A Kenyon College administrator details the trends that are creating “therapeutic universities,” the sort of places where parents nervously helicopter about, non-parents think students are hopelessly coddled, and students hand administrators their cell phones and say, “Here, talk to my dad.” In fact, Wood describes a frequent new practice: hiring employees to deal with frequent calls from parents. Other factors in the “slouch” toward therapeutic U include consumer orientation, grade inflation and nothing less than attacks on the principles of free speech by schools; helicoptering by parents; rampant careerism, narcissism and the culture of self-esteem as enjoyed by students.

For a researcher studying Boomers and texting, there is little specific data here. But it does place texting between students and parents–one of the reasons why Boomers bother to text in the first place¬–in a larger and not very flattering context, specifically, the cell phone as the “world’s longest umbilical cord.”

 Copyright Silliness on Campus

    This Washington Post article discusses the intensity of the RIAA in their fight against illegal downloading of music and movies. The article explains how the Record Industry Association of America is questioning 19 major American Universities regarding their actions against students who download. One of the major questions being asked is whether or not these universities are expelling students who practice peer-to-peer file sharing and illegally download. The RIAA claims that certain universities are not expelling enough students for these causes. It seems that even with the RIAA attempting to control universities, they continue to sue and threaten individual students. The monitoring techniques the RIAA wants universities to utilize are not only costly, by also ineffective. Students will be able to outsmart the monitoring system either through the internet or simply with blank CDs and hard drives. Music and movies can be shared even with the RIAA’s “copyright hall monitor”. This article recommends a blanket license that would allow students access to music and movies from whatever source they choose. This blanket license would be similar to that used by universities for a cappella groups that perform on campus and cable television subscriptions. The article concludes claiming that universities have more important things to worry about than the RIAA’s fight for money.

    This article supports my thesis. It provides a variety of reasons why the RIAA is losing control over their copyright battle. Not only is the RIAA threatening students, but it is also attempting to discipline major American universities who do not follow suit in acting against their own students. The author offers another option of blanket fees as opposed to suing every student and threatening universities. This way of handling the file-sharing phenomenon supports my own argument for promoting awareness as opposed to financially attacking students.

Class(room) Action:
One University Refuses To Pass On RIAA File-Sharing Letters, But The Rest Play Ball

    This article discusses how the University of Wisconsin has gone against the RIAA’s request to identify students who the RIAA finds have participated in illegal downloading. The RIAA wants to use Internet Protocol/IP addresses from university networks to give individuals a chance to come forward without their names being involved. The difficulty with this arises from the fact that the university cannot know which student is actually doing the illegal downloading, especially when rooms are shared and one port is used. The University of Wisconsin argues that it does not want to be a middle man in this situation, stating that it is inappropriate.  This system of locating individuals by the universities is not legally required, but the article points out that many administrators believe it is beneficial to students since it gives them the opportunity to settle.

    This article aids my topic, because it provides information regarding a method that gives universities the option to aid its students, without making it a legal necessity. It still has its flaws like the overall threats involved in the lawsuits, but it would be preferable for universities to have an option rather than be forced into action by loss of funding and legal issues. This article also provides the opinion of the University of Wisconsin and presents how they are handling the RIAA’s pressure differently from most other institutions. The University of Wisconsin's position could be helpful in contrasting university policies.

The RIAA piracy fight makes it to the Ivy League

    This article summarizes the RIAA’s stand on colleges and illegal downloading. The RIAA has sent letters to 16 campuses including the University of Pennsylvania, informing the schools that illegal downloading is occurring on their campuses. The letters however, do not single out the students and faculty members accused. This article also discusses the RIAA’s motivation behind lawsuits. They say that lawsuits are not desirable, but are necessary considering the continuous downloading and the costs especially from students. Apparently, “college students accounted for more than 1.3 billion illegal music downloads last year”, leading to more than $2 billion in lost wages. The RIAA also argues that students would not use the ‘best practices’ when the alternative is free, leading them to believe that the lawsuits are completely necessary.

    This article offers opposition to my thesis, giving the RIAA’s point of view. By giving the information regarding the number of students who download illegally as well as the impact on revenue and jobs, college students are obviously an important aspect in the RIAA’s fight against illegal downloading. It also proves the serious nature of the RIAA’s battle because they have begun to go against larger and more financially powerful schools, such as the Ivy League as opposed to focusing just on the individuals. The universities who receive these letters from the RIAA are important to my topic because their situation exemplifies the changing nature of the reaction to file sharing. The RIAA has become so paranoid about college students file sharing that it is now pressuring universities to become involved.

RIAA v. U: The state of file-sharing on campus

       This article discusses the actions taken by Missouri’s University of Science and Technology. The University decided to make a quiz on the effects and legal issues of peer-to-peer file sharing pop up on a student's computer screen if they attempt to make an illegal download. This way, the students cannot claim ignorance if they are able to pass the quiz and remove the block on their downloading and are informed of the consequences of their actions. “Be Aware Your Uploading” or BAYU is given as another option for giving students the information they need to avoid ‘accidental downloading’.  It acknowledges the fact that not all students are technologically savvy and know exactly what they are doing on the internet. BAYU gives students a warning that they are downloading illegally before they complete the download.  The article also discusses the policies adopted by Stanford, Ohio University, University of Colorado-Boulder and the University of Minnesota. The article then states the positions of IT’s and Educause (the group that represents the IT’s) as having serious problems with both the RIAA and total blocking of peer-to-peer. Mainly because the IT’s, like most who work with students, care about the students' education and the internet's role in education has been greatly increasing. The next section of the article provides information regarding how much university students are actually involved in file sharing, and the likelihood that colleges are not actually facilitating this illegal behavior. It claims that the file sharing would start anew each year with the incoming freshman class because of high school experience with downloading.

    The article provides valuable information for my question of how universities are handling the RIAA’s increasing demands to impede file sharing. It presents the differing actions and policies implemented by universities, such as BAYU and the pop quizzes before downloading takes place. These different courses taken by the different universities could support my argument that it would be best for universities to provide information for students. The universities’ policies give examples and possible options for file sharing on campuses to be controlled without putting universities against their students.

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.

NOTE: This article is difficult to find on Lexis-Nexis.  You must do a powersearch and specify "UCLA Entertainment Law Review" as your source.

This is a journal article in the UCLA Entertainment Law Review.  The article is by Kristy Wiehe, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.  This article examines how the RIAA uses copyright law to sue individuals, and whether or not the RIAA’s interpretation of the law is correct.  The author first describes how P2P file-sharing programs work, explaining that most of them scan the user’s computer for media files, and place these files in a “shared” folder that is uploaded to the P2P network.  When the files are uploaded to the network, the user is making the files available for other users to download.  The RIAA claims that if these files are copyrighted material, then this “making available” is defined as copyright infringement.  In the Napster case in 2001, the court agreed with the RIAA’s view.  The author, however, disagrees with the RIAA’s interpretation of the law.  She contends that copyright law says it is illegal to distribute copies in the form of material objects to the public, and that the RIAA should have to prove that an actual transfer of the copyrighted material took place from one user to another.  Parts of copyright law are quoted in the article to make this point.  She believes that without a definitive “transfer of ownership,” the RIAA should not be able to sue someone.  The RIAA believes that the “making available” of files is considered distribution, and this is the fundamental disagreement between the RIAA and the author.
    In addition, the author compares the use of these lawsuits to stop file-sharing to an “effort to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic.”  The problem is so large that suing a few individuals will most likely not fix it.  The solution proposed in the article is for the record companies to make it “economically rational” for consumers to pay for music files instead of downloading them illegally.  She suggests pricing that asymptotically approaches zero as the number of songs purchased increases.  Therefore, if a person downloads thousands of songs, they won’t have to make extremely high payments.
    I strongly agree with the author’s interpretation of copyright law, and I believe that the record companies should have to present more proof than a file being in a “shared folder” in order to file a lawsuit.  Also, the P2P programs should eliminate their scanning programs because there is a significant chance that they could incriminate an unknowing person who has legally obtained copyrighted work and stored it on his or her computer.  Proof of a transfer should be necessary for a lawsuit, and it is also questionable whether or not an mp3 file is a “material object.”  People are being sued without concrete proof of infringement, and the RIAA needs to be stopped from abusing the law to gain money.  This argument will be part of my contention that these suits are unfair. 
The author’s suggested business solution may be unfair to the record companies, but these companies certainly need to focus on making large-scale changes to their sales techniques.

