Internet Piracy - Three strikes rule (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Net pirates face three-strikes rule

People who are caught repeatedly downloading movies, music and TV shows illegally would have their internet disconnected under legislative changes being considered by the Federal Government....

....David Vaile, executive director of the UNSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre, raised serious issues with the proposal, such as that customers could be disconnected following mere allegations of copyright infringement by the content owners without having been found guilty of an offence by the courts.

Makes for an interesting development, as Vaile identifies there are obvious and serious issues due to the lack of judicial oversight and the presumption of guilt.

Practically speaking there are also big issues as the MPAA/RIAA/ARIA etc rely on uploading files to identify downloaders - as a result there is software in place to automatically avoid downloading from known 'industry' uploaders. And the emergence of closed pirate communities.

Ultimately though the industry has moved too slow and is stuck playing catch up. The internet has fundamentally changed the environment that the industry operates in. If they had recognised this early and sold content online then maybe they wouldn't be in this mess - however they didn't and free pirate content emerged and proliferated.

While piracy was isolated to early adopters the industry might have been able to quash it in this way but now it has gone mainstream. It's not just 'nerds' who spend their lives attached to computers who are downloading pirated material it's regular everyday people. Routers and external harddrives routinely come with bitorrent clients.

The masses have come to expect free content and they won't be pryed away by flawed and arbitrary enforcement methods.

Cost differenting business models will not work because you can't beat free. The only avenue is to compete on quality. The success stories of course being iTunes and Steam which make high quality content easily available through a user-friendly and well integrated interface.

Any other thoughts on the issue?

Must admit that I'm curious as to where the libertarians stand on piracy - afterall their philosophy would seem to be based on concepts of ownership and contracts which piracy would seem to violate?

 

[kami]

It seems like an incredibly flawed proposal but I think most attempts to curb 'internet piracy' through legislation just don't work. The process of consumption and production has changed dramatically since the rise of the internet and you're right when you note that people expect their free content now; it's a cultural thing and you can't just have a governing body stamp its foot and change that.

I think the key problem with most legislating bodies is that they're approaching this problem as if it's raw theft. It isn't. While it is illegal and involves the consumption and distribution of a product outside the authorisation of its producer, it doesn't work when you just equate it with physical property. It doesn't help, either, that both the (large scale) producer and the consumer are both working on a notion of entitlement (see 14 year old fuck heads vs. big businesses who try to flatly equate their loss of capital with specified file sharing).

This isn't a new problem either, it's been something in evidence ever since technology has been able to send something faster than a person may travel but we adapted and moved on with new business models. The problem here is that large (or more public, I should say) sections of the population aren't moving on and its mostly the big businesses and the legislature - independent products are hitting their stride under this new deal with whole new avenues to implement viral marketing (see Zeigeist - Tar Heart for a brilliant example) and supporting themselves through advertising (Hulu with its free videos which supports itself through advertising).

 

[volition]

I'm against the idea of this three-strikes rule, it looks like more power to the state and more rent-seeking for big record labels to me.

And yes, agreed on the idea that the 'pirating stuff for free' cat is out of the bag now, the course of history has been changed irrevocably (imo) by the state IP laws and protections and the way many record labels refused to be dynamic and change with the times. But that doesn't mean that it will always be this way, perhaps it just means the industry will undergo a business model shift - maybe make more money from live performances rather than CD sales. I suspect record companies that refuse to change with the times will eventually go under.

Regarding the libertarian stance on piracy, while most market anarchist libertarians are anti-IP, I think you'll find this can vary depending on who you ask. There might be some who contend that there is nothing morally wrong with 'pirating' material, but I think they would be very limited in number. As far as I can tell, most libertarians would be in the "pirating stuff is morally wrong, but should not be illegal (unless there is a contractual obligation not to share purchased music)" camp. Most (in my experience) would argue that businesses and artists should just look to voluntarily acquire payment for their services via some type of product differentiation.

 

[Uncle]

Just go to the concerts.
The jews of the RIAA take the money from record labels.

