3 Strikes — Denying Physics Won't Save the Video Stars 284
Philip K D writes "Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow has an editorial in today's Times of London. Doctorow elegantly eviscerates the basic injustice posed by the imminent Mandelson '3 Strikes' law in Britain. He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. It isn't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies, it is the circulatory system of the information age.' It is worth noting that Doctorow was influential in the creation of the Creative Commons. He has enjoyed considerable commercial success for his writings, owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying."
In related news, the UK's second-largest ISP, TalkTalk, is now threatening legal action if Mandelson's plan goes through.
Alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that they're going to create something stupid, what would be the least stupid alternative?
How about something along the lines of "3 strikes and you're limited to ports X,Y,Z"
Hmm.. no (Score:3, Interesting)
Even assuming the security services don't lynch the dark lord before this goes to the vote, i have to wonder how effective such a law would be. For 20 quid i can get a 3g pay and go modem. No contract, no names, just cash.
Then we have TOR and i2p, which if the papers are to be believed have the aformentioned services bricking it.
Still, so long as he keeps getting his back handers, I'm sure everything will work out fine.
Re:So what then ? (Score:4, Interesting)
The obvious solution is to make it legal instead. No more problem with illegal downloads or copyright infringing videos.
If you then want beyond free-market incentives for certain sectors, then there are any number of ways to pay out such incentives, the simplest of which is simply automatically slapping a levy on any revenue derived directly from such duplications and paying it directly to the creators.
Much easier to deal with shares of monetary transactions than attempt to prevent the unpreventable.
Re:Not helping (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what then ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Simple - copyright reform. And, by that, I mean Mr. Capitalism pulling it's Corporate cock out of the Public Domain's ass and stop raping it. Short term copyrights, pay-what-you-want donor-based pricing. Open it wide open and the people will love it so much, they will want to give what they feel they need to the artists they love the most. Of course, the MAFIAA does not like that because that connects the fans and the artists, but ultimately, that's what the internet is all about. They used to be needed for distribution, aggregation, and promotion - with the internet and social networking sites, they are entirely obsolete and record labels can break up now and go back to being independent.
We need to start paying more attention to websites like kickstarter.com, they should be leading the way to busting this problem wide open.
"Three strikes" to ensure wide encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Lord Mandelson has today announced that the outgoing Labour government will be going ahead with the "three strikes" plan against Internet filesharing, thus ensuring the widespread use of encryption [today.com] in all routine network communications.
"Encrypted communications as standard is the best possible thing for everyone's privacy," he said today, "but there's so much inertia from the installed base of unencrypted systems. This will provide a rapid incentive for everyone to upgrade as soon as possible. In our last few months in power at the fag-end of a failed government, we need to leave a real legacy for the future."
The benchmark for the new system will be illegal filesharing dropping by 70%. "That's measured illegal filesharing, of course. We have set out our metrics quite clearly. Furthermore, home taping is killing music."
MI5 and the police have objected to the plan due to the difficulty of mass-monitoring encrypted systems, even with the RIPA power to obtain passwords, since mass anonymity systems such as TOR and Freenet have been constructed where the end-user never has nor sees the encryption key. "But a few hideous terrorist atrocities is a small price to pay for less Lily Allen songs being shared. Particularly if they happen on the Tories' watch. MuWAAAhahahaha. By the way, have you noticed just how much Dave Cameron looks like Iggle Piggle? Uncanny."
Re:heh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as the war on drugs is only tangentially related to actual drug abuse, the war on copyright infringement will only be tangentially related to piracy.
The "failed" drug policy of the last 50 years only makes sense to me when seen as a war waged against the underprivileged in our societies. Drug use is high in all sections of society but the poor and ethnic minority groups are the ones that end up in prison.
Equally, I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.
New Labour, and Mandelson in particular, have waged a vicious war on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and habeas corpus in Britain over the last 12 years. This legislation is the first step to widening that war to the internet. It gives unaccountable bureaucrats and corporate officials powers that were previously only available to the judiciary, just as New Labour is doing in other areas of British life. It will lead to (ab)use of these powers to curtail fundamental human rights, just as is happening with those other powers.
As much as our politicians are in the pockets of various corporations, I don't believe that's sufficient explanation for the assault on due process we see here. If there's one thing that terrifies politicians more than falling profits it's democracy. And large scale copyright infringement is just the excuse our politicians need to go after that on the internet with a vengeance.
Sigh (Score:1, Interesting)
This seems easy. Let the law pass. Then start accusing people in power of copyright infringment to get their internet turned off. Then, because the people in power won't have the laws apply to them (as usual), accuse their families, then their family's family. You then systematically create a society with no internet access.
Now, if the law is written that a specific named company (or companies) are immune, legally change you name to the same as the company, then infringe all you want (because you will be named in the law! woohoo! that is step 2 in the 3 profit steps BTW, the ???).
At this point, it is *OBVIOUS* that the people making these sorts of laws are in no way acting out of their own opinion on the matter (well, if favoring the people who line your pockets is an opinion, then ignore my last statement).
At this point though, everyone should just go re-read "A Modest Proposal" and start using satire/ubsurdity to make a point, because being reasonable certainly doesn't work any more.
