Does MIT believe that copying the wrong bits warrants prison time?
Comments about your question:
Industry lobbyists have distorted copyright enforcement procedures to the extent that distributing bits can now put a person in a federal prison for more then half of their life. Does the reality of copyright law as it exists conflict with MIT's values of open access to education and creative freedom? If so, how can MIT better defend those values?
January 23, 2013
3 Comments
I agree that the best parts
Submitted by cajones@mit.edu on
I agree that the best parts of MIT culture should lead, first, reflection after the Abelson report establishes the sequence of events, and second, a national conversation on what kinds of information should remain free and unconstrained.
This question is far too
Submitted by tvald on
This question is far too broad to be answered by a review. It's certainly an important question, and one that the faculty have been engaged in for many years, but "MIT" as a community is necessarily going to have a broad spectrum of views.
Perhaps this should be narrowed to ask specifically whether President Reif supports open access and freedom of information, and whether he is willing to commit MIT's administration to furthering those principles through lobbying and legal action. (Note that lobbying isn't MIT's forte, so don't expect much even if he were to agree.)
Alternatively, a survey of the faculty's opinions and actions regarding open access and freedom of information could be useful for the community.
I disagree with tvald; MIT's
Submitted by hwkns@mit.edu on
I disagree with tvald; MIT's mission explicitly includes the dissemination of knowledge, and the faculty obviously believes in open access (http://libraries.mit.edu/sites/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/). The question is not about lobbying for change, but the specific decision MIT made to pursue punishment against someone for copying the wrong bits. "How can MIT better defend those values?" is a great question -- one answer might be to survey the faculty and lobby congress, but another answer might simply be to stop wasting resources on the prosecution of individuals whose acts actually align with MIT's mission.