Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Should Illegal Downloaders Be Cut Off From the Internet?
Paul Keith:
http://debatewise.org/debates/1063-should-illegal-downloaders-be-cut-off-from-the-internet?
Snippets:
it is an inappropriately harsh punishment for a badly thought out law. some instances of filesharing aren't stealing anyway - for instance, people making their own work freely available for download. and things like translation patches for Japanese games are still legally fuzzy.
why is going to court to be tried for a crime an 'inconvenience'? it is possible that you didn't commit the offence - you could have been hacked - and it is possible that your offence wasn't harsh enough to warrant disconnection - if you only downloaded one torrent file - so legally you should have a trial.
--- End quote ---
The Government uses claims and research supported by and affiliated with the music and film industries, to support her claim of damages done. These organisations have an interest in over-reporting and exaggerating the numbers, precisely to prompt legislation like the Government is putting forward at this very moment.
The Opposition holds, in contrast, that (a) the decline in sales of the media industry can be attributed to many other factors than illegal file sharing, (b) the music industry's definition of damages done is faulty, and (c) that even if the claims have some base in reality, something we believe to be not the case, increased enforcement would not have any effect on the damages to the film industry.
(a) To assume that the coincident rise of file sharing and decline of the media industry has a causal link is wrong. Several other important developments have a direct link to the argument made by the Government. The habits of media consumers have changed. They use their 'own', bought, media (such as bought CDs and DVDs) less frequently, and have shifted more to on-demand services like TV-channels.
Another development is the wide availability of professional grade production equipment on contemporary home computers, which enables a greater range of people to produce and manufacture their own media. This increases competition and draws revenue from large, traditional media companies to smaller, unaffiliated ones whose revenues are not reported in the figures the Government cites.
(b) The damages done by file sharing, as reported by the music industry, are wholly inaccurate. These figures are a combination of missed growth targets, extrapolated estimates, and pure fiction, made to influence public opinion. What really are these damages? Let us analyse them in more detail.
For one to do €10 damage to Sony Music by file sharing, they would need to (1) make up their mind to procure some music (say, a single of "Oops, I did it again" worth €5). (2) have been willing to pay the in-store price of "Oops, I did it again". (3) then instead download it illegally. Why the double damages? Taken as a whole, a file sharing network downloads and uploads exactly as much. So, for every person downloading "Oops, I did it again" illegally, on average, they facilitate one other person in downloading "Oops, I did it again" illegally.
(Note that it has yet to be seen that someone's Up/Down ratio has been used in a court case to determine the fine/punishment. The fines are mostly set by Sony Music et al. themselves.)
These three requirements are often not present when calculating the damages done for a purported criminal engaged in file sharing. For example, (1) is not present when someone sees a file offered for download they have never heard of, then, on a whim, decide to download it. (2) is most often violated - the vast majority of file sharers would not pay €50 for a video game or € 10 for a DVD they now get for free.
All of these arguments invalidate the claims the music industry has to any damages, or at least invalidates the amounts and methods reported in current court cases. This means that the Government's argument of solving a great economical evil by their plan does not hold.
(c) Increased enforcement will never put the illegal file sharing networks out of operation, which is what is necessary to generate more revenue for the music industry IF their claims are true (which (b) argues is not the case). These networks are global, the music industry is not (e.g. servers hosted in rogue states), and the technologically adept file sharers will find new, undetectable methods of sharing.
Many legal services are available which allow you to download video and audio for free. Most TV channels have an online on-demand service. There are similar services available for music, including Nokia’s Come with Music service, which allows owners of specific Nokia phones to download unlimited music, free of charge. Persistent file-sharers are halting the development and growth of these legal services.
--- End quote ---
The services are much more limited and less convenient, where it is possible to obtain almost anything off filesharing and bit torrent sites, mostly without any fuss other than waiting for it to download. Many people also prefer downloading something from a community of users than rely directly on a corporation.
ISPs are angry that they are being asked to police users and foot the cost of this enforcement. A spokeswoman for Virgin Media said that was a, “heavy-handed, punitive regime that will simply alienate customers.
--- End quote ---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8219652.stm
File-sharers Buy Media Too
http://revolutionmagazine.com/news/929484/Music-thiefs-spend-movies-probably/
P.S. Yeah, these are old points but I just recently chanced upon the site and thought some may be interested in rereading these points in light of the Mininova incident.
zridling:
Hell no they shouldn't be cut off. Internet access is a human right in the 21st century, since access to information largely controls the quality of your life. Here's a clueful piece from the Guardian:
The emancipatory potential of the free dissemination of intellectual property through infinite replication is overwhelming. Unlike private property that is subject to scarcity, supply and demand laws and other rigid determinations, immaterial property poses an explosive threat to our deeply rooted notions of proprietorship.
It is not only because there can be potentially infinite owners of property that the internet redefines our notion of it. It is also that people who participate in the exchange of immaterial works do not treat them as property. When they exchange music, books or movies, they are not merely transferring ownership from themselves to others; they simply do not recognise themselves as owners in the first place.
_____________________________________
No wonder they want to lock the internet down and lock users out!
zridling:
I should add: It makes governments crazy because it democratizes knowledge.
If everything is eventually considered illegal, then we're all criminals. I think the Associated Press considers quoting four words or more from a story copyright infringement, and for anything more they want to be paid!
Eóin:
People with lots of money are warping laws so they can get more, just plain old capitalism really.
40hz:
People with lots of money are warping laws so they can get more, just plain old capitalism really.
-Eóin (December 02, 2009, 05:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
But only if you let them get away with it. :)
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I still believe in the notion that anyone accused of wrongdoing must be considered innocent until proven guilty, and shall have the right to a fair and speedy trial before a jury of their peers.
So if "they" decided it was necessary to kick somebody off the net for illegal activities, at the very least they should be made to prove the person had engaged in illegal activities - in court - and with the full rules of evidence and judicial oversight in effect.
I can't accept 'kangaroo' justice or summary administrative judgment ever being allowed to replace the rules of due process. Especially if such judgments are to be made by (or at the behest of) self-appointed industry entities,
Law enforcement and criminal prosecution are functions of a government's executive authority. Criminal trial and sentencing, along with the interpretation of applicable laws, lies within the domain of a government's judicial authority.
I don't recall there being any provisions to allow for private industries to carve out their own enforcement or judicial niches within our government. To allow that would be to return to the days of the old railroad and mining robber barons - complete with 'company police' (i.e. "goon squads"); and a non-existent record for honoring constitutional law.
I'm sorry if the music and movie industry is getting tired about what is happening to them.
I can only hope government doesn't get lazy and grant them everything they want just to shut them up.
---------------
BTW: I can't but help thinking that there's a much better way to send a message to the RIAA and Hollywood than by making illegal copies of music and movies. Why not "put the boot in" the only place a business can feel pain? Why not give them a kick in their bottom line?
All it would take are two separate but related actions to make things very clear:
* Virtually everyone stops buying music and movies
* Virtually everyone stops "sharing" music and movies
If everybody is as opposed to the antics of the music and movie industry as some claim, it should be a relatively simple matter to organize a near total boycott of all major-label movies and music. Three to six months with ZERO purchases of CDs, DVDs, and tickets to live shows - combined with ZERO "file sharing" - should be more than enough to let them know they need their public more than their public needs them.
It won't be until people are willing demonstrate (to the entertainment industry and the government) that they're prepared to completely walk away from the industry's "product" that their protest will be taken seriously.
But the only way it will work is if the illegal copying and legal purchasing both stop simultaneously.
8)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version