Quarantine approach
Setting the record straight on UCLA's quarantine approach
August 25, 2007 Filed in: Digital
piracy
Every so often I come across a reference to UCLA's
approach to curbing illegal file sharing that claims,
incorrectly, that we are using one technology or
another that somehow shuts students down. Perhaps
this isn't surprising because there is quite a bit of
nuance. For example, Cindy Mosqueda's blog item from
last year Are local universities in bed
with the RIAA and MPAA?, while as balanced
and researched as one could hope for, still says
"a notification system has been installed on
residence hall computers to detect violations".
We don't monitor! This is entirely a reactive
system to handle claims of infringement the
campus receives from copyright holders (i.e.,
the copyright holders are the ones that are
searching and monitoring).
Even back in 2004 when the quarantine was first deployed, our system was not properly described in C|NET's article Hollywood's new lesson for campus file swappers. It has plenty of small errors, but the biggest problem was the implication that our system was similar to the University of Florida's ICARUS system because they both provided automated notification - ignoring the point that our system is reactive to external claims whereas ICARUS is actively looking for illegal file sharing on its internal networks.
And most recently, I was pointed at this article, The buzz on Illegal Music on college campuses, from the IT Bulletin at the University of South Carolina, which states we are using Audible Magic's Copysense technology. We don't.
One day I'll have to write up the nuances. In the mean time, technology is an important component of any overall strategy to deal with illegal file sharing - for automating claims management (the quarantine) and ensuring the integrity, reliability and security of our network - together with education, policy and legal alternatives. Others may choose to use technology in other ways, and there is clearly an emphasis these days on using technology to "fix" things.
One interesting thought came from Craig Seidel at MovieLabs while at a workshop I attended held in April with the goal of defining university requirements for filtering technologies: technology that would communicate with users directly for awareness rather than with institutions for compliance, thereby mitigating privacy concerns in some manner. Terry Gray from UW wrote up a wonderful set of notes out of this meeting.
Even back in 2004 when the quarantine was first deployed, our system was not properly described in C|NET's article Hollywood's new lesson for campus file swappers. It has plenty of small errors, but the biggest problem was the implication that our system was similar to the University of Florida's ICARUS system because they both provided automated notification - ignoring the point that our system is reactive to external claims whereas ICARUS is actively looking for illegal file sharing on its internal networks.
And most recently, I was pointed at this article, The buzz on Illegal Music on college campuses, from the IT Bulletin at the University of South Carolina, which states we are using Audible Magic's Copysense technology. We don't.
One day I'll have to write up the nuances. In the mean time, technology is an important component of any overall strategy to deal with illegal file sharing - for automating claims management (the quarantine) and ensuring the integrity, reliability and security of our network - together with education, policy and legal alternatives. Others may choose to use technology in other ways, and there is clearly an emphasis these days on using technology to "fix" things.
One interesting thought came from Craig Seidel at MovieLabs while at a workshop I attended held in April with the goal of defining university requirements for filtering technologies: technology that would communicate with users directly for awareness rather than with institutions for compliance, thereby mitigating privacy concerns in some manner. Terry Gray from UW wrote up a wonderful set of notes out of this meeting.
A student life approach to illegal file sharing
March 25, 2007 Filed in: Digital
piracy
Jim Davis, UCLA’s AVC-IT and CIO, testified before a
Congressional hearing chaired by Representative
Howard Berman entitled An Update – Piracy on University
Networks on March 8, 2007. His testimony,
A Student-Life Approach to
Copyright Infringement at UCLA, articulates
UCLA’s student-life approach to this issue.
Two articles covering this hearing are Congress is Unhappy With Higher Ed’s Copyright Infringement Activities and the Washington Post’s article Music Industry Tightens Squeeze On Students Campus Network Access Targeted. (Interestingly, BusinessWeek’s April 9, 2007 article Now Playing: Digital Disarray, supports the argument that good business models aren’t there yet.)
Jim also testified in October 2004 before the same subcommittee on the UCLA Quarantine Approach and Studios Working Group.
Two articles covering this hearing are Congress is Unhappy With Higher Ed’s Copyright Infringement Activities and the Washington Post’s article Music Industry Tightens Squeeze On Students Campus Network Access Targeted. (Interestingly, BusinessWeek’s April 9, 2007 article Now Playing: Digital Disarray, supports the argument that good business models aren’t there yet.)
Jim also testified in October 2004 before the same subcommittee on the UCLA Quarantine Approach and Studios Working Group.