After receiving the highest number of notices from the RIAA about P2P file sharing, Ohio University has announced a policy that restricts all fire sharing on the campus network. Some file-sharing programs that could trigger action are Ares, Azureus, BitTorrent, BitLord, KaZaA, LimeWire, Shareaza and uTorrent. Claiming that this effort is 'to ensure that every student, faculty member and researcher has access to the computer resources they need,' is this another nail in the coffin of internet freedom in American universities or a needed step to prevent illegal fire sharing?
If its at the wall, won't internal sharing continue? Just because you can stop the data coming in via p2p means doesn't mean the data won't be there (waste/DC can exist in a private garden without ever touching the real net).
Or is this an active process which does a portscans your machine continuously?
Failing everything else, there is always sneakernet. Expect a rise in blanks in the area.
The Blizzard downloader uses a form of the Bittorrent protocol - a broken, noncompliant, single purpose form of the protocol - to download patches. It doesn't actually use a Bittorrent client, or any of the same ports.
BitTorrent is also used for a lot of other 100% legitimate things. OSU has a sizeable computer science department and offers a lot of courses related to UNIX/Linux. I wonder if they realize that these days the most common way to get ISO's for Linux is BitTorrent?
Aside from all that, this effort is somewhat futile since many clients support encrypted/tunneled transfers and/or using Tor. From my experience, Tor traffic is nearly impossible to reliably classify (and therefore block).
I wonder what level are they blocking?
If its at the wall, won't internal sharing continue?
From the article, I guess they are blocking at the port level. That is, if Network Security discovers you have P2P traffic coming from your network jack, they turn off the port that serves that jack (possibly for 24hrs, or until you talk to them.) That means you can't even do P2P inside the local network.
We do this at the University I work for, unless you have a research need to use P2P (or some other legitimate need that has been reviewed.) I imagine they will by default disable P2P through their wireless network - but doing P2P over an 802.11 network would seem silly anyway.
"If you can't figure out a way around this, then i think i speak for most of the linux/bsd community when i say that we don't want you in our club anyway. This is really only going to serve to block people that shouldn't be using bittorrent. If you have a legit purpose for it, then this really shouldn't effect you."
I don't know if you were joking or half-joking, but sentiments and statements like this only serve to reinforce the sense of elitism and exclusivity of the linux community in the minds of joe public. This what is holding back the growth of the linux community and the general acceptance of linux and OSS among the general computing public, as well as aiding the perpetuation of companies like MS and Apple.
How does one determine who should and shouldn't be allowed to use a particular protocol or software? Less peers on bittorrent means shorter TTLs and less bandwidth on torrents, how is that a good thing?
First of all, accounting is a pain in the ass. Billing is problematic, and tacking it onto the fee statement tends to get irate parents calling once the bill comes due. "What do you mean Johnny racked up $1000 in bandwidth usage this semester?!" Also, dealing with copyright complaints is time-consuming. The requirements in dealing with these notices include not only determining the name of the user who allegedly infringed, but also removing the infringing content. In the case of a university network, thi
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 500 GB USB drive. Even a burned DVD can hold around 4 GB of music/video/software. Another possibility is an ad-hoc wireless network or a wireless router not hooked to the internet. Never underestimate the ability of college students to solve a problem like this.
It's not a "nail in the coffin" of anything. If college kids have to pay a bit for their own connection, they will. Hell, I bet most college kids these days all have cable TV. What's another $20/month on a $100/month cable bill? They call their cable company, tack on the service, and it's over. No controversy.
They don't always get that option. Back when I was at Berkeley in 2000, bandwidth was getting hammered hard. Some people even thought of getting their own service, but phone and cable co.s don't have the necessary access to the dorm network that they would need to put that in place, and rescomp wouldn't give it to them anyway.
Course, it has been 6 years, things may have changed, but I doubt it...
Generally, universities own all rights of way on their campuses. That's certainly the case here. All data, telephone, cable, water, electricity, all provided by the university to all buildings on campus proper, which includes the dorms. Thus you have no option but the provided dorm service. Here that's not a problem for most students, as we aren't dicks about it and provide pretty good service. However if they don't like it, there's nothing they can do. They cannot order other service, it simply is not available.
What may happen, and should happen to universities that restrict it like this, is they should get sued. There are limits to a public university's ability to compete with and to keep out private companies. This would be more than enough to insist that they need to be let in. Massive problem for the university to make that happen though.
Doesn't that kinda depend on being able to use the bandwidth for something useful, though?
