Democrats support higher education

[BoberFett]

Colleges that don't fight piracy will lose student aid

So who exactly do Democrats care more about? Their Hollywood masters or students? I also find it amusingly that this is being stuffed into a bill called "College Opportunity and Affordability Act." They want college to be affordable, but only if every college in the country bows before the might of the MPAA/RIAA.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[Engineer]

I would agree with you on this based on this one passage...

New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

Forcing the universities to provide "PAY" services to the very people the RIAA represent takes away the FREE capitalism society and is interjecting government into the free market. If it were simply enforcing laws on piracy, it would have been in the gray area but to force sales of certain products is shameful.

 

[UberNeuman]

Maybe the kids could spend less time stealing media and more time on studies.... What's wrong with that?

 

[her209]

:thumbsdown: For taking away assistance to students not partaking in illegal downloading

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Maybe the kids could spend less time stealing media and more time on studies.... What's wrong with that?

Well...

Taking money away from ALL students because of the few (let's throw all people of one street jail because one person on that street committed a crime)....

And two...

Let's force the universities to provide sales for the artists/RIAA/etc. Forcing a market of this is not the government's job, period.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Let's force the universities to provide sales for the artists/RIAA/etc. Forcing a market of this is not the government's job, period.

When they believe WE are government property, anything goes. Its job is whatever they see fit.

 

[theeedude]

MPAA/RIAA working very hard to turn the whole country against themselves by blatant over reaching. Also, it would allow the entertainment industry to charge exuberant fees because colleges would be under mandate to buy their services. It would be an indirect federal subsidy to the entertainment industry where colleges pay them for these services, then pass on the cost to students, and then government will need to spend more on financial aid. Democrats need to withdraw this from the legislation, and other subsidy mandates like ethanol requirement in gasoline.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Maybe the kids could spend less time stealing media and more time on studies.... What's wrong with that?

I managed to spend plenty of time on BOTH in college

Seriously, it's not "media" and it's not "stealing". It's not exactly perfectly legal or morally commendable either, but it inhabits such a gray area that the draconian punishments enacted for it are far out of proportion to the damage of the offense. In fact, among college students in particular, the MPAA/RIAA logic is even more questionable, as college students are a group with a very low amount of disposable income...the idea that copyright infringement among college students is some sort of death-blow to the **AAs is just silly.

And in any case, this isn't even going after the people breaking the law, it's government sanctioned extortion of colleges and students who may or may not be doing anything wrong.

 

[Lemon law]

What we forget in this issue is that the computer networks the Feds also support are being totally clogged by the bandwidth used by students illegally downloading music. Thus robbing more honest students of computer time. Thus forcing the college or university to address the computer use policy issues. Especially when they must follow existing laws
and its expensive for administrators to comply with illegal download investigations.

But lets see if the wonderful republicans make an issue of the freedom's being violated before we condemn just the democrats.

After all, there has been a plague of similar troll threads lately on P&N seeking to tar only democrats. At least the link provided does contain some coverage of the issues.

But falls well short of demonstrating this is for the sole benefit of the MPAA/RIAA or the ability of a student to opt out of paying for any legal music download service.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Colleges that don't fight piracy will lose student aid

So who exactly do Democrats care more about?

Their Hollywood masters or students?

I also find it amusingly that this is being stuffed into a bill called "College Opportunity and Affordability Act."

They want college to be affordable, but only if every college in the country bows before the might of the MPAA/RIAA.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I find it "amusing" that resident Republicans didn't complain when their heroes were making these laws that the name has nothing to do with what the law actually does for the last seven years.

I used to post about this kind of stiff in my Internet thread but since resident Republicans are now posting about all these subjects now that the Dems are doing it I don't have to.

I say go go go Dems.

Lead us to Revolution II even faster than the Repubs were. :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I would agree with you on this based on this one passage...

New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

Forcing the universities to provide "PAY" services to the very people the RIAA represent takes away the FREE capitalism society and is interjecting government into the free market. If it were simply enforcing laws on piracy, it would have been in the gray area but to force sales of certain products is shameful.

It's more than just shameful, it fascist. Whether or not you actually use our product, pay us OR ELSE.

