Internet Regulation and Censorship - Interesting Open Letter to MPAA

[tompe]

Originally Posted by stonetools

There was no one designer of the Internet. It "jest growed", really, although in response to various initiatives from government, scientists, entrepreneurs, and yes, engineers.

The fundamental principles were carefully chosen and had some very good consequences with regard to innovations. So it was designed into the system that it should have certain properties. It is these properties that people now want to destroy without understanding either that they destroy them or how important they are.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

As long as "the technologists" are writing the code, they'll be the ones shaping the future of the internet. We have politicians who don't know the difference between a document and the program that opens it, trying to mandate how people can use both. We have even more politicians who think that computers have "photos" and "movies" and "songs" and "ebooks" and "emails," rather than really long collections of ones and zeros which are being processed through various filter programs to display them so human perceptions can make sense of them.

+1

Reminded me of an article I read a few days ago:

That Congress was blithely preparing to regulate an industry it did not understand was on full display in December’s House mark-up hearings, at which proponents of SOPA professed ignorance of the workings of the Domain Name System, a fundamental piece of Internet architecture that SOPA proposed radically to alter. North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt, an early sponsor of the bill, made the memorable confession “I’m not a nerd.”

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

OK, you guys win. I'll look for an online piracy only poll.

I realize I'm late on this one, but I thought it was somewhat funny that the poll you quoted doesn't really support your position in any event - apparently only 13.7% of people have every pirated music or video, which suggests maybe sweeping laws that affect everyone and have real compliance costs may not be the answer (or the only answer). Legislation is a heavy hammer, and it's not the only option, particularly when the vast majority of people are complying anyway.

In the U.S., copyright has been expanded 15 times in the last 30 years; maybe it's not an issue of a lack of legislation.

Oh, and about copyrightholders and government saying they need stronger and stronger copyright? They always say that - 5 days after Megaupload was shutdown, a Hollywood astroturfing group released an ad saying they needed SOPA to stop sites like Megaupload, that it was unreachable by current laws. Awkward...

[stonetools]

No, anything that interferes with that freedom is antithetical to the nature of the internet, and will not work except as patchwork solutions for limited-scope problems.

Censorship=damage=rerouting time. The internet was built that way--not specifically to fight censorship, but to route around dropped carriers, bad code loops, and overloaded servers. "Data didn't get through; try another method" is what made digital business possible; one cannot simultaneously support that approach and try to block it.

Ok, so the Internet is robust. Doesn't mean its above the law.

Might as well mandate that pi be equal to three, or that cars get 75 miles to the gallon of gas. Or, sticking to more social realms, that all children get high test scores in school. The only way to achieve these results is to either rewrite reality, or change the standards by which success is measured.

Well, its a good thing that I am not advocating that governments do any of those things , but bring to the internet the same rule of law that exists in the real world- that contracts should be enforced, that property rights be respected, and and that artists and creative people be compensated.

As long as "the technologists" are writing the code, they'll be the ones shaping the future of the internet. We have politicians who don't know the difference between a document and the program that opens it, trying to mandate how people can use both. We have even more politicians who think that computers have "photos" and "movies" and "songs" and "ebooks" and "emails," rather than really long collections of ones and zeros which are being processed through various filter programs to display them so human perceptions can make sense of them.

I certainly believe that politicians should be informed about the subject matter of the legislation they pass. That said, I reject the idea that only "coders" should have a say in the future of the Internet. The Internet from its very beginning was created for public purposes (initially, secure military communications in time of war) and is now part of the public square, used by everyone. It is NOT the private plaything of the "technologists".

When did we eliminate piracy in the Atlantic?

W can all agree that piracy in the Atlantic is now insignificant. Law enforcement is about the SUPPRESSION of illegal activity, not about its elimination. You can't eliminate illegal activity, but you certainly can suppress it. We have not and will never eliminate the crime of rape, but I think we should continue to enforce the rape laws. I hope you agree.

But real-world comparisons with physical piracy are lacking an essential detail: Real-world pirates are directly interfering with commercial activity, and therefore have reason to stay near the most profitable routes. Internet "pirates" have no interest in participating directly with commercial media activity, and have no reason to spend time in populated areas.

In fact piracy sites fund their creators through ads . Piracy sites rely on their hoard of copyrighted material to draw those eyeballs to their sites, ripping off artists and creators in the process.

Instead, the "pirates" spend time in obscure niches of the internet... until the public finds them and demands they hand over their loot--an interesting inverse from real-world piracy. Internet "pirates" who hoard are never found; it's only the ones who share openly who are at risk. This is why digital piracy will never go away. Shutting down Megaupload and various torrent sites only cuts down on the leeches.

And I'll settle for cutting down on the leeches. That means supporting law enforcement, not spouting platitudes about the awesomeness of the Internet and the special status of the "technologists." Technologists aren't special snowflakes : they are subject to the same laws as the guy who earns a living swinging a hammer or the lady who drives a school bus. That's what the rule of law means: that everyone has the same rights, whether they transact business on the Internet or in real life .

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I realize I'm late on this one, but I thought it was somewhat funny that the poll you quoted doesn't really support your position in any event - apparently only 13.7% of people have every pirated music or video, which suggests maybe sweeping laws that affect everyone and have real compliance costs may not be the answer (or the only answer). Legislation is a heavy hammer, and it's not the only option, particularly when the vast majority of people are complying anyway.

In the U.S., copyright has been expanded 15 times in the last 30 years; maybe it's not an issue of a lack of legislation.

Oh, and about copyrightholders and government saying they need stronger and stronger copyright? They always say that - 5 days after Megaupload was shutdown, a Hollywood astroturfing group released an ad saying they needed SOPA to stop sites like Megaupload, that it was unreachable by current laws. Awkward...

