1. CSG Policy Discussion: Copyright Compliance at All Levels Organizers: - Tracy Futhey - Tracy Mitrano - Steve Worona And featuring: - Greg Jackson - Mark Luker - Heidi Wachs - The CSG Chorus

2. Outline Audible Magic at Chicago (Greg Jackson) Grooveshark (Tracy Futhey) A modest proposal from Warner Music Group (Mark Luker) An immodest proposal from Georgetown (Heidi Wachs) A proposal for one or more CSG position papers (Tracy/Tracy/Steve)

3. CSG Position Papers - Topics 1- CSG statement on why it’s inappropriate to use number of DMCA notices received by a campus as a measure of how much infringement is taking place on that campus, how good a job the campus is doing to combat infringement, how campuses compare in their anti- infringement work, etc. 2- CSG statement on the appropriate treatment of “making available”-based infringement claims. 3- CSG statement on hosted-content vs passive-conduit infringement notices. 4- CSG statement on acceptable business models for music (etc) distribution in the digital world. 5- CSG statement on whether campuses should forward pre-litigation letters and, in general, whether to comply with the other requests contained in these letters (eg, preserving data). 6- CSG statement on whether campuses should challenge requests for information in various contexts, including John Doe lawsuits. 7- CSG statement on log retention and disposition. 8- CSG statement on the HEA provisions, perhaps suitable for submission to the Department of Education. 9- Update on January statement. 10- CSG statement on DPI.

4. CSG Position Papers - Process Choose one (zero?) or more topics today Delegate small (2-3 people) group to draft paper(s) Circulate/review electronically Adopt electronically and/or at next CSG meeting Publish on Web

5. Advocacy Steve’s choices –Why it’s wrong to count DMCA notices –Hitting back on “making available” –512(a) vs 512(c) Tracy Futhey’s choices –The Zen of logging –CSG statement on HEA Tracy Mitrano’s choice –Forwarding (not) pre-litigation letters

6. Logging The purpose of this statement would be an articulation of the valid set of business factors that influence log retention and disposition procedures, and to clarify that differences among higher ed policies in this space are are reasoned rather than random. The position paper would likely cover three areas: (1) a level setting introduction that articulates the purpose of logs from the network/security/IT perspective (or otherwise); (2) a short articulation of the range of log retention periods based on a very informal show of hands at the next meeting (e.g., ranges from 2 weeks to 6 months); and (3) a very quick inventory of some of the business, technical and other considerations that can influence the duration of log retention (cost, storage, network operations, security incident forensics, personnel/student judicial actions, traffic and performance monitoring/trending, etc.)

7. Pre-Litigation Pre-Written 1. The most important goal is to keep higher education and our networks out of the fray of the copyright wars. To that end we have already failed (HEA) so now it is just a matter of damage control and riding the storm out with the least restrictive means possible (see rule making for HEA). 2. We must respect the diversity of our institutions, and the fact that for some the use of deep-packet inspection systems is consistent with their culture and traditions. To that end, we must not fight amongst ourselves about this or any other means by which an institution attempts to address the challenge. 3. Having laid down that foundation, I do, however, make the case that higher education should rethink one particular issue: the popular response to the RIAA- specific strategy of forwarding pre-settlement letters to students. In the beginning, we did so because on balance we believed that it benefitted the student to know as soon as possible that the RIAA threatened a law suit and had established a time table by which they could settle.

8. Pre-Litigation Pre-Written Question: But is it in the interest of our institutions to allow ourselves to be placed in the middle of the “malefactors on the left and the malefactors on the right?” (T. Roosevelt, speaking on the matter of trusts and the social unrest that reacted to their power.) Isn’t this kind of position exactly what the content industry wants and needs to demonstrate to Congress and state legislators that we are in the middle... ignoring the statistics of usage (4% residential student infringement out of US total) and more important, the passive conduit provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, section 512(a), which provides legal immunity when the I.S.P. is not the server of allegedly infringing material. Thus, we play into their strategy to target us for discriminatory legislation. Moreover: Students as a rule do not want higher education to even have the perception of being a midwife of the RIAA. And: Aren’t we in fact infantilizing students by playing this role? When: A copyright infringement claim remains a valid and viable option for the content industry without our complicity.

9. Pre-Litigation Pre-Written In fact: Isn’t higher education making it easier for the content industry to use the legal process by having us to the work of a subpoena, and implicating us in their effort to turn intellectual property from the means to the ends as they squeeze the last dimes of their (antiquated) business model? Why: Would we allow ourselves to be placed in such a position when the content industry, and the RIAA in particular, have broken the promises of the Joint Commission, withheld no opprobrium on higher education and have treated us in a demeaning and derogatory manner before Congress, in legislation and in public opinion. 4. Conclusion: With ample education, notice and communication to students and their communities, higher education should make it known that it will no longer pass pre-settlement letters to students.