Computing & Information Services

Computing Policy Committee Meeting Minutes

March 9, 2007

3:00 – 4:00 p.m., ETC 309


Committee members in attendance: Paul Hovda, Luc Monnin, Akihiko Miyoshi, Sonia Sabnis, Marianne Colgrove, Dena Hutto, Karen King, Stephen Wissow, Alex Botero-Lowry, Ed McFarlane, Gary Schlickeiser, Marty Ringle, Molly Thurston Parker.

Absent:  David Schiff, Representative from the Dean of Faculty Office

Marty Ringle chaired the meeting in David Schiff’s absence.

Computer Theft/Loss/Damage Policy Review

Marty called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.  At the last meeting, the committee endorsed amendments to the User Agreement and Procedures for Handling Violations of the User Agreement. The committee concluded its annual policy review by addressing proposed changes to the Computer Theft, Loss or Damage policy, primarily with regard to increased hardware security measures. The members discussed and clarified the wording on some of the proposed amendments. Aki Miyoshi moved to approve the policy as amended. Alex Botero-Lowry seconded the motion. As none were opposed, the motion carried unanimously. The policy with updated wording is appended to these minutes.

Altered landscape for handling copyright violations (RIAA)

Dealing with second offenses – for the first time, a Reed student was cited for a second copyright violation. Marty described the DMCA guidelines and reviewed Reed’s process for handling DMCA complaints, as outlined in a document prepared by Gary Schlickeiser:
Since 2002 Reed has received approximately 50 DMCA infringement notifications.  All but two of the requests were for first time offenders. The following steps are taken upon receipt of a notification:
  • We check various logs and registration information to determine the owner of the system.
  • If the system is active we attempt to verify that the system is running a P2P server.
  • We deny the system’s Internet access to comply with the DMCA’s requirement that we take down the copyrighted material.
  • We send a message to the copyright owner (or agent) indicating that we have taken down the material and that we will be contacting the owner. We do not disclose any identity information.
  • We contact the owner by phone to inform the person of the infringement notification and ask if he or she has downloaded or shared the copyrighted material in question without permission.  In nearly every case the person has immediately acknowledged responsibility.
If the owner confirms that he or she has shared the copyrighted material in question without permission we:
  • require the owner to read the Computer User Agreement and to review information about the DMCA statute and copyright regulations on the CIS website, in the student Technology Survival Guide, and on industry web pages;
  • require the owner to sign a letter addressed to CIS confirming that he or she was sharing the copyrighted material, understands that it was illegal as well as being a violation of Reed’s acceptable use policies, and promises not to do this again while associated with Reed.  The letter is stored in a CIS file.
  • deny their system access to the network for five days;
  • we inform the Dean of Students of the actions taken.
On only one occasion has a user initially denied violating copyright.  Gary asked the user to come to his office to discuss the takedown request and, upon arriving at his office, the user admitted the violation.


Marty detailed the process for handling the recently received 2nd offense:

When the person acknowledged responsibility, we arranged a meeting and asked the person to sign a letter addressed to the Dean of Students that we drafted in which the owner:
  • admitted violating their user agreement and Reed’s acceptable use policies for a second time though they had promised in writing not to do so;
  • confirmed that they were aware that copyright violations were illegal as well as a violation of Reed’s policies;
  • indicated their understanding that a third violation could bring very severe sanctions including possible denial of access to Reed’s network and other computer resources, suspension, and possible litigation.

The person signed the letter as requested.  The person's computer was denied access to Reed’s network for one week and to the Internet for the balance of the semester.  Access to the network and the Internet continued to be available to the person via IRC, Library, and other campus computers.

Alex said that cutting off internet access for the remainder of semester is excessive punishment.  Marty noted that the person can still access IRC and library computers, and can still access on-campus services from their dorm computer.  After further discussion, the consensus of the committee was that the current measures (as detailed above) are appropriate and should continue to be applied (with one member voicing dissent).

Marty reviewed the new process that the RIAA has implemented (he circulated a sample RIAA lawsuit notification letter to the committee):

The RIAA has implemented a strategy for effectively bypassing the provisions of the DMCA by sending letters to colleges indicating their intention to sue the owner of an infringing system and asking that the letter be passed on to the owner.  The letter tells the owner that he/she can avoid a lawsuit by immediately contacting the RIAA and paying a settlement fee.  If the owner declines to do this, a subpoena will be obtained, requiring Reed to disclose the owner's identity.  A suit will then be filed.  The owner may, at that time, avoid prosecution by paying a settlement fee –– but it will be higher than the original settlement amount. The owner would also avoid legal fees and possible public disclosure of the case.  If the user again declines, the legal case will be pursued.
More than 400 of these letters have already been sent to colleges and universities.  To the best of our knowledge, all institutions have complied with the RIAA request to forward the letters.  We are discussing this matter with the President, the CPC, the President's Staff, legal counsel, and others to determine how CIS will proceed if the College receives this type of letter.

Reed’s current position is that there would have to be exceptional circumstances for us to decline to respond to a subpoena.  Marty asked the committee members how they thought Reed should proceed when we receive a letter from the RIAA? The current intention is to cut off internet access, contact the accused individual, inform the user of the accusation, and ask whether or not the user committed the copyright infringement. If the user admits the act, we will require the person to sign the standard letter, give the person the RIAA letter, and explain that it is up to the person to decide whether or not to respond to the RIAA. We will not divulge the user’s identity unless we receive a subpoena. If a user denies responsibility, we will have the user sign a “denial” letter, give the user the RIAA letter, and inform the RIAA that the user has denied responsibility.

Paul Hovda wondered how we would respond to the RIAA if the user admits to committing the offense.  He said that the college should protect itself legally, and the proposed procedure seems to do that. Alex wondered if there would be any advantage to not forwarding the RIAA letter to the user. Gary stated that most colleges want to give the owner the opportunity to decide how to respond. Marty noted that there is also the moral issue of a person’s right to know that he or she has been accused of a crime and have an opportunity to defend him or herself. He noted that we will inform the Reed community of the new RIAA process about the increased risk right after spring break. The committee approved the process outlined above: to forward letters from the RIAA to the user involved, and to educate the college community about the new developments.

Agenda items for the next meeting:
1.    Briefing on Reed's CALEA status and authentication requirements
2.    Email as medium of "official communication" to employees, students, others
3.    Mid-term report on Five Year Technology Goals