As regular readers on OSNews will know, I’m quite opposed to the concept of post-sale restrictions, but also the insane countermeasures undertaken by the film and music industry against individuals who illegally download content. The reason I’m so opposed to these things is not because I approve of the act of illegal downloading – no, it’s all about the slippery slope effect.
If downloading illegally uploaded content is illegal in your country – as it is in the US – then I have no problems with the authorities tying to crack down major offenders to discourage the act. The law is the law, and laws must be upheld. If you want different laws, you can vote. Your influence may be minimal, but that’s just the way it is.
What I do have a problem with is private organisations taking it upon themselves to act as if they are government institutions, capable of sentencing individuals – without any form of trial. The RIAA and MPAA are prime examples of this; they are not part of the authorities, and as such, they should not be able to persecute people the way they do.
It might seem like an effective and efficient solution at first. Instead of having the often slow and bureaucratic authorities handle something like piracy, it should be done by a much more nimble and effective private organisation. This is the start of the slippery slope.
Then it gets ever slipperier. Because these organisations are not part of the authorities, there’s no proper oversight. There is no democratically elected group or individual overseeing these organisations, which inevitably leads to abuse. I find it especially weird that the MPAA and RIAA have become so powerful in the US – I have this idyllic image in my head that Americans get to vote for everything, from president to crossing guard.
So, what does this slippery slope lead to? Well, people with little understanding of the MPAA and RIAA will certainly mistake them for government organisations, which is a dangerous outcome. Take the story of Coshocton, OH, a small town with free and open municipal wifi. A single movie was downloaded illegally using this wifi network – and the MPAA shut it down entirely.
Mike LaVigne, IT director, said that dozens, sometimes hundreds of people use the free service every day. On top of that, it uses a single address, making it near-impossible to determine the actual culprit.
From the story it is not entirely clear who shut the network down, but it appears that the network’s administrator was spooked by the suits from the MPAA, probably accompanied by some threatening legal letters, and as a result, shut down the network.
All you people who advocate that companies like Apple or private organisations like the MPAA and RIAA should have control over your legally purchased products and internet connection: this is what you’ll get. This is the world you’re fighting for. I hope you’re happy.
What I sincerely hope is that Apple wins against Psystar, the right of software makers to dictate on what brand of hardware you install their stuff is affirmed, and immediately after the ruling, MS incorporates into their EULA a clause banning dual booting on Macs, but allowing it on all computers of any other brand.
Then I want the GPL to be revised forbidding the installation of any GPL software on Macs, but allowing it on all other brands of computer.
And then I want to see all the Apple mavens get out in the street and cheer for what they wished for having come about.
This is a clear example on why sarcasm and snark are considered the lowest forms of wit. Good grief…
I don’t get what Apple has to do with this. Apple designs the hardware and the software, they have been doing this since 1975 at least. MS does not design hardware and they make there money off the license. There are a lot of Macs and a lot of Macs that run some form of Windows, be it virtual or via bootcamp. So basically your comment makes no sense…
“What I do have a problem with is private organisations taking it upon themselves to act as if they are government institutions, capable of persecuting individuals – without any form of trial.”
Why don’t you support quote UBB?
Edited 2009-11-13 17:59 UTC
Heh, I may have a degree in English but I still learn something new every day.
Thanks.
What does “UBB” mean and what is “quote UBB”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBB
Ultimate Bulletin Board, is where to look in the article above.
Nalle Berg
./nalle.
That’s where I searched first but found nothing enlightening. It’s a disambiguation page, but “Ultimate Bulletin Board” is not one of the alternatives.
The first guy made some comment about a word and the second guy replied “I didn’t know that, thanks, I promise I’ll learn English better” or something like that. I thought the second guy overreacted (because the word was absolutely valid, if not the best choice in context), so I thought I was missing something (perhaps hidden behind the UBB concept; some grammatical concept, I thought). That’s why I asked the second guy about UBB.
It seems they were totally unrelated, so now I have to conclude that the second guy was confused.
