Hyatt, Marshall. “Film as a Medium to Study the Twentieth-Century Afro-American Experience.”  The Journal of Negro Education Vol. 53, No. 2 (Spring, 19804): pp. 161-172. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2294817 >.

The article discusses the significance of film in American culture though its ability to reflect and interpret society.  However, according to Hyatt, a film must be viewed by analyzing it within the context of the atmosphere of opinion of the nation at the time of its creation.   The author feels that cinema offers great opportunities for the teaching and learning of African-American history, believing that students will learn to cope more effectively with their own social roles as a result of having the experience of watching and discussing the cinematic representation of the struggles and triumphs of African-Americans.  Discussing the 1930s, Hyatt argues that in order to find more positive images on the screen, one had to look beyond Hollywood.  Films such as Gone With the Wind (1939) and Imitation of Life (1934) reinforce the use of blacks as domestic servants, using Hattie McDaniel and Louise Beavers, respectively.  The article goes on to specify Beavers’ role in the film. She labors long and hard for her white mistress and helps her become wealthy, refusing her share of the fortune.  Thus, the film ultimately instructs African Americans to know their place vis-à-vis white society. 

Hyatt’s text suggests that selected films reflecting the diversity of the African-American experience in the United States, such as Imitation of Life, be used, along with selected readings, to teach twentieth-century African-American history to college students. He contends that the film, although it shows marginalized portrayals of African Americans, can be challenged. Once again, the notion of questioning what is seen on screen is discussed. He argues that these various serotypes are as a result of the political and racial climate of the time that it was produced, and that in order for them to be overcome, they must be examined and discussed.

 Music Industry Tightens Squeeze on Students; Campus Network Access Targeted

    This article provides information focusing on the RIAA’s new tactic in its “never-ending effort to crack down on pirated music”. Mainly, that the RIAA is reaching new levels in their attempts to end piracy by singling out universities as being either heavily trafficked schools or effective in preventing file-sharing among their students. Those with the most file-sharing are Ohio and Purdue, and the RIAA seems to believe that by pressuring these schools, the number of peer-to-peer sharing among students will decrease. On the other hand, UCLA is one school whose policies against illegal downloading is approved by the RIAA. UCLA has suspended students who repeatedly break the school’s policies, giving the RIAA strong support. At schools where students are active downloaders, those caught receive letters from the RIAA warning them about a possible lawsuit since they practiced illegal downloading. Although peer-to-peer file sharing continues, the article states that lawsuits have been an effective tool by basically scaring students out of file-sharing.

    On the one hand this article supports my argument because the author demonstrates the severity of the RIAA’s threats. However it also shows that lawsuits and the school’s involvement in these cases does make a difference, even if only by scaring the students. It also presents information describing how differently universities have responded to the file sharing. UCLA presents an interesting and very different response by suspending those students who are repeatedly caught participating in peer-to-peer file sharing. This information about UCLA's policies would be valuable as comparison for schools who are either against monitoring file sharing among students, or even those which seem to be doing the bare minimum.

RIAA vs. The People: Four Years Later
    
    This entry from the Electronic Frontier Foundation provides information about the pressures on universities from the RIAA. It explains that the threat to universities’ students makes it probable for universities to become involved. The entry also states that because the letters are sent to the universities before a lawsuit actually begins and is instead only under the threat of legal action, the universities have no legal obligation to forward the letters to students. Most universities have complied with the RIAA’s desire for them to forward the letters informing students of their impending lawsuit and the option of the $3,000 settlement fee.  However, there are universities that side on either extreme by refusing to forward the letters, or creating their own policies to prevent illegal downloading. The Universities of Wisconsin and Maine have refused to forward on the letters, claiming that they do not want to be the RIAA’s “legal agent”. Stanford has taken the opposite stance, and fines student if complaints of their offenses are received with a fine for $1,000 for a third offense.

     This entry supports my thesis, showing that universities should and may have a choice in how to handle the RIAA’s incessant demands. Even though the students may get the worse end of the deal, it should be under the jurisdiction of the college in deciding whether to be involved or not, mainly, by promoting awareness and not by controlling the situation themselves. The section explaining the pressures from RIAA and the government is also valuable for my topic. It gives a timeline and shows how the relationship between the three main groups (Universities, RIAA, and the government) has evolved which would be helpful in explaining the importance of the government's involvement.

