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.
Not helping (Score:5, Insightful)
Cory, that's only encouraging them. Now you've told them that if you can arbitrarily cut off people's Internet access, you've got those people by the gonads and can make them do whatever you want without going through the annoying process of actually passing laws and obtaining convictions and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the 3 strikes idea is about censorship. Anybody who thought otherwise?
Re:Not helping (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, I agree. The governments in the "west" are in their "wind-down" phase. They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages. It is working well (in their eyes) for China, with whom they imagine they must compete.
"Let 'em buy Mazdas and Nike, and they won't care if they're free. Control the information they are allowed to consume, and they will vigorously attack with extreme chauvinism, any messenger that points out that they are not free."
I am consistently amazed at how deadly accurate was the prescient vision of Terry Gilliam, in the movie Brazil - so clearly seeing the dreadful intersection of a corporate/consumerist substitution for the values of a republic, and the enlistment of "state power" as the lick-spittle to enforce corporate conformity.
Re:Not helping (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not helping (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which can only mean one thing: Time for a US/UK-sponsored coup!
Re: (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 a
Re: (Score:2)
>We also saw how well communist ideas worked for Russia (from our perspective) during the early 40's, and actually did things that headed us ever so slightly in the direction of communism.
Communism isnt social programs like Social Security. Communism is state owned property and means of production. This is something tea baggers should have been taught in school. Social Security isnt paid for by nationalizing all the business, its a tax, same as roads, navies, etc.
Removing property from people and runnin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Communism isnt social programs like Social Security. Communism is state owned property and means of production.
What, you mean like banks and automobile manufacturers?
you need to study your own history (Score:5, Insightful)
i'm not american, but even i know 20th century american history better than you.
neither communism nor socialism were dirty words in america until the 1950s with all the scare propaganda about the Red Menace.
right up until then, there was an active, large, and popular socialist movement in america. it wasn't likely to hold government in its own right but was strong enough to provide a moderating influence on the growing corporate control of american government.
after mccarthy, socialism became a thought-crime in america and corporate control had no effective opposition.
i'm constantly astounded by the mindless american hostility to the idea of government - it's like children denying reality. the fact is that government is inevitable and unavoidable, you can't deny its existence or power by just subscribing to some moronic "rugged individualist" mythology. so, if government is inevitable, then only sane thing for citizens do is to ensure that it works for THEM....because if it doesn't work for the citizens, it will be controlled by the rich and powerful for their own benefit. which is *exactly* what you've got. as a whole, the people of america have abdicated and the power vacuum has been filled by corporate interests, which is precisely why there is so much corporate-sponsored propaganda brainwashing citizens into believing that socialist principles like universal health care are bad for them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not helping (Score:4, Insightful)
>They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages.
I know this is popular in libertarian circles but its a bunch of BS. Unlike a lot of anti-US commentators I have been to some of these countries and know immigrants from there. Its cute to see people go apeshit over internet connectivity and scream "decline of the west!!!" while tipping their hats to countries like China and Russia where human rights are less than a joke. Where political prisoners are the norm, where censorship firewall is the norm, where gays are beaten to death in front of police, where joining the opposition party is a risk to your life, where not subscribing to the state religion is a death sentence, where education is propaganda, etc.
I think this all stems from certain people hating the West for getting things right like the enlightenment, allowing criticism of religion and politics, allowing women full rights, allowing free speech, giving rights to minorities, allowing more than one party, univeral healthcare (sans a few), etc. Its sad that the 'small government' people are cozying up to dictators, warlords, and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic, free market, and free speech.
As far as the East winding up, dont confuse catching up with getting past. A lot of these countries were poverty states until recently and have terrible GDP per capita and terrible governments, terrible crime, and terrible abuses. They have a significant portion of the population which is ready to revolt but is only held down by totalitarian elements (see China and Iran). Ironically, they have only grown by accepting Western values like capitalism, easy access to markets, and some level of government and social openness.
I think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that, by definition, it is impossible to give some group the power to depose those who hold power without given them power as well.