If the university is offering high-speed Internet access for free to students, then restricting it to ensure it's properly available for academic use is one thing. If they're actually charging for it at a market rate, then restricting it is completely out of line. If the students start doing illegal stuff with it, sure, kick 'em off if it's causing problems, but don't block stuff by default even for those who are using those technologies for constructive purposes when those people are paying for the privilege.
"Peer-to-peer file-sharing consumes a disproportionate amount of resources, both in bandwidth and human technical support." "Left unchecked, P2P applications can consume all available network bandwidth,"
The bandwidth is an ok reason.
It also initiated "John Doe" lawsuits against users of computers on Ohio University's network. The university estimates staff members have spent nearly 120 hours dealing with the prelitigation letters from the RIAA.
That's not a good reason.
How are we to know which is the "real" reason?
Why would you say the second isn't a good reason? Responding to properly submitted legal papers is a requirement of such an organization. Even if it turns out that the RIAA ends up unable to make their case, the university still has to bear the cost of responding to subpoenas.
No they don't. They have an IP address and an accusation, many of which have been proved false. What they have is the strength of bad laws that allow them to take everything you own or waste it all with court motions, both of which are better called "judicial extortion" than justice.
1) Sending someone else's creative work to ten thousand of your best friends is not speech.
Keeping me from publishing my own work on the network I pay for is a violation of free speech.
If you want to publish your own content via p2p, go ahead and do so on a network that isn't subsidized by the rest of your community.
Second, how can I share by P2P when idiot operators block my traffic? I can buy all the hardware and service I want, but I won't be able to use it if it's censored at the receiving end.
Make no mistake, the big publishers want to make the internet look like cable TV and they are almost there. Unless you fight for your rights, you will play no further part than as a "consumer" and others will continue to own your culture.
It's about controlling bandwidth costs that have soared as a result of the explosive growth of p2p traffic. I have spoken with several large ISP's in the past year and most of them quote numbers like 65-75% of their total traffic is p2p. Given the demographic makeup of most universities, I'd bet their percentage is even higher. Those big fiber pipes cost big bucks.
Lets say you have an 4 OC-12s (no idea what they'd actually have) That's about 2400mbps of bandwidth. (4&~600 mbps payload) Lets say you have 24,000 students, and 10% of them are doing p2p => 2,400 sharers That's 1mbps per sharer to saturate your connection which is not really a large amount.
In this scenario, unless you bring your cap below that, you won't affect existing sharing. And if you drop it below that, you really start to impact real work/research.
Then put god damn bandwidth limits on students in both gb/month and kb/s with an easy to use system to apply for exceptions.
No no no! This will actually solve the problem while maintaining the neutrality of the network!
By telling students what they can and can't do, the University maintains its mommy/daddy role to the students, and further leaves themselves open to more legal actions, allowing them to parent the students more in the future.
The goal is to have as much administration involved as possible (administrators only exist to create more administration) and to control the students as overtly as possible!
I have spoken with several large ISP's in the past year and most of them quote numbers like 65-75% of their total traffic is p2p. Given the demographic makeup of most universities, I'd bet their percentage is even higher. Those big fiber pipes cost big bucks.
and both isp subscribers and students pay big bucks, or is 5 figures a year not enough for them?
its one thing to apply qos to manage bandwidth, its quite another to start making student's choices for them and refusing to provide "internet" service.
In addition to consuming bandwidth and technological resources, P2P file-sharing also exposes the university network to viruses, spyware and other attacks. It also is frequently used for illegally distributing copyrighted works.
Replace "P2P file-sharing" in that statement with "the internet" and it is just as valid. This has nothing to do with any of the reasons they have listed and everything to do with them preemptively caving in to legal pressure from the RIAA.
Ohio University has announced a policy that restricts all fire sharing on the campus network ... is this another nail in the coffin of internet freedom in American universities or a needed step to prevent illegal fire sharing? >
Oh No! How will pyromaniacs share now? But seriously, it's kind of sad that a major error like that can slip through... twice.
I've worked at a college, in an average week we would get 10-15 riaa letters (with our seemly small number of 3000 residents), and responding to them gets to be a huge chore. Most campuses are taking the "we don't want to get sued, so we will not put ourselves in that position" approach, so ignoring those letters is not an option.
At the place i worked at, for a while we did try to block kazaa and the like, the problem was that there would always be a new protocol that would pop up to take it's place. We eventually gave up on blocking it because of this.