This is a court decision from the US District Court for the District of Maine.  It was made on January 25, 2008.  In the case, the RIAA sued 27 University of Maine students for copyright infringement, because of their use of the Gnutella file-sharing network.  9 of the students, referred to as “Does,” moved to dismiss the complaint, but in this decision the court rejected the motion.  The court said that infringement consists of, “..downloading and distribution of copyrighted sound recordings,” and that “…record companies have the exclusive right to reproduce [the recordings].”  Lastly, the court said that the students’ infringement was “willful,” and, “intentional.”
    In the decision, the court explained how the RIAA discovered that these students were sharing files.  It was explained that the RIAA hired a private company called MediaSentry to log onto the file-sharing network, and download music files from students who were sharing them.  MediaSentry then gave the RIAA the students’ IP addresses and the files in question.  The RIAA reviewed the list of files being shared to see if they were actually copyrighted material, and then listened to them to verify this.    After this determination, the RIAA gave the IP addresses to the University of Maine and asked them to identify the students.  The students were sharing from 81-2903 copyrighted files.
    Learning exactly how the RIAA identifies infringers was extremely important to my paper.  This case explains each step in the process of deciding to file the lawsuit, and what the RIAA’s definition of infringement is.  These details allow me to make a judgement of whether or not I think the lawsuits are fair, which is one of the main discussions of my paper.
    First of all, simply reproducing a copyrighted work should not be considered copyright infringement.  If a person legally purchases a CD, and wants to copy the files to his or her computer, he or she should definitely be allowed to.  If the user does not distribute these files, I don’t believe he or she is breaking the law.  Secondly, once these files are being shared on a P2P network, the RIAA claims that they listen to every song to verify that it is indeed copyrighted material, but I question whether or not that is true.  After reviewing thousands of file names, does the RIAA really take the time to listen to every single song? 
    Based on the RIAA’s process of finding infringers, it seems that people are getting caught for making files available on a P2P network, but not for actually downloading copyrighted files.  For example, if I downloaded a thousand songs and took them out of my shared folder, the RIAA would not be able to discover my actions.  Therefore, the people who upload files are considered criminals, but those who download and steal them are not necessarily prosecuted.
    The students being sued had from 81-2903 shared music files, and this makes me wonder how these specific 29 students were chosen.  Certainly there were other infringers who had more than 81 songs.  Assuming this is true, the RIAA gives no reason why these individuals were chosen.  It seems that the RIAA is suing people randomly, which isn’t a fair way to file lawsuits.  There needs to be more specific criteria.

This is a document called RIAA v. The People: Two Years Later, which is on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s website.  It was written in 2005, which is two years after the file sharing lawsuits started.  The article provides information about the legality of the lawsuits along with their results, and it also shares personal stories about individuals who have been sued.  One interesting note is that the RIAA used to offer amnesty to anyone who deleted their copyrighted files and signed an agreement to stop file sharing, but some of these people were sued anyway.  The RIAA was sued for false advertising.
The EFF wants the public to know that the people being sued are chosen randomly, and there is no end in sight to the flood of lawsuits.  The lawsuits have not worked at all, and “Today, downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of the lawsuits.”  The number of P2P users increases every month.  89 percent of high school students reported that they knew file-sharing was against the law, and that they would continue doing it anyway.  The EFF suggests cutting the prices of songs on iTunes (because there are 35 times as many songs downloaded illegally as there are downloaded on iTunes), or having the record companies collectively license music to individuals for a flat fee of around five dollars a month.
    The EFF shares the stories of many people who have been sued and are in terrible financial situations, to elicit the sympathy of the public.  For example, a 71 year-old grandfather was sued, along with a 12 year-old girl who had a single mother.
    This document is extremely useful to my argument because it provides statistical evidence that the lawsuits have not slowed down file sharing, which was their goal.  The RIAA wanted to use the lawsuits to educate people, but people clearly don’t care about the legality of their downloading.  P2P programs are extremely easy to design, and even if they add filters to the popular ones, other unfiltered applications will be created eventually.  The RIAA needs to take drastic action in the form of large-scale licensing, or their problems will never be solved.
    While I agree with the EFF on most accounts, I strongly disagree with their use of sob-stories to promote their views.  It is unfortunate that some people with very little income were sued by the RIAA, but a person’s financial situation should not affect whether or not they are sued.  If the RIAA is going to file lawsuits, they should sue the users with the most copyrighted material, regardless of their income.  The whole strategy of using lawsuits to stop file sharing, however, just doesn’t seem like it will ever work.  And hopefully, ISPs and universities will do their best to protect the identities of their users.

