Key Heoa Compliance Obligations

KEY HEOA COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS November 11-13, 2009

Susan K. Hattan National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities Washington, DC

I. DISCUSSION

Over the past several years, the recording and movie industries have been aggressive at attempting to stop the illegal downloading of copyrighted material by college students. Much of their activity has focused on taking legal action against students on college campuses.

Institutions have acted to address the issue. In December 2002, a Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities was formed, and it focused on three basic approaches: (1) campus policies and practices aimed towards reducing copyright violations; (2) use of computer management technologies to preclude violations; and (3) development of legal online music subscription services on campus.

Apparently dissatisfied with the progress of those efforts, the industry sought a legislative solution in 2006 as part of consideration of the Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization. During House consideration of the HEA reauthorization bill in March 2006, Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) introduced an amendment that would have required colleges to report annually to the Secretary of Education and to the Attorney General regarding their activities related to copyright violations and whether they use technology meant to prevent illegal file sharing and offer services that would permit legal downloads.

The American Council on Education, joined by several other higher education associations, expressed strong opposition to the amendment--based on concerns that it would draw the Attorney General into HEA program participation agreements (completely unprecedented), that the information requested would not be useful to students and parents, and that the Higher Education Act was not the appropriate place in which to address these concerns. The amendment was not offered, but several members of the House engaged in a colloquy with the then chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Representative Howard (“Buck”) McKeon (R-CA) to express concern that institutions of higher education were not doing as much as they should to deter illegal file sharing.

During the following Congress, both the House and Senate did include peer-to-peer file sharing provisions in their respective HEA reauthorization bills. As signed into law, the HEOA includes new disclosure requirements regarding institutional policies and sanctions as well as requirements for institutions to develop plans to combat illegal activity in this area.

II. COMPLIANCE AREA

Peer-to-Peer File Sharing

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 1 III. COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVES

The HEOA requires institutions to make disclosures to students about institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement. In addition, an institution must certify it has developed plans to combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material (including the use of technology-based deterrents) and will, to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to illegal downloading.

IV. PRIMARY SOURCE(S) OF COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION(S)

Statute Statutory Language [New language in bold.]

SEC. 485. [20 U.S.C. 1092] INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE INFORMATION FOR STUDENTS

(a) INFORMATION DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES.—

(1) Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall carry out information dissemination activities for prospective and enrolled students (including those attending or planning to attend less than full time) regarding the institution and all financial assistance under this title. The information required by this section shall be produced and be made readily available upon request, through appropriate publications, mailings, and electronic media, to an enrolled student and to any prospective student. Each eligible institution shall, on an annual basis, provide to all enrolled students a list of the information that is required to be provided by institutions to students by this section and section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (also referred to as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974), together with a statement of the procedures required to obtain such information. The information required by this section shall accurately describe—

(P) institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement, including — (i) an annual disclosure that explicitly informs students that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to civil and criminal liabilities; (ii) a summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws; and (iii) a description of the institution's policies with respect to unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary actions that are taken against students who engage in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution's information technology system;

SEC. 487 [20 U.S.C. 1094] PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS. (a) REQUIRED FOR PROGRAMS OF ASSISTANCE; CONTENTS.—In order to be an eligible institution for the purposes of any program authorized under this title, an institution must be an institution of higher education or an eligible institution (as that term is defined for the The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 2 purpose of that program) and shall, except with respect to a program under subpart 4 of part A, enter into a program participation agreement with the Secretary. The agreement shall condition the initial and continuing eligibility of an institution to participate in a program upon compliance with the following requirements:

* * * (29) The institution certifies that the institution-- (A) has developed plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the use of a variety of technology-based deterrents; and (B) will, to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property, as determined by the institution in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution.

Regulations

Final Regulations Department of Education - General and Non-Loan Programmatic Issues; Final Rule 74 Federal Register 55901-55969. October 29, 2009, on line at: Department of Education; Office of Postsecondary Education; General and Non-Loan Programmatic Issues; 34 CFR Parts 600, 668, 675, 686, 690, and 692; Final regulations. [OPE]

Proposed Regulations Department of Education - General and Non-Loan Programmatic Issues; Proposed Rule – 74 Federal Register 42379-42463. August 21, 2009, online at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-18550.pdf

Proposed regulation dealing with P2P file sharing at 34 CFR §§668.14(b) and 668.43(a)

Note: The peer-to-peer file sharing provisions were one of the issues negotiated by Team V. Although the negotiators reached consensus on the file sharing provisions, they did not reach consensus on all the issues being negotiated. As such, the Department of Education was not bound by the decision of the team in issuing regulations. However, in this case, the Department chose to include the file sharing provisions agreed to by the negotiators in both the proposed and final regulations.

