How much control is too much control?

[Aziraphale]

This post is posted in the spirit of trying to generate some discussion on a topic that is becoming an issue worldwide but which has escalated here in Ireland. I would appreciate, if people decide to take separate stances on this issue, that it doesn't become a flame war. Given how the occupants of this board have handled issues in the past I'm optimistic that it won't. If the mods think it does or find issue with the issue feel free to lock or even delete this topic. I also apologize for the length, but it is something that I have been mulling over this past week. If nothing else it is food for thought.

I live in Ireland. I use my computer a lot. I play games on it. I listen to music. I watch movies. I'm honest enough to admit that not all the files I use for the above are legally obtained. However, in recent years this library off ill-gained files has been in the process of slowly but steadily being swapped out for legitimate versions. Now that I am earning money it is a viable option for me to do so and I happily fork over the money for music, games and movies I like. In the case of some anime, it just won't happen. Largely due to licensing issues that mean i'm never going to see it in an English format that i can play on any of my dvd players. That's a bone of contention I have the anime companies and likely one they have with me.

Ireland's piracy levels are probably about the same as elsewhere. For the various industries, i'm looking at film and music here, its a problem. When isn't it a problem? However, here they have managed to accomplish something that could be effective but is equally disturbing.

Last year the four big music companies here brought eircom, the primary ISP in this country, to court challenging that Eircom as the ISP was responsible for what it's customers did on it's network under Irish copyright legislation from 2000. I'll have to see if I can dredge up the specific paragraph from the law again >.<  Observers in the country at the time who were paying attention to the issue at the time agreed it was defensible from Eircom's point of view.

However 8 days into the case Eircom pulled out of the case, settling with the IRMA. Eircom agreed to a 3-strike deal though information was left vague as to how and when it would be implemented. On September 1st Eircom blocked piratebay. This is line with what other ISPs have already done elsewhere so it's no biggy. I have it from a a fairly reliable source that getting around it is, I quote, "piss easy". A few days later I was reading a newspaper while sitting in my dentists office, detailing leaked information about the three strikes method. Eircom denied that the document was legitimate but it dragged the subject it back into the limelight, for concerned parties that is. A quick Google showed that apparently the documents been floating around a while. What can I say, Irish newspapers, always the first off the starting line

It's become one of the main topics of discussion among students, from university downwards. On the other hand it dismissed, for the moment, by older generations.
To be fair, other political problems are of more pressing concern to them, such as our NAMA idea. I don't think they are aware that they may be affected via family members actions at the moment.

It raises questions and there are some issues that have caused concern, some of which are outlined in the articles above. Eircom for example willfully chose to give up their case and settle. This however prevents the legislature and government from having any real input into this issue. Despite the questionable legality of the IRMAs challenge, Eircom declined to defend. Which means we now have to wait for a similar case with UPC to resolve to see if it is valid.

I know that Piratebay is blocked in other countries through court orders brought by the music corporations. By and large these have been defended to the best of their abilities allowing the courts and hence the legal system to have had a say in the matter. In this case however because of the settlement, a non-legislative body is free to tell Eircom which sites to censor without input from the courts or by extension the legislature. At the moment they are only talking of alternate domains for piratebay, but as others have pointed out how long before they start suggesting sites that link to it? Sites that search it? Google (cached pages)? Okay that last one is pretty hard to swallow, even for me.

Do we allow bodies who were not elected by us, who do not represent us and who instead have a wholly financial interest in the matter choose what we may or may not do?

What happens in the case of people whose children are doing this without their knowledge and who choose to continue to do this despite what their parents tell them? Because we all know that all children listen to what their parents tell them.

Others have brought it in a different direction. The music industry says piracy is killing their business. One friend I have spoken to on this issue pointed to the recent financial crisis. We were forced to ask should we support a system that was failing. If a business or industry model is not a viable one should we prop it up? Businesses fail all the time, even ones that have been going for a long time. It isn't exactly like the banking crisis where its going to take everything else down with it.