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAAatTWO_FINAL.pdf

This is a document called RIAA v. The People: Two Years Later, which is on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s website. It was written in 2005, which is two years after the file sharing lawsuits started. The article provides information about the legality of the lawsuits along with their results, and it also shares personal stories about individuals who have been sued. One interesting note is that the RIAA used to offer amnesty to anyone who deleted their copyrighted files and signed an agreement to stop file sharing, but some of these people were sued anyway. The RIAA was sued for false advertising.
The EFF wants the public to know that the people being sued are chosen randomly, and there is no end in sight to the flood of lawsuits. The lawsuits have not worked at all, and “Today, downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of the lawsuits.” The number of P2P users increases every month. 89 percent of high school students reported that they knew file-sharing was against the law, and that they would continue doing it anyway. The EFF suggests cutting the prices of songs on iTunes (because there are 35 times as many songs downloaded illegally as there are downloaded on iTunes), or having the record companies collectively license music to individuals for a flat fee of around five dollars a month.
The EFF shares the stories of many people who have been sued and are in terrible financial situations, to elicit the sympathy of the public. For example, a 71 year-old grandfather was sued, along with a 12 year-old girl who had a single mother.
This document is extremely useful to my argument because it provides statistical evidence that the lawsuits have not slowed down file sharing, which was their goal. The RIAA wanted to use the lawsuits to educate people, but people clearly don’t care about the legality of their downloading. P2P programs are extremely easy to design, and even if they add filters to the popular ones, other unfiltered applications will be created eventually. The RIAA needs to take drastic action in the form of large-scale licensing, or their problems will never be solved.
While I agree with the EFF on most accounts, I strongly disagree with their use of sob-stories to promote their views. It is unfortunate that some people with very little income were sued by the RIAA, but a person’s financial situation should not affect whether or not they are sued. If the RIAA is going to file lawsuits, they should sue the users with the most copyrighted material, regardless of their income. The whole strategy of using lawsuits to stop file sharing, however, just doesn’t seem like it will ever work. And hopefully, ISPs and universities will do their best to protect the identities of their users.

This is a humorous article which examines the phenomenon of college students giving up Facebook for lent. Articles like this really show how social networking sites have become part of the zeitgeist. Instead of giving up fried food or soda, many students are opting to give up logging on to instant messenger and Facebook.com. A surprising twist is that the clerics interviewed for the article actually support this; they say that giving up something like Facebook not only constitutes a true sacrifice but also frees up one’s time for other things. However, certain students were worried that they would feel utterly cut off from their social networks and friends during this period, missing out on birthday reminders, events, wall posts, etc. The way that this article presents Facebook as, “the connective tissue of undergraduate life” shows how ubiquitous this social network is and how important it has become to many of its members, who often spend hours on the site each day or week. However, in giving Facebook up for lent, there is also the connotation that it is something unhealthy that one is addicted to. One student admitted that she felt better not being on Facebook and wasn’t stalking people as much (only in the online sense of course). This article illustrates how important Facebook has become to many college students and when they give it up, even for just 40 days, there is the sort of discomfort that goes along with abandoning what has become a part of your identity, social life, and daily routine.

 

This report looks at these questions from the point-of-view of college students and 14- to 17-year-olds. In the original study, we found that college students are more aware of and use libraries’ information resources more than other survey respondents. In addition, the more educated the respondents, the more they continue to use libraries after graduation. Awareness does not always translate into high usage.

Overall, respondents have positive, if outdated, views of the “Library.” Younger respondents—teenagers and young adults—do not express positive associations as frequently. These findings, and more, are valuable insights for anyone seeking to know more about the library usage and perceptions of college students and young people.

EDUCAUSE REVIEW | March/April 2005, Volume 40, Number 2

A great article by Steve McLaughlin about what Free Culture means, and how and why to get involved.

This page is part of the documentation guide in Penns Online Research Tutorial, which describes documentation stles and helps with writing papers. The copyright page is an introduction to copyright issues for undergraduates at Penn. It very succinctly describes what copyright is, what kinds of works are copyrighted, what fair use is, and how to copyright your own work.

Lots of enrollment and demographic tables about college students.

Google is sponsoring a "summer of code". What if we were a mentoring organization?