Preamble (pp. 42391-3)

Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Copyrighted Material (§§668.14(b) and 668.43(a))

Statute: The HEOA added a new requirement to section 487 of the HEA (Program Participation Agreement) under which an institution must certify that it has developed plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material (including through the use of a variety of technology-based deterrents) and will, to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property, as

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 3 determined by the institution in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution.

In addition, as part of the required information an institution must make available to prospective and enrolled students, the HEOA added new subparagraph (P) to section 485(a)(1) of the HEA to require a description of institutional policies and sanctions related to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. This description includes (1) an annual disclosure that explicitly informs students that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to civil and criminal liabilities; (2) a summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws; and (3) the institution's policies with respect to unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary actions that are taken against students who engage in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution's information technology system.

Current Regulations: Section 668.41(c) requires an institution to provide to enrolled students an annual notice containing a list and brief description of the consumer information it must disclose and the procedures for obtaining this consumer information. The term notice is defined in § 668.41(a) as a means of notification of the availability of information an institution is required to disclose on a one-to-one basis through a direct individual notice to each enrolled student. This notice must be made through an appropriate mailing or publication, including direct mailing through the U.S. Postal Service, campus mail or electronic mail. Posting on Internet or Intranet Web sites does not constitute notice. If the institution discloses the consumer information listed in §668.41(c) by posting the information on a Web site, it must include in the notice the exact electronic address at which the information is posted, and a statement that the institution will provide a paper copy of the information on request.

Section 668.41(a) defines a prospective student as an individual who has contacted an eligible institution requesting information concerning admission to that institution.

Proposed Regulations: Program Participation Agreement (PPA) Section 668.14(b)(30)(i) would implement section 487(a)(29)(A) of the HEA to require an institution, as a condition of participation in a title IV, HEA program, to agree that it has developed and implemented written plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution's network without unduly interfering with the educational and research use of the network.

An institution would have to include in its plan: The use of one or more technology-based deterrents; Mechanisms for educating and informing its community about appropriate versus inappropriate use of copyrighted material. The written plan would include the information contained in proposed Sec. 668.43(a)(10). These mechanisms could include any additional information and approaches determined by the institution to contribute to the effectiveness of the plan, such as including pertinent information in student handbooks, honor codes, and codes of conduct in addition to e-mail and/or paper disclosures. Procedures for handling unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including disciplinary procedures; and

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 4 Procedures for periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the plans to combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials by users of the institution's network using relevant assessment criteria. It would be left to each institution to determine what relevant assessment criteria are.

The regulations would make clear that no particular technology measures are favored or required for inclusion in an institution's plans, and each institution retains the authority to determine what its particular plans for compliance will be, including those that prohibit content monitoring.

Proposed §668.14(b)(30)(ii) would implement section 487(a)(29)(B) of the HEA by requiring that an institution, in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution, to the extent practicable, offer legal alternatives to illegal downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material, as determined by the institution. The proposed regulations would also require that institutions (1) be required to periodically review the legal alternatives for downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material and (2) make the results of the review available to their students through a Web site or other means. Consumer Information

Proposed § 668.43(a)(10) would implement section 485(a)(1)(P) of the HEA. Information regarding institutional policies and sanctions related to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material would be included in the list of institutional information provided upon request to prospective and enrolled students. This information would be required to (1) explicitly inform its students that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject a student to civil and criminal liabilities; (2) include a summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws; and (3) describe the institution's policies with respect to unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary actions that are taken against students who engage in illegal downloading or unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution's information technology system. The Department will work with representatives of copyright holders and institutions to develop a summary of the civil and criminal penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws to include as part of the Federal Student Aid Handbook that an institution may use to meet this requirement.

As current § 668.41(c) requires an institution to provide to enrolled students an annual notice containing a list and brief description of the consumer information it must disclose and the procedures for obtaining this consumer information, an institution would be required to add to this list the fact that it must make readily available information regarding institutional policies and sanctions related to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Consistent with the current definition of notice in § 668.41(a), an institution would be required to provide this annual notice on a one-to-one basis through a direct individual notice to each enrolled student. This notice must be made through an appropriate mailing or publication, including direct mailing through the U.S. Postal Service, campus mail or electronic mail. Posting on Internet or Intranet Web sites does not constitute notice. If the institution discloses the consumer information by posting the information on a Web site, it must include in the notice the exact electronic address at which the information is posted, and a statement that the institution will provide a paper copy of the information on request.

