Computing & Information Services

Computing Policy Committee Meeting Minutes
September 21, 2007
3:00 - 4:00 PM, ETC 309

Committee members in attendance:
Jim Fix, Marat Grinberg, Aki Miyoshi, Sonia Sabnis, Vickie Hanawalt, Gary Norbraten, Marty Ringle, Jon Rivenburg, Stephen Wissow, Alex Botero-Lowry, Paul Hovda, Peter Steinberger, Ed McFarlane, Leslie Limper. Gary Schlickeiser as guest for RIAA discussion

Welcome and introductions.

Jim Fix called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Illegal file-sharing: Reed's position with respect to a Congressional survey

Marty Ringle reviewed the RIAA’s recent policy, procedural changes, and their strategies aim at colleges & universities. He provided some background on the debate within higher education about the RIAA’s policies and the status of possible congressional legislation that could affect institutions’ federal funding if they do not comply with required procedures.

A House sub-committee has sent a letter and survey to a number of college and university presidents (Reed has not received one) regarding the steps they are taking to prevent and respond to illegal file-sharing. The CPC decided last spring that Reed should prepare sample responses to the survey as a way of investigating our levels of compliance.

Gary Schlickeiser was present to discuss Reed’s responses to the survey. Marty asked the committee if there were any items of concern or interest in the survey. Stephen Wissow asked if the response to the question on User Agreement violations of whether or not we “Refer violating students to university judicial processes?” should be changed from "no" to "yes".  The committee agreed to change the answer and to note that no students have been referred to the judicial process to date. Marty made the change.

Jim Fix asked under what circumstances the college might respond to an infraction by including a letter in a student’s permanent file. Since the question refers explicitly to “being informed of a suspected violation of your acceptable use policy,” the committee agreed that “no” is the correct answer.

Aki Miyoshi asked whether or not these questions are based on rules or guidelines that colleges are expected to follow.  In other words, are there "correct" answers to these questions from the perspective of the authors of the survey?  Marty indicated his belief that this was indeed the case noting, however, that in his discussion with his counterparts at other institutions, he has found that many have (non-compliant) responses similar to Reed’s. Jim asked if there is any federal funding threat dependent upon responses to the survey. Marty said there’s no threat yet, but legislation pertaining to funding cuts for non-compliance will go before the House this year as part of the re-authorization of the Education Act.

Alex Botero-Lowry noted that if the committee is concerned about certain responses, it might be useful to include explanations for our non-compliance, including legitimate uses for certain file-sharing protocols. Marty asked Gary Schlickeiser to include that language in the document. The committee discussed the challenges and practicality of file-sharing countermeasures.

Alex questioned the justification for the list of legal alternatives to downloading music that is located on CIS’s “copyright FAQ” web page. Alex suggested adding some other resources not affiliated with Digital Rights Management (DRM), stressing that this is an opportunity to promote alternative sources. The committee decided last year not to endorse any particular product. Jim asked whether or not we should mention any sources at all. Alex suggested removing all references to specific sources and replacing them with a generic statement that these resources are available and point to a non-biased source of information about music downloading sites.  There was general agreement on this suggestion.

Communicating and raising awareness of Reed's computer policies, including the updated User Agreement.

Jim stated that since the committee reviewed the User Agreement so thoroughly last year, we need not review it again this year unless someone identifies a particular issue worthy of attention.  No issues were surfaced.  The committee discussed how to better circulate information about changes in the UA. In the past, CIS or the CPC Chair has sent an email to the Reed community indicating that the policy had been updated and reminding them that they are bound by the most current version of the policy. Neither CIS nor the CPC Chair sent out a notification last year since the revisions were finalized very late in the academic year. Marty asked if the committee agreed to alert the community of the changes now. Ed McFarlane moved and Alex Botero-Lowry seconded. All approved.   

Jim adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

The remaining agenda items (below) were deferred to the next meeting. 

  • Report on faculty use of technology and its support
  • Instructional technology hire
  • Moodle pilot program
  • Reed's continued participation in the NITLE consortium
  • Email as means for official communication to employees, students, others