 

[whatashotbyseve]

From a musical perspective, I would contend that most artists would have no problem with pirated downloads of their music. As they receive a pittance from the record companies anyway per sale, the increased consumer exposure and subsequent concert sales would far outweigh the loss from lack of legitimate CD sales. Look at the success of Radiohead's In Rainbows. You just need to develop a market niche, and customers are prepared to pay their fair share.

It is not the role of an ISP to determine who downloads what (the judge, jury and executioner as referred to in the article). The industry seems content to make ISPs fight their fight for them. The industry has missed the boat, as has already been pointed out. Five years ago, a lower cost, lower margin, higher transaction digital business model would have been feasible. iTunes has proven that.

It is merely human nature to pay as little as possible for products and services. In many ways, illegal downloads are a victimless crime. Businesses need to change from the analogue to the digital era, or die.

 

[Slidey]

Net pirates face three-strikes rule



Makes for an interesting development, as Vaile identifies there are obvious and serious issues due to the lack of judicial oversight and the presumption of guilt.

Practically speaking there are also big issues as the MPAA/RIAA/ARIA etc rely on uploading files to identify downloaders - as a result there is software in place to automatically avoid downloading from known 'industry' uploaders. And the emergence of closed pirate communities.

Ultimately though the industry has moved too slow and is stuck playing catch up. The internet has fundamentally changed the environment that the industry operates in. If they had recognised this early and sold content online then maybe they wouldn't be in this mess - however they didn't and free pirate content emerged and proliferated.

While piracy was isolated to early adopters the industry might have been able to quash it in this way but now it has gone mainstream. It's not just 'nerds' who spend their lives attached to computers who are downloading pirated material it's regular everyday people. Routers and external harddrives routinely come with bitorrent clients.

The masses have come to expect free content and they won't be pryed away by flawed and arbitrary enforcement methods.

Cost differenting business models will not work because you can't beat free. The only avenue is to compete on quality. The success stories of course being iTunes and Steam which make high quality content easily available through a user-friendly and well integrated interface.

Any other thoughts on the issue?

Must admit that I'm curious as to where the libertarians stand on piracy - afterall their philosophy would seem to be based on concepts of ownership and contracts which piracy would seem to violate?

God fucking dammit. Just piss off you fucking vultures.

And just recently it was discovered that 94% of ISPs in New Zealand voluntarily filter the internet according to the NZ gov blacklist.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrg. LEAVE THE FUCKING INTERNET ALONE.

 

[Iron]

I think it's evil and would be gladly freed from its spell

Can anyone recommend a free filter that blocks, like, everything that shows/talks about the ankles and up?
Will pay handsomly

 

[B_B_J]

dont use public trackers.

 

[B_B_J]

oh, MPAA and RIAA are all jews.

confirmed.

 

[loquasagacious]

I think it's evil and would be gladly freed from its spell

Can anyone recommend a free filter that blocks, like, everything that shows/talks about the ankles and up?
Will pay handsomly

Conroy is working on it and you will pay handsomely...

 

[volition]

I think this legislation does nothing about the underlying problems anyway. It'll just create more incentive for people to come up with easy to use file transfer encryption so that they don't get busted for downloading

 

[B_B_J]

Internet Villain Mulls 3 Strikes For Australian Pirates

Senator Stephen Conroy is a man on a mission. Undeterred that his absurd plans to filter the Internet have earned him the dubious title of Internet Villain of the Year, he is now promising to find a solution to the file-sharing ‘problem’ by bringing parties together who are already at war, or have little respect for him and his plans.

When it comes to Internet issues in Australia, Senator Stephen Conroy is becoming increasingly unpopular. Best known for his plans to filter the Internet, Conroy has managed to annoy an increasing number of prominent industry figures - the very people he absolutely needs onside if any of his plans are to come to fruition.

Last year the chief of ISP iiNet Michael Malone labeled Conroy as “the worst Communications Minister we’ve had in the 15 years since the [Internet] industry has existed,” and this year the ISP pulled out of filtering trials, saying the filter would not work.

But criticism of Conroy don’t stop there. The proposed filtering system championed by Conroy - ostensibly for the protection of minors - isn’t even supported by those whose interests it claims to protect.