Yaknow, it never ceases to amaze me how the Democratic party elite have abused the disaster of the Bush admin as a red herring in order to get away with becoming completely disconnected from their own partisan faithful. Wake up, people... your party has betrayed you to their corporate masters. Just because Bush and his Pubs are worse does not mean that you should give them free reign to get away with this.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: senseamp
MPAA/RIAA working very hard to turn the whole country against themselves by blatant over reaching. Also, it would allow the entertainment industry to charge exuberant fees because colleges would be under mandate to buy their services. It would be an indirect federal subsidy to the entertainment industry where colleges pay them for these services, then pass on the cost to students, and then government will need to spend more on financial aid. Democrats need to withdraw this from the legislation, and other subsidy mandates like ethanol requirement in gasoline.

Maybe the **AA have too many lawyers and not enough people with brains, but it seems to me like a lot of their problems could be solved with innovation instead of trying to sue their way to success. Like they have always done, they refuse to embrace new business models until the absolute last micro-second, bitching about how the new model will destroy their business the entire time...right up until they get on board, at which point they make a shit-ton more money than they were before. But each time they seem to forget that last part. Going back and listening to Jack Valenti talk about how the VCR would "destroy Hollywood" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard, but damn it all if they aren't doing the same thing this time around.

A bunch of random people on the Internet have created a distribution network for movies, TV shows and music that is far and away more advanced and flexible than anything the industry has managed to produce...and the random Internet guys have done it with no resources, no capital, and no coherent plan. I have a hard time believing that the **AA can't figure out a way to use this same approach to make money hand over fist, if they just weren't so attached to trying to sue their way into sticking to their old business model.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we forget in this issue is that the computer networks the Feds also support are being totally clogged by the bandwidth used by students illegally downloading music. Thus robbing more honest students of computer time. Thus forcing the college or university to address the computer use policy issues. Especially when they must follow existing laws
and its expensive for administrators to comply with illegal download investigations.

But lets see if the wonderful republicans make an issue of the freedom's being violated before we condemn just the democrats.

After all, there has been a plague of similar troll threads lately on P&N seeking to tar only democrats. At least the link provided does contain some coverage of the issues.

But falls well short of demonstrating this is for the sole benefit of the MPAA/RIAA or the ability of a student to opt out of paying for any legal music download service.

The only trolls in this thread are you and McOwen.

You know how you can tell the real troll in any given P&N thread? He's the one who thinks that the definition of a troll is anyone who disagrees with him. It's someone so disconnected from reality that they think that only reason that anyone could possibly disagree with them, regardless of how contradictory, fantastic, or downright spiteful their own opinions are, is because that person operates solely from evil and inhuman motives.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: senseamp
MPAA/RIAA working very hard to turn the whole country against themselves by blatant over reaching. Also, it would allow the entertainment industry to charge exuberant fees because colleges would be under mandate to buy their services. It would be an indirect federal subsidy to the entertainment industry where colleges pay them for these services, then pass on the cost to students, and then government will need to spend more on financial aid. Democrats need to withdraw this from the legislation, and other subsidy mandates like ethanol requirement in gasoline.

Maybe the **AA have too many lawyers and not enough people with brains, but it seems to me like a lot of their problems could be solved with innovation instead of trying to sue their way to success. Like they have always done, they refuse to embrace new business models until the absolute last micro-second, bitching about how the new model will destroy their business the entire time...right up until they get on board, at which point they make a shit-ton more money than they were before. But each time they seem to forget that last part. Going back and listening to Jack Valenti talk about how the VCR would "destroy Hollywood" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard, but damn it all if they aren't doing the same thing this time around.

A bunch of random people on the Internet have created a distribution network for movies, TV shows and music that is far and away more advanced and flexible than anything the industry has managed to produce...and the random Internet guys have done it with no resources, no capital, and no coherent plan. I have a hard time believing that the **AA can't figure out a way to use this same approach to make money hand over fist, if they just weren't so attached to trying to sue their way into sticking to their old business model.

That's because the **AA are all about control first, money second. And that's because they know that they are completely superfluous entities that, in an actual free market, would almost immediately cease to exist. Their greatest fear about P2P is that we'll start using it for distributing our own content.