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"
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully nothing in the spirit of this law ever gets passed, but to entertain the question, port blocking has been obsolete for some times now. It's a huge annoyance, but there are always ways to get around it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
How about not punishing people who presumably have not been found guilty of breaking the law? If they broke the law and were found guilty, they'd be subject to the ruling of the court. If they haven't been found guilty or for that matter given no trial then the whole thing is a violation of due process.
Re: (Score:2)
How about not punishing people who presumably have not been found guilty of breaking the law?
I agree with you completely, but:
1. the **AAs are bastards
2. existing copyright law is impractical to enforce
3. the Brits have been getting soft in the head for years now with their nannyish statism
The only possible outcome is that they do something stupid at the prodding of corporate interests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never claiemd that it was ok, I did say that the punishment if any should be up to the court trying the civil case. Personally, I think copyright law has become a liability for society. It's nigh unenforceable for small acts of infringement and is becoming a very major reason why corporations are lobbying governments to crack down in such a way to protect corporate interests. To me, the whole system looks a lot like the drug war; just as unwinnable and is also harmful to those who can not put up the le
Re:Alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Take them to a court of law after doing due diligence to figure out if they were really the ones infringing. Subject them to due process. Don't play shenanigans in court or behave unethically in the proceedings. If found guilty, then charge them fair, not extortionist, penalties.
The problem is that the media companies don't like the idea of not being able to railroad everyday people into settlement, or not being able to threaten the public with ridiculous penalties. This is because they lose the FUD-factor, and the cost of throwing lawyers at the problem becomes prohibitive.
How do you solve this? I don't know. Its not my problem, and its not the duty of society to ensure that litigation is profitable. Its the duty of society to make sure that due process is followed and the justice system improves society. It's not my duty to ensure that the media companies stay in business.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that they're going to create something stupid, what would be the least stupid alternative?
I have no idea, but I think I can figure out how to go in the opposite direction. The main problem, to me, is that they're using a baseball analogy instead of a boxing analogy.
Instead of "3 strikes and you're out", it should be "roughly between 10 and 100 blows to the head and you're out". With an optional "technical knockout rule" where if you fall over three times watching illegally downloaded porn you're
Re: (Score:2)
UK government (Score:5, Informative)
In the Bush years, the US had become the poster child for bad government in the Western world. Now, though, it seams the UK is the clear leader in this respect. There are so man examples other than this one. For example, just today, the UK fired a drug policy advisor because his scientific findings "sent the wrong message."
Yes, in the UK government, stating scientific facts is now a fire-able offense. Bush was pretty anti-science, but even he didn't outright fire people like that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
9 federal prosecutors would probably disagree about Bush firing people for doing their jobs.
Anglo Disease (Score:2)
Some commentators call this affliction, which seems to have harmed most English-speaking nations in the world, the "Anglo Disease [theoildrum.com]". (Keep in mind that this particular eerily prophetic article was written before the Great Recession.)
"influential in the creation of the CC...?" (Score:5, Informative)
First I've heard of this. Citation, please?
I know that Doctorow was one of CC's early adopters. I've never heard that he was involved in the creation of the license.
IMO Cory Doctorow is good writer, but an absolute genius at self-promotion.
Re:"influential in the creation of the CC...?" (Score:4, Informative)
I think it's safe to say that Doctorow was influential in the adoption of the Creative Commons. Most everyone I know who is familiar with CC tracks back their first experience with it to BoingBoing.
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: (Score:2)
For 20 quid i can get a 3g pay and go modem. No contract, no names, just cash.
Don't worry, those will be outlawed soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about downloading, this is about shutting people up.
let them pass all the laws they want (Score:5, Insightful)
who fucking cares? its just so much damage to route around
yes, they could make laws that would end filesharing... laws that would also essentially kill everything that makes the internet worthy our contribution and attention. that's not going to happen, unless media companies have more power than self-destructive military dictatorships
therefore, let them pass all of the half-assed measures that don't essentially kill the joy that is the internet all they want. let them joust with that technological hydra, and waste all their resources, a pool of cash and manpower that just keeps dwindling every day. obfuscation schemes, proxy schemes, encryption schemes, steganographic schemes, etc ... some college freshman in his dorm will handle all the complexities, for free, and make it as easy as point and click, and the program will spread like wildfire. and will of course get stamped out, just as the next moronic big media-sponsored law circumventing tool is spreading like wildfire. whack-a-mole is never a game you eternally prevail at
so let them buy as many legislators as they can, pass as many intrusive legal schemes as they want, waste as much of their dwindling reserves as they can
again, who fucking cares?
millions of media hungry, technologically savvy, and most importantly, POOR teenagers
versus a counple thousand lawyers basing their strategy on a philosophically flawed premise: that the internet can be controlled, that the distribution tollbooths that allowed media companies to thrive in the pre-internet age can be preserved
game over, douchebags
it doesn't reflect well on you when you are already defeated, and don't know it or won't admit it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
who fucking cares? its just so much damage to route around
People who care about the ramifications and consequences of these laws on our lives today, rather than just the inevitable long-term outcome.
therefore, let them pass all of the half-assed measures that don't essentially kill the joy that is the internet all they want.
The DMCA and the DRM schemes protected by it have completely failed to kill internet piracy, much less the internet. Yet, they have resulted in people being inconvenienced, hassled, sue
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ;-)
I'm just saying -- you should care about this law, and we should not let them pass any law they want.
Well okay, but "who fucking cares" and "let them pass any law they want" makes it sound like you aren't fighting any kind of war, and are just waiting for the inevitable outcome. Taken that as just a turn of speech not implying an actual lack of caring, then sure, o
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know, I kinda feel like I should go find all those old conversations we used to have on Kuro5hin where you expressed the exact opposite opinion. Back then you were pro-copyright and felt the Internet was going to be destroyed by law makers. Have you changed your tune on illicit drugs yet?
you're on drugs (Score:2)
i never changed my attitude towards hard core drugs, nor was i ever pro-copyright
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1424363&cid=29925269 [slashdot.org]
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/28/31758/7402 [kuro5hin.org]
OT: movie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fucking care.
I'm sick and tired of everybody here cheering that "Internet routes around such damage etc." and proposing that we should just let them do that to us.
That's just idiotic. Every day I'm hearing of tougher and more unjust laws being proposed by these people and every now and then these laws are accepted and become parts of our justice system. Every time a law like this gets passed we move closer and closer to the point in time where your explanation that you just "routed around damage" will no
Talk-Talk (Score:2)
I normally would not give the time of day with this bunch of cowboys(>£10 in phone charges just to cancel a landline) but if they do take legal action over the latest silly idea to come out of Darth Vader (aka Mandy) I'll support them.
IF the EU has told the French that this goes against the EU laws why the f*** does NuLab think this will also pass their scrutiny. Dumb idiots.
"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: (Score:3, Interesting)
As video begat radio... (Score:2)
Physics killed the video star?
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.
Re:How did we live 'till 1990ies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the problem is that many of our government's communication and services ONLY run through Internet nowadays, due to modernism and budget cuttings.
This means that when you cut someone from the Internet in my country, you effectively make him/her a persona non Grata.
You might as well take that person's passport and social number and throw it away.
Finland has got it right in saying that an Internet connection is a CIVIL RIGHT!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but today we use the internet. And shit is relative. If everyone else gets to go on to ebay or whatever, one might feel really bad if one wasn't allowed online.
It might analogous to, if in the old days, one wasn't allowed to drive a car or use the postal or telephony service or walk the streets because one had used these to carry out crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
...come to think of it, my analogy would perhaps be more to the point if I said "to carry out copyright infringement" instead of "to carry out crimes".
Physics? (Score:5, Insightful)
What bearing does physics have on this?
Re: (Score:2)
What bearing does physics have on this?
The point, which you could easily find in the fine article by simply searching for the word 'physics,' - is that all the things which make piracy attractive - cheap fat network pipes, easy access to tons of storage, easy connectivity to millions of people, etc won't go away just because they ratchet up the legal restrictions. In fact, just the opposite, all of those things will continue to get fatter, cheaper, bigger and better due to engineering progress riding on the back of better applied physics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those are a result of technology (and a lot of other things -- simple existence of technology doesn't magically supply you with better hard drives and network connections). That has nothing to do with "the laws of physics", even if you think it makes for a super cool phrase.