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 5 The current definition of prospective student in § 668.41(a) would be used--i.e., an individual who has contacted an eligible institution requesting information concerning admission to that institution.

Reasons: The regulations are amended to reflect the changes made by the HEOA.

These proposed regulations reflect the work of a subcommittee of representatives of institutions, digital content owners, and Department staff that was formed by the larger committee to address copyright issues. The members of the subcommittee were able to successfully reconcile vastly disparate viewpoints on several contentious parts of the statute to develop proposed regulatory language that was then presented to, and tentatively agreed upon by, the full committee. The Department has chosen to preserve the compromises made by all sides on this issue by including the proposed regulatory language on which tentative agreement was reached. The Department believes that the proposed regulations provide enough specificity to emphasize that institutions must take seriously their role in combating unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials by users of their network, while providing enough flexibility to institutions in how they combat any unauthorized distribution to acknowledge the differences among institutions and their networks, as well as variances in the scope of the problem of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.

Program Participation Agreement

The Department believes the intent of the statute was to require institutions to actively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Accordingly, § 668.14(b)(30)(i) would require an institution to agree as part of its program participation agreement that it not only has developed a plan to do so, but has also implemented that plan. In recognition that there must be a balance between network security and the functioning of a network for its intended use, § 668.14(b)(30)(i) would also make clear that an institution is not required to take measures to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material that would unduly interfere with the educational and research use of the network. The Department believes that all institutions can achieve this balance, given the flexibility provided by the proposed regulations allowing individual institutions to determine how to best effectively combat such unauthorized distribution. Institutions should not view this provision as a justification for not effectively combating the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Although there was some discussion of requiring an institution to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by only student users of the institution's network, the regulatory language on which tentative agreement was reached would apply the requirement more broadly to ``users.'' This approach ensures that institutions will be more likely to deter and prevent downloads of copyrighted material by employees and members of the public that may use computers at a school library, for example, and also allow them to identify illegal downloads being made by students who are not accessing the computer systems using their student accounts. The Department believes that this approach meets the intent of the statute that institutions secure their networks from misuse by individuals who are given access to the networks.

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 6 In recognition of the diversity among institutions and how technology is continuously evolving, Sec. 668.14(b)(30)(i)(A) would leave it up to an institution's discretion to determine how many and what type of technology-based deterrents it uses as a part of its plan--although every institution must employ at least one. The Statement of Managers in the Conference Report for the HEOA discusses this issue on pages 547-549 (H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 110-803, at 547-549 (2008)), and provides context and clarification to this requirement as follows:

Experience shows that a technology-based deterrent can be an effective element of an overall solution to combat copyright infringement, when used in combination with other internal and external solutions to educate users and enforce institutional policies.

Effective technology-based deterrents are currently available to institutions of higher education through a number of vendors. These approaches may provide an institution with the ability to choose which one best meets its needs, depending on that institution's own unique characteristics, such as cost and scale. These include bandwidth shaping, traffic monitoring to identify the largest bandwidth users, a vigorous program of accepting and responding to Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices, and a variety of commercial products designed to reduce or block illegal file sharing.

Rapid advances in information technology mean that new products and techniques are continually emerging. Technologies that are promising today may be obsolete a year from now and new products that are not even on the drawing board may, at some point in the not too distant future, prove highly effective. The Conferees intend that this Section be interpreted to be technology neutral and not imply that any particular technology measures are favored or required for inclusion in an institution's plans. The Conferees intend for each institution to retain the authority to determine what its particular plans for compliance with this Section will be, including those that prohibit content monitoring. The Conferees recognize that there is a broad range of possibilities that exist for institutions to consider in developing plans for purposes of complying with this Section.

The Department believes that some institutions may be able to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material using only one of the four types of technology- based deterrents (bandwidth shaping, traffic monitoring, accepting and responding to DMCA notices, or a commercial product designed to reduce or block illegal file sharing) while others may need to employ a combination of such deterrents.

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 7 The additional proposed components of an effective plan in § 668.14(b)(30)(i)(B) and (C) reflect general agreement by the committee that a plan to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution's network should include an educational component and a description of the institution's procedures for handling the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material to provide a deterrent by ensuring that users are made aware that the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is illegal, what actions constitute illegal distribution of copyrighted material, and the potential penalties for the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials.