This story is really not a new thing in the university world, most have a policy of limiting the student's ability to fileshare (some through innocent means like NAT routing, others through throttling the bandwidth for those services).
So before we all get up in arms that people are limiting access, you'd think again when you have to call 20 people in a day, tell them why their access has been shut off, and have every one of them claim that they've never file shared in their lives. Only to get the call the next day where they complain that their their myspace is too slow.
You have two problems, they can be handled separately.
First, you get RIAA letters. The appropriate response is a form letter saying that "Our school privacy policy prohibits us from releasing user information without a subpoena or court order" (obviously you'll want to verify that with a lawyer, but you shouldn't be sending out user information based on random letters). If you do get a legit subpoena or court order, send them the info if it's still available.
Second, you have excess bandwidth usage. This is really simple: Charge the students a reasonable fee for bandwidth overages - this will encourage users to conserve without unduly constraining people who actually are willing to pay for their bandwidth. It also has the advantage that as demand increases you automatically have the money to pay for upgrades.
Your first point: we don't give out that information to them, we do the "cover our ass" paper trail in case we get sued. so no, that information is never given out
Second point: Actually we are implementing pay for service very soon (mainly to cover the cost of re-wiring our older buildings as well as wiring newly purchased properties).. sooo... you're right about this one;)
Ahh yes, just fall back to the old "child porn" argument. I mean anyone should be willing to do anything to stop child porn! Wrong. Changes nothing. That's a real crime, investigated by the real cops. So what happens is they get a wiretap warrant, because simply having an IP number wouldn't be enough for criminal court. They then get real, admissible, evidence and bust the person. This isn't a problem when you are a legit law enforcement entity trying to track down a real criminal. It is just a problem to an industry association that likes to spray out lawsuit threats, without any good standard of evidentiary checking.
So a few weeks back, everyone finds out that Ohio University leads the country in file sharing. Now instead of taking steps to try to curb this, they just announce they'll cut it off all together. I'm sure they felt pretty embarrassed being on top of the list, but there are other options.
Applause to the BOFH that has pushed it through, though I would have done it differently.
Most university IPs are real on a really high speed connected LAN. As a result they get elected to supernode status by most modern P2P applications. As a result the university network becomes a jump point for NAT traversal for all leaches within 30-60ms rtt around it. As a result the resource usage is clearly disproportional to the actual on-campus usage. Essentially all small and medium corporates and home users sitting behind firewalls in the immediate vicinity live off that resource and steal a significant portion of the Ohio University network capacity.
Personally, if I was the admin, I would have tried to QoS P2P down (and net neutrality be damned) to the point where the campus is made equivalent to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately even if the protocols were easier to isolate, that may be quite difficult for a network the size of Ohio State. Most network equipment used at the bandwidths in question cannot do selective delays and probability drops very well. The P2P applications nowdays make the "if the protocols are easier to isolate" statement false anyway. All the developers know that they are committing a resource theft and they go way beyond what is considered spyware tactics to achieve their aims (current Skype is a fine example of this).
So on the balance of things, just banning them to hell is probably the most cost effective options. Congrats and applause. Can we have more of that please. A few more and the net economics will go back to where they belong so people actually start looking at things like multicast and frontline in-local-loop delivery instead emulating it through resource theft.
Until the school gets sued, and the courts rule that they have to now allow students to purchase third part services. It's real likely they would in a case like this and it'll be expensive as hell for the university to implement. When you are a public university, you have to be careful what restrictions you implement. Dorms are people's residences and there are rights that come with that. For example you could make a rule saying that employees can enter a room at any time for any reason, and you could give them keys to do so. You'd quickly find out, however, that the police disagreed with that view and those responsible would be in trouble, possibly jail.
Remember: Nearly all university students are adults, with all the rights it implies. Universities don't get to take those away just because they feel it is convenient. Dorms in many ways have to be treated like apartments: Just because you own them, doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to them.
Personally, if I was the admin, I would have tried to QoS P2P down (and net neutrality be damned) to the point where the campus is made equivalent to the rest of the world.
Applying QoS across the board on all known P2P applications would not be a violation of net neutrality. Arguably, neither would applying QoS for a single standard (de facto or de jure) protocol, like BitTorrent.
What would be a violation of net neutrality would be if they applied QoS to BitTorrent, except to certain sites that paid the university a fee.
The problem I have with these kinds of regulations is the confusion between the medium which is used to transport the data, and the message, the specific data being transported. If the Uni is unhappy about copyright violations, that's one thing; or if they have bandwidth problems, that's legit; but restricting specific protocols and programs does not accurately target the problem behavior. They seem to adopt the maxim that "the Medium is the Message"; that is, if something is being transferred by Bittorrent, it is a copyright violation. And granted, that is the case much of the time.
But it is not a perfect correlation. Banning Bittorrent will hamper downloading Linux ISOs and other high traffic, legitimate materials. There is no justification for saying that file sharing as a whole is illegal, any more than you could say that using the Internet is illegal even if it turns out that much traffic violates the law.
Everyone else is going to be "OMG lamerz teh MAFIAAAAA won because of retard schoolz like u" but seriously, why is this not a good idea? It's the school's network, the RIAA is actually on their tails trying (however illegally or immorally) to punish their students, and they have every right to restrict the use of file sharing services on their network.
Yes, I know that there are great legal uses for BitTorrent, but do you really think 95% of the students are using it to legally download Ubuntu or something? Yeah right. Get real and be honest with yourselves, this is probably a smart thing for the school to be doing. If the students want to download whatever they want, then they need to pay for their own DSL or move out of the dorms and be responsible for their own actions (gee, what a thought), but while they're using the school's network and the school is somewhat responsible for them, I think it's perfectly reasonable to restrict their illegal file sharing.
It's a whole other argument whether the RIAA sucks (they do) and whether file sharing positively impacts the recording industry (it might) but for a school, come on, it's their right, and probably the right thing for them to do. Get over it.
Their network? Last time I checked my housing payments go towards paying for it. (Yes, I know it does, I've seen the budget). I'm paying for something I can't use freely... Thank god for encryption and VPNs. (Secure IX is pretty handy, albeit has some bandwidth limitations)
You can tunnel just about any service over any other on a TCP/IP network. Do they plan on blocking http? email? ssh? ping? If so, why offer any network access at all? If not, I'm sure the students are already at work with various stegenographic and tunneling techniques that let your share files over unconventional services. Also, when I share with my college peers, I generally just do so using a usb disk drive that I carry with me. I can move tens of gigs of data in just a few minutes. Does the university plan on doing a full cavity search of all students to make sure that they don't possess any readable/writable media? This is the information age. You can't stop people from sharing information! (fucking Luddites)
"Nail in the coffin of internet freedom" is a bit of an overstatement. There's no free lunch. Dealing with DMCA takedown notices is a huge burden on campus IT staff (our campus has a network security officer who has spent most of his tenure chasing movies and music) which cannot be ignored without the risk of losing the campus's protection under the DMCA safe-harbor provisions. Further, campuses don't have a magically free internet connection. Most pay into a state-wide consortium for Internet2 access then pay an additional, metered rate for commercial internet traffic. Why should universities spend limited resources to subsidize torrent traffic?
Now before anyone talks about the legitimate p2p use, even that is a questionable use of university resources. Ideally p2p shares bandwidth costs so that everyone gets something for a minor contribution. This doesn't necessarily work out to the benefit of universities since their fat, low-latency pipes take priority over the narrow, slow-upload-speed DSL and cable-folks. Ultimately, the universities have to allocate resources to support university business and this policy must be seen as a business decision. If it is necessary for an aspect of university business, I suspect an exception will be allowed as soon as a faculty member makes the request. If the students are miffed, they can pay for commercial wireless access (like most cell phone companies offer) for on campus or use xDSL or cable at home.
The problem with a "no servers" policy is that "server" doesn't really mean anything. A server is a computer that somehow serves information to another computer. Which includes every computer on the internet. There is no actual difference between a "client" and a "server". Even if a client computer is just sending a request to an e-Mail server, it is still serving data. And it is not just a pedantic point. While it might seem like a computer that is only sending e-Mails is clearly a client, and not a server,
Yeah, it really is. And your email example is bogus too: if I return those emails, I do it by connecting back to an email server. The email server doesn't connect to me.
I don't think there is any good technical or legal definition of what a "client" and "server" computer are.
Try this one: If I can remotely connect to your computer and induce it to perform a non-trivial function at my convenience, its a server.
We firewall jockeys even have a precise technical definition: If your machine accepts a SYN packet and responds with a SYN/ACK, or if your machine expects to receive the first in a series of UDP packets on a particular port, its a server.
I've talked with some people in a couple of colleges in Mexico city. Here in Mexico filesharing isn't prosecuted as much as it is in the US - and yet I've seen bans in filesharing. Reason? Bandwidth. In one particular college, P2P activity covered around 99% of network activity, and webbrowsing became as slow as molasses until filesharing applications (napster at that time) were prohibited.