This service was made available by the county, and seems to source from the county COURTHOUSE. Illegal activities taking place on a the network of a GOVERNMENT entity SHOULD curtail such activity. Sheesh.
You said you are all for government/legal offices taking action, not public companies… well there you have it, a government network closed its doors because someone did something illegal on it.
I don’t get what you don’t get about this?
Do we close down the roads because someone is speeding on it?
Do we close down the courthouse because someone illegally urinated against it?
Do we close down a hospital because one of the staff trafficked medications to 3rd parties?
Note that these do not come from personal experience. Not all of them, anyway.
Edited 2009-11-13 18:13 UTC
Note that these do not come from personal experience. Not all of them, anyway.
LOL!
Well, not all government networks, or all wireless networks in the area HAVE been shut down (as far as we know), only the one where the potential embarrassment of having illegal activities take place on a government network (sworn to – supposedly – uphold the law). If someone commits a crime and someone else helps make that possible, then that second person, whether they took part in the actual criminal action or not, can be blamed as well.
Don’t be foolish can a knife manufacturer be blamed for murders his knife is used for? The knife and thus the manufacturer clearly helped by providing the knife for a reasonable price. Can a bank teller who packs money for banks robbers at gun point be blamed they helped pack money? Your stament is far to general to be of use.
What a shit! Firstly most roads are PUBLIC so they aren’t closed, if I made road and someone speeded on it I had RIGHT to close it!
Firstly Davids header is bullshit! MPAA didn’t close network, network admins DID IT! Stop pulling rabbits in ass! If someone parks on your place and you put note that says I’m gonna call truck to take your car away and he moves car, does that mean that you took car away? NO! I’m sorry but if someone is so stupid, that when someone LEGALLY asks them to close connection due ILLEGAL activity and say that if they don’t they can be sued which is LEGALLY possible and idiots close the network it’s there fault!
We all know that the Internet is not a road, so please stop trying that analogy.
It is a series of tubes!
Punishing the whole for the actions of an individual, that is probably what people don’t get.
Yeah, it does seem like a crappy thing to do. It would not surprise me if the county was looking for a good reason to shut it down to begin with.
The issue is that a wifi network serving a small town that is used to give citizens of that town access to this increasingly important resource known as the internet was shut down because of the actions of the mpaa. This is like shutting down the schools because one kid got caught cheating. A private organizations shouldn’t be allowed to punish such a large group of people because of the actions of one individual. Furthermore illegally downloading stuff is a civil matter between the downloader and the mpaa, not a criminal offense.
No it is not, really. The internet is still a “luxury” not a necessity. The private organization probably, simply pointed out that a government entity was allowing illegal activities to take place on it. And as I stated before, that is a big no-no. It’s the government, they uphold the law, they implement the law… to have laws being broken on something they maintain is just plain wrong.
So, because someone informs the police that someone was speeding on a particular road, the government should close down that road?
No, the person who downloaded the movie should has no right to do so. They are doing something illegal. However, shutting down the service simply because one person used it to break the law is stupid. Did they honestly expect that no one was ever going to use their network to illegally download something? In this day and age, it happens all the time. It’s not good that it’s so common, but to really expect that no one is going to at least try to illegally download something on a public network of any size is just naive.
People shouldn’t be illegally downloading anything, but the RIAA and the MPAA have too much power and continue to cause trouble for people who actually do follow the law. Shutting down the entire network because of one person is as stupid as it would be to shutdown a road just because one person used that road for illegal activities. It’s just stupid and punishes many people who did nothing wrong.
I am probably not being clear, I have that problem. I agree that if the owner of then network was Starbucks they would have no obligation to shut down the network.
But the owner of the network is a GOVERNMENT ENTITY… I keep typing that in capital letters in the hope that someone will say “Ooooohhhhh! The Government can’t allow people on their network using it to break laws that they are supposed to be involved in enforcing!”
And the internet is NOT a street so please stop equating it to that.
What the heck, people? It seems like such a simple concept to me? Yeah it may be overkill, but it is typical government overkill.