[/cynicism]
Re:Not helping (Score:3, Interesting)
EU is a desperate hedge. It will mean little, except by way of contrast with the hideously diminished US.
Look to Brazil and a South American power to emerge. 20 years from now, it will seem as obvious as China does today. It's like India - without quite as much of a ridiculous demographic problem to overcome. By this time the US will be forced, at long last, to concede that its effort in Afghanistan are a failure.
How did we live 'till 1990ies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is amazing, that the Internet has become all this — and more — but civilization did exist before 1990ies, and all of the freedoms mentioned were there — some of them even more so than today, perhaps.
thugs will be thugs (Score:3, Interesting)
you are of course absolutely correct
however, i am merely pointing out that although the thugs on the street corner will extract their pound of flesh, they will not prevail
it is still entirely valid and appropriate to directly confront the thugs, as you insist
but your point, and my point, are complementary points, not mutually exclusive points. i can make my point without hindering yours, and visa versa, so there is no need to assume friction between our two areas of concern
both of our enemies are the thugs. so you fight your short term war, i'll fight my long term war, and we will both prevail (in the long term ;-)
Re:Not helping (Score:3, Interesting)
Which can only mean one thing: Time for a US/UK-sponsored coup!
Re:"Three strikes" to ensure wide encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
Cory's argument is bullshit (Score:0, Interesting)
I am not defending the 3-strikes law. It has serious "due process" problems that everyone else is pointing out.
But what Cory is really saying, is that the punishment is too severe. That when you cut someone off (allegedly for infringement), you're not just stopping their future infringement, but you're also cutting them off from talking to grandma, and if you did the same thing to the bogus-accusers, it would be "corporate death penalty."
Well, guess what? All punishment is like that. If I put you in jail for theft or murder, I'm not just preventing future thefts or murders. I'm also impacting your life in many other ways, perhaps even violating your "rights" in ways that are utterly disconnected from the crime itself.
People seem ok with that, in general. Why wouldn't they be ok with that when it comes to the internet? Copy that floppy, no more emails to grandma or your government representative. Murder someone, no more visiting grandma's house or political assemblies. What's the difference? I don't see how TFA would persuade anyone.
marijuana legalization: being seriously discussed (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/24/california.marijuana/index.html [cnn.com]
and marijuana should be 100% legal
meanwhile, meth, coke, and heroin legalization should never be seriously considered
that's just my opinion
but even if you disagree with me, you completely fail at the subject matter as soon as you talk about DRUG legalization. now if you want to talk to me about METH legalization, or MARIJUANA legalization, or COCAINE legalization, then we are having a valid coherent discussion. but there is no such thing, nor will there ever be such a thing as a coherent subject matter called DRUG legalization
every single drug is completely different in its pharmacological effects, and therefore every single drug should have a completely different legal framework around it. this is the most rational logical approach. meanwhile, if you don't understand that or refuse to take the radically different inebriation/ toxicity/ addiction/ etc profiles of different drugs into consideration when you frame your opinions on the subject matter, you are not being serious about the subject matter
if you wish to tell me everything from caffeine to methamphetamine should have the same legal approach, you just announce yourself as a complete idiot who knows absolutely nothing about the subject matter, or you are willfully expressing an utterly naive attitude to an obviously complicated and multivariate issue. which means you fail
this is a solid fact: marijuana will get legalized in the usa. it will be legalized FASTER if the idiots who think ALL drugs should be legalized shut the fuck up, or are shut up and kept out of the discussion. you refrain your opinions to marijuana, and marijuana alone, in the discussion about marijuana legalization, or you are HURTING THE CAUSE. if you try to broaden your remarks to all drugs, you sound like an idiot, and you turn people OFF on the subject of marijuana legalization who might otherwise listen
if you confine your remarks to MARIJUANA legalization and insist that the approach to methamphetamine/ coke/ heroin/ etc should be DIFFERENT (whether or not you think they should be legal or illegal), then you actually win over hearts and minds to a good cause
Re:heh. (Score:2, Interesting)
Apparently some conservatives are looking at the tax impact of the war on drugs and the resulting prison population, and coming to the conclusion that a change in policy might be a good idea.
Re:Not helping (Score:3, Interesting)
This, however, assumes the US will become irrelevant. It seems to be heading that way; however, that isn't enough to make that judgment yet. Speculation of the future is nothing more than just that.
I was just trying to point out that the strength of the US throughout history is its ability to integrate the best aspects of other societies and cultures into its own blend, and that emulating the other big guy isn't a bad thing.
My concern for the US isn't the ability to use methods we find beneficial; I worry about our ability to shed those things that seem beneficial at first, but don't survive long-term, such as a market with a small number of hugely influential competitors. This is one thing we haven't had to do in the past, because the ideas used were very carefully selected. Now, it seems like we're grabbing more than the small aspects we could use, taking much more than we used to.
What I would like to see is whether China survives long-term, with or without the US. With the US, I bet they would. We consume much of their production. Without, I'm not as sure, but it's fairly likely they'd become the world's production powerhouse rather than one country's. Until someone new rises and does it cheaper, of course.