So the advancement of technology is unrelated to our increased understanding of physics? let me guess, you're neither a physicist nor an engineer, are you? for a popular example, read up on optical fiber. For a more recent example, read up the recent Slashdot article on fingernail-sized storage chips, and for a weirder example, check out Quantum Computing.
We need our own 3 Strikes Proposals... (Score:2)
As a counter weight...
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-3-strikes-law-proposals.html [blogspot.com]
What can you suggest.
(Naturally, it would be best not to have these 3 strikes plays at all...)
all the best,
drew
Piracy happens because of the high costs (Score:4, Insightful)
of the things being pirated. The RIAA and MPAA should offer the lowest possible prices that still allow them to earn a profit and then sell at more reasonable prices. That would put big cuts in piracy of materials. Sell in quantities at lower prices, rather than sell less at higher prices and force poor people who cannot afford the materials into piracy.
Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials, but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.
Hulu [hulu.com] was a good idea, free TV shows and movies but with commercials. The RIAA and MPAA need to make a free access Hulu like site for videos, movies, TV shows, songs, music videos, etc and offer commercials in-between them for making money. Paid members can have the commercials removed and then buy the media for a low cost to download it to their computer or media playing device. The Internet is really based on a free content model of business, people don't want to pay access for a web site, but they do want to pay low prices to download media.
If the RIAA and MPAA did a Hulu like site, then there wouldn't be any need for media piracy as you could watch all you wanted for free, and then pay a small fee to download the media file you watched to your computer or media playing device. Commercials will pay for such free sites, and paying members can skip the commercials.
But I doubt the RIAA or MPAA would do that, as it makes too much common sense, and they are more of suing people for downloading content and are in fact suing their fans and customers. That makes a bad business model and gives bad PR.
elected? (Score:2)
peter mandelson isn't even elected so he should fuck right off - he is in the house of lords and the role of the house of lords is to monitor legislation passed by the house of commons
Really? (Score:2)
Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow
Is this really what first comes to mind when people think of Cory Doctorow? I thought "Disney obsessed douchebag and general internet wanker" would be the more appropriate description.
Has anyone stopped to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It occurs to me that taking away peoples' internet for what they may view as a perfectly reasonable use of their access (Or even worse, through no fault of their own) is going to KILL PEOPLE. I wish I were joking. I wish this was a joke. But if some kid murders his parents because they took away his Xbox for playing too much Halo, or someone commits suicide because their WoW account was hacked... What's going to happen when people have their right to use the internet revoked?
I have no qualms about saying that I cannot function without the internet. If I need to know something, I look it up on the internet. If I want to know what's going on, I check news sites. If I want to buy something, I buy it online. I do business online. And quite frankly, the number of people that I consider to be 'close friends' and 'colleagues' on the other side of my monitor far exceeds the number of people I know offline, by at least 20-to-1.
Nevermind the whole ridiculousness of it all anyway. Piracy is not theft. Nothing is stolen. There are copies made. And there's only two kinds of people who want copies of stuff: The ones who never would have paid money for it to begin with, and the ones who will end up actually buying it anyway. You can apply that to literally anything.
People are going to die because the entertainment industry doesn't want them getting something for free that they wouldn't have bought anyway.
Hundreds of people die every day in the industrialized world because they can't afford healthcare...and now we have the entertainment industry killing people because they think they lost a CD sale?
Here's a novel idea: Instead of trying to sell a CD with only one or two good songs on it for THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS and giving the artist (You know, those people who did all the work and that the consumer actually gives a shit about?) fuck-all, how about you get with the program and actually try to leverage the goddamn internet to sell things-- ACTUAL PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT --in a manner that MAKES SENSE for a REASONABLE PRICE.
And people wonder why I don't want to participate in society.
Re:So what then ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mu. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Your question presupposes that people accused of something are automatically guilty of it.
Mu yourself (Score:2)
The question is perfectly valid; it presupposes that people are illegally downloading copyrighted content. Which they are.
