Slashdot Mirror
Do We Want ISPs Penalizing Music Fans?
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Noted singer songwriter Billy Bragg has written an excellent column in The Guardian, coming out against the pro-RIAA '3-strikes' legislation the big 4 record labels are trying to push through. In the article, entitled 'Do we want ISPs penalizing our fans?', Bragg writes: 'Having failed miserably in previous attempts to stamp out illicit filesharing, the record industry has now joined forces with other entertainment lobby groups to demand that the government takes action to protect their business model.' He goes on: 'Fearful of the prospect of dragging their customers though the courts, with all the attendant costs and bad publicity, members of the record industry have come up with a simple, cost-free solution to their problem: get the ISPs to do their dirty work for them. They are asking the government to force the ISPs to cut off the broadband connection of customers who persistently download unauthorized material, without any recourse to appeal in the courts.'"
Don't cut the broadband for any crime until it's proven in court.
It's not the role of the ISP to act as a police for a third party.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Do we want "justice" meted out without even the pretense of due process, with accusation equaling guilt, and control in the hands of an unaccountable mess of corporate pressure groups?
The chap from TFA seems nice enough, and it is good that he is thinking about the question; but, thing is, it isn't his call. Allowing penalties to be assessed for private gain, without any sort of judicial process, is a grotesque parody of justice. It should not be countenanced anywhere. I'm glad that there are some on the music side that are uncomfortable with the idea; but that isn't the point. The point is that "3 strikes" and its ilk are wholly unacceptable. If they agree, great, if they don't, tough.
If the ISPs are to be considered a 'common carrier', then this is not their duty.
Other points, if the ISPs are going to be doing this:
- How are they to decide when something is fair use, when even the big media companies get it wrong so often?
- Who is going to pay them to do the dirty work of the media industry?
- This is like getting Walmart to ban you because something you are doing is not kosher in HMV.
There are certainly other problems with this whole 'getting the ISPs' to do the dirty work, but I have a 'failure of imagination' when it comes to the other issues.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You emitted the exact same response last time. Anyway: This isn't a "pro piracy" issue. This is a due process of law issue.
If the RIAA can just call up my ISP and demand that they disconnect me, that makes a mockery of due process. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Or are "pirates" (and the occasional misidentified laser printer) just too evil for due process?
Clearly this is against an ISP's best interest, but here's a few reasons they might go along with it anyway.
(1) Some ISPs (like AOL) are owned by the media bullies.
(2) Larger ISPs have legal departments to handle the lawsuits sure to ensue. Smaller ISPs don't. Bye bye competition.
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
Here we have two adjacent /. stories: one about ISPs being responsible for users' behavior, the other about ISPs not being responsible for users' behavior.
What is needed is a clarification, likely from SCOTUS, on whether ISPs are "common carriers" or not. If they are, then ISPs have to monitor postings and downloads (punishing people according to ... uh ... well they're not police or courts so it's really unclear how they're supposed to detect & respond re: users' behavior). If they are not, then ISPs can finally tell everyone else to take it up with the actual legally-identifiable offender.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
... and not only that, but there is no practical way for ISPs to know what traffic is passing under your name, without intrusively inspecting the packets. That is without precedent; it is akin to asking telephone companies to listen in on your calls to determine if you are a using the telephone "improperly".
The so called 'piracy' (aka copyright infringement) is about fair use, freedom, and taking a stance (though some choose an improper form) against the draconion rules and organizations that are trying to monetize and take away our legacy. Music has always been about enjoyment and sharing. Until recently, the most common way to listen to music was to get together with friends and sing. No performance fees, no songwriter royalties, just people belting out a ditty.
Under the current situation, and the future one if RIAA has it's way, the National Anthem of the USA, that's the "Star Spangled Banner" for those who don't know, wouldn't exist under their rules. It was a (somewhat) popular piece of poetry that people started singing to a very popular piece of music. That made a fantastic hit that inspired people so much, they made it the national anthem. These days, the insane copyright lengths combined with the dubious 'enforcement groups' would have prevented any such thing from ever happening.
Have you wondered why nobody ever sings "Happy Birthday" on shows and movies anymore? Someone decided to enforce their copyright... Another piece of classic americana and culture down the tubes because of this subject. What's the next thing we'll loose? Yes, some of these people are breaking laws.
Yes, we talk about it a lot.
But you need to understand, if somebody doesn't raise a fuss and find a way to stop this, what will our children have left?
Unfortunately, the answer is not much...
But how do I get my money BACK? I'm more interested in getting my money back (Like at a real merchants) then I am at writing a letter to someone who will never read it. If I got my money back I could still boycott the company and have lost nothing from my bank account.
Why can they sell me buggy software with no return policy and I lose money, but if it happens to them it's a huge legislative issue?
Actually, I happen to be a musician and I disagree. I don't support piracy and I don't want people stealing my stuff. However, I also despise the RIAA, what it's doing, and how it's doing it. I also hate to see due process get thrown under the bus for the sake of an aging business model. Touring has always made musicians truckloads more money than CDs ever have. CD sales are just used by huge record companies as a revenue stream for themselves and as an indicator telling them who to send on huge tours. Regardless of how you feel about piracy, RIAA's idiotic tactics are going to make people want to stop supporting musicians entirely.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Your post makes no sense. Nobody in the UK over the age of 20? So you think he makes music for teenagers and little kiddies?
The funny thing about Bragg is that whilst he's always willing to give uncritical support to the Labour regime of the day, his songs are actually quite critical of them and their policies. The track "O Freedom" from his latest album is about Labour's policy of locking up terrorist suspects without a proper trial or letting them know the evidence against them. That system has been taken apart (I think...) but it was actually worse than gitmo because these people were arrested in this country.
I'm not a fan of Bragg, mainly because I'm not a fan of folk-rock, but I know lots of people who are. Most of them are in their 20s but I'd expect that's because most of my friends are in their 20s. They're all active socialists and trade-unionists so it's to be expected that Bragg would speak to them.
If you venture outside of the mainstream, you're sure to find plenty of Bragg fans here in the UK.
Nick
What's your opinion on downloading ripped movies you already own, because ripping a DVD is (arguably) illegal and in some cases more time consuming than actually downloading? (assuming you live in a country with real bandwidth, not the US) Or downloading a pirate version of a book you already own, just because you want to read it "on the fly"
What's your opinion on downloading cracks for the games you own, just because DRM makes you want to cry and requiring the original DVD on the drive is JUST PLAIN STUPID?
How about people who want to acquire a work that there is no legal alternative for them to buy? (example: out of print books, tv shows from foreign countries, movies that never came out on DVD, LP's that never came out on CD)
Are those examples of "entitlement" plausible enough, or do you find them highly unlikely?
So are we going to start prosecuting auto makers for providing get-away vehicles to criminals?
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Unfortunately, the RIAA interprets your "not buying their music" as being the same as "another Internet pirate illegally downloading/sharing their music." After all, they reason, their music is vital to everyone's life and anyone who doesn't buy the minimum that the RIAA deems necessary must be pirating the rest. (This comment would be going for the Funny tag if it weren't true.)
Yes it is true. But I think it's really just a handful of executives. The same ones who never figured out how to make money on the internet. So to make themselves look better, they are trying to scapegoat copyright infringement. The record companies' real enemy is obsolescence.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful