Slashdot Mirror
3 Strikes — Denying Physics Won't Save the Video Stars
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.
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.
They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.
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"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
In a way that requires proving that someone stole, rather than a simple accusation maybe?
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.
Find free books.
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.
regards, the_leander
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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 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."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
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 presumed upon accusation is a far greater crime than copyright infringement.
So it doesn't matter how else the situation should be handled. It doesn't matter if there is *no other way* to inforce copyright law. Guilty-upon-accusation is outright unacceptable under any circumstance.
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.
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.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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 ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What bearing does physics have on this?
California is holding legislative hearings 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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
. 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
Portugal
Argentina
Similar legislation has been approved in Colombia, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Spain
I see no sign of countries being 'coerced' into stricter drug laws.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/24/california.marijuana/index.html
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How about an Op Ed piece last week by George Will discussing decriminalizing marijuana?
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.
The universe was intelligently designed. Unfortunately God was in a hurry so he coded it in Java.
"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.
Fortune magazine september issue? The cover says "Is Pot Already Legal?
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 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.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
"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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
That sucks... at least in jail I would still have internet.
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. Check the facts, alcohol use was higher under alcohol prohibition, and countries that decriminalize see a decrease in drug use (see Portugal). Why does this happen? Well instead of thinking of the difference as legal vs illegal, think of it as unregulated vs regulated. You can't regulate a black market. So illegal drugs get sold to teenagers, while legal drugs get sold to adults. Who do you think is more likely to get addicted?
So with decriminalization you're going to have fewer addicts, but it's also less harmful to be an addict. You get cleaner drugs, with measured doses, so you're less likely to have an overdose or adverse reaction. If you do have an adverse reaction or side effect, you can get treated for it without the fear of going to jail.
On top of having fewer addicts, and reducing the harm on those we do have, decriminalization helps reduce the negative societal effects of drug use. Cheaper legal drugs are easier to support an addiction to without resorting to crime. With the criminal stigma lifted, it will be easier to get and keep a job without employers caring about what's in your urine. So addicts can continue to contribute to the economy to the best of their ability. The profits from the huge US drug market would no longer go towards criminal organizations, and the associated crime wouldn't happen anymore.
From every way I look at it, decriminalization of all drugs is going to cause less harm than prohibition. If that makes me an idiot, I'd like to know where I'm wrong. But I think it's you who's afraid and not really thinking. I understand why, stimulants and opiates are quite dangerous and change is scary. I do agree that we should focus on Cannabis first, though. It isn't as dangerous and will serve to illustrate the general principle.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Alcohol doesn't ruin lives, cops/government ruin lives. If all alcohol were legal there would be no alcohol related crimes.
Your argument is ridiculous. If drugs were not illegal then those people who become destitute may never even have run into those problems in the first place. If we looked at ALL drugs as a health issue and not a criminal one then we would probably make much greater headway in reform and keeping people off of drugs in the first place.
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?
All points of time and space are connected.
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.
To clarify, David Nutt is an academic, who works for Imperial College. His role as government advisor on drugs was unpaid, and he is being sacked from this unpaid position. The government may be paying for expensive researchers on this subject somewhere else, but it was not paying him directly.