If you're going to try to "unask" the question on the basis that it makes an invalid supposition you'll have to try to argue that no one is illegally downloading content. Good luck.
Re:Mu. (Score:5, Insightful)
That one is so simple!
For any legal matter, a judge must state you are guilty of the crime.
After that, punishment is a non-issue.
With this law, you don't have to do anything wrong, or even do ANYTHING. A person in a coma can easily be guilty of this law, since it just requires someone to accuse them.
If i said Mr. ComaGuy downloaded a video, he is instantly GUILTY. Full stop. No more argument nor defense. The act of me claiming he did something is all it takes to be guilty of this law, having done so or not, or even being able to do so, never comes into play.
Three people do that to Mr. ComaGuy, and when he wakes up he is banned from the internet.
Now do you see why this law is a bad idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just for the record -- not that anyone will ever read this -- I did not say that this law was a good idea: I merely asked what would be good alternatives, and so far, the only alternatice posted is that I should go and beat my wife. :(
Just for the record, you're a troll so no one's giving you a straight answer.
You ask for an alternative to passing this law? Well an obvious alternative is to NOT pass this law.
Yes, if you can't prove someone committed a crime you should let them go free. I think I've even seen that somewhere before. So you can't prove that someone is infringing copyright by sharing a torrent without violating their civil rights? I guess you can't prosecute them.
Hang on, I feel a teardrop... no, no it's gone.
Re:Mu. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, by your logic, we're entitled to subject you to net-based wife-beating punishments. After all, if somebody accuses a person of something, you seem to believe that person should be punished.
Or, alternately, you believe that little things like due process must be ditched if they interfere with protecting the profits of large corporations.
If somebody is guilty of copyright violations, that can be brought up in a court of law. Indeed, there are some high-profile cases recently. If they are then found guilty of criminal copyright infringement, or found to have violated copyright in a civil proceeding, they can be punished.
If that's inconvenient for a company, tough. It's often inconvenient for me to sue companies I've got a legitimate grievance against; shall I take revenge on them in my own way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mother Simpson: [singing] How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?
Homer: Seven.
Lisa: No, dad, it's a rhetorical question.
Homer: OK, eight.
Lisa: Dad, do you even know what "rhetorical" means?
Homer: Do I know what "rhetorical" means?
Re: (Score:2)
You totally missed the point in what was posted. Schon did not *say* you were a wife beater, nor was (s)he calling you names to defend a position (s)he did not agree with. (S)He posted a question that is a classical example of a type of question that is essentially impossible to answer correctly. A yes/no question, by definition, only has two possible answers: "yes" and "no". A yes answer implies that you were a wife beater and now have stopped. A no answer implies that
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.
Illegal does not mean enforceable (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright infringement laws are difficult to enforce. That does not automatically justify making someone guilty upon accusation.
Sure, the activities are illegal. And some believe they are illegal with good reason (something about causing economic harm). Be that as it may, it is still not okay to presume someone is guilty just because he has been accused too many times.
Any idiot can accuse, even if there is no guilt. Innocent people must be protected against false accusations. Allowing guilt to be presu
How should escaped slaves be handled (Score:4, Insightful)
No copyright and freedom of the individual are not the same thing, but the issue is here that you are asking a loaded question.
You are asking, if hanging escaped slaves isn't the answer, then how should they be handled. Making it obvious that in your mind, that you already made up your mind that there should be punishment.
Others would argue that you might ask whether the very concept of copyright might not need to be changed. Once again.
Copyright has NOT been in existence for the vast majority of human history. Thousands of years, humanity has progressed and produced art that has endured across the ages, with absolutely no copyright.
This changed, and NOT as you might think to protect the creators of content, but the publishers of content. Copyright is not for nothing called COPY right. It was created to protect music PUBLISHERS, printed music sheets, who bought the music from artist for a small sum and then printed money. Obviously, they wanted to be only ones to be allowed to do that, and so copyright was started in its modern form.
The current system is a dreadful beast. The same Disney that has lobbied to have it extended published Pinocchio on the day after the copyright on it expired. Yet if you dare to use their work, you will be hounded by their lawyers, even with works of parody.