While this horribly draconian, stupid, pointless, and a fine example of educational institutions once again bending to the whim of content industry cartels, if they are going to be like that, they should treat dorms like every other apartment building in the world and allow the students to purchase their own internet connection if the ToS for the campus internet isn't acceptable (I would consider the inability to use Bittorrent completely unacceptable and barely worth being called "internet"). Chances are a student at this university will not only not be able to use the internet they pay for properly, it's not likely they'll be able to find an alternative ISP. Which should be illegal.
My college, which is private, doesn't allow even iTunes sharing amongst the students
I went to a state college in the 90's and they kept the dorm networks completely separate from the school networks. I don't know if it was foresight or not, but they appeared to keep the college system up and running all the time, but the dorm network often slowed to a crawl (and this was before Napster) and you had to foot it out to a lab if you needed something off the network.
Funny how the same baseless arguments are playing over and over like a broken record. Face it-- downloading music is probably wrong, regardless of what you personally believe, unless you go out and buy an equal number of CDs for every album you download. Yes, it is a free non-rival good, but you should still be paying for it in some sense if you're getting something out of it. Anything less is just lying to yourself about the morality of the issue. There's no guaranteed "right to free music" for you or anyon
Without the exclusivity, copyright is worthless... it may as well be public domain.
ahh the classic black and white approach.
people have been recording radio and copying tapes for decades, and that "violation of exclusivity" didn't do anything to the bottom line.
if you want to start defining that as theft, then i say turn about's fair play:
what did the RIAA companies steal? 1 - the public domain: they've extended copyright from 17 years to life+70, assuring only quaint anachronisms will be in the public domain from now on. 2 - competition in the tech sector: their government granted priviledge(not right) of exclusivity did not cover carte blanch regulatory control over all electronics through sneaky leverage of DMCA section 1201. it's been stated over and over again this was unintended, but it only takes one corrupt politician to prevent a law being repealed. 3 - fair use and individual property/privacy rights: once you've purchased a copy you have the right to do anything with it short of distribution. They have used DRM and the DMCA to stop that.
so they "stole" 3 times, and we're "stealing" it back.
theyre reaping what they sow, and i have no sympathy for them as they receive their recompence full circle.
They stop file sharing because it's clogging the network and people can't use it for real work. Please stop bitching about your perceived birth-right of file sharing.
If that was the reason, they'd just throttle it to a reasonable level. Also, if you would RTFA, that's not the reason that they give for blocking it; they just give it a mention after talking about all of the RIAA threats.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [(candle)] at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac McPherson, 13 August 1813
That is the basis of both "information wants to be free" and "copyright infringement is not theft [in the literal sense]".
Jefferson's works make me wish Amnesty International hadn't already appropriated the candle-and-barbed-wire logo for themselves.
Pirates use something because it's the BEST way to do something.
Why? because they have total freedom to choose the best, because, due to their nature, they don't pay for anything.
Thus, outlawing something because pirates use it is shooting yourself (or at least technical progress itself) in the foot.
Sony's views on the xvid codec originally brought this thought to my mind when they prevented sony vegas 5 or 6 from working with it, under that same logic I'd say ban sony vegas itself, I hear it's still incredibly popular with pirates.
While your at it you'd better do something to shut down Maya, 3dstudio and Photoshop.
I wonder what level they are blocking? (Score:4, Insightful)
If its at the wall, won't internal sharing continue?
Just because you can stop the data coming in via p2p means doesn't mean the data won't be there (waste/DC can exist in a private garden without ever touching the real net).
Or is this an active process which does a portscans your machine continuously?
Failing everything else, there is always sneakernet. Expect a rise in blanks in the area.
WOW players will be pissed (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Blizzard Downloader (Score:4, Informative)
The Blizzard downloader uses a form of the Bittorrent protocol - a broken, noncompliant, single purpose form of the protocol - to download patches. It doesn't actually use a Bittorrent client, or any of the same ports.
It's the margarine of the 'torrent world.
Parent
Re:WOW players will be pissed (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from all that, this effort is somewhat futile since many clients support encrypted/tunneled transfers and/or using Tor. From my experience, Tor traffic is nearly impossible to reliably classify (and therefore block).
Parent
Re:I wonder what level they are blocking? (Score:5, Informative)
From the article, I guess they are blocking at the port level. That is, if Network Security discovers you have P2P traffic coming from your network jack, they turn off the port that serves that jack (possibly for 24hrs, or until you talk to them.) That means you can't even do P2P inside the local network.
