The mess surrounding P2P file sharing is getting ever more
incredible, complicated, and well, messy.
So much so that we simply
couldn’t resist
sharing the latest news bytes about the subject with you.
One involves a surprising play by an anti-Net-neutrality
party against a particular ISP’s
unsavory actions.
Another has to do with the RIAA and its seriously disturbing
efforts to
put into law – vicariously through American legislators, of
course – a
higher education bill (you may view the corresponding PDF here).
This will give the recording
industry alliance the option to exercise power over
the
distribution of federal financial aid to universities and colleges
based on the efforts (or lack thereof) of said educational institutions
to halt peer-to-peer traffic on their networks and
market legal alternatives to their respective student bodies.
Now, clearly the second development trumps the first in terms
of its
implications, so we’ll start things off with the story #1 (if
only to
butter you up), which appears to pit seemingly like-minded entities
against one another. With both entities standing opposite the
pro-Net-neutrality parade, the news of the dispute is very intriguing
indeed.
Telco-backed Group Sides Against Telco
Nate Anderson of Ars Technica reported last
week
the discovery of a letter sent by Hands off the Internet, “a
telco-backed group opposed to government network neutrality
regulations,” to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin essentially
offering their
support for an investigation into alleged BitTorrent blocking by
Comcast, a US-based Internet service provider.
Yes, that’s
right, a
group aligned with the interests of major telcos, siding against a
major telco.
Surprised? Count us among the amazed as well. Of course, if
you look
at the facts and scrutinize the basic mantra of
“third-party” Net
neutrality proponents, it’s evident that, logically speaking,
they
would indeed opposite outright measures to block
digital traffic moving to and fro various points on the Web.
Rather,
they purport to promote prioritization,
and ensure that those deemed operators of bandwidth-intensive
applications and services be charged more for their usage than those
entities that stream far fewer bits per
second/minute/hour/day/month/year.
Nonetheless, it’s quite astonishing that a group
such as Hands off
the Internet (if one didn’t know any better, one could assume
that an
advocacy bloc with such a name were more “neutral”
than not) would turn
against its own, as it were.
But alas, it has – though one might wonder
whether HOTI considers consumer groups’ request for Comcast
to be fined
$195,000 for ever consumer affected by BitTorrent blocks legitimate or
not. Personally, I’d be rather dumbfounded if they were to
second such
a motion.
The Higher Education Bill
That said, let’s move on to the second item of this
P2P
double-whammy, involving a higher education bill (meaning
it’s yet to
be put into law).
Spanning a total 750 pages in length (BizOrigin’s Sunny Kalara states
that the most relevant points of controversy can be found at Sections
487 and 494) the bill “to amend and extend the Higher
Education Act of
1965” is slated to enforce a proposition to stop
university-based P2P
traffic by way of a deeply troubling penal system.
That penal system,
rather simply, involves stifling or halting completely the transfer of
federal financial aid to uncooperative parties.
In short, any institution of higher education found not
playing by
the RIAA’s rules, either through outright refusal or
otherwise, could
very well be shorted on aid payments. Which could spell insurmountable
trouble for those institutions.
Never (at least I presume so) has a university been threatened
with
such a measure. Yes, the American higher-education-oriented financial
aid system is a fluid one, involving malleable figures. But never has
the entire university complex of the country had to face such a
hurdle.
What’s more, universities themselves
haven’t even
yet been dealt a
verdict holding them directly responsible for the illicit actions of
their students. Not such a vast national scale, anyway.
Something tells me this bill won’t be pushed through
to law very
easily, if at all. Perhaps if its proponent(s) (the RIAA) manages to
maintain a good deal of silence over the matter throughout the
legislative process, and somehow keeps it from the eyes of some
particularly loud whistleblowers on Capitol Hill, it could.
Maybe it’ll see
the light of day as official legal decree. But that’s highly
unlikely.
Call me a naysayer, or call me too hopeful. I just don’t see
it happen.
At least as it’s presently written.
Want to stop the stupidity from moving further along
in
Washington? Let your congressmen and/or congresswomen know where you
stand. Want to dish your feelings right this very moment for all to
see? Share your comments below!
Paul Glazowski is a contributing author discussing the social networking world, his work can be found on Profy.com
