions or write new language?• Are you planning to write any new policies

related to P2P over the next year• CAN: Have you heard from your state

government?• Carrots vs sticks: Facilitating access to

authorized music-sharing services vs blocking access to all others– Can you “compete with free”?– “Facilitating” vs “paying”– Blocking by the service or by the song?

18

Discussion Questions - 2• “Safe Harbor” and “Passive Conduit”

– How are you interpreting these?– Who is driving the interpretation (IT vs Counsel)

• Handling IT-policy violations– IT department or campus judiciary– Technology-centric penalties vs “normal”

• What’s new in bandwidth shaping– Is this a solved problem for everyone who cares?