If millions of people are willing to physically buy a Britney Spears CD, that indicates that Britney Spears's music has economic value, because people don't enter into an economic exchange unless they gain something from the transaction. Therefore, would we be better off without Britney Spears?
If everyone stole music instead of paying for it, there would be no incentive to create much of the music we have today. Musicians have to eat, and they shouldn't need to beg (or rely on generosity) to make a living when their product has legitimate economic value.
Since not everyone steals music, those that pay effectively subsidise those that don't. Does that make those that pay stupid, does it make the publishers evil, or does it make the thieves twice the thieves they thought they were?
If you could steal a car, without imposing any economic loss on the car manufacturer, would that make it Ok? How would you decide fairly who gets to steal the car?
Just curious. (and parhaps a little provocative, but that's too easy on Slashdot:P )
You're probably right, but there's a guy at my MBA school who has one, and it looks pretty cool to me, he uses it like paper and it really does seem to respond to the stylus as if it were paper.
What it really needs is working writing recognition so that you can then turn written notes into word documents with actual characters you can cut, paste, edit etc. But it's not there yet.
The drug producers probably didn't feel the need to press charges, and they probably paid the dealer straight up.
I'd moderate you up as funny and insightful (I also happen to agree with you), but don't have any moderation points, and you can't moderate the same post twice anyway, and so will have to settle for maniacal laughter in a follow-up message:)
I don't think they'll lose thousands in sales because of this. Given the maximum punitive penalties for copyright infringement, the kids got off easy. They were sharing thousands of files, and they weren't sued for copying themselves but for illegally distributing works they didn't own (much like illegal copies of DVDs, games etc pirated in China). The maximum penalty for that is 5 years in prison. No wonder they settled.
If I own a legal copy of the CD, it is fair use for me to download a copy of that CD from someone else, correct?
i'm not sure, but I would guess so. What is illegal is for that other person to have shared the file in the first place, therefore you should not own that copy of the file, because it shouldn't have been made available. In this case it's not you they should be prosecuting, but the person you downloaded it from.
Wow. Intelligent debate - on Slashdot. I'm almost about to regret that its 1:30am and I'm drunk. But I'll do my best to answer anyway. Slaughter my weak comeback regardless. Re: moderation: teeny-boppers who don't agree with my opinion but can't argue back like to mark me down. I make it up elsewhere, no worries.
First of all though, I'd like to ask a question: Is it right for someone to download for free and use something that they would normally have to pay for to obtain? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'd just like to know where you're coming from.
There's too much in your post for me to address is my current state, so I'll hit a couple of highlights, aiming more at clarifying my argument than making more points. I think I've said most of what I believe already anyway.
I checked out your link (azoz.com), and since I'm an MBA student, should be able to work it out, but am seeing double at the moment and so will leave that to a later date. Also, sorry if the following is out of order. I'm starting with the easy ones.
Criminals don't get sued, they are prosecuted. It is this blurring of the law that I am opposed to.
Allow me to rephrase: It's criminal and I think the people that do it should be prosecuted. Sorry I used the wrong word, the spirit of my statement remains the same, as you well knew. Cheap shot.
It's a separate issue, but I consider the use of the term "intellectual property" to be a blatant attempt to fork a debate.
It's not an attempt to fork the debate, the two rely on the same logical framework in law and I believe the two to be backed up by the same logic. You protect people's right to obtain returns from creating original work that, by its very nature, is unprotectable technologically. You create a legal framework where no natural one exists in order to provide the incentive to create to people, by guaranteeing their ability to gain returns from that creation. The use of filesharing today undermines that ability by circumventing the law.
Joe_Normal and Joe_CEO
Joe_Normal thinks it's ok to speed on the motorway, Joe_Parliament thinks it's not because it hurts society, so passes laws making it illegal. Joe_Normal still thinks it's Ok, but has no right to whine when he gets caught and has to face the consequences. Same in this domain. Joe_Normal thinks it's Ok to copy music for free and not pay the maker. Joe_CEO and Joe_Justice think it's not, and so will prosecute (I'm learning), but on Slashdot all I see is loads of whining about why they get prosecuted for copying copyrighted work. Loads of idiots out there still think it's cool to drive through suburban areas at 70 mph, I put the two into the same bucket, the difference of opinion here is qualitative and not legal.