We do this at the University I work for, unless you have a research need to use P2P (or some other legitimate need that has been reviewed.) I imagine they will by default disable P2P through their wireless network - but doing P2P over an 802.11 network would seem silly anyway.
Parent
Re:I wonder what level they are blocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you were joking or half-joking, but sentiments and statements like this only serve to reinforce the sense of elitism and exclusivity of the linux community in the minds of joe public. This what is holding back the growth of the linux community and the general acceptance of linux and OSS among the general computing public, as well as aiding the perpetuation of companies like MS and Apple.
How does one determine who should and shouldn't be allowed to use a particular protocol or software? Less peers on bittorrent means shorter TTLs and less bandwidth on torrents, how is that a good thing?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, dealing with copyright complaints is time-consuming. The requirements in dealing with these notices include not only determining the name of the user who allegedly infringed, but also removing the infringing content. In the case of a university network, thi
Re:I wonder what level they are blocking? (Score:4, Informative)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 500 GB USB drive. Even a burned DVD can hold around 4 GB of music/video/software. Another possibility is an ad-hoc wireless network or a wireless router not hooked to the internet. Never underestimate the ability of college students to solve a problem like this.
Parent
Nail in the coffin? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nail in the coffin? (Score:4, Interesting)
Course, it has been 6 years, things may have changed, but I doubt it...
Parent
You can't (Score:4, Interesting)
What may happen, and should happen to universities that restrict it like this, is they should get sued. There are limits to a public university's ability to compete with and to keep out private companies. This would be more than enough to insist that they need to be let in. Massive problem for the university to make that happen though.
Parent
Re:Nail in the coffin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that kinda depend on being able to use the bandwidth for something useful, though?
If the university is offering high-speed Internet access for free to students, then restricting it to ensure it's properly available for academic use is one thing. If they're actually charging for it at a market rate, then restricting it is completely out of line. If the students start doing illegal stuff with it, sure, kick 'em off if it's causing problems, but don't block stuff by default even for those who are using those technologies for constructive purposes when those people are paying for the privilege.
Parent
Not because of RIAA alone ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not because of RIAA alone ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Judical Extortion and Free Speech. (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA almost always has a very strong case.
No they don't. They have an IP address and an accusation, many of which have been proved false. What they have is the strength of bad laws that allow them to take everything you own or waste it all with court motions, both of which are better called "judicial extortion" than justice.
1) Sending someone else's creative work to ten thousand of your best friends is not speech.
Keeping me from publishing my own work on the network I pay for is a violation of free speech.
If you want to publish your own content via p2p, go ahead and do so on a network that isn't subsidized by the rest of your community.
First, because the networks are highly regulated all of them are publically subsidized. The network operators may not be living up to their obligations and might have wasted two hundred billion of your dollars [muniwireless.com], but they are ultimately yours and can be ordered to perform.
Second, how can I share by P2P when idiot operators block my traffic? I can buy all the hardware and service I want, but I won't be able to use it if it's censored at the receiving end.
Make no mistake, the big publishers want to make the internet look like cable TV and they are almost there. Unless you fight for your rights, you will play no further part than as a "consumer" and others will continue to own your culture.
Parent
It's not about speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not about speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's about 2400mbps of bandwidth. (4&~600 mbps payload)
Lets say you have 24,000 students, and 10% of them are doing p2p => 2,400 sharers
That's 1mbps per sharer to saturate your connection which is not really a large amount.
In this scenario, unless you bring your cap below that, you won't affect existing sharing.
And if you drop it below that, you really start to impact real work/research.
Doing an across the board limit just doesn't wo
Re:It's not about speech (Score:5, Insightful)
No no no! This will actually solve the problem while maintaining the neutrality of the network!
By telling students what they can and can't do, the University maintains its mommy/daddy role to the students, and further leaves themselves open to more legal actions, allowing them to parent the students more in the future.
The goal is to have as much administration involved as possible (administrators only exist to create more administration) and to control the students as overtly as possible!
Parent
isp's crying about having to provide what they say (Score:3, Insightful)
and both isp subscribers and students pay big bucks, or is 5 figures a year not enough for them?
its one thing to apply qos to manage bandwidth, its quite another to start making student's choices for them and refusing to provide "internet" service.
espec
Higher learning (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh No! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh No! How will pyromaniacs share now? But seriously, it's kind of sad that a major error like that can slip through... twice.
Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
At the place i worked at, for a while we did try to block kazaa and the like, the problem was that there would always be a new protocol that would pop up to take it's place. We eventually gave up on blocking it because of this.
This story is really not a new thing in the university world, most have a policy of limiting the student's ability to fileshare (some through innocent means like NAT routing, others through throttling the bandwidth for those services).
So before we all get up in arms that people are limiting access, you'd think again when you have to call 20 people in a day, tell them why their access has been shut off, and have every one of them claim that they've never file shared in their lives. Only to get the call the next day where they complain that their their myspace is too slow.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
You have two problems, they can be handled separately.
First, you get RIAA letters. The appropriate response is a form letter saying that "Our school privacy policy prohibits us from releasing user information without a subpoena or court order" (obviously you'll want to verify that with a lawyer, but you shouldn't be sending out user information based on random letters). If you do get a legit subpoena or court order, send them the info if it's still available.
Second, you have excess bandwidth usage. This is really simple: Charge the students a reasonable fee for bandwidth overages - this will encourage users to conserve without unduly constraining people who actually are willing to pay for their bandwidth. It also has the advantage that as demand increases you automatically have the money to pay for upgrades.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Second point: Actually we are implementing pay for service very soon (mainly to cover the cost of re-wiring our older buildings as well as wiring newly purchased properties).. sooo... you're right about this one
Re:Much easier, better solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Knee jerk (Score:3, Interesting)
Applause (Score:5, Interesting)
Most university IPs are real on a really high speed connected LAN. As a result they get elected to supernode status by most modern P2P applications. As a result the university network becomes a jump point for NAT traversal for all leaches within 30-60ms rtt around it. As a result the resource usage is clearly disproportional to the actual on-campus usage. Essentially all small and medium corporates and home users sitting behind firewalls in the immediate vicinity live off that resource and steal a significant portion of the Ohio University network capacity.
Personally, if I was the admin, I would have tried to QoS P2P down (and net neutrality be damned) to the point where the campus is made equivalent to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately even if the protocols were easier to isolate, that may be quite difficult for a network the size of Ohio State. Most network equipment used at the bandwidths in question cannot do selective delays and probability drops very well. The P2P applications nowdays make the "if the protocols are easier to isolate" statement false anyway. All the developers know that they are committing a resource theft and they go way beyond what is considered spyware tactics to achieve their aims (current Skype is a fine example of this).
So on the balance of things, just banning them to hell is probably the most cost effective options. Congrats and applause. Can we have more of that please. A few more and the net economics will go back to where they belong so people actually start looking at things like multicast and frontline in-local-loop delivery instead emulating it through resource theft.
Sure, cost effective (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember: Nearly all university students are adults, with all the rights it implies. Universities don't get to take those away just because they feel it is convenient. Dorms in many ways have to be treated like apartments: Just because you own them, doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to them.
Parent
Re:Applause (Score:5, Insightful)
Applying QoS across the board on all known P2P applications would not be a violation of net neutrality. Arguably, neither would applying QoS for a single standard (de facto or de jure) protocol, like BitTorrent.
What would be a violation of net neutrality would be if they applied QoS to BitTorrent, except to certain sites that paid the university a fee.
Parent
Medium vs Message (Score:5, Insightful)
But it is not a perfect correlation. Banning Bittorrent will hamper downloading Linux ISOs and other high traffic, legitimate materials. There is no justification for saying that file sharing as a whole is illegal, any more than you could say that using the Internet is illegal even if it turns out that much traffic violates the law.
Against the grain (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know that there are great legal uses for BitTorrent, but do you really think 95% of the students are using it to legally download Ubuntu or something? Yeah right. Get real and be honest with yourselves, this is probably a smart thing for the school to be doing. If the students want to download whatever they want, then they need to pay for their own DSL or move out of the dorms and be responsible for their own actions (gee, what a thought), but while they're using the school's network and the school is somewhat responsible for them, I think it's perfectly reasonable to restrict their illegal file sharing.
It's a whole other argument whether the RIAA sucks (they do) and whether file sharing positively impacts the recording industry (it might) but for a school, come on, it's their right, and probably the right thing for them to do. Get over it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you block file sharing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unsurprising (Score:4, Insightful)
"Nail in the coffin of internet freedom" is a bit of an overstatement. There's no free lunch. Dealing with DMCA takedown notices is a huge burden on campus IT staff (our campus has a network security officer who has spent most of his tenure chasing movies and music) which cannot be ignored without the risk of losing the campus's protection under the DMCA safe-harbor provisions. Further, campuses don't have a magically free internet connection. Most pay into a state-wide consortium for Internet2 access then pay an additional, metered rate for commercial internet traffic. Why should universities spend limited resources to subsidize torrent traffic?
