The Rambler (Fort Worth, Tex.), Vol. 99, No. 12, Ed. 1 Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Page: 3 of 6
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Texas Wesleyan University.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Rambler
Opinions
November 21, 2007 3
t
c
a
§
$
0
c
c5
-
O
OX)
#g
a
cj
©
"3 2
m ^ <:
o3
o
r W.SJ
LI
I*
CD
C^-
€0
03
L_
o
"O
O
03
-
*3
©
c?
s
03
OH
&Q
e
U
o
V
©
a-
aJ
p-
*3
£
s
in
o
5«
'SH
£
*_
£
c
#©
i
(D
£
©
'3
ZJ
o
-
M
<
in
Music pirates may ward o inancial aid
Ernest Gomez
DAILY PENNSYLMN1AN/B-WIKE
GUEST COLUMN
I'm used to being the bearer of bad news.
As a former [information technology] man-
ager, I've delivered many copyright-violation
notices to on-campus residents who were caught
downloading and sharing copyrighted music
and video.
Most downloads do not result in lawsuits,
but if the House of Representatives passes the
College Opportunity and Affordability Act, col-
leges might lose eligibility for federal student
financial aid if they fail to address illegal down-
loading on their campus networks.
Pressuring colleges and universities into
protecting the movie and music industries at the
potential expense of students is a morally despi-
cable cave-in to special interests.
Committee
spokeswoman Rachel
Racusen told CNET
News.com that "these
provisions would not
put students or col-
leges at risk for los-
ing financial aid."
She said schools
would only have to
inform students and
employees of its poli-
cies and procedures
related to illegal
downloads, and the
consequences of fail-
ing to heed the new rules would be determined
by the Department of Education.
If the penalties are as light as the committee
aide claims, colleges and universities have less
to fear: Tins bill will have no teeth and illegal
downloading will continue on college campus-
es. However, the precedent set by the bill as
well as its ambiguity should be a cause for con-
cern
Section 494 of the bill reads, "Each eligible
institution participating in any program under
this title shall to the extent practicable ... devel-
op a plan for offering alternatives to illegal
downloading ... as well as a plan to explore
technology-based deterrents to prevent such
illegal activity."
Does this mean that the '"plans" need only
to be developed and not implemented? Does the
word "shall" not imply a requirement but a
strong suggestion? What exactly determines the
'"extent practicable" for an institution?
The vagueness of the bill's language, espe-
cially given the committee's fact sheet, opens
the door for more stringent regulation in the
future should the music and movie industries
pressure their friends in Washington further.
Furthermore, the House Education and
Labor Committee's "fact sheet" in response to
public criticism over the bill tactlessly attacks
the bill's opponents. The committee's responso-
rial fact sheet reads, supporters of intellectual-
property theft are circulating myths about the
bill." Who
could these
evil propo-
nents of pira-
cy be?
None
other than
officials of
the
University of
Maryland,
Stanford,
Yale and
Penn State,
who voiced
their opposi-
tion in a letter to Congress: "Lower-income stu-
dents, those most in need of federal financial
aid, would be harmed most under the entertain-
ment industry's proposal."
It seems odd that a committee that works
hand-in-hand with educational institutions
would indirectly label university officials as
criminals.
Meanwhile, the Motion Picture Association
of America has cited a li st of college campuses
that have already begun monitoring and filtering
file transfers on their networks. The MPAA
claims these efforts have decreased copyright
complaints from as much as 50 per month to
none.
However, at a large, research-heavy institu-
tion such as Penn, the possibility of overly
restrictive network oversight can inhibit legiti-
mate file transfers and hurt productivity. This is
Penn's rationale for not having a centralized
firewall or filter for university network activity.
While network monitoring can virtually
eliminate copyright violations, colleges should
not be legally bound to do the dirty work of the
music and movie industries. Instead of impos-
ing regulatory burden onto colleges and univer-
sities, the music and movie industries should
consider alternative! courses of action.
For example, the MPAA has already begun
charging fines for downloading and sharing
copyrighted content. By acquiring user informa-
tion from a school, the MPAA can penalize stu-
dents without affecting the school's network
activity. The deterrent of a fine also imposes
individual accountability whereas the proposed
bill spreads punishment to the entire university
community.
Hie music and movie industries should also
consider decreasing their prices or finding alter-
native business models to create incentives to
purchase media from them. Radiohead recently
made their newest album available for down-
load with an option for donation. While the
effect of this model on the band's revenue has
yet to be determined, the prospect of artists sell-
ing their work at low prices without record-
label contracts should be a red flag for needed
change.'
With the Internet community consistently
seeking ways to circumvent efforts by the
MPAA and RIAA, morality may be the only
force driving demand for legal music and movie
sales.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel
morally obliged to purchase anything from
someone who holds my financial aid hostage.
Honk if you're illiterate.