Prove it. [azoz.com]
You miss my point (I think). I'm not saying the industyr as a whole is losing money. I'm saying that if you downloaded the song, you should have paid them (say) $2.50, and that if you didn't, but still own the song now, they are $2.50 out of pocket. Multiply by the number of songs copied per day and there you go. It's not a grey area that if you weren't going to buy it anyway you are justified in getting it for free, you should be doing without it. If you're getting it at all then you're getting value from that ownership, and you should be paying the price they demand for it. The consumer doesn't set the price, the supplier does, and if you don't like the price, you do without the product. Law 101.
Heaven forbid that choice is given to the people that pay the bills of large companies. I buy bottled water. Now why do you think I spend my hard-earned money on a commodity that I'm already buying and that is freely available via my kitchen sink?
But in the case of bottled water, you're choosing between two suppliers. In the case of filesharing, you're not listening to different music, you're stealing from a supplier and not paying. The two are not c
While I agree that this is potentially feasible (even getting around the Anonymous Coward's complications), and even though I know the government is getting less and less intrested in maintaining civil liberties.
I have to assume they've thought of most of this and are trying to find legal ways around it.
Also, are you typical of filesharers, or would most people still get caught out by something that attacked file hashes?
The final answer to this will be when they convince the courts to force ISPs to check P2P traffic as it flows. If copyrighted works are being mass-copied, that's a huge crime, and all this would be is the digital equivalent of a wiretap, which would be obtainable were you committing a similar crime in the real world.
They don't need to prove their losses compared to an alternative scenario. There's a fundamental misconception there.
There's two sides to this.
1) You think this is a victimless crime. That by stealing this song, and claiming that you would never have downloaded it had you had to pay for it, nobody has lost any money, and therefore that makes it Ok for you to download this song, listen to it and share it with anyone else who wants to download it.
Well you know what, I'd use Linux if I had to pay for Windows, and since that's true I can go download Windows and use that instead, because since I'm not willing to pay for Windows, I can have it for free.
No court of law, and no rational adult in their right mind would hesitate a second in throwing out that argument. I goes against some of the founding principles of the economy we live in. If you want something someone else has produced, and the benefits that go along with possession of that item/good/service, you pay for it. If you don't pay, you don't get those benefits, because you don't get to own it. Simple as that, enshrined in modern law for centuries, and its going to take some much more radical developments than filesharing to change the underlying reasons for that.
2. Of course there are losses. Every time a song is downloaded, they are owed money, and if that money is not paid, that's a loss. if the song were NOT downloaded, then they would not be owed any money, and there would be no loss. Your possession of the song creates a legal requirement that they be paid for that license on the copyright.
I don't like the way the music industry is set up these days - it doesn't give me the breadth of music I want and it doesn't support the types of artist that I like. I don't have anything against filesharing networks per se either, they're a cool innovative technology. But people obtaining copyrighted works without paying for them undermines some of the most basic principles the economy is based on: principles that promote development, innovation, creativity and design, and that encourage people to create valuable intellectual property in the first place. It's criminal and I think the people that do it should be sued. I also think that new business models that legally undermine the current business model are just around the corner, but the difference will be that they provide a legitimate, economically viable alternative, where both the producer and the consumer have a choice. Filesharing of copyrighted digital property puts the choice of what to pay entirely in the consumers hands, and when you do that, people will pay nothing.
A lot of this discussion assumes that the RIAA is going to sneak into your computer under cover of darkness and delete all your files. That they don't have the right, and that this is terribly shocking.
My first thought is that the article clearly stated, twice, that nobody in this setup intended to do anything illegal. The RIAA claims that it is "exploring technological options", but "has no intention o breaking the law in any way". So let's wait for them to state the intention before jumping down their throats on this one, as otherwise it just makes the pro-filesharing community look like a bunch of hypocritical whiners.
I thought "making it available" was sufficient to break the law. "Nobody had downloaded it yet" seems like a bit of a lame defence when it's clear that you were making it available for download by others.
Second, as a previous poster wrote, sarcastically, "Oh My God! The RIAA might actually be breaking the law, how terrible!" (or words to that effect). Every time a song is shared or downloaded for free off a filesharing service, the law has been broken and the "victim" (legally speaking, please control your emotional arguments) is a music producer and related people. It strikes me as hypocritical in the extreme that these people might seek to use the law to prevent countermeasures against their own lawbreaking. A bit like the guy who tried to steal your wallet in the street sueing you for punching him in your defence. (note, slashdot pedants, that I said a bit and am not saying the two are exactly or legally equivalent). I agree that much of what the RIAA might try to do is dodgy from an invasion of privacy and unauthorized access/damage to property standpoint. But it isn't nearly as black and white as the filesharing=theft argument that has already been tried in court and has been upheld. I think the courts would have little sympathy, and might well ask for proof. What would then ensue would be that the court asks the RIAA or whoever for reparations to cover the cost of the damage they did.