This is a newspaper article by Amy Brittain that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor on June 18, 2007.  The article provides basic statistics about the RIAA’s file sharing lawsuits, makes an argument in support of the RIAA, and gives examples of solutions being implemented at some universities.  The article says that since 1999, physical music sales have declined 30 percent, and that two-thirds of college students’ music was illegally obtained.  Recording companies have suffered millions of dollars in losses, and the author reminds us that, “For every one Justin Timberlake, there are hundreds of sound-technicians, backup singers, and retail workers who are hurt by illegal downloading.”  As a result of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in 1998, universities are protected from file-sharing lawsuits, and this is why individual students are being sued. 
    Some universities have tried to solve the problem by forcing students to install programs that block the use of P2P programs, and others have started to use campus-wide filters that “stop the flow” of copyrighted material. 
    This article is important to my paper because it gives examples of possible solutions that, in my opinion, are completely unfair to the students.  These solutions are the exact WRONG way to solve the file-sharing problem.  Blocking P2P programs is unfair because they can be used in many legal ways.  Students should be allowed to share non-copyrighted material over the internet as much as they please.  That is one of the basic functions of the internet.  This right should not be taken away because the RIAA is unhappy.  Also, where would these types of restrictions end?  Would universities eventually block email programs because copyrighted music files can be distributed by email?  Filters that block the distribution of copyrighted material are a better idea.  But what if the student has a fair use for the copyrighted material?  Shouldn’t he or she have access to this material to use in projects or presentations for media studies classes? 
    This article’s argument in favor of the RIAA goes against my thesis, but it does make sense.  There are many people who are hurt by copyright infringement, which is unfortunate, but a FAIR solution must be implemented to help these people.

Links to international trade associations, conferences, journals, university programs related to design in a wide variety of areas.

from publisher...

What is the magic formula for turning a place into a high-tech capital? How can a city or region become a high-tech powerhouse like Silicon Valley? For over half a century, through boom times and bust, business leaders and politicians have tried to become "the next Silicon Valley," but few have succeeded. This book examines why high-tech development became so economically important late in the twentieth century, and why its magic formula of people, jobs, capital, and institutions has been so difficult to replicate. Margaret O'Mara shows that high-tech regions are not simply accidental market creations but "cities of knowledge"--planned communities of scientific production that were shaped and subsidized by the original venture capitalist, the Cold War defense complex.

At the heart of the story is the American research university, an institution enriched by Cold War spending and actively engaged in economic development. The story of the city of knowledge broadens our understanding of postwar urban history and of the relationship between civil society and the state in late twentieth-century America. It leads us to further redefine the American suburb as being much more than formless "sprawl," and shows how it is in fact the ultimate post-industrial city. Understanding this history and geography is essential to planning for the future of the high-tech economy, and this book is must reading for anyone interested in building the next Silicon Valley.

Margaret Pugh O'Mara teaches history at Stanford University. The dissertation this book is based upon won the Urban History Association's award for Best Dissertation in Urban History completed in 2002.

from publisher...

What is the magic formula for turning a place into a high-tech capital? How can a city or region become a high-tech powerhouse like Silicon Valley? For over half a century, through boom times and bust, business leaders and politicians have tried to become "the next Silicon Valley," but few have succeeded. This book examines why high-tech development became so economically important late in the twentieth century, and why its magic formula of people, jobs, capital, and institutions has been so difficult to replicate. Margaret O'Mara shows that high-tech regions are not simply accidental market creations but "cities of knowledge"--planned communities of scientific production that were shaped and subsidized by the original venture capitalist, the Cold War defense complex.

At the heart of the story is the American research university, an institution enriched by Cold War spending and actively engaged in economic development. The story of the city of knowledge broadens our understanding of postwar urban history and of the relationship between civil society and the state in late twentieth-century America. It leads us to further redefine the American suburb as being much more than formless "sprawl," and shows how it is in fact the ultimate post-industrial city. Understanding this history and geography is essential to planning for the future of the high-tech economy, and this book is must reading for anyone interested in building the next Silicon Valley.

Margaret Pugh O'Mara teaches history at Stanford University. The dissertation this book is based upon won the Urban History Association's award for Best Dissertation in Urban History completed in 2002.