Now before anyone talks about the legitimate p2p use, even that is a questionable use of university resources. Ideally p2p shares bandwidth costs so that everyone gets something for a minor contribution. This doesn't necessarily work out to the benefit of universities since their fat, low-latency pipes take priority over the narrow, slow-upload-speed DSL and cable-folks. Ultimately, the universities have to allocate resources to support university business and this policy must be seen as a business decision. If it is necessary for an aspect of university business, I suspect an exception will be allowed as soon as a faculty member makes the request. If the students are miffed, they can pay for commercial wireless access (like most cell phone companies offer) for on campus or use xDSL or cable at home.
In related news.... (Score:4, Funny)
No Servers! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And it is not just a pedantic point. While it might seem like a computer that is only sending e-Mails is clearly a client, and not a server,
Re:No Servers! (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it really is. And your email example is bogus too: if I return those emails, I do it by connecting back to an email server. The email server doesn't connect to me.
I don't think there is any good technical or legal definition of what a "client" and "server" computer are.
Try this one: If I can remotely connect to your computer and induce it to perform a non-trivial function at my convenience, its a server.
We firewall jockeys even have a precise technical definition: If your machine accepts a SYN packet and responds with a SYN/ACK, or if your machine expects to receive the first in a series of UDP packets on a particular port, its a server.
Parent
Mexican universities... (Score:3, Informative)
Monopolizing student's internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I went to a state college in the 90's and they kept the dorm networks completely separate from the school networks. I don't know if it was foresight or not, but they appeared to keep the college system up and running all the time, but the dorm network often slowed to a crawl (and this was before Napster) and you had to foot it out to a lab if you needed something off the network.
Re:Freedom is not about theft (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Yes it is (Score:3, Informative)
Freedom is about being able to do what you want. Responsibility is knowing what to do with your freedom.
Port blocking, while it will restrict copyright violations - is a restriction of freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it-- downloading music is probably wrong, regardless of what you personally believe, unless you go out and buy an equal number of CDs for every album you download. Yes, it is a free non-rival good, but you should still be paying for it in some sense if you're getting something out of it. Anything less is just lying to yourself about the morality of the issue. There's no guaranteed "right to free music" for you or anyon
Re:Completely untrue! (Score:4, Insightful)
ahh the classic black and white approach.
people have been recording radio and copying tapes for decades, and that "violation of exclusivity" didn't do anything to the bottom line.
if you want to start defining that as theft, then i say turn about's fair play:
what did the RIAA companies steal?
1 - the public domain: they've extended copyright from 17 years to life+70, assuring only quaint anachronisms will be in the public domain from now on.
2 - competition in the tech sector: their government granted priviledge(not right) of exclusivity did not cover carte blanch regulatory control over all electronics through sneaky leverage of DMCA section 1201. it's been stated over and over again this was unintended, but it only takes one corrupt politician to prevent a law being repealed.
3 - fair use and individual property/privacy rights: once you've purchased a copy you have the right to do anything with it short of distribution. They have used DRM and the DMCA to stop that.
so they "stole" 3 times, and we're "stealing" it back.
theyre reaping what they sow, and i have no sympathy for them as they receive their recompence full circle.
Parent
Re:give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
If that was the reason, they'd just throttle it to a reasonable level. Also, if you would RTFA, that's not the reason that they give for blocking it; they just give it a mention after talking about all of the RIAA threats.
Parent
HTTP tunnel (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Illegal Fire Sharing? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the basis of both "information wants to be free" and "copyright infringement is not theft [in the literal sense]".
Jefferson's works make me wish Amnesty International hadn't already appropriated the candle-and-barbed-wire logo for themselves.
Parent
Re:BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirates use something because it's the BEST way to do something.
Why? because they have total freedom to choose the best, because, due to their nature, they don't pay for anything.
Thus, outlawing something because pirates use it is shooting yourself (or at least technical progress itself) in the foot.
Sony's views on the xvid codec originally brought this thought to my mind when they prevented sony vegas 5 or 6 from working with it, under that same logic I'd say ban sony vegas itself, I hear it's still incredibly popular with pirates.
While your at it you'd better do something to shut down Maya, 3dstudio and Photoshop.
Parent