I would think that the RIAA would do whatever it does carefully, would weigh the risks and potential pitfalls of their IT strategy and would take appropriate precautions: we've already seen them test the idea by floating it in front of lawmakers. My guess is that when they do it, they'll have the law and the ISPs on their side. There's an assumption on here that we're dealing with idiots, and I think that's a bit naive.
Also: You think that you could lure the RIAA in by making it look (deliberately) like you're doing something they should be concerned about, have a piece of code that redirects their subsequent attack to a military website, thus bringing the department of defense into the affair, and you would somehow not be found to have done something wrong? I'll tell you what, you do it, I'll watch, because regardless of whether it's called Entrapment or not, I'd rather be in the audience.
But if you rip the same CD twice, won't the MD5 hashes be different? I thought there was some variability to the ripping process, so basically they can identify files that were illegally obtained, and those are destroyable. I.E. They look at the filesharing networks, work out the MD5 hashes for the files on there, and since sharing a file on a filesharing network is defacto illegal, they can then attack just those files.
Is that a possibility, technologically speaking, or if I rip the same CD twice, do I get identical files in every way?
Well I would expect that a new rip of a CD track wouldn't have an identical MD5 hash as a track taken off the internet. I thought there was some measure of variability in the ripping process - although admittedly I know more about the law than about the technology.
I agree with you on your right to name files whatever way you want. I also agree that they have no right to access it. I don't think that if they went into your computer, accessed your files, found mp3s there, you'd try to sue them for it.
Your lawyer would advise you to drop it before they countersued with a piracy claim that can cost you $250,000 and 5 years in prison.
I'm not sure why they didn't go for the heavy penalties in that court case last week - perhaps because they don't want to become too unpopular, perhaps because they thought they stood a better chance of winning if they were more reasonable.
I'd hope they were doing something more sophisticated than that!!! If they were just scanning for music in this way, then I'd have to agree that it's pretty inappropriate.
Personally, I'd try to find the most common/popular versions of the files doing the rounds, get the MD5 hashes and find a way of destroying anything on the computer with that hash. At least that's the start of an idea.
Your ownership, use or distribution of a copyrighted work without the agreement of the copyright holder is, in and of itself, illegal in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Can't speak for other countries, but that's the law of it in those two.
The argument "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is answered with, "then you shouldn't have it anyway". You downloaded it, for whatever purpose, without consent of the copyright holder, you broke the law.
IANAL, but I've got a few law courses under my belt, and the first thing that springs to mind is countersuit.
You can sue them for illegal access to a computer, but illegal distribution of a copyrighted work (regardless of whether it is for profit or not) carries a maximum penalty of $250,000 and 5 years in prison. If they threaten you with that countersuit, my guess is you'll drop your case pretty sharpish, especially when you committed the first crime and if they can claim some form of self-defence or provocation (that last bit's outside of my knowledge, so I'm speculating).
If you spoofed illegal files on your computer, then that's entrapment, and you really don't want to go there!
what gives the Recording Industry Association of America the right to delete files on my PC
The same thing that gives you the right to copy copyrighted music: absolutely nothing, you don't have that right and neither do they.
Although to be fair they did say in the article that they were developing the programs but would release only those that were considered legal. How they intend to do this is uncertain, but in the same way as the US army has loads of weapons declared illegal by the Geneva convention and just avoids using them, they might just be developing these in case things escalate to the point where the scale of the theft pushes courts into authorizing the countermeasures (assuming they perfect them and don't delete other files).
I agree, this is just an example of new territory. Nobody's ever asked for this before, and so they're thinking, "is this appropriate?" If it isn't, then they need to legislate, but just because this Sharkey fellow is the first person to come up with the request doesn't mean he should be exempt from the laws that are passed in reaction to his request.
Legislators don't generalise laws if they deem it to be inappropriate, they need to acknowledge (or not) that email is different to regular mail addresses on the basis that the cost-free nature of emailing an address means that should that address become public knowledge, the address itself may become unusable quite quickly.