I do think the ramifications of doing this aren't as simple as he made it sound but I can see the merit of his argument. And by the protests of the music industry they do make it sound more and more like we need to prop them up.

I could write more but this already drags on. I want peoples thoughts on it.

Edit: Fixing typing errors.

[MugMug]

Do we allow bodies who were not elected by us, who do not represent us and who instead have a wholly financial interest in the matter choose what we may or may not do?

Of course you do, and you also expect to be one of those who "choose what we may or may not do." That is one of the basic and inalienable rights (from my U.S. perspective) associated with property ownership.

If they own the sandlot they make the rules; if you don't like those rules you find somewhere else to play ball.

Note: I use "you" quite a bit in my post; it's the generic "you," not the Aziraphale "you."

Walter

[glimmerrat]

I'd say if what you do (not you specifically...) is effectively stealing from them, then they have every right to get involved. If someone overseas is robbing me blind, i'd sure as heck take them to court.

[VisualStatic]

I'd say if what you do (not you specifically...) is effectively stealing from them, then they have every right to get involved. If someone overseas is robbing me blind, i'd sure as heck take them to court.

I don't disagree with glimmerrat, but I do think that it does point a finger at the fact that the music and movie industries are not embracing technology to better their business models, instead they are trying to prop up something that is failing.

My biggest complaint about their entire thought process is that every illegally download song/movie is a lost CD or DVD sale.  This makes a big assumption that the person downloading would have bought it in the first place, which (depending on who you talk to) just isn't the case.

I do download things, more as trials to see if it is something I can use or like.  If I couldn't download it first to either try it, listen to it, or watch it, I generally won't buy it.

As far as what the *AAs have been doing with all their legal suing, to me is akin to out right extortion.

[Aziraphale]

Do we allow bodies who were not elected by us, who do not represent us and who instead have a wholly financial interest in the matter choose what we may or may not do?

Of course you do, and you also expect to be one of those who "choose what we may or may not do." That is one of the basic and inalienable rights (from my U.S. perspective) associated with property ownership.

If they own the sandlot they make the rules; if you don't like those rules you find somewhere else to play ball.

Note: I use "you" quite a bit in my post; it's the generic "you," not the Aziraphale "you."

Walter

That's fine. I'm using the generic "we" as well  .

The problem with the sandlot thing is that here, all phone lines are owned by Eircom. If somebody switches broadband providers they still have to pay 30 euro to Eircom every month for line rental. So, they can go off to play elsewhere but they're still paying somebody for something they don't agree with. It's only if you're fortunate enough to live in an area that has cable broadband (in either Cork City, Dublin City, Galway city or Limerick city and excluding parts of their suburbs) that you can avoid paying Line rental. That or switch over to mobile broadband which is still in its early phase here so its expensive and the quality isn't great.

I'd say if what you do (not you specifically...) is effectively stealing from them, then they have every right to get involved. If someone overseas is robbing me blind, i'd sure as heck take them to court.

The important thing to note is that they aren't taking them to court and they aren't even targeting individuals. They used the court proceedings to pressure Eircom into accepting a deal. By this deal the IRMA provides the data on culprits and Eircom Warns, then cuts off the whole household's/business' broadband. All it needs is one idiot in the house, whether it's a family member or just one of a group of people renting there to screw everybody over. There isn't any independent review of the cases. It's left solely up to the IRMA and Eircom to review cases. So pirates will get cut off (provided they haven't already shifted methods), but given the RIAA's history of false positives, innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire from this epic battle between the recording industry and pirates are left at the mercy of Eircom and The IRMA (the Irish RIAA).