 

[Lemon law]

Its not that the MPAA/RIAA can't innovate, its a matter that they can't make any money giving it away for free. And the innovative people write programs forthe masses to get it for free by sharing.

How realistic or innovative the MPAA/RIAA are in these legally download for fee alternatives is the question I take issue with. In the case of microsoft media player 11 that comes with Microsoft windows the OS, I had to download and install a for pay music download service just to get the option to use media player 11 to play free internet radio station. Meanwhile, microsoft has yet to get a dime from me because I don't use their software to download music. In terms of a similar deal with real player, I just chucked real player entirely rather than be forced to download a giant itunes application I did not need.

So the question is, do students pay for the for a fee download service regardless if they use it or not or just on a per use basis?

And then the other comment is music download language is just in the form of an amendment to a bill yet to pass the house, and who knows what form it will be in later stages
and if it ever makes it into law.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Colleges that don't fight piracy will lose student aid

So who exactly do Democrats care more about?

Their Hollywood masters or students?

I also find it amusingly that this is being stuffed into a bill called "College Opportunity and Affordability Act."

They want college to be affordable, but only if every college in the country bows before the might of the MPAA/RIAA.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I find it "amusing" that resident Republicans didn't complain when their heroes were making these laws that the name has nothing to do with what the law actually does for the last seven years.

I used to post about this kind of stiff in my Internet thread but since resident Republicans are now posting about all these subjects now that the Dems are doing it I don't have to.

I say go go go Dems.

Lead us to Revolution II even faster than the Repubs were. :thumbsup:

And which laws would those be troll?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we forget in this issue is that the computer networks the Feds also support are being totally clogged by the bandwidth used by students illegally downloading music. Thus robbing more honest students of computer time. Thus forcing the college or university to address the computer use policy issues. Especially when they must follow existing laws
and its expensive for administrators to comply with illegal download investigations.

But lets see if the wonderful republicans make an issue of the freedom's being violated before we condemn just the democrats.

After all, there has been a plague of similar troll threads lately on P&N seeking to tar only democrats. At least the link provided does contain some coverage of the issues.

But falls well short of demonstrating this is for the sole benefit of the MPAA/RIAA or the ability of a student to opt out of paying for any legal music download service.

Not sure what youre saying, but I, for one, dont like this at all. But on a lighter note, it's allllll easily bypassed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its not that the MPAA/RIAA can't innovate, its a matter that they can't make any money giving it away for free. And the innovative people write programs forthe masses to get it for free by sharing.

How realistic or innovative the MPAA/RIAA are in these legally download for fee alternatives is the question I take issue with. In the case of microsoft media player 11 that comes with Microsoft windows the OS, I had to download and install a for pay music download service just to get the option to use media player 11 to play free internet radio station. Meanwhile, microsoft has yet to get a dime from me because I don't use their software to download music. In terms of a similar deal with real player, I just chucked real player entirely rather than be forced to download a giant itunes application I did not need.

So the question is, do students pay for the for a fee download service regardless if they use it or not or just on a per use basis?

And then the other comment is music download language is just in the form of an amendment to a bill yet to pass the house, and who knows what form it will be in later stages
and if it ever makes it into law.

They don't have to give it away for free, my point about innovation was that the "pirates" have an advanced distribution system and a very flexible and free format for the various types of media. The commercial solutions, on the other hand, are hard to use, incompatible with each other, extremely restrictive and pointlessly expensive. Figuring out a way to get the good parts of the "pirate" system while still making money seems pretty easy. For example, offer Bit Torrent downloads in open formats of TV shows WITH commercials. At that point, it's just too much trouble to strip out the commercials for the benefits you get.

 

[Pabster]

Disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[piasabird]

This sounds like the Nanny Police State.

I can not see a bill that is unenforceable and unconstitutional ever passing.