Hopefully, common sense will prevail and legislators will decide that people that provided their email addresses had a reasonable presumption of privacy, or that if you want to contact them through this method, then you have to go through an authorized third party that will forward certain types of communication (ie not be a spam-forwarder); perhaps neither of these options is the right one, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that just implementing open access policies and letting anyone get access to these email addresses is inappropriate.
Since the article says that the email addresses are used to communicate council business to residents, we can say that the address owners had a reasonable presumption that that was what the address was going to be used for, not for whatever Mr. Sharkey's unstated purposes are.
From the articles I've read, it seems that the Al Qaeda name is now "franchised" to pretty much any group that cares to use it. Doesn't mean they're all one big coherent organization with a plan though, just separate people with a common enemy.
Not that it really matters since the threat remains the same, but it's important to note that you're not dealing with an entity you can put a box around. If you could, you would be able to tackle the problem more effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
Would we be better off without Copyright?
If millions of people are willing to physically buy a Britney Spears CD, that indicates that Britney Spears's music has economic value, because people don't enter into an economic exchange unless they gain something from the transaction. Therefore, would we be better off without Britney Spears?
If everyone stole music instead of paying for it, there would be no incentive to create much of the music we have today. Musicians have to eat, and they shouldn't need to beg (or rely on generosity) to make a living when their product has legitimate economic value.
Since not everyone steals music, those that pay effectively subsidise those that don't. Does that make those that pay stupid, does it make the publishers evil, or does it make the thieves twice the thieves they thought they were?
If you could steal a car, without imposing any economic loss on the car manufacturer, would that make it Ok? How would you decide fairly who gets to steal the car?
Just curious. (and parhaps a little provocative, but that's too easy on Slashdot :P )
Redundant, folks. Just like this post is Offtopic but I needed to get the bad-moderation rant off my chest.
What it really needs is working writing recognition so that you can then turn written notes into word documents with actual characters you can cut, paste, edit etc. But it's not there yet.
I so hope that's a joke, but on Slashdot, you never know...
I'd moderate you up as funny and insightful (I also happen to agree with you), but don't have any moderation points, and you can't moderate the same post twice anyway, and so will have to settle for maniacal laughter in a follow-up message :)
I don't think they'll lose thousands in sales because of this. Given the maximum punitive penalties for copyright infringement, the kids got off easy. They were sharing thousands of files, and they weren't sued for copying themselves but for illegally distributing works they didn't own (much like illegal copies of DVDs, games etc pirated in China). The maximum penalty for that is 5 years in prison. No wonder they settled.
"With all due respect to your assertions", I believe that that's the root of the problem right there.
i'm not sure, but I would guess so. What is illegal is for that other person to have shared the file in the first place, therefore you should not own that copy of the file, because it shouldn't have been made available. In this case it's not you they should be prosecuting, but the person you downloaded it from.
but why would you do this?
First of all though, I'd like to ask a question: Is it right for someone to download for free and use something that they would normally have to pay for to obtain? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'd just like to know where you're coming from.
There's too much in your post for me to address is my current state, so I'll hit a couple of highlights, aiming more at clarifying my argument than making more points. I think I've said most of what I believe already anyway.
I checked out your link (azoz.com), and since I'm an MBA student, should be able to work it out, but am seeing double at the moment and so will leave that to a later date. Also, sorry if the following is out of order. I'm starting with the easy ones.
Criminals don't get sued, they are prosecuted. It is this blurring of the law that I am opposed to.
Allow me to rephrase: It's criminal and I think the people that do it should be prosecuted. Sorry I used the wrong word, the spirit of my statement remains the same, as you well knew. Cheap shot.
It's a separate issue, but I consider the use of the term "intellectual property" to be a blatant attempt to fork a debate.
It's not an attempt to fork the debate, the two rely on the same logical framework in law and I believe the two to be backed up by the same logic. You protect people's right to obtain returns from creating original work that, by its very nature, is unprotectable technologically. You create a legal framework where no natural one exists in order to provide the incentive to create to people, by guaranteeing their ability to gain returns from that creation. The use of filesharing today undermines that ability by circumventing the law.