Last week Save the Children, Civil Liberties Australia and the National Children’s and Youth Law Center urged the government to abandon plans for Conroy’s filter saying that it will neither protect children from viewing explicit material, nor stop child pornography from being distributed. Let’s hope Conroy listens to these groups, because he doesn’t seem to listen to anyone else who says his plans are going nowhere.

Last night Senator Conroy unveiled a report entitled Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions while promising the government will “facilitate development of an appropriate solution to the issue of unauthorised file sharing”.

So what kind of imaginative, creative, pioneering ideas and solutions are available for Conroy to nurture and facilitate? From the report;

One solution proposed by copyright owners is a “three strikes” or “graduated response” proposal under which copyright owners would work together with ISPs to identify the ISP’s customers who are suspected of unauthorised file sharing and the ISP would then send a notice on behalf of the copyright owner to that customer advising of this allegation. After multiple notices, a series of escalated steps could be taken with respect to the customer’s account.

The “copyright owners” who submitted this proposal includes anti-piracy group AFACT, currently engaged in hugely expensive legal action against prominent ISP iiNet, blaming it for the copyright-infringing activities of its customers.

Good luck to Conroy in “facilitating” meaningful discussions between these outfits in the future. Their relationship must be at an all-time low already, and getting lower with every dollar-sapping court appearance in these difficult financial times.

But it’s not just the entertainment industry’s relationship with ISPs that’s proving problematic when attempting to find a “solution” to the piracy issue, it appears that ISPs have no time for Conroy either. Last week the Senator was awarded the accolade of “Internet Villain of the Year” by ISPs at the 11th annual Internet Industry Awards, even beating France’s President Sarkozy to the title.

Solving the piracy “problem” is hugely difficult and complex and will only be made more so by the already faltering relationships between parties who appear to have little respect for each other, even before the process begins.

.

 

[B_B_J]

Pak/India will never have this problem.

western democracies are becoming if not already are corporatocracies.

 

[JonathanM]

Like to seem them try to stop peer-peer illegal downloads. Dream on, Conroy.

 

[johony]

Look at the success of Radiohead's In Rainbows. You just need to develop a market niche, and customers are prepared to pay their fair share.

however, radiohead are in the financial position in where they are able to take that risk. this would not apply to a large percentage of artists, who aren't as commercially successful as radiohead.

an idea which i like however, is an annual tax for illegal downloading; in which the revenue is distributed back to the companies/artists, whereby the more popular the artist is, the more cash they get. this is essentially the idea of music subscription services applied on a larger scale.

Music industry to tax downloaders - News, Music - The Independent

 

[loquasagacious]

As ethically wrong as it would be censoring a newspaper is relatively straightforward - the internet however is a completely different beast.

For a start it's not even one thing but a collection of fragmented and not even necessarily well documented standards: FTP, GTP, HTTP, IMAP, IRC, Megaco, MGCP, NNTP, NTP, POP, RIP, RPC, RTP, RTSP, SDP, SIP, SMTP, SNMP, SOAP, SSH, Telnet, TLS/SSL, XMPP, HTTPS, VPN and all the P2P protocols. Censor just one and you may as well not bother, traffic will just use another protocol - or make a new one. But filtering them all is technologically far, far harder.

And to censor the internet as a technology is to try and censor a community. It doesn't matter how skilled or large your censorship team is the internet is larger and more skilled. They will bypass or break censorship faster than you can impose it.

The censorship team will betray you. Look at who you're hiring. Experts on the internet. They are members of the community, they'll build a censorship system and leak a bypass the next day. I quite literally know people who have done similar things.

To paraphrase: the internet is like water, the more you tighten your grip, the more of it will slip through your fingers.

 

[mackento]

https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=684
http://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/internetcensorshipfactsheet.pdf

Please view the above sites, the second especially. Remember politicians lie, especially to achieve objectives. Australia lags enough on international gaming servers, the proposed filters will only make it worse. The second website is very informative and brief, please read through it.

While a little extreme, the video does lead to some interesting questions.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

don't care
doesn't make a difference to me

piss off record industry