The final component of the plan, in proposed § 668.14(b)(30)(i)(D), would require an institution to periodically review its plan to evaluate whether it is working. One of the most controversial aspects of the proposed regulations was the evaluation of whether a plan was effectively combating the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. There was extensive discussion over how a plan should be reviewed to determine its effectiveness, and how much discretion institutions should be given in this area. Ultimately, tentative agreement was reached on a provision requiring an institution to periodically review its plan using relevant assessment criteria, permitting an institution discretion to determine the most appropriate criteria. As the specifics of a plan will be determined by an institution, the Department believes that the institution is in the best position to determine the appropriate criteria to assess its plan. In some cases, appropriate assessment criteria might be process-based, so long as the institution's information system information does not contradict such a determination. Such process-based criteria might look at whether the institution is following best practices, as laid out in guidance worked out between copyright owners and institutions or as developed by similarly situated institutions that have devised effective methods to combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. In other cases, assessment criteria might be outcome-based. The criteria might look at whether there are reliable indications that a particular institution's plans are effective in combating the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Among such indications may be ``before and after'' comparisons of bandwidth used for peer-to-peer applications, low recidivism rates, and reductions (either in absolute or in relative numbers) in the number of legitimate electronic infringement notices received from rights holders. The institution is expected to use the assessment criteria it determines are relevant to evaluate how effective its plans are in combating the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials by users of the institution's networks.

In addition to reflecting the statute requiring that institutions, to the extent practicable, offer legal alternatives to illegal downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material, proposed § 668.14(b)(30)(ii) reflects general agreement that institutions should periodically review the legal alternatives, and make available the results of the review to its students through a Web site or other means, as such legal alternatives are likely to change over time. Based on the discussions of the subcommittee, the Department anticipates that individual institutions, national associations, and commercial entities will develop and maintain up-to-date lists that may be referenced for compliance with this provision.

Consumer Information

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 8 For consistency, § 668.43(a)(10) would implement the consumer information portion of the statute within the existing framework and using the definitions found in current regulations. The committee discussed whether the statutorily required annual disclosure should be a one-to-one notice provided directly to each student by the institution. However, as the statute requires that most institutional information in this section of the HEA instead be made readily available to prospective and enrolled students, the information regarding institutional policies and sanctions related to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material would be handled in the same manner (i.e., included in the list of institutional information that an institution must make available pursuant to § 668.43). The Department believes that the required disclosure of institutional policies and sanctions related to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials can be met without imposing the burden of a one-to-one notification on institutions.

There was some discussion by the committee of extending the statutory provision to require an institution to disclose the required information to employees of the institution in addition to students. As the statute does not require disclosure of this information to employees, this would not be mandated in the regulations. The Department believes that employees of an institution are more likely to be aware that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is illegal and does not believe that the benefit of such disclosure would justify the potential added burden to the institution. However, we encourage institutions to make such information available to employees and the general public if they believe it will be beneficial.

Paperwork Reduction Act (p. 42421)

Section 668.14(b)(30)--Program Participation Agreement (PPA)

The proposed regulations require an institution, as a condition of participation in a title IV, HEA program, to agree that it has developed and implemented plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution's network without unduly interfering with the educational and research use of the network.

An institution's plan must include: The use of one or more technology-based deterrents; Mechanisms for educating and informing its community about appropriate versus inappropriate use of copyrighted material; Procedures for handling unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including disciplinary procedures; and Procedures for periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the plans.

The proposed regulations make clear that no particular technology measures are favored or required for inclusion in an institution's plans, and each institution retains the authority to determine what its particular plans for compliance will be, including those that prohibit content monitoring.

The proposed regulation requires an institution, in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution, to the extent practicable, offer legal alternatives to illegal downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material, as determined by

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 9 the institution. The proposed regulations would also require that institutions (1) periodically review the legal alternatives for downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material and (2) make the results of the review available to their students through a Web site and/or other means. While the current regulations in Sec. 668.14 point to OMB 1840-0537, we estimate that the proposed changes in Sec. 668.14(b)(30) will increase burden by 91,120 hours for institutions under the redesignated OMB Control Number 1845-0022.