Joe_Normal and Joe_CEO
Joe_Normal thinks it's ok to speed on the motorway, Joe_Parliament thinks it's not because it hurts society, so passes laws making it illegal. Joe_Normal still thinks it's Ok, but has no right to whine when he gets caught and has to face the consequences. Same in this domain. Joe_Normal thinks it's Ok to copy music for free and not pay the maker. Joe_CEO and Joe_Justice think it's not, and so will prosecute (I'm learning), but on Slashdot all I see is loads of whining about why they get prosecuted for copying copyrighted work. Loads of idiots out there still think it's cool to drive through suburban areas at 70 mph, I put the two into the same bucket, the difference of opinion here is qualitative and not legal.
Prove it. [azoz.com]
You miss my point (I think). I'm not saying the industyr as a whole is losing money. I'm saying that if you downloaded the song, you should have paid them (say) $2.50, and that if you didn't, but still own the song now, they are $2.50 out of pocket. Multiply by the number of songs copied per day and there you go. It's not a grey area that if you weren't going to buy it anyway you are justified in getting it for free, you should be doing without it. If you're getting it at all then you're getting value from that ownership, and you should be paying the price they demand for it. The consumer doesn't set the price, the supplier does, and if you don't like the price, you do without the product. Law 101.
Heaven forbid that choice is given to the people that pay the bills of large companies. I buy bottled water. Now why do you think I spend my hard-earned money on a commodity that I'm already buying and that is freely available via my kitchen sink?
But in the case of bottled water, you're choosing between two suppliers. In the case of filesharing, you're not listening to different music, you're stealing from a supplier and not paying. The two are not c
I think this may be a step too far... :)
Moderation through opinion. Boo.
I have to assume they've thought of most of this and are trying to find legal ways around it.
Also, are you typical of filesharers, or would most people still get caught out by something that attacked file hashes?
The final answer to this will be when they convince the courts to force ISPs to check P2P traffic as it flows. If copyrighted works are being mass-copied, that's a huge crime, and all this would be is the digital equivalent of a wiretap, which would be obtainable were you committing a similar crime in the real world.
There's two sides to this.
1) You think this is a victimless crime. That by stealing this song, and claiming that you would never have downloaded it had you had to pay for it, nobody has lost any money, and therefore that makes it Ok for you to download this song, listen to it and share it with anyone else who wants to download it.
Well you know what, I'd use Linux if I had to pay for Windows, and since that's true I can go download Windows and use that instead, because since I'm not willing to pay for Windows, I can have it for free.
No court of law, and no rational adult in their right mind would hesitate a second in throwing out that argument. I goes against some of the founding principles of the economy we live in. If you want something someone else has produced, and the benefits that go along with possession of that item/good/service, you pay for it. If you don't pay, you don't get those benefits, because you don't get to own it. Simple as that, enshrined in modern law for centuries, and its going to take some much more radical developments than filesharing to change the underlying reasons for that.
2. Of course there are losses. Every time a song is downloaded, they are owed money, and if that money is not paid, that's a loss. if the song were NOT downloaded, then they would not be owed any money, and there would be no loss. Your possession of the song creates a legal requirement that they be paid for that license on the copyright.
I don't like the way the music industry is set up these days - it doesn't give me the breadth of music I want and it doesn't support the types of artist that I like. I don't have anything against filesharing networks per se either, they're a cool innovative technology. But people obtaining copyrighted works without paying for them undermines some of the most basic principles the economy is based on: principles that promote development, innovation, creativity and design, and that encourage people to create valuable intellectual property in the first place. It's criminal and I think the people that do it should be sued. I also think that new business models that legally undermine the current business model are just around the corner, but the difference will be that they provide a legitimate, economically viable alternative, where both the producer and the consumer have a choice. Filesharing of copyrighted digital property puts the choice of what to pay entirely in the consumers hands, and when you do that, people will pay nothing.
My first thought is that the article clearly stated, twice, that nobody in this setup intended to do anything illegal. The RIAA claims that it is "exploring technological options", but "has no intention o breaking the law in any way". So let's wait for them to state the intention before jumping down their throats on this one, as otherwise it just makes the pro-filesharing community look like a bunch of hypocritical whiners.
I thought "making it available" was sufficient to break the law. "Nobody had downloaded it yet" seems like a bit of a lame defence when it's clear that you were making it available for download by others.
