Welcome to another leisurely stroll through my recently collected del.icio.us links. As always, feel free to add me (”Tenken” on del.icio.us) to your network if you’d like to share your own links with me. You can also subscribe to this RSS feed of my del.icio.us findings.

• How Google Gears Could Foreshadow Death for Microsoft: I’ve recently rediscovered Slate after spending most of my time over at Salon these past few months, and it’s articles like this that make me kick myself for ignoring Slate for so long. Here, Slate’s Harry McCracken argues that Google Gears introduces functionality that will be key to dominating the web application market. Chiefly, with the integration of online content with offline functionality. It’s a really interesting thought that I had never considered until now. Expect this theme to pop up in a future post.
• Google Explains Net Neutrality in Simple Terms: Google’s Public Policy Blog is quickly becoming one of the best sources for easy-to-read public policy discussion online. Here they offer a clear definition of what net neutrality proponents are fighting for, and makes the case about what exactly they feel ISP’s have a right to do with their networks. Perhaps if some politicians understood the issue as clearly as this there would be much less support for telco’s and net neutrality opponents in Washington.
• Judge Says Students Can Respond to RIAA “John Doe” Lawsuits: A federal judge in New Mexico has declared that RIAA must allow alleged copyright infringers in that state to be notified before receiving settlement letters in the mail. These letters are of the recent breed that the RIAA has been sending out wherein they basically tell the recipient to cough up a settlement fee or face a full-on lawsuit.

  They are, in actuality, a way for the RIAA to overstep the legal system altogether since most of the recipients decide to settle. This has been saving the RIAA a tremendous amount in legal fees, but with this new ruling they are going to have a much harder time pulling the same stunt in New Mexico–hopefully others will follow suit.

a

Del.icio.us Link Stroll: How Google Gears Could Kill Microsoft, Google Elucidates “Net Neutrality”, Judge Makes Life Difficult for the RIAA

• Bing Adds Twitter and Facebook Posts to Search Results, Should Google Worry?
• Dear Digsby, Where’s the Group Chat and In Line Text Formatting?!
• Ubuntu’s Fiesty Fifth Birthday, And Linux As A Desktop Solution
• The Android T-Mobile G1 is the Real Successor to the Helio Ocean
• Thoughts on the September 09 New York Tech Meetup

For those unfamiliar with DMCA takedown notices, you can see an example from Youtube here. Written in typical copyright legalese, notices of this sort are the proper method of reporting DMCA violations by content owners. For standard peer-to-peer (P2P) software violations, i.e., downloading a film over Bittorrent, users receive these notices from their ISP. For schools that manage their own networks, like Stanford, they are usually considered the ISP and are the ones to hand out these notices.

As a recent college graduate, I’m well versed in the many methods that the various media outfits have used to criminalize and extort students. And since I’ve worked in IT support with my school since 2001, I’m also quite familiar with the ways that schools have dealt with the piracy phenomenon. Stanford’s new policy, while certainly groundbreaking, is something I’m sure many in higher education have been mulling over these past few years. After all, it’s a widely held (if somewhat flawed) belief that taxation is a useful deterrent for unwanted behavior. It was simply inevitable that someone in higher education would eventually go down this path.

Does that, however, necessarily make it a good decision? Or is it merely a simple solution to a complex and multi-layered issue? While I usually adore simple solutions, in this case I’m not certain that it’s the best move here, especially when it’s obvious that it was made with only the school’s interests at heart.

This new policy is not the same as fining students for an illegal beer keg or dorm damage. Rather, Stanford’s new policy seems to be an extreme reaction to their being placed on the RIAA and MPAA’s top 25 campuses for piracy. Is shame really the best motivator for dictating school policy? And shouldn’t the school that houses cyberlaw guru Lawrence Lessig show a little more backbone when dealing with DMCA affairs?

The RIAA has already begun to transform their whole “copyright protection” methods into downright extortion. As of February they’ve simply started sending notices to ISPs (again, including schools) asking them to find potential copyright infringers based on their IP address. Once the user is identified, the ISP then passes along a settlement notice from the RIAA asking them to kindly pay $1,000 for their piracy sins. It should be noted that these notices have absolutely no legal basis and are basically an easy way for the RIAA to siphon money from consumers for free. It’s only after the user refuses to settle that they actually take the legal route.

Of course, consumer rights groups did not take to this new tactic too well. And rightly so–it’s the beginning of a slippery slope for the RIAA, one which the MPAA may follow, and which may eventually snowball into an entirely new business model for them. (Don’t laugh, their new website for settling these lawsuits, www.p2plawsuits.com, is as streamlined as any modern online store.) Given this ruthless new anti-piracy model, I don’t think now is necessarily the best time for Stanford to start finding better ways to fine their students.

This comment by Slashdot user kscguru, apparently a recent Stanford grad, puts things in perspective somewhat:

Stanford’s networking folks do look carefully at the notices, protect student privacy unless faced with a court order, and a student can contest the DMCA takedown notice without penalty with the eager assistence of Student Legal Affairs – although doing so waives your privacy. As of two years ago, no student had ever contested a notice – they were all clear-cut DMCA violations. And only well-documented violations ever got passed to students…

It’s certainly good to hear that Stanford’s IT department is more than competent in handling DMCA complaints. Still, that still doesn’t really excuse the adoption of a policy that basically supports the media industry in their abuse of an already unjust law. This article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) covers many of the issues with the DMCA by listing some prime examples of how it was used against innocents, not pirates. From interfering with fair use, to getting in the way of scientific studies, the DMCA has been used for much more than merely catching kids pirating movies on Bittorrent.

I understand Stanford’s unwillingness to appear as a safe house for for their unlawful, low-down, pirate students–but at the same time they have the prestige and capability to make a difference in fighting against this sad excuse for a law. Honestly, they don’t even have to put up a huge fight, they could take the same stance they’ve been holding the past few years by refusing network access until the student removes the offending material. This is the same stance that many other higher ed. institutions are taking, and it’s simply the bare minimum that they have to follow to adhere to the DMCA.

Stanford’s new plan is, on the other hand, much more than the bare minimum. It’s a scheme to reduce the amount of pirates on their campus by fostering the questionable tactics of the media groups. I’m sure Stanford intends to protect its reputation doing so, but do they really need to sacrifice their integrity?

a

Why Stanford’s New DMCA Handling Policy Protects Their Reputation, Not Their Students

• The Nanda Alarm Clock eBay Fail
• What nVidia’s Tegra Means for Mobile Devices, and Why You Should Care
• Thoughts on the September 09 New York Tech Meetup
• Why The Magic Mouse is the Most Important Apple Announcement Today
• Ubuntu’s Fiesty Fifth Birthday, And Linux As A Desktop Solution