|
Photo by Reed Hutchinson UCLA
Photographic Services
Though UCLA will not itself monitor campus networks and
computers for illegal file-sharing, the university has a responsibility
to respond if it receives notice from a copyright holder of
a violation, say Janina Montero, vice chancellor for student
affairs (left), and James Davis, associate vice chancellor
of information technology.
|
FACING THE MUSIC
Campus wrestles with
file-sharing issues
In an aggressive campaign begun last year to crack down on illegal
file-sharing, the Recording Industry Association of America, the
industry’s powerful trade group, has sued more than 300 individuals
and issued more than 3,000 subpoenas to Internet service providers
(ISP) to have them reveal the names of subscribers who are online
infringers of copyrighted material. Both UCLA and UC Berkeley have
received such subpoenas. In its ruling Dec. 19, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia decided that subpoena provisions
under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are not enough to force
an ISP to hand over information identifying an individual. The copyright
holder’s claim must first undergo a judicial review, the appeals
court said. Copyright holders will likely revise the process by
which lawsuits are filed to meet the new standard. Meanwhile, UCLA
is doing all it can to educate students, faculty and staff on the
serious consequences of illegal file-sharing, as well as the ethical
concerns of copyright protection. At the same time, the university
is working hard to protect online privacy to the greatest degree
possible.
To shed light on the problem and the approach campus officials
are taking to meet this challenge, UCLA Today editor Cynthia Lee
spoke with Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Janina Montero and
Associate Vice Chancellor of Information Technology James Davis.
Q. How widespread is illegal file-sharing at UCLA?
DAVIS: In 2002-03, we received dozens of notifications
every month from copyright holders — usually the entertainment
industry or a subsidiary — telling us that they had identified
a computer on our campus that was illegally sharing files of their
copyrighted music, videos, games or software. The notification includes
the title of the work that was being illegally shared as well as
the computer’s IP address. Though the number of notifications
we’ve received this academic year are so far coming in at
a lower average pace compared to last year, we do continue to receive
dozens of notifications.
Q: What is the probability of getting caught with illegal
files?
MONTERO: The copyright holders are very sophisticated in
terms of using automated scanning software to identify illegal files
being shared. And they’ve made it very clear that this is
a high priority for them. People often feel that they are anonymous
on the Internet, but that does not apply in this instance.
DAVIS: Philosophically as well as legally, UCLA’s
position is that we will not monitor for illegal activity ourselves.
We are not out there searching the networks and people’s computers
for illegal files; for the same reasons, we don’t watch what
people write in their e-mail or where they surf on the Web. But
we have a legal responsibility as an ISP to respond to notifications
by copyright holders and comply with the federal 1998 Digital Millennium
Copyright Act and UCLA’s policy on online copyright infringement.
We also have a philosophical responsibility and desire to respect
copyright. 
Q: What happens once UCLA is notified of a case of illegal
file-sharing?
DAVIS: We identify the location of the machine and then,
if an individual is involved, we find the owner of the machine.
We’ve found that it’s not always his or her fault. Sometimes
the computer has been compromised and hacked into. The owner doesn’t
necessarily even know it’s happening. Some people have downloaded
copyrighted music or movies using file-sharing software, but say
they didn’t really know how it worked — they weren’t
aware they were doing anything illegal. They may be experimenting
or just naïve. Then there are those who know exactly what they
are doing when they download and share files illegally. In the case
of students, once we are notified and identify these people, the
case is sent to the dean of students.
MONTERO: We follow a clear-cut disciplinary process
for students. The student is invited in to talk with the dean of
students. With the first notification, we ask them to desist and
remove the illegal files. In the great majority of cases, that usually
takes care of it. But if there are repeat offenses, the student
faces disciplinary actions of increasing severity — including
suspension — depending on the circumstances.
DAVIS: We’ve recently had the first case
where an offender repeatedly broke the law. In some cases, students’
use of computers has been temporarily restricted. But what we want
to avoid is the practice used at other universities to immediately
shut off all network access to a machine after being notified. What
that says is you’re guilty until proven innocent. What we
do instead is to understand the situation very quickly, stop the
illegal file-sharing immediately and follow the judicial process.
After that, we may decide to temporarily restrict some of the services.
Overall, we’ve had very few repeat offenders at UCLA and across
the UC system. That’s why we believe there’s opportunity
here to educate students to respect copyright and at the same time
significantly reduce illegal file-sharing.
MONTERO: Keep in mind that if you shut off network
access to a student’s computer completely, the student’s
capacity to do his or her academic work is greatly restricted. We
can’t do that before the matter is resolved.
Q: So far, you’ve talked about students. What about
faculty and staff?
DAVIS: To date, any notices we’ve received having
to do with a computer owned by a faculty member has turned out to
be a case where the computer has been hacked into and the faculty
member was unaware of it. However, we have had some instances involving
staff. Such incidents are handled as personnel matters involving
violations of university policy, and, as with students, repeat offenders
would be treated with increasing severity.
MONTERO: There’s a different level of culpability
with an employee who’s using university property to engage
in an illegal activity.
Q: Has anyone been sued at UCLA for illegal file-sharing?
DAVIS: We are not aware of anyone at this campus being
sued, but we have been subpoenaed about activity on a machine that
was located at a UCLA laboratory. It turned out the machine had
been hacked into. We disconnected it, cleaned it and put it back
on line. As for finding the file-sharer responsible, that’s
nearly impossible. We could track the activity only as far back
as to ascertain that it was someone off campus.
Q: Do you believe that what we now have in place —
warnings, education and a procedure that may lead to disciplinary
action — will stop the practice of illegal downloading?
DAVIS: The problem is much, much larger. What we’re
talking about here is not going to resolve the problem. The media
tools for file-sharing are here. It’s easy to do. And the
cultural expectation of being able to share, copy and download is
very, very high. CD-burning, DVD-burning, copy and pasting —
the ability to do all this is readily available. So the world, in
effect, is trying to adjust to a very new technology and a culture
that knows how to use it.
MONTERO: That’s why the educational mission
is difficult. Students come to UCLA already knowing how to maneuver
their way through cyberspace in ways that are really beyond a lot
of us. So will our efforts to help them set moral and ethical constraints
work? I’m not sure we know where this is going to end up yet.
But what is certain is that the university itself must respect
intellectual property. It is at the core of what we do.
DAVIS: The university produces a lot of intellectual
property. We cannot show disrespect for one kind of intellectual
property and expect respect for another kind. We want to teach students
to respect intellectual property as a general philosophy.
Q: There are ongoing efforts to, in effect, legalize the
sharing of music files, such as Apple’s iTunes, where people
can download a song from Apple’s music store for 99 cents.
In a similar fashion, Penn State offers a subscription service to
its students who can then access music while on campus using campus
machines. Are these viable solutions?
DAVIS: The iTunes model seems to be one significant direction
for the industry. Several services are up and running along those
lines. Subscription services also continue to be developed. As for
Penn State, the question becomes: Should a technology fee be used
for music services? It could make sense if you offer it in the residential
halls because that’s home use (similar to cable television
fees). But applying it campuswide is more controversial. We feel
the industry itself is moving in that direction — some music
subscription services are currently giving you access to music if
you pay a fee to subscribe. But more generally, we believe UCLA
can play a role in brokering and catalyzing discussions on file-sharing
among content providers, technology companies and the entertainment
industry to find new solutions and accelerate the creation and testing
of new models. |
