Slashdot Mirror
Cyber Sleuths vs. Secret Networks
amnfinch writes "I saw this article on BBC news and frankly, I was blown away. Just another example of the relentless campaign to treat file swappers as criminals when their 'crime' is murky at best." Sir Haxalot provides an article on the flip-side: "CNN has a story on 'exclusive' Peer to Peer networks, that require 'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique.'"
It's not about whether or not there's a lock to pick, nor how strong it is; it's about the fact that there's about 30 million locks which have to be picked at any one time.
That's why clamping down on P2P is going to be so hard. It's not because of the difficult of catching people - after all, most of the make virtually no effort to cover their tracks even when using centralised services - but the fact that there are simply so many of them. It's like trying to delete every single byte of data on a hard disk - it's not very easy to do at all without completely destroying the disk itself.
Bash script for FP whores
when their 'crime' is murky at best.
Actually, it's pretty clear. Distributing copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is illegal. Nothing murky about it. The sense that I seem to get from slashdot is people really, really want to share files, so they tell themselves there's nothing wrong with it.
Look, I file swap, but it is still illegal to trade copyrighted material. Everyone that trades files knows this, it is just that they don't care. It's just like speeding, it's illegal, but it doesn't matter until you get caught.
It's not about whether or not there's a lock to pick, nor how strong it is; it's about the fact that there's about 30 million locks which have to be picked at any one time.
The RIAA doesn't want to prosecute everyone who shares files, they want more people to stop sharing files. The idea is that if for everyone they do go after 10 (or whatever) other people will stop.
Now, if something like Freenet were to provide fully anonymous, public sharing with the ease-of use and pervasiveness of Kazaa, I think the RIAA would be scared.
Duh, that's why they are publically saying it is hard to use in every article they can. They want the public to be afraid to even try it.
They know that us geeks don't care, but they know that the public only believes what they are fed.
If Joe Blow 13 year old (clueless) hears that Freenet is hard to use over and over, he is less likely to try it.
I really wish article submitters would stick with the facts and stop injecting their opinions into the stories they are submitting. Statements such as that only makes one sound like a zealot (granted, though, there are plenty of people who agree with it).
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
"Copyright exists to provide incentives to push works into the public domain, not to keep them out of it."
Copyrights exist to provide an incentive to push works into the public domain, by providing a means for the publisher to make money off the published work. Sharing files with friends deprives him of that income. I don't see how sharing files with friends is 'clearly not immoral' (though one could argue that it isn't).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The RIAA doesn't want to prosecute everyone who shares files, they want more people to stop sharing files. The idea is that if for everyone they do go after 10 (or whatever) other people will stop.
... i.e. none whatsoever.
The idea is wrong, both ethically and practically. Ethically it is absolutely heinous to make some people pay an exaggerated price in order to frighten others. Indeed it could be argued that it is unconstitutional (14th amendment) to go around destroying some lives in order to 'communicate' a point to others (some are getting very, very harsh treatment, while others are being left alone). Practically, deterrence has been shown not to work, as we see every day with speeding and the woefully ineffectual and counterproductive War on Drugs(tm, Reagan & Daddy Bush). Indeed, deterrence of such crimes is only marginally effective at best, and more often ineffective altogether, particularly with teens, whose notorious "it will never happen to me" attitude is more or less hardwired into their biology and often remains intact well into adulthood. The entire youthful 'immortality syndrome' conspires against any such efforts at deterrence at several levels, something the RIAA and other cartels seem to be unable to grasp (talk about not knowing your market, or your customers).
A teenager sees a few thousand people get busted, out of several million, and (virtually every one) rightly concludes that they'll never be prosecuted. Indeed, any one filesharer is far more likely to be killed in a car accident than to be brought to trial by the cartels, and we've seen what a deterrence death by physical mutiliation resulting from a high speed automobile impact has on teen driving
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Copyrights exist to provide an incentive to push works into the public domain, by providing a means for the publisher to make money off the published work. Sharing files with friends deprives him of that income. I don't see how sharing files with friends is 'clearly not immoral' (though one could argue that it isn't).
One could argue that since copyright is effectively broken (ie: it doesn't push anything into the public domain due to the fact that its been constantly extended every few years for the last hundred years) that there is no obligation for the populus to obey copyright laws as they gain no benefit.
