‘Offline, no-one can hear you whine’
p2pnet news view P2P | Politics:- Yesterday I posted an open letter to Featured Artists` Coalition (FAC) members asking them to go back to square one on their disasterous (for them and us, both) Three Strikes decision.
Presumptuous?
I’m a music fan and the group is backing a scheme which could — and would, if Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music get their way — criminalise me, and others like me, including my 13-year-old daughter.
In March, FAC members said they were strongly united against an entertainment industry inspired move to criminalise file-sharers.
Then six months later they did a complete volte-face in support of Lily Allen, who wasn’t even a member and who herself later admitted making mixtapes using songs from other artists and making them available as MP3 downloads, voting »»»
… overwhelmingly to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer`s bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.
Big music and movie interests, and other content producers, are conducting a global campaign to put their interests ahead of citizens rights to use the internet and to not be subject to unreasonable and arbitrary penalties that do nothing for public interest, as Internet New Zealand’s Jordan Carter recently exlained it.
In a Reader’s Write to my open letter to the FAC, “It is important to recognise that 3-strikes is fundamentally unjust/unethical given that no evidence is required,” said Digital Productions‘ Crosbie Fitch, continuing »»»
The victim is simply given two warnings (tipped-off as to what`s about to happen without any way of preventing it) before they are disconnected.
Now there will be some that suggest that 3-strikes should only be used against people who received any money during their infringement, e.g. a DJ, podcaster, e-bayer of an iPod, etc.
But, the problem with 3-strikes is that no evidence is required.
It doesn`t matter that you can prove you erased your iPod before you sold it.
It doesn`t matter that you can prove you only included CC music on your mix CD.
It doesn`t matter that you can prove the donation you received was for the previous week`s podcast. NO EVIDENCE is needed to disconnect you.
Your evidence of innocence has to wait until after your ISP has disconnected you, after your PC has been confiscated, after your assets have been seized, after you have located a lawyer willing to take on your case, after you have paid your lawyer to demonstrate at a tribunal that you have grounds to plead for an appeal against your disconnection, and then at your appeal your evidence can be presented (if you still have it).
Maybe, you will then be reconnected until the next time.
There is NO SANCTION for 3 strikes, even for suspected terrorists, let alone suspected file-sharers. Read The Crucible to get a vague clue as to why incrimination upon suspicion/accusation is such an abomination.
If you thought being sued for copyright infringement in court was an injustice, wait until you suffer disconnection at the whim of the MAFIAA.
The sad thing is, no-one will notice your anguish because you`ll be disconnected, and as they`ll say Offline, no-one can hear you whine.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – music fan
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
open letter – Open letter to Featured Artists` Coalition, November 16, 2009
available as MP3 downloads – Lily Allen, copyright pirate, September 24, 2009
Jordan Carter – New Zealand ISP says No! to 3 strikes scheme, November 9, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Wow…that hits the nail on the head. No longer are people innocent until proven guilty. Instead it is quite the reverse.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am
And as Crosbie points out in another Reader’s write:
“The sad thing is that lawyers (whoâve had their consciences surgically removed to avoid interfering with their work) think that 3 strikes is doing everyone a favour by avoiding expensive court costs: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/viacoms-top-lawyer-suing-p2p-users-felt-like-terrorism.ars
Itâs like âHey, guys, isnât this much better? This way you and your family simply lose your Internet connection at our clientâs whim. No litigation, legal fees, million dollar fines, or jail terms.
And if you try accessing the Internet via your neighbour, weâll simply disconnect them too.
No charges or arrests for aiding and abetting. No RIAA swat team. I think this could be start of a beautiful relationship, donât you? Have some appreciation for our generosity in supporting this extra-judicial solution that will hurt our bottom line considerably. Weâre going to have to go easy expanding our Ferrari collection thanks to this.
And donât worry, disconnections, equipment confiscations, and asset sequestrations wonât start in earnest until all primary jurisdictions have enacted this kinder, gentler, graduated response.
â
“Some lawyers are just too kind to their fellow men.”
Aren’t they, though?
Cheers!
November 17th, 2009 at 11:27 am
@Jon
I love the title on this one.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
About the title…
I often wonder if this whole push for “3 Strikes” measures has a secondary agenda behind it.
We all know that the Internet is re-empowering the People, and how that makes both Big Business and Big Government a little “unhappy”. Who’s to say that 3 Strikes isn’t actually a supreme “off-switch” to be used “quietly” against major “dissenters”??
As the title says, no one WILL hear you when you’re offline, as you’ll be disconnected under the guise of being a “suspected filesharing terrorist”. This “charge” could keep you and any of your supporters who try to publicly scream “Fowl!” from not only participating online, but from calling out the real fowl itself (interfering with Free Speech).
I’m sure those who are currently living with the Patriot Act can understand this principle enough to know how real the threat is.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
DA, yes, this is nothing to do with price fixing of copies, but control of public communications channels (the original purpose of copyright).
I commented to that effect on freedom-to-tinker.com
Once on this post:
freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/targeted-copyright-enforcement-deterring-many-users-few-lawsuits
And a few times on this one:
freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/targeted-copyright-enforcement-vs-inaccurate-enforcement
[Unlinked to avoid spam filter]
Unfortunately, their cunning strategy of suing a few fundamentally innocent people for $millions will enable them to slip ACTA’s ‘graduated response’ in as a ‘kinder’ punishment (when it is actually far worse in the large scheme of things).
The thing is, people will be easily fooled that simple disconnection is the mildest of punishments, and all the kinder given no expensive court costs or legal fees are involved. (Someone is spinning in their grave at the suggestion that it’s kinder to remove citizens from justice in order to spare them legal expenses and damages due to infringement of unethical privileges).
It will be too late before people realise the keys to the Internet have just been handed to the publishing corporations (who will ensure that only select cartel members are authorised to serve disconnection notices). When they have those keys, they won’t need to maintain any pretence that they’re worried about unauthorised copies. When the cartel owns mankind’s greatest communication channel (they can exclude anyone who doesn’t submit to their will), why would they give a toss about copies? If you want to do business online, then you’ll eventually sell your business to the cartel (when you start making money). You’ll join their ‘family’ and they’ll look after you (while you behave yourself). Of course, that’s “sell your business” as in “surrender”. 99% for them, 1% for you. Nice.
ACTA constitutes a conspiracy to commit a velvet coup. Moreover, it has a good chance of success.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
people may think your a doomsayer Crosbie, but the inevitable reality is exactly how you have painted it in your comments.
If your not outraged, your not paying attention…
stw
November 17th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“Why can’t I talk to my friends on the computer?”
“Because you violate copyrights at night!”
November 17th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
the isps will lose a lot of money here. they will use there power to media blitse the networks to vote out the governments who bring this in its not over yet.and also why bother having the net at all if you cant download anything most of my friends will just wont have the net anymore saving themselves money costing the isps lots and thats just me and my friends .just look at xbox live they bloccked 1 million onliners cause they had a mod chip installed way to go to lose marketshare morons