Top Ten Reasons Why Ubuntu Is Best for Enterprise Use
http://www.cio.com/article/155753


Techdirt: Congress Moves Forward With Required University Subsidies To Napster, Ruckus
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071115/173305.shtml
from the business-as-usual dept
Earlier this week, we wrote about how Congress had slipped a provision into the Higher Education Act that would require universities to put in place a plan to have published policies on unauthorized file sharing and to also "develop a plan" to offer "legal alternatives" such as Napster or Ruckus. Of course, some would point out that many file sharing systems, by themselves are legal. It's just that some people are using them for things that break the law. Really, what this bill represents is a gov't backed subsidy for Napster and Ruckus, forcing colleges to offer them even if their students don't want it. It's not clear, at all, why Congress should be in the business of demanding a particular type of music delivery system be offered on college campuses. The announcement of the bill resulted in plenty of attention, leading the House committee that was debating the Act to distribute a "fact sheet" that is anything but factual. It accused those criticizing the bill of being "supporters of intellectual property theft." That is not the case at all. In fact, it's rather insulting that Congress would automatically assume that anyone who questions why Congress is forcing universities to pay for commercial music distribution systems is a "supporter of intellectual property theft."
Of course, when the committee is calling anyone who opposes such a plan as being a supporter of theft, it's no surprise that they wouldn't take any of the criticisms seriously andmoved forward with the bill without any changes to the controversial section. They also dismissed the claims that universities who don't sign up for Napster or Ruckus would lose financial aid funding, though, that's clearly what the bill allows to happen -- and you know that the RIAA and MPAA (and Napster and Ruckus, for that matter) will push to make it a viable threat.
Either way, it would be nice for Congressional supporters to answer this simple question: Why is it any part of Congress's business to mandate that universities sign up for a commercial music distribution service?

MPAA Explains Why It's Okay To Tie Federal Funds To Blocking File Sharing
from the because-we-say-so,-dammit dept
While Congress' new bill on education funding may not be as bad as some are making it out to be, it still seems quite questionable that Congress appears to be regulating the idea that universities need to do the kind of marketing and educational campaigns that the recording industry cannot. We've asked supporters of the bill to explain how it could possibly make sense to mandate such things, and the MPAA's top lawyer, Fritz Attaway, has given his answer, claiming that it's because the internet is "used primarily to allow college students to traffic in infringing content," while being subsidized by gov't funds. It would be nice if Attaway or someone else at the MPAA could actually back up the claim that the primary use of the internet by students is infringement. While I wouldn't doubt that it's a popular use, to say that it's the primary use is hard to believe -- unless you count things like visiting Facebook pages, using Google and sending emails as "infringement." At the same time, this doesn't seem to support the reasons for this bill. After all, many kids on college campuses own cars -- and I'd imagine that most of those students break the speed limit frequently enough. Yet, we don't see any bills being proposed in Congress that would prevent financial aid funding unless universities start handing out more speeding tickets and put in place plans to offer public transportation. So why should they do that for copyright infringement?