The Daily misses the whole point of this bill. This isn't "Gov't acts on file sharing". This is more like "Gov't in the pocket of big media". Seriously, I wish the Daily took a stronger stand against this. What business does the MPAA have in deciding which schools get federal financial aid or not? And why does the MPAA get to rank the schools? Common sense would lead the government to pick an unbiased third party.
"McLaurin said the MPAA does not sue individual students as a matter of course..." Excuse me? The MPAA does not sue individual students? This is ridiculous. Please do some research before copying assertions like this from organizations which have vested intersts. Here's a news report from the Harvard Crimson - http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=507077 - which says that "The MPAA sued students at Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Texas, Columbia University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Oklahoma, the University of Rochester, Boston University, the University of Ohio at Cincinnati, the University of Ohio at Columbus, Ohio State University, and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst". Of course, the MPAA could be referring to the fact that they collectively sue students as John Does 1-16 etc, to save on litigation fees.
"“There are many commercial technologies, presently available and tested that filter copyrighted material,” McLaurin said. “Our industry gives these companies the fingerprints for copyrighted material to be filtered out by the program. This ensures that only very specific material is filtered and makes it possible to have legitimate P2P activity.”"
Examples of such software? Most of these fingerprints (hashes for the technically inclined) that the MPAA is referring to can be altered by changing a few bits of the file. If automated video recognition were so easy, do you think you would find so many copyrighted clips on youtube?
"There are numerous ways of encrypting your data traffic on the network so that it is impossible to determine if one is file sharing."
I'm a CS major who's been sharing since the days of Napster, and I can tell you that this is bullshit. Unless this senior is talking about niche networks like Freenet, TOR (which, BTW, aren't designed for P2P apps), the encryption in popular BitTorrent clients and the like, doesn't prevent the MPAA and the RIAA from finding out your IP address. The encryption is implemented to overcame traffic shaping by ISPs, and does nothing to hide your identity or the data you're sharing. All it does is prevent a "man-in-the-middle" situation. Even this has become harder with Comcast's recently implemented Sandvine technology where they fake packets.
"“If we condone illegal behavior as academic intuitions even once, then what concerns me is the message that we are giving our future leaders,” said Stewart McLaurin...
When a large percentage of the population breaks the law, the solution isn't to put them all in jail. It's to change the law. The MPAA needs to get over its antiquated business model and figure out a new way to make money.
This is a poorly researched article. Next time, I hope you do more than just copying the MPAA's statements verbatim. Perhaps ask a CS professor instead of a senior? Or our very own world-famous "Free Culture" advocate, Lawrence Lessig? Or the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is located in the Bay Area and is a leading advocate of a change in the current copyright culture?
I guess this is the Daily after all and I expected too much.

You want the Daily to take a stance in it's news article. Let's leave the editorializing to opinions pieces. It is well known that Congress and MPAA are, let's say, good friends. It's horrible, but they are. Everyone should watch, "This Film is Not Yet Rated." Excellent expose.

This article is not even FACTUALLY correct. You call it "on par with a professional news piece"?

I am concerned that this article did not cover Stanford's newly implemented Reconnection Fee, and could in fact encourage students to unlawfully file-share based on the misstatement that the University gives students "three DMCA warnings before the University acts against them." Under the Student DMCA Complaint Policy, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/legal/Recent/DMCA_Reconnect_fee_Final1007.pdf, a student in receipt of a first valid copyright complaint has 48 hours to respond to the complaint; if no response is received, the Internet connection is disabled and, after redressing the complaint, a student must pay $100 to be reconnected to the Internet. On a second complaint, a student is immediately disconnected. To be reconnected after a second valid complaint, the student must speak to a Residence Dean about the problems of unlawful file-sharing and pay a $500 reconnection fee. On a third complaint, the Internet connection is immediately terminated. The student is referred for disciplinary action at Judicial Affairs and up to a $1000 fee may be imposed. It is striking that the MPAA did not think this was an acceptable University policy, especially since Cary Sherman, the President of the Recording Industry Association of America, has publicly commented on the strength of Stanford's anti-piracy policy. It is important to set the record straight and for students to understand that Stanford has a strong policy in place with real consequences on even a first complaint of copyright violation.

I would like to thank The Stanford Daily for the awareness they are bringing to this important issue, however I would like to clarify a few points raised by Mr. Dada.
First, as the article noted, many opponents of the bill that was introduced in Congress claim that the legislation would put their federal financial aid in jeopardy. We want to be clear that the intent of this bill is to add an anti-piracy plan to the list of reporting requirements for which universities are already responsible. A university that was out of compliance would have many opportunities to correct a violation before action is taken regarding funding.
Another important point to clarify pertains to the Stanford University DMCA notification policy. While the article stated that I “disagreed” with Stanford’s new policy, I actually described the policy of “pay to reconnect” as “innovative and creative.” We are very interested in seeing the results of this new policy, which took effect for the first time in the fall of 2007.
Also, while the MPAA views legal action as one means of addressing digital piracy, we work with universities to encourage adoption of technologies and other solutions that would diminish the number of DMCA notices received by each university, therefore reducing the potential for individual student lawsuits.
I was disappointed to see omitted from Mr. Dada’s article my expression of appreciation for the leadership President Hennessy gives through the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities, which focuses on these issues nationally. While we do not always agree on how universities can address the challenges in coping with these issues in their own networks, President Hennessy is an important national voice on these matters.
Sincerely,
Stewart D. McLaurin
Executive Vice President for Education Affairs
MPAA