If an entity you are beholden to (employer, FI) requires internet use, it si no longer a luxury. As long as houses are not next door to the businesses in the area, roads are not a luxury. Since many people can be using both are the same time to move things between far away points, the analogy fits exceptionally well.
If an employer requires it, then a) the person better have it for themselves or b) the employer better provide it.
[edit]
And I beg to differ regarding the analogy. Automobiles and the people driving them are not abstract bits of information traveling in a flow of electrons… that represent other abstract things like ideas.
That’s like me saying killing people on a whim is no different from stepping on an ant on a sidewalk. I’m taking a life in each case.
Edited 2009-11-13 21:35 UTC
“And I beg to differ regarding the analogy. Automobiles and the people driving them are not abstract bits of information traveling in a flow of electrons… that represent other abstract things like ideas.”
But if the bits are so “abstract”, then why does MPAA fight for the bits, they are just “abstract bits”, nothing to worry about!
Because they are freaking greedy?
“That’s like me saying killing people on a whim is no different from stepping on an ant on a sidewalk. I’m taking a life in each case.”
No, it’s not. Saying the internet is not a luxury any more than roads are a luxury is saying that keeping roads available and open is something people need for themselves, in order to maintain their current economic and/or social standing, or to actively change it. A commute is often such a necessary thing. Schools use roads for buses. And so on. None of those is anything like killing anything anywhere.
I don’t disagree with that, but in enforcing laws the Government does not have the right to punish innocent people. Granted, the service we’re talking about here is more like a luxury then a necessity and maybe that’s why you can argue your point, but you are starting down a slippery slope.
If I were using a Government service and in order to punish the abuse of a few the Government shut down the service for everyone, then yes, I think I would see that as unfair and perhaps illegal. But as usual, the laws don’t matter as much as who shouts the loudest about which laws should be enforced.
Obviously if you are thinking literally then of course they are two different things. But in a more general way, providing access to roads and providing access to the internet are both Government services (in this case). As such, you can then compare them as Government services. And the poster you are replying to was making the point that just as the Government does not punish the many for the errs of a few when it comes to road services, the same standard should be applied to the internet service.
And beside that point, it’s common sense also. ISPs have common carrier protections, and it would be naive to think the Government cannot have the same protections when providing the same service.
Doesn’t mean it’s right.
Not much about government or big business is “right.”
On a lighter note, my daughter totally rocked in the opening night of “Space Pirates!”
She was a great “Crater,” evil minion of the insidious Chasm.
And for the record, I don’t LIKE what the MPAA/RIAA do… I really do not like it. I am just saying in this instance I understand the reaction of the County.
Absolutely. Just the same as if a local government run bulletin board was being used to advertise illegal activities they would close it down either indefinitely or at least until a measure was put in place to prevent that use.
And Thom, ffs stop trying to tie everything back to reinforcing your deluded stand against Apple. This case is in NO WAY similar to that. There is not one tiny bit of resemblance and your constant infantile efforts to relate just about everything back to that are really getting old, and worse, because there is obviously no relationship between the two it significantly weakens your argument.
Thank you! Yes, that is exactly what I mean.
Not all that long ago, in terms of history, the same was said of schools, or indoor plumbing, or any number of things we now define as necessities. What is necessary changes with the time and society in which you live, and while the internet is not there yet it very likely will eventually be considered as necessary as schools in the future. If we take the word “necessity” literally then it only includes two things: food and water.
I have opinions about those things as well.
Let me guess, you think Atlas Shrugged is the pinnacle of Western thought…
Very funny.
No, I’d say he has a strict interpretation of what constitutes rights, as in natural rights versus’s rights that require others to give up something to make it possible (aka ‘man made rights’). You have the right to work hard, save money, open a business, form relationships and contracts with other free individuals but you cannot use force against another person to achieve those goals. If one were to take it to the logical extreme then one could view income taxation as a form of violence being conducted by the state against the individual.
Edited 2009-11-14 07:56 UTC
Actually it is a necessity. With the economy as bad as it is and rising with numbers of people out of work, they need to look for jobs. Did you know that to apply at a grocery store even you need to fill out the application online? To work at Walmart, you need to fill out the application online? The same is true for McDonald’s even. You can no longer walk into a place and ask for an application, as they now tell you a website to go and fill out an application. Being in that situation myself I have learned how necessary it is. Now granted a person can go to the public library possibly, if they still have a home address that is.