No, you ask how the slave should be punished, when every right thinking person ask, should slavery be allowed.
Copyright needs to change, it has no longer got anything to do with giving a creator a change to make a living of his work and everything with enormous business interests seeking to bleed every last penny from content others produced. When a music publishers seeks money a dozen times from the same person for the same song, the beast needs to be killed. 1 payment for the audio sample. Another for the tune on your iPod, then next for the home stereo, another fee to embed it in your birthday video, another if you play it a party, more money still for your ringtone, buy it again if you buy another MP3-player.
ENOUGH
Copyright has to change. Computer games that cost ever more for shorter and shorter games with tiny addons costing 10 bucks or more is nickle and diming the industry to death. People bought games when you could simply swap them on a floppy because the price was right. 70+ euro's for a PS3 games is just not on. Especially since the PC version costs 30-40 euro's LESS. The Collectors Edition of Dragon Age for the PC costs the same as the regular edition for the consoles. Greed gone out of control.
For music the same goes. Apple lovers, turn away, this is going to hurt. The costs of an iTune song is the purest greed displayed, until the BBC named its pricing plans for the iPlayer. 1 dollar/euro for a song, that does not have to be pressed on a CD, put in a box with a printed sleeve, stocked and shipped, all with the risk of producing to few or to many, is JUST TO FUCKING MUCH. What happened to the CAPITALIST idea of cost savings reducing prices? The BBC even thought to charge 10 dollar per episode. God help the Eastenders fan. Or worse, neighbors.
The prices got nothing more to do with demand and supply but with "We supply therefor we demand."
Movies make record profits, yet the movie industry is being killed by downloading. How can this be? Because some MPAA accountant has told movie moguls that their are 6 billion people in this world and so their movie should at 10 dollars per ticket earn them 60 billion. When it doesn't, piracy is to blame.
Pension funds in Holland invest in MUSIC rights for the future as their analysts who are boring men who think gold is unstable because it evaporates at a rate of few atoms every 1 million years, have determined it is a reliable investment. A safe buy that pays for itself in 10 years and is then a steady source of income at virtually no cost.
Yet the music industry is supposedly at an edge.
No, it is no wonder you posted as an AC. You are arguing a lost cause, people
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No kidding. 40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs. It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.
Re:heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is drug legalization seriously discussed?
There are very few countries that have a slightly less restrictive stance on drugs and those countries are all being coerced by other countries into adapting stricter laws.
We're still far, far away from sane drug laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Drugs don't ruin lives, cops/government ruin lives. If all drugs were legal there would be no drug related crimes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Drugs don't ruin lives, cops/government ruin lives. If all drugs were legal there would be no drug related crimes.
That's not true, stop thinking in terms of extremes and absolute. There would be a great drop in drug related crimes, but you'd still get people driving high on meth or fucking up their lives with heroin, even if the problem would be attenuated.
Re:heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Alcohol doesn't ruin lives, cops/government ruin lives. If all alcohol were legal there would be no alcohol related crimes.
Re:heh. (Score:5, Informative)
California is holding legislative hearings [mercurynews.com] on the legalization of Cannabis for non-medical use. Earlier this year Barney Frank introduced legislation in the US House that would have legalized small amounts of marijuana at the federal level. Public opinion in favor of legalization of marijuana is at an all time high.
Now I'm not saying it's going to happen any time soon, but there's been more progress in the last year than in my entire life time. But that wasn't really my point, my point is that we're going to have to suffer through decades of copyright warfare, wasting millions of dollars and people-years in jail, just like we have in the war on drug users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:heh. (Score:4, Informative)
. There is a worldwide momentum to see drug abuse as health problem instead of a criminal issue, and consequently to de-criminalize the personal use of (some or all) drugs:
Mexico [time.com]
Portugal [time.com]
Argentina [narconews.com]
Similar legislation has been approved in Colombia, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Spain
I see no sign of countries being 'coerced' into stricter drug laws.
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
No drug affects anyone other than the imbiber. Therefore all drugs should have the same legal framework - none at all.