Second, as a previous poster wrote, sarcastically, "Oh My God! The RIAA might actually be breaking the law, how terrible!" (or words to that effect). Every time a song is shared or downloaded for free off a filesharing service, the law has been broken and the "victim" (legally speaking, please control your emotional arguments) is a music producer and related people. It strikes me as hypocritical in the extreme that these people might seek to use the law to prevent countermeasures against their own lawbreaking. A bit like the guy who tried to steal your wallet in the street sueing you for punching him in your defence. (note, slashdot pedants, that I said a bit and am not saying the two are exactly or legally equivalent). I agree that much of what the RIAA might try to do is dodgy from an invasion of privacy and unauthorized access/damage to property standpoint. But it isn't nearly as black and white as the filesharing=theft argument that has already been tried in court and has been upheld. I think the courts would have little sympathy, and might well ask for proof. What would then ensue would be that the court asks the RIAA or whoever for reparations to cover the cost of the damage they did.
I would think that the RIAA would do whatever it does carefully, would weigh the risks and potential pitfalls of their IT strategy and would take appropriate precautions: we've already seen them test the idea by floating it in front of lawmakers. My guess is that when they do it, they'll have the law and the ISPs on their side. There's an assumption on here that we're dealing with idiots, and I think that's a bit naive.
Also: You think that you could lure the RIAA in by making it look (deliberately) like you're doing something they should be concerned about, have a piece of code that redirects their subsequent attack to a military website, thus bringing the department of defense into the affair, and you would somehow not be found to have done something wrong? I'll tell you what, you do it, I'll watch, because regardless of whether it's called Entrapment or not, I'd rather be in the audience.
Is that a possibility, technologically speaking, or if I rip the same CD twice, do I get identical files in every way?
Well I would expect that a new rip of a CD track wouldn't have an identical MD5 hash as a track taken off the internet. I thought there was some measure of variability in the ripping process - although admittedly I know more about the law than about the technology.
Your lawyer would advise you to drop it before they countersued with a piracy claim that can cost you $250,000 and 5 years in prison.
I'm not sure why they didn't go for the heavy penalties in that court case last week - perhaps because they don't want to become too unpopular, perhaps because they thought they stood a better chance of winning if they were more reasonable.
I'd hope they were doing something more sophisticated than that!!! If they were just scanning for music in this way, then I'd have to agree that it's pretty inappropriate. Personally, I'd try to find the most common/popular versions of the files doing the rounds, get the MD5 hashes and find a way of destroying anything on the computer with that hash. At least that's the start of an idea.
The argument "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is answered with, "then you shouldn't have it anyway". You downloaded it, for whatever purpose, without consent of the copyright holder, you broke the law.
You can sue them for illegal access to a computer, but illegal distribution of a copyrighted work (regardless of whether it is for profit or not) carries a maximum penalty of $250,000 and 5 years in prison. If they threaten you with that countersuit, my guess is you'll drop your case pretty sharpish, especially when you committed the first crime and if they can claim some form of self-defence or provocation (that last bit's outside of my knowledge, so I'm speculating).
If you spoofed illegal files on your computer, then that's entrapment, and you really don't want to go there!
The same thing that gives you the right to copy copyrighted music: absolutely nothing, you don't have that right and neither do they.
Although to be fair they did say in the article that they were developing the programs but would release only those that were considered legal. How they intend to do this is uncertain, but in the same way as the US army has loads of weapons declared illegal by the Geneva convention and just avoids using them, they might just be developing these in case things escalate to the point where the scale of the theft pushes courts into authorizing the countermeasures (assuming they perfect them and don't delete other files).
So if I download the entire RIAA roster, but they can't prove that I would have paid for it had I not been able to download it, what I've done is Ok?
So maybe not the entire RIAA roster - where do you draw the line? 1 song? 50 songs? 1000 songs? How many songs do you have on your computer?
Legislators don't generalise laws if they deem it to be inappropriate, they need to acknowledge (or not) that email is different to regular mail addresses on the basis that the cost-free nature of emailing an address means that should that address become public knowledge, the address itself may become unusable quite quickly.
Hopefully, common sense will prevail and legislators will decide that people that provided their email addresses had a reasonable presumption of privacy, or that if you want to contact them through this method, then you have to go through an authorized third party that will forward certain types of communication (ie not be a spam-forwarder); perhaps neither of these options is the right one, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that just implementing open access policies and letting anyone get access to these email addresses is inappropriate.
Since the article says that the email addresses are used to communicate council business to residents, we can say that the address owners had a reasonable presumption that that was what the address was going to be used for, not for whatever Mr. Sharkey's unstated purposes are.
Not that it really matters since the threat remains the same, but it's important to note that you're not dealing with an entity you can put a box around. If you could, you would be able to tackle the problem more effectively.