 

[Rainsford]

Does anyone else find it interesting that this is being blamed on "Democrats"? The amendment was introduced by TWO Democrats, but as they are the chairmen of the appropriate committees (as Democrats are chairmen of ALL the committees), their participation seems like more a function of position than party. And I highly doubt that Republicans (or other Democrats) will be taking a highly principled stand against this. Yet this BS has been blamed on the Democrats as an entire party by the media and latched onto with fervor by partisan wankers on on the right side of the aisle. Hmm, yet another "bash the Democrats" story? Must be getting close to an election year :roll:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
They don't have to give it away for free, my point about innovation was that the "pirates" have an advanced distribution system and a very flexible and free format for the various types of media. The commercial solutions, on the other hand, are hard to use, incompatible with each other, extremely restrictive and pointlessly expensive. Figuring out a way to get the good parts of the "pirate" system while still making money seems pretty easy. For example, offer Bit Torrent downloads in open formats of TV shows WITH commercials. At that point, it's just too much trouble to strip out the commercials for the benefits you get.

Indeed, just look at the recent debacle of MLB and their DRM protected content.

MLB to fans: Screw you.

MLB changes their DRM format, rendering all previously purchased content unusable. Their reaction to their paying customers? Piss off.

I want to see Hollywood, Disney, all the major music studios, all the current entertainment conglomerates, crash and burn in glorious fireball of bankruptcy. We don't need them.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Does anyone else find it interesting that this is being blamed on "Democrats"? The amendment was introduced by TWO Democrats, but as they are the chairmen of the appropriate committees (as Democrats are chairmen of ALL the committees), their participation seems like more a function of position than party. And I highly doubt that Republicans (or other Democrats) will be taking a highly principled stand against this. Yet this BS has been blamed on the Democrats as an entire party by the media and latched onto with fervor by partisan wankers on on the right side of the aisle. Hmm, yet another "bash the Democrats" story? Must be getting close to an election year :roll:

The Democrats have the majority. The past 6 years have been nothing but blaming Republicans for all our woes because they had the majority. Now the shoe is on the other foot. If you don't like, write to your congressman.

In the meantime, quit your whining, shill. What's good for the goose...

 

[WHAMPOM]

Get rid of the middleman, down load a song, make a direct payment to the artist. Capitalism at it's simplist and most honest. Legislation for the sole support of corporate greed is what it sounds like to me.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Does anyone else find it interesting that this is being blamed on "Democrats"? The amendment was introduced by TWO Democrats, but as they are the chairmen of the appropriate committees (as Democrats are chairmen of ALL the committees), their participation seems like more a function of position than party. And I highly doubt that Republicans (or other Democrats) will be taking a highly principled stand against this. Yet this BS has been blamed on the Democrats as an entire party by the media and latched onto with fervor by partisan wankers on on the right side of the aisle. Hmm, yet another "bash the Democrats" story? Must be getting close to an election year :roll:

The Democrats have the majority. The past 6 years have been nothing but blaming Republicans for all our woes because they had the majority. Now the shoe is on the other foot. If you don't like, write to your congressman.

In the meantime, quit your whining, shill. What's good for the goose...

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats deserve a pass for bad behavior any more than the Republicans do. As you said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Only in this case, nobody seemed to pay much attention to the goose at all. Of the eleventy billion threads started whining about various Democrat misdeeds, roughly none of them were started by individuals who could be bothered to care much when the shoe WAS on the other foot.

Now I don't like a lot of what the Democrats are doing, in fact I said so earlier in this thread, but I also don't like all the fake outrage about it that was conspicuously absent when it was the Republicans cavorting around Washington messing things up. Quite honestly, I don't see why those two things have to be mutually exclusive. I dislike the Democrats for catering to big business over the needs of the people, and I dislike the folks who only care because it's the DEMOCRATS doing it.

Edit: As much as I dislike GWB, I dislike Bill Clinton almost as much for his restrictions on our digital freedoms. His administration was a huge roadblock to getting rid of the asinine rules on exporting cryptography, was instrumental to getting the DMCA on the books, and proposed the Clipper chip...something so Orwellian that even GWB might have had pause in supporting it. As someone who supports both the EFF and the ACLU, I have disliked the various ways the government has acted against the best interests of the people for a long time. And if I seem at all angry about Democrat bashing, this is why...because I really care about these issues, and seeing them reduced to nothing more than political weapons by people who wouldn't give a shit if the right party was pulling the strings pisses me off. Now maybe this doesn't apply to everyone, but it applies to a lot of people.