Re:hilarously ignorant statement (Score:4, Insightful)
It is unfortunate but there is always going to be a percentage of the population addicted to drugs. Whether they are legal or not. I would much rather my tax dollars go to helping someone with a health problem get better, than to see them go to imprison someone with a health problem. You see, either way they are getting your tax dollars. Why not use them to research harm reduction instead of building prisons?
Re: (Score:2)
If I say 'have a drink', do you interpret that to mean 'drink anything and everything liquid'?
If not, then why do you interpret 'legalize drugs' as 'legalize anything and everything that can be addictive'.
Effectively, your whole comment is about language (CAPITALIZED language even), not the subject at hand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a general principle at work here. Harm caused by drugs is increased by prohibition. We saw it with alcohol, we see it with marijuana, and we're about to see it in action with nicotine. The same principle applies to cocaine, amphetamines, and opiates. If you're concerned about harm reduction, which is really the only sane policy approach to drugs, you're going to end up advocating for at least the decriminalization of these drugs.
Here's why. Drug prohibition doesn't stop anyone from taking drugs.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Fortune magazine september issue? The cover says "Is Pot Already Legal?
Re:heh. (Score:5, Informative)
For those who do not know David Nutt is an academic who works for the scientific advisory body on illegal drug use in the UK. He has just been sacked for expressing the view that drug harm research was being ignored by politicians and the information being disseminated by the state was being degraded by the choice of the party in power to classify particular drugs for political reasons rather than the research results on the harm that they were causing. It is not unusual for politicians to choose how to run society on the basis of whether they will be re-elected by the influence of various other players in a democracy - in this case the owners of certain media outlets who are believed to have considerable influence on the election of politicians. However this case calls into question why the party in power bothers to employ expensive researchers who they sack if the right answer is not being provided. Why not just tell us how it is based on what they think will get them re-elected. The party in power is a disgusting cesspool of unprincipled scum who will do anything to foist their arbitrary theories of how society should be run on us. They are no better than the generals in Burma or the greedy rulers of Iraq. Shame on them for their lies and incompetence. The three strikes and your out laws are just another thing that they follow because they have zero interest in reality but think that it will spin well to get them re-elected. They are lazy and evil.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We've had science, medical research, doctors, and hospitals for a century now. We still haven't eliminated disease or death. We fund police departments. We still haven't eliminated crime. We fund fire departments. Yet, we still haven't eliminated fires.
I t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"No kidding. 40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs. It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization."
We've had science, medical research, doctors, and hospitals for a century now. We still haven't eliminated disease or death. We fund police departments. We still haven't eliminated crime. We fund fire departments. Yet, we still haven't eliminated fires.
I think it's time we all just gave up.
Maybe if you'd let the doctors deal with drugs instead of insisting to have the police take care of it, you'd see more progress.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't talking about jail time. It people's internet connection. Man ACs are even more retarded then normal these days.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That sucks... at least in jail I would still have internet.
Re: (Score:2)
There is in fact a similar "three strikes" law for using the telephone for committing crimes. If you use the telephone to commit a crime (and you are caught), you find out about the one-strike law. At least in the US you stand a pretty good chance of going to jail where you will most certainly surrender your cell phone, your land line, your television and your computer. Oh, and your clothes.
So a three strikes law against committing crimes is in fact quite a step up from those committed in the physical wo
Re: (Score:2)
That is, of course, if you committed a criminal offense. There is no jail time for most forms of copyright infringement.
Oh, and also you're skipping a few steps involving lawyers, judges, and juries.
You've also forgotten the part where you get out of prison having served your sentence, and then you get back your cell phone, your land line, your computer, and your clothes.
And, with the exception of over-politicized "war on X" laws, the sentencing isn't prescribed inflexibly, but ratehr is codified as a set
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of good reasons to hate this law beyond being anti-copyright. It basically spits on the concept of innocent before proven guilty, denies the basic human right to knowledge and culture and is probably unconstitutional in multiple ways. Doctorow is not "creating reasons", he's giving perfectly valid reasons that people who have never even heard of Doctorow independently thought of.