Interesting! Well you got me there! I had no idea you could no longer fill out paper applications and hand them to a manager. So you are saying “but I don’t have an internet connection” that they would not dig out a paper application?
The places that I went to did not have a paper application. So yeah, it really sucks. They tell you to go to the unemployment office or library to use one.
Wow. I guess I am getting old and set in my ways. That seems pretty lame and unfair to someone who is looking to work and who could be a potentially excellent employee.
Believe me, I know. It shocked me.
First off, the government in this case would be considered an ISP and as such is protected under the terms of the DMCA. They can’t be prosecuted.
Second, copyright infringement, counter to what the MPAA would have you believe, is a civil offense and not the jurisdiction of the government to stop. Copyright comes with the burden of defending it yourself. If I write a book, and people pirate it, but I do nothing, the government is NOT going to step in and stop it. They will assume that since I am not taking the pirates to court, that it is ok.
And who do the civil courts answer too? State Supreme courts? Who do they answer to? Etc.
And of COURSE the government is not going to step in if your copyrighted material is stepped on… unless you WORK for the government and you ripped off someone else’s copyrighted material. Then you can pretty much bet your behind you will be terminated from your current gov’t position if a big deal is made about it.
But right now I am more engrossed by this:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/19/8…
That is not true. The US criminal code was modified to include prosecution for willful copyright infringement. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
You are right. However if you read this section:
“(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.”
They have to prove it was “wilfull infringement”. Only the copyright holder can actually say it was infringement. So I kind of wonder how many times the government charges anyone with this without the rights holder getting involved first. You will also notice that only section 1c applies in this case, and that part only applies to someone distributing. Downloading isn’t covered by the language of the clause. Of course, IANAL so I admit I could be wrong.
I’m not sure how they expect to keep their already huge profits by litigation against their customers. There have been several studies done by various consumer groups that indicate that people who download music spend more money on music than those who don’t download.
The means of getting entertainment to the masses have changed, and the movie and recording industries need to be nimble.
Not so long ago, those industries were screaming bloody murder at the concept of easily-recordable cassette tapes. Then, it was CD burning. “We’ll be out of business overnight!” they cried. But, that didn’t happen.
The RIAA and MPAA don’t want to hear that pirating actually increases sales. Pirating is wrong, and they rightly view any illegal download of a something copyrighted by one of their members as theft. They view that as lost revenue and are attempting to both regain some of that lost revenue and deter anyone else from illegally downloading anything and thus robbing them of even more revenue.
Maybe, if you could absolutely prove beyond a doubt that they were actually making more money thanks to piracy, they might stop try to litigate everyone into oblivion. But even if someone who illegally downloads music were to buy ten times as much music as they would have otherwise, will they pay for every song that they illegally downloaded? Unlikely. And if not, then they’re listening to music which they haven’t paid for and the RIAA wants that money.
The principle of the matter alone will likely get them to continue this nonsense for some time to come. Even if they’re making more money thanks to piracy, it’s still piracy, and they aren’t going to let that slide. Maybe it’s stupid of them (they’re certainly going too far with suits and the like trying to stop it, in any case), but I really don’t see them backing down.
you have to stop buying music and movies, illegally downloading 100% of what you listen to and watch.
No, that will only strengthen the position of these tightfisted, greedy conglomerates. Illegal downloading strengthens them, buying content affirms their current position. The way to get the message through is to buy songs from independent artists and labels who have nothing to do with the current industries at all. There’s some really good music there too, too bad most seem content with the repetitive crap the industry tries to shovel down our throats. Don’t consume their content, at all. That’s the only way you’re not helping them.
The municipality shut it down of their own accord.
An accurate description of democracy, I’m afraid.
You can only vote if one of the two parties decides they want to make it their policy, and then you’ll have to weigh it up against all their other policies, some of which may be far worse.