It is important to remember that in many ways Americans are fortunate. Many of the services you take for granted, which were provided to discourage piracy, are not available here in Ireland. Miss a tv show? Often you can just go to the broadcasters site and stream the episode. Any movies and tv shows you want to buy to download from itunes, xbox 360, PS3 you can. Here your streaming sites are blocked to us, and the shops are truncated versions of yours. Thank god for last.fm which happily enough works away here, and allows me to listen to music I like without even having to even waste hard disk space on it.

This does make it slightly unfair that the ones without the alternatives are being used as the testing grounds. And Ireland is a testing grounds for ideas. The smoking ban in workplaces started here. Talks are already ongoing with AT&T and Comcast in America to implement a similar three-strike system over there. It is a very draconic method of dealing with the problem. And the effectiveness of it is questionable.

But if the Recording industry does nothing what happens? They lose sales. Even if it's not to the extent they claim they are losing money on this. and they are within their rights to defend their copyright. How far do you let them go to defend their rights, though? Obviously shooting all the pirates is a no go. Taking them to courts is within the law and is largely regarded as acceptable by the majority and by law even if it can be a bit heartless at times.

I can even see the benefits of this 3-strike system as a deterrent, provided other things are revised to allow for an alternative for people here. My concern here is if you allow one group to censor a site from the majority of people in a country for business reasons, what is to stop other business requesting the same. And the point here is that the censorship wasn't done via a court order handed down by the courts and legal bodies, it was from a settlement between one private company to another. Which is a dangerous precedent to set. It allows for a slippery slope.

[Wolverine]

Ireland isn't the only country to be facing this sort of enforcement, we had exactly the same thing down here in NZ. Well, at least, they tried having it bought in here. Half of the ISP's refused to sign up, so the government eventually dropped the proposal.

As I work for an ISP I get to see the issue from a unique perspective. We already have a system setup where groups can contact us and request a customer be warned. They have to provide proof (usually acquired through fake torrents, etc), of course, and if it matches the customer receives an email. And that's about all we do. You might be surprised the number of times a parent or grandparent will call up querying the email. A lot of the time it's the kids who do the downloading without their knowledge. These are the people who would suffer the worst should the proposal have been accepted.

As for why people download, there is a plain and simple reason for it in this country: time. Being the heavily online community that we are nowadays, we get to hear all the hype about new TV shows, but don't get to see them ourselves until months later (if at all). Many people turn to the internet to keep up to date with the shows as they come out in America and the UK.

This was the case when Stargate: Atlantis first came out. A lot of fans downloaded the show so they could keep up to date. Later that year, some of the cast were invited out to a local convention. They didn't find out that the show hadn't aired here until they arrived in the country. They were all worried that nobody would know who they were until they got to the convention where people sheepishly admitted what they did to watch the show*. Sure, it was still illegal activity on their part, buy most of these people still watched the show when it (eventually) came out on local TV, and also bought the DVDs. Further, most of them would not have downloaded the show had they been able to watch it at the same time as it released in America.

Perhaps the MPAA and RIAA, and similar groups, could spend a little more money on sorting these factors out instead of shutting off the internet of innocent parties. I can't see it happening any time soon, but you never know.

*I still have a photo signed by Torri Higgenson thanking me for my passion and ingenuity

[MugMug]

The problem with the sandlot thing is that here, all phone lines are owned by Eircom. If somebody switches broadband providers they still have to pay 30 euro to Eircom every month for line rental. So, they can go off to play elsewhere but they're still paying somebody for something they don't agree with.

The "sandlot" here is both the telecom lines and the IP being accessed. Internet (amazingly) is a privilege, not a right. The same is true of the IP under discussion. How these two entities want to deal with using the property of one (Eircom) to steal the property of the other (IRMA members) is almost totally between them (police powers of the government being the exception). If you don't like the outcome, don't take such actions as would trigger that outcome (i.e. don't steal). This is no different than being caught shoplifting and having the victim (store) revoke your visiting privileges.

All it needs is one idiot in the house, whether it's a family member or just one of a group of people renting there to screw everybody over.

