[stonetools]

If the the efforts of law enforcement were working, we'd see less illegal activity online as the web grows. More actual numbers, perhaps, but a smaller percentage of online activity would be illegal. Instead, the opposite is happening: new methods of committing fraud, copyright infringement, virus-spreading, and harassment are far outstripping attempts to stop them.

So LE needs more time, more tools and more resources to go after the worst offenders. The Obama Administration says precisely that. Lawlessness flourished on the Atlantic too- but eventually, the last big pirates were brought to justice.

And that's why suspected pirate sites are languishing in tiny, near-forgotten corners of the internet, right? Because there's no widespread public support for unauthorized filesharing.

They're flourishing because they are currently beyond the reach of LE. When they can't outrun the long arm of the law, they won't flourish. Al Capone was untouchable for years too. Where did he end up?

People engage into unauthorised file sharing precisely because there is no LE-and they have been told that it's OK. Once there is effective LE, people will stop. Will they stop completely? Nope-but that's not the goal. The goal is that piracy will fall to a level so that it won't crowd out legit business activity. You like iTunes? Get rid of Napster. Want DRM free books? Make it so authors won't have to worry about some pirate using an illegal copy of his ebook to draw eyeballs to his ads for fake cancer drugs. That's within reach.

"Work within the rules" is not the only ethical way to change a corrupt and oppressive legal system. When the power-structure's too entrenched, the only change comes from ignoring the law--and finding out how many other people are willing to ignore it, too.

So the US legal system is corrupt and oppressive because it is serious about upholding the IP rights of artists? Do tell. Next you'll be comparing prosecuting copyright infringement violations to slavery and the Holocaust.
Let's be realistic. Your position is all about going easy on copyright infringers because you have dfiferent views about arcane matters such as DRM. That's understandable. But that's not resisting an oppressive legal system.

Fine--but it doesn't help to figure out how to do that. You seem to think file-uploading and torrents are somehow isolated from other illegal activities online; that legal teams can effectively fight file-sharing without fighting spambots, viruses and phishing. I don't--and I think that efforts against those three will cut down on file-sharing much more than efforts against file-sharing alone.

Efforts against file-sharing alone are tackling the symptoms. They go after one host site or another, without considering how the very structure of the internet allows these actions. They want to make this *one* use of that structure illegal, without any understanding that there's no way to phrase that restriction.

They want to spend a lot of money going after "digital pirates," whom they claim are causing a great deal of damage that's invisible to everyone except specialists in copyright math, while refusing to go after those who file false DMCA takedowns against political opponents, those who send those endless V1AGR4 ads that clog up servers, those who spew hatespeech that wouldn't be allowed in public in any city in the US.

And that's aside from "they want to spend money stoping 'copyright infringement' instead of creating new jobs," which is a lot more relevant to most people online.

Attempts to "bring law to the internet" are doomed as long as the people pushing for "law" are ignoring what everyone else thinks the real problems are.

Actually, I want them doing all that-AND enforcing anti-piracy laws. I see no reason as to why they can't go after spambots , identity thieves, frauds, phishers, con men-hey throw in the banksters.INdeed, I presume they are doing that. I just don't see why we should go easy on pirates.