You have a much better chance if you write to your politician, then they’ll hear your opinions.
Don’t forget of course that the MPAA is quite free to do the same, and despite the fact that they don’t get a vote as such, they can give money towards the politician’s election campaign. Probably a lot more money than you can, and they get this money from you.
Vote with your feet, don’t give the MPAA any more of your money.
“All you people who advocate that companies like Apple or private organisations like the MPAA and RIAA should have control over your legally purchased products and internet connection: this is what you’ll get. This is the world you’re fighting for. I hope you’re happy. ”
And just who would that be, besides record and movie company execs and the lawmakers whose pockets have been lined handsomely by the MPAA and RIAA and their member companies?
Maybe you are referring to Apple supporters in particular. I don’t have any feelings one way or the other about Apple, but their closed nature is one reason I have neither a Mac nor an iPod. And Apple is not shutting down people’s Internet connections because they are accessing the Internet using Hackintoshes.
I agree with most of this, though. The MPAA/RIAA are operating like quasi-law enforcement organizations. For this to stop, it is probably going to take a victim with deep passion about this and pockets to match to lawyer up and fight them in court.
I sampled Napster and its ilk when it came out, but generally found the quality of the files pretty poor (though it was good for finding out-of-print titles and very old music). I’ve never downloaded a movie, as 99% of the crap that comes out of Hollywood is not worth even my bandwidth, let alone movie theater ticket or DVD prices . Like one poster alluded to, I prefer to support indie and non-conglomerate-represented artists.
It’s being turned back on:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/WiFi-Network-Shuttered-By-MPAA-R…
It’s like turning off the whole Internet because of some Viagra e-mails and a couple of Nigerian scammers. Terrible.
There’s actually an organization in America that collects royalties for musicians whose works have been played on Internet radio. The only trouble is, the organisation has no authority to collect the royalties, and they only pay out if the artist contacts them (unlikely, because the artist hasn’t ever been told of this organisation’s existence).
What ever happened to internet neutrality? I’m fairly certain that the government and private organizations are supposed to stay out of the way when it comes to the internet except where it comes to preventing damage it its infrastructure or functionality. And even then I’d hesitate to let any government or organization have any kind of jurisdiction over the internet. (more importantly the information I’m transmitting over it)
Also: (I agree with Thom here) A private organization doesn’t have the authority to do the sorts of things that the RIAA and MPAA do!
The RIAA hasn’t been going after downloaders, they go after uploaders. The actual file downloading side of the argument hasn’t been shown to be illegal. Are you sure it was a download that cued the admins to act?
A vote is, indeed, very small and insignificant. Mind-bogglingly small. Like a tiny grain of sand on a very large beach. But it is certainly not your only option. You can persuade other people to vote the way you want them to. And the most effective and efficient way to do that is by contributing to your chosen candidates’ political campaigns. And the really nice thing about that is that it is not only the most effective and most efficient way… but you are not limited to your fair share. Not at all. You are only limited by the amount of money you control. If you are wealthy, that’s very fortunate for you. You have enough influence through your contributions that you might as well not bother to vote. In comparison, your one vote is pretty much worthless. Its only real value being symbolic.
If you are not wealthy… then you might consider becoming so. But in the mean time, you should probably vote. When symbolic value is all you’ve got, it’s best to at least avail yourself of the catharsis that facilitates.
If you happen to be a successful corporation, then you have hit the jackpot. Most wealthy individuals dwindle to utter insignificance if they happen be at odds with your views and interests. Wealthy individuals might consider seeking positions on the boards of successful corporations in order to improve their leverage.
The less wealthy and the poor would also benefit hugely by obtaining positions on the boards of very well monied corps. And I sincerely wish you folks the very best of luck in obtaining such.
It really makes we wonder why so many people seem to consider their pathetic little individual votes to be somehow sacred, when there are *so* much better ways to influence goverment, policy, and law.
Edited 2009-11-16 19:35 UTC
As the famous quote goes, “Of the dollar, by the dollar, and for the dollar.”
Argh! Spelling error. Of course, I meant to say “gummint”.