To continue the shoplifting comparison... your child may have done the stealing while out shopping with you, but the store still has the right to deny you use of their private property.

And the point here is that the censorship wasn't done via a court order handed down by the courts and legal bodies, it was from a settlement between one private company to another. Which is a dangerous precedent to set. It allows for a slippery slope.

First, what we are talking about is denial by private entities of services they offer -- not censorship. As far as I'm concerned that's perfectly acceptable behavior.

Second, and again from my conservative U.S. background, I would be absolutely appalled at the government censoring anything short of legitimate security concerns.

Look, a property owner should generally have the right to require that use of their property occurs within certain boundaries. I only use "generally" to avoid absurd arguments about the extent of those rights (e.g. the owner of a house should not have the right to end the life of a student who cuts the corner across the lawn). These property rights extend to how personal rights (e.g. speech; bearing arms) are executed, and certainly extends to personal privileges (e.g. downloading music).

Walter

[Nepenthe]

Internet (amazingly) is a privilege, not a right.

That's actually subject to debate. I know that having a mobile phone connection is a right around here (which is the reason for prepaid mobile phone cards), and if it has not been confirmed by the courts for internet connections yet, with the amount of semicompulsory internet-banking etc., I could certainly build a case for it.

Of cours, your legal environment (and mileage) may vary.

[Daedalus]

Internet (amazingly) is a privilege, not a right.

That's actually subject to debate. I know that having a mobile phone connection is a right around here (which is the reason for prepaid mobile phone cards), and if it has not been confirmed by the courts for internet connections yet, with the amount of semicompulsory internet-banking etc., I could certainly build a case for it.

Of cours, your legal environment (and mileage) may vary.

Well, the Internet could be a "positive" right.  Most American conservatives and libertarians (myself included) don't necessarily believe in "positive" rights like guaranteed material welfare, internet and often (not always) healthcare.  Mainly theirs is the domain of "negative" rights, which exist regardless of governmental system.  A person can't kill me, steal my property, enslave me or suppress my opinion without suffering legal consequences when these rights are enforced.  Even applying these few, limited rights across the world is very difficult and not universally accepted.  But they are much easier to enforce by far than saying a person must do something, like pay taxes, provide me with food and shelter and get me a job.  So really what you guys are talking about is mainly a philosophical issue and won't really come down to cases or evidence.    If a country guarantees a positive right for its citizens, then it will be an integral part of daily life or simply be ignored if it's unprovided.  The Constitution of Mexico, for example, guarantees universal health care, and is actually more ambitious than the U.S. Constitution in terms of preventing discrimination, but the amount of money needed simply isn't there. 

As far as the internet piracy goes, it really is (the best contemporary) example of cultural lag.  The legal and economic structure did not anticipate the rise of broadband internet and information sharing services, which led to all types of issues including media piracy, which on a wide scale is harmful to production but not typically artists due to contract terms, and cyberterrorism.  This may change as time goes on.

Virgin Records was able to drop their album prices by $4 almost on prompt as their record sales began to decline in this new "age of piracy", and since it only takes about $.50 US to mint a CD, I imagine they may be able to drop it more if their infrastructure was more streamlined.  Almost every music store besides the independent and local label has closed in my state, which is unfortunate, but now I use new methods of learning about artists that didn't exist before, like Pandora Radio. 

Some companies have been better at adapting than others, and have actually made money out of bending with the current.  Digital music sales have the advantage negligible distribution cost (otherwise piracy would be problematic) but it changes the corporate structure to change in a way that most people aren't comfortable with, like hiring armies of computer geeks and lawyers and lowering their physical presence while increasing their online and media presence.  As far as property rights go, some politicians and economists blame the strength of the copyright and patent laws in the United States, (though I am uneducated in this matter) based on the idea that at this point they stifle innovation.

tl;dr: MugMug and Nepenthe won't think the same things are rights, piracy is a side-effect of cultural lag, record companies can still make money.