Bumper propaganda call readers to critical thinking
Chuck
Fain
Annoying, tacky, insightful, humorous, crass and
cool. All of these adjectives (and more) can and
have been used to describe bumper stickers. While
opinions vary about bumper stickers themselves, the
reason for putting bumper stickers on one's car remains
the same: It is a form of personal expression and an
attempt to connect with others.
Sure, not everyone who
slaps on a "Keep honking, I'm
reloading" sticker on their
car is searching for a
greater connection to
humanity. However, that person still dis-
plays the same motive as those who place
political or band stickers all over their
back window. Both are the driver's per-
sonal opinions or beliefs that they wish to
share with those around them.
Not everyone is interested in seeing
what the person driving in front of them
believes, particularly if the driver has an
opinionated bumper. I've heard the groans
and seen the eyes roll when bumper stickers
are mentioned.
Many blogs and Web sites chastise those
of us with stickers on our back glass, and
some even view it as a childish distraction. Perhaps my own dad summed
up the anti-bumper sticker sentiment best when he said, "Boy, why do you
want to put all that [crap] on your car?"
"Why?" indeed.
For my own purposes, my stickers (consisting of an array of awesome
punk rock bands) identify me with those individuals that like the same
bands or types of bands. The majority of the music I like is not prevalent
in the main stream. No radio station plays hits by Bad Brains or Minor
Threat (see, you don't even know who those bands are). As a result, the
PHATHCPaC
find Drive!
Sflrln9ileid5*^'
To Put W
111 c tar d*
Your Car!
Courtesy
masses are not exposed to "my" type of music.
My bumper stickers, however, go beyond informing others of my dif-
ferent musical tastes. I can separate myself from the average music listener
and identify with others who have similar tastes while informing others of
bands they may not have known existed. I like to think of myself as a
punk rock prophet, spreading the good news wherever I go.
Others who utilize political bumper stickers, I feel,
are doing it for the same reasons: to separate one's
self from the flock, to identify with others like them
and to inform. Especially in Texas, a state about
as red as it can get, those of a liberal mindset
feel an urge to separate themselves from the
conservative flock ... to express their unpop-
ular views that may be smothered in a polit-
ical climate such as this
Exposure to an unpopular or unknown
idea is also the motivation for environmen-
tal stickers, which urge people to take bet-
ter care of the planet.
Funny stickers (or those meant to be
funny) also denote characteristics of the
driver. They display the driver's humor for
the public to read - the driver thought it was
so funny that everyone should enjoy in it.
Even the rude bumper stickers ("You!
Get out of the gene pool!" or "Learn from
your parent's mistakes, use birth control.") are
an extension of that person, which speaks to their humor, their beliefs and
their opinions of others.
Realistically, bumper stickers rarely, if ever, change peoples' minds
about their personal beliefs. These stickers are usually preaching to the
converted. However, bumper stickers do cause people to read and think -
two things that we as a nation should participate in more.
Chuck Fain is a junior writing major and is a staff writer for The Rambler.
Kelli Lamers, adviser
Zainah Usman, photo editor
Bryce Wilks, sports editor
Skyla Claxton, advertising manager
The Rambler
Founded in 1917 as The Handout
Harold G. Jeff coat, Publisher
Member of the Texas Intercollegiate Press Association.
Shawn R Poling, editor-in-chief
Tiara Nugent, managing/college life editor
Colleen Burnie, entertainment editor
Amanda May, Web editor
Opinions expressed in The Rambler are those of the individual author only
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Texas Wesleyan community as a whole.
Letters to the editor: The Rambler, a weekly publication, welcomes all letters.
All submissions must have a full printed name, phone number and signature; however, confidentiality will be granted if requested.
While every consideration is made to publish letters, publication is limited by time and space.
The editors reserve the right to edit all submissions for space, grammar, clarity and style.
Letters to the editor may be subject to response from editors and students on the opinions page.
"We are not afraid to follow the truth...wherever it may lead." -Thomas Jefferson
Address all correspondence to:
Texas Wesleyan University, The Rambler, 1201 Wesleyan St., Fort Worth, TX 76105.
Newsroom: 531-7552 Advertising: 531-7582 Fax: 531-4878
E-mail: twurambler@yahoo.com
Rambler Ratings
Thumbs up to Lisa Wilks in
the business office for
cheerful help all semester.
Thumbs down to the cheesy
Christmas movies coming out
this year.
Thumbs down to executives
who won't give writers their
money. We need our TV!
Thumbs up Cheiyl Gray,
facilities coordinator, for
collecting trash around cam-
pus. Her efforts are
appreciated.
-- Barbara Reese
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Poling, Shawn R. The Rambler (Fort Worth, Tex.), Vol. 99, No. 12, Ed. 1 Wednesday, November 21, 2007, newspaper, November 21, 2007; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth201249/m1/3/?q=%22Religion+-+Denominations+-+Methodist%22: accessed August 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas Wesleyan University.