Social contracts only work if both sides hold up their end of the bargain, and in this case, the RIAA and associated industries have failed to do so. Once they start releasing material into the public domain after a relatively short amount of time, I (and I imagine many others) will start rewarding them by paying for some of the material they have copyright on.
I'll probably just shy away from buying new CDs and DVDs in general. That's not to say I will go on a pirating rampage, but I'll stick to free and currently legal alternatives that don't leave me with a sour taste in my mouth.
One thing I do know is that current mainstream media distribution methods are horrible. Let's take a look:
1) Television. Most any content consists of 30% ads. Even paid content can be costly (esp. in the US) b/c if you subscribe to a blanket movie network, you may find a competing one gets exclusive access to a certain studio's movies.
2) Radio. I live in a city with a population in the millions. I am into electronic music and have a very hard time being able to find any at, say, 4 in the afternoon. Even when I do hear it it's during some "live-to-air" session where they're continuously plugging the club's name and how great the atmosphere is. Again, it's interrupted by huge amounts of ads. I know I'm not the only one feeling this way as I've heard the same kind of gripes for different genres.
3) PC Gaming. I can't say how many games I've wanted to try and ended up purchasing due to a lack of a demo that ended up being terrible. It was even worse in the C-64 days, where a games' box art would have screenshots from the arcade rather than the C-64 screenshots. Ever play a demo of The Sims or Sim City 4000? Neither have I.
All that said and done, it's not hugely traumatic, just a shift in lifestyle. Don't buy games unless they have demos or incredible word of mouth, be very stingy with how many times you go to the movies (or at least support directors/writers/studios who aren't just creating the next cash grab movie), try to find an internet radio station playing what you like.
It's not like we're going to war here and lives are at stake. I could just go nuts and warez the universe, but spending even 1ms in jail just b/c I wanted to download Glitter to see if it REALLY WAS that bad doesn't seem worth it to me.
I know someone can reply and say I have my head in the sand, but I think it's more a matter of picking your battles carefully.
Quote from the BBC article:
Two of the industry's top seven movie studios have engaged the sleuthing services of BayTSP, but because of contractual arrangements they can't be named.
A snapshot of illegal movie downloads by BayTSP's chief technology officer Evelyn Espinosa was revealing.
"This is just over a few hours and I have almost 14,000 records with a variety of different titles ranging from Daddy Day Care to Anger Management and Charlie's Angels."
Well, since Daddy Day Care, Anger Management and Charlie's Angels are all Sony films, Sony must be one of their customers.
What I do in my own house (hard drive) is my business, and I don't want anyone peeking in my windows (ports) without my permission.
Ahhh, the classic "what I do in my own house" defence. Presumably you think that within the privacy of your own home it's OK for you to do anything, regardless of whether society considers it legal or illegal.
By that rationale, you're allowed to rape, torture and murder people without a care in the world as long as you do it at home. After all, it is your house.
Please, stop living in a dreamworld and come back to reality. Just because it's your house it doensn't make you immune from the law - right or wrong - within it.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think the RIAA is trying to plug a Titanic sized leak with dish towels. They are not going to be able to stem the flow of files across the web. Rattleing their sabers will not get them very far. I would conclude that we will see a percentage of people dump their connection to the big services, and erase all their swapped files. Then there will be those who sit tight, and weather the storm in rebellion, and then there will be those who find the way around the wall. With all due respect to those corporations who aid the RIAA in there failing crusade, I hope they are being paid well, because this crusade will eventually fail. Personally I don't participate in file sharing, but I can remember the days of buying a tape (ooops did I date myself?) and making copies for my friends. Just like trying to make CD's copy-proof, technological inginuity and rebeliousness will overcome. Technology is progress, and with progress comes winners and losers. Here the winners will eventually be consumers and artists, the losers will be the RIAA and it's allies. Stand clear when those big ones fall.
" My next house will have no kitchen - just vending machines and a large trash can. "
Not really. Lesser known bands make much more from concerts than record sales. The only point of having a record label is to they can distribute your record to different markets. Bands only make a very small percentage of what you pay for an average CD anyway. Lesser known bands survive by touring relentlessly and if music is what they love, I don't see a problem with them having to make their money that way. I'm not terribley concerned with the welfare of millionaire pop stars.
Time makes more converts than reason