Regulatory Language

§668.14 Program participation agreement. (pp. 42429-30) [Final Regulations p. 55934}

* * * * * (b) * * * (30) The institution-- (i) Has developed and implemented written plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution's network, without unduly interfering with educational and research use of the network, that include-- (A) The use of one or more technology-based deterrents; (B) Mechanisms for educating and informing its community about appropriate versus inappropriate use of copyrighted material, including that described in Sec. 668.43(a)(10); (C) Procedures for handling unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including disciplinary procedures; and (D) Procedures for periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the plans to combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials by users of the institution's network using relevant assessment criteria. No particular technology measures are favored or required for inclusion in an institution's plans, and each institution retains the authority to determine what its particular plans for compliance with paragraph (b)(30) of this section will be, including those that prohibit content monitoring; and (ii) Will, in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution-- (A) Periodically review the legal alternatives for downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material; (B) Make available the results of the review in paragraph (b)(30)(ii)(A) of this section to its students through a Web site or other means; and (C) To the extent practicable, offer legal alternatives for downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material, as determined by the institution;

* * * * * (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0022)

§ 668.43 Institutional information (pp. 42438-9) [Final Regulations: pp. 55943-4]

(a) * * *

* * * * * (10) Institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement, including--

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 10 (i) A statement that explicitly informs its students that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to civil and criminal liabilities; (ii) A summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws; and (iii) A description of the institution's policies with respect to unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary actions that are taken against students who engage in illegal downloading or unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution's information technology system.

Final Regulations

V. RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES

US Department of Education

VI. ENFORCEMENT AND RISK EXPOSURE/SANCTIONS

Failure to comply can result in fines of up to $27,500 for each violation, (see 34 CFR § 668.84) or loss of Title IV eligibility.

VII. COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

 Include in the disclosure materials prepared for students and prospective students information regarding institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement. The law and the proposed regulations require that this disclosure include information regarding the consequences of violations of copyright law and the institution’s policies regarding unauthorized P2P file sharing.

 Develop and implement a written plan to combat unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution’s network.

 Develop, as needed, the elements described in the plan. The plan must include the use of one or more technology-based deterrents; public outreach; procedures for handling violations; and procedures for reviewing the effectivness of plans.

 Conduct a periodic review of legal alternatives for downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material and make the findings of the review available to students.

 To the extent practicable, offer legal alternatives to downloading.

VIII. POSSIBLE RESPONSIBLE CAMPUS UNITS

President; chief information officer; legal counsel.

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 11 IX. COMPLIANCE CALENDAR

This provision went into effect when the bill was signed into law on August 14, 2008.

X. SAMPLE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Cornell University http://www.cit.cornell.edu/policies/copyright/filesharing/

Loyola University Chicago http://luc.edu/its/file_sharing.shtml

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill http://its.unc.edu/ITS/about_its/its_policies/index.htm

Ohio University http://www.ohio.edu/outlook/06-07/May/641n-067.cfm

Reed College http://www.reed.edu/cis/policies/heoa_p2p.html

XI. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

EDUCAUSE EDUCAUSE has followed activity related to the new P2P provisions very closely throughout the HEA reauthorization process. They have developed a great deal of useful background information—examples of which are cited below:

“Proposed HEOA Regulations Issued for P2P Provisions” Created by Steven Worona (EDUCAUSE) on August 25, 2009 http://www.educause.edu/blog/sworona/ProposedHEOARegulationsIssuedf/178175

August 12, 2008 - EDUCAUSE, along with ACE, AAU, and NASULGC, prepared a memo summarizing what the law will require, what happens next, and what you should do now. The memo also includes the relevant portions of the Act, as well as the report language that accompanies and clarifies the law. That memo is posted at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/epo0815.pdf

Illegal File Sharing 101 © 2008 Kent Wada. The text of this article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/). EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 4 (October–December 2008) http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolu m/IllegalFileSharing101/163441

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 12 NACUANOTES - COPYRIGHT, PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING AND DMCA SUBPOENAS – November 6, 2003 This document describes suits brought by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for copyright infringement—one of many activities undertaken by the organization related to P2P file sharing on college campuses. http://counsel.cua.edu/copyright/publications/nacuanotes116.cfm

New Rules Will Push Colleges to Rethink Tactics Against Student Pirates, Chronicle of Higher Education 2/13/09 (subscription required)

Fighting Music and Movie Piracy Costs Colleges Considerably, Study Says, Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/20/08 (subscription required)

The Costs of Policing Campus Networks, Inside Higher Ed, 10/20/08

The National Association of College and University Attorneys Updated: 11-17-09 13