The Obama Administration -who opposed SOPA- thought legislation was needed and urged that laws be enacted this year to deal with rogue sites. Since the Administration is charged with prosecuting violators, their opinion seems most authoritative.

[stonetools]

A point which I would like to make is that the law itself is brought into contempt by ridiculous and unworkable laws which are born of a lack of understanding by Politicians (or possibly cynical politicians wishing to appear to be doing something whilst knowing damn well it is fruitless). The technology at the moment is beyond the effective control of governments, and they hate it. Some of the legislation being proposed brings to mind Gandhi's salt march, or King Canute issuing commands to the tide. And the price for attempting such legislation is paid in loss of freedoms and privacy.

France has strong anti- copyright regime and it is working quite well, by most reports. Britain has recently passed similar legislation. Like it or not, the rule of law is coming to the Internet.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by stonetools

That's what the rule of law means: that everyone has the same rights, whether they transact business on the Internet or in real life .

In what way is transacting business on the Internet not transacting business in real life? It's a silly distinction. 'People' transact business, and the Internet is one of many tools they can use to do so. To say there is no rule of law over the Internet is like saying there is no rule of law over a hammer. Yes people can do bad things with both tools and if they do they can be arrested or fined for it under existing laws.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by stonetools

France has strong anti- copyright regime and it is working quite well, by most reports.

You said this on another thread, and I pointed out why this is wrong.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The Obama Administration -who opposed SOPA- thought legislation was needed and urged that laws be enacted this year to deal with rogue sites. Since the Administration is charged with prosecuting violators, their opinion seems most authoritative.

Yes, I read that point the first time you made it, I just didn't find it particularly insightful then, and certainly less so on a second reading.

Any claim by a government that it needs more enforcement powers should be treated with at least some level of skepticism, rather than wholesale acceptance. Particularly as they seem to be managing fine with the current laws. Plus the Obama administration stated their opposition to SOPA after it was clear which way public opinion was blowing and that SOPA was in trouble; it doesn't take a genius strategist to see the benefit of opposing SOPA in those circumstances when an election is near.

Serious question: What more do you think that the U.S. government needs to enforce copyright that it doesn't already have?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You said this on another thread, and I pointed out why this is wrong.

Your opinion is that the laws in France aren't working well. An independent study says different . I'm going with the independent study over the partisan on the Internet. Sorry.

A separate study by researchers at Wellesley College in Massachusetts and Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh suggests that Hadopi has given a lift to legal downloads via the Apple iTunes music store. Since the spring of 2009, when the debate over the measure was raging, through mid-2011, iTunes sales rose much more strongly in France than in other European countries.

[stonetools]

Yes, I read that point the first time you made it, I just didn't find it particularly insightful then, and certainly less so on a second reading.

Well, read again, mate.

While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S

Clearly the Administration is saying that it can't get to rogue sites who operate totally outside the United States . You should understand that in the Megaupload case, some of their servers were located in the US, thus giving the US government jurisdiction. If none of the foreign sites' operations are in US territory, the US is powerless to take action against them in court.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by stonetools

If activity is happening outside of U.S. Borders, then the U.S. should NOT have jurisdiction over that activity. They, instead, should work with the governments responsible for the region that is offensive.

Heavy handed legislation in response to a nebulous fear is never fair, or balanced.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Your opinion is that the laws in France aren't working well. An independent study says different . I'm going with the independent study over the partisan on the Internet. Sorry.

Which independent study? The IFPI study is not independent, and it ignores data. In 2009 music sales increased in countries that got tougher laws as well as countries that were going soft on piracy.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

If activity is happening outside of U.S. Borders, then the U.S. should NOT have jurisdiction over that activity. They, instead, should work with the governments responsible for the region that is offensive.

Heavy handed legislation in response to a nebulous fear is never fair, or balanced.

Under international law, governments, given enabling legislation, can take action against criminal activity that strikes at targets within that nation's borders. The USA isn't alone in this.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Under international law, governments, given enabling legislation, can take action against criminal activity that strikes at targets within that nation's borders. The USA isn't alone in this.

Government's by their nature have the power to enact so-called "extra-territorial" legislation, whether or not it is aimed at criminal activity and whether or not it takes place inside their borders. They also have the power in many countries to make retrospective legislation. Such legislation is usually ineffective, unfair and dangerous, and often not enforceable. Countries value their sovereignty, often to the point of fighting for it. Many relations between countries are founded on the principle of reciprocity.

Where the USA is unique at the moment is in its ability to inconvenience internet users around the world with this proposed legislation which will not work. Already the so-called technologists are working on a number of alternative DNS type systems.

I would recommend reading the thread on US Publishing and Piracy on this forum. The US publishing industry was built on piracy, and in particular the failure to respect European and in particular British copyrights. Much as modern China has not been too concerned to date with enforcing intellectual property laws, as it is in China's interest not to do so. The US is now a strong proponent of copyright simply because it is in the interests of the US to do so, given the strong position of Hollywood in movies and the division of the world book markets between US and British publishers. As China comes to hold more intellectual property it too will no doubt start enforcing such laws.

The publishers are like water selling corporations in a country where changing weather patterns have lead to frequent rain, lobbying government to legislate to preserve their monopolies whilst water is falling from the sky! Any such legislation would be not only unworkable but draconian. And, like publishing, everyone will likely be better off under the new model except the vested interests.

We in the rest of the world are fortunate indeed that the US, despite it's shortcomings, remains a great democracy and their government still sometimes responds to the wishes of its people in preference to preserving a few vested interests at great cost.