Internet Blackout Threat for Music Thieves in AU

An anonymous reader writes "News.com.au is reporting that the ARIA [Australia's Version of the RIAA] is making plans to have ISPs cancel or terminate the accounts of those who download music illegally. If the user is on dialup, that's not a problem: their telephone line will be disconnected. 'Fed up with falling sales, the industry — which claims Australians download more than one billion songs illegally each year — has been discussing tough new guidelines with internet service providers (ISPs) since late last year. The music industry is lobbying for a three strikes and you're out policy to enforce their copyright. Under this system, people who illegally download songs would be given three written warnings by their Internet service provider. If they continued to illegally download songs, their internet account would be suspended or terminated.'"

Comments

Re:so, let's fight this with illegal tactics?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

We don't need due process in the US. The Patriot Act and the DMCA got rid of that pesky nuisance. You're a criminal if we say so and don't go deluding yourself thinking that we could be wrong. We have all the evidence that we need and, if we don't, we'll find it after we have you.

Re:The RIAAs Rights

[cpt kangarooski]

I'd generally disagree. Copyrights are artificial rights granted to authors by the government on behalf of their people. The purpose for granting copyrights is a utilitarian one: copyrights are only acceptable if they are more beneficial to the public than they are harmful. Ideally, copyrights should be fine-tuned so that they provide the greatest public benefit for the least public harm. However, since what the public finds beneficial (more works created and published, no or minimal restrictions on works) tend to not be what authors and publishers find beneficial (fewer works created and published so that there is less competition, inventory, etc., maximal restrictions on the public, better effective protection for established authors and publishers than for newcomers), so authors and publishers will often try to pervert the copyright laws to their own benefit.

There's no moral component to this whatsoever. It's amoral, like many laws, e.g. building codes. Though if there were a moral aspect, it would favor pirates, who work to preserve and disseminate knowledge, often running an economic loss. The copyright holders seek to restrict access and use of knowledge to those who can pay, and often impose additional arbitrary restrictions.

While the present law might support them, it is not written in stone that the present law is either immutable or the best law. "I want it" is a perfectly legitimate position for people to take with regards to creative works. It is selfish, but then again, the desire of copyright holders to get artificial monopolies they can exploit for money is equally selfish. If giving them a monopoly of a particular scope and duration is ultimately beneficial to us, then so be it. But we can just as easily reduce or eliminate copyrights, so long as we're willing to live with the consequences of that (some of which would be good, some of which would be less than ideal, none of which would actually get to the point of being bad, however).

So don't knock the attitude of entitlement. It's well-founded, but people should avoid acting on it when it profits them more to hold off for a little while. Like when you're really hungry, you could go to McDonald's now or you could put up with it for an hour and cook an even better meal for yourself.