So... only a single picture this entry. I have a much more serious issue to address.Currently the American congress is considering two pieces of legislation regarding internet theft -- stealing of books, pictures, music, etc. Illegal downloads of copyrighted materials, and/or illegal use of copyrighted work. Friends of ours have been victimized by these thugs and have lost sales, contracts and even livelihoods as a result.
Make no mistake. I am fully, completely and totally against online theft.
But Congress goes in completely the wrong direction with their attempts to address a very valid issue.
I disagree with the legislation because it's very poorly written. For example, in the way it is currently being considered by both the House's SOPA and the Senate's , Google, Bing, Yahoo and others would be taken down because their search engines presented a link to a site carrying illegally distributed content. It's entirely too broad. Technically a single site could bring down Microsoft and ATT if their activity is criminal enough. And that's entirely too major an overreaction and punishes the wrong people.PC World Magazine describes it thusly: "The bill, called SOPA, would allow the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to seek court orders requiring online advertising networks, payment processors and other organizations to stop payments to websites and Web-based services accused of copyright infringement."
But inherent in this description s the very real possibility that ISPs, Search Engines and content providers who unwittingly link to the offending works could also be brought down as a result of the legislation.
Make no mistake: the sites presenting the content ought to be shut down -- and their owners fined extravagantly if they are repeat offenders. And, as offensive as I find the attitude of downloaders, who seem to feel they are entitled to use any works they like as often as they like...for free...they are the wrong targets for this as well. Their actions are wrong and wrong-headed, but trying to hold a teenager responsible for downloading somethig they should not have had access to in the first place is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Take down the provider and you nuke the teen before they can even get started. Starve the market and you get people to grow up and take responsibility.
Rather than searching out people who download the content -- which is equivalent to chasing the drug user not the dealer, IMHO -- is trying to kill bees one at a time rather than finding the nest and simply removing it. Both the House and Senate bills are focused in the wrong direction, and hold the wrong people accountable.
I do believe the courts ought to have the authority to demand ISPs block offending sites from distribution -- blocking IP addresses, etc -- if proper legal action is taken against the offenders.
However, I believe the best way to control the distribution is to make it too risky and expensive for the distributors, including individuals who make more than "x" number of copies and send them out. Say thirty dollars a copy or download as the fine. It changes the game from attack and destroy to ensuring consequences rather than simple shutdowns. Users who have their site shut down simply move the content elsewhere and start again. Summary judgments with enforceable collection methods change the game far more effectively, particularly if a portion of the proceeds go to the injured parties.
Contact your representatives and tell them they need to eliminate and or rewrite SOPA (and the Senate's version of the same thing , called PIPA) before it comes back up for a vote. It's a good idea in concept -- but as is often the case when it comes to our Congress, it's very, very badly written.
IMHO.
Don't you think Google should be taken down then? They own YouTube and there is more copyright infringement there than perhaps any other website.
ReplyDeleteIt will mean your blog gets taken down too, and my comments here, since Google owns Blogspot :)
ReplyDeleteMatt -- No I don't. That's my point exactly. Google should not be taken down any more than YouTube should. If there is copyrighted material on it the individual person posting it ought to be prosecuted and fined, not the site unwittingly hosting it. It's an individual committing the crime and they ought to take responsibility for it.
ReplyDeleteOh, and before I sem rude for forgetting, thank you for posting, Matt. Glad the topic was something you felt warranted a comment. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteWell, Megaupload was taken down today and the Internet is in an uproar. There have been DDOS attacks on the Department of Defense website, MPAA, etc.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html
http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-take-down-department-of-justice-riaa-mpaa-universal-music-19210145/
I agree that it's not the website's fault, but rather the individuals doing the sharing.
It would be like any other piracy on the street -- a building would not be condemned if something illegal happened in it.
On the other hand, I have been exposed to a lot of music and movies through YouTube which I would not otherwise have bought or enjoyed. I don't know how the illegality of file-sharing can really be rationalized because when a friend is over at your house, are they supposed to pay to hear a CD you own, or to watch a movie with you? Similar to if you email a friend an MP3 or even send them a book.
A Kindle's book's files exist on your computer as files that can easily be transferred, just as you can easily give your friend a copy of a tangible (printed) book.
The difference of course is that a copy is made and the original is kept, making two. If there was some way to do true file "transferring" (the same file is moved from one location to another) then this whole matter could perhaps be solved.
However another issue is the Web in general, such as Google Image Search, or Bing image search. Let me give you an example (if you don't take this mere example as an act of piracy-promotion):
Type in the name "beksinski" into Google Image Search and you get what amounts to his life's work at your fingertips, as he is a painter.
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1213&bih=924&q=beksinski&gbv=2&oq=beksinski&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1096l2635l0l2810l9l7l0l3l3l0l127l451l1.3l4l0
Normally his paintings are sold somehow, at least in copies in books, like here:
http://www.amazon.com/Fantastic-Art-Beksinski-Masters-S/dp/188339838X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327020449&sr=8-1
But they exist in higher-resolution and greater quantity just by typing his name into Google's Image Search. Plus you get multiple scans of the same painting sometimes, in case you didn't like the print quality of one of them, you get more to choose from.
So I'm not trying to promote piracy, just saying that it seems to go against the very nature of the Web. We have to change things fundamentally.
(One last thing -- when you view something in your browser it is at least temporarily stored locally in your cache, which are files on your computer. You don't have to right-click save-as, or drag them to your desktop, necessarily, although it is different with streaming, such as YouTube).
An article on Kim Dotcom:
Deletehttp://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46076072/ns/business-small_business/#.Txnm52-86ko
I think there's a major difference between watching a video on Youtube and downloading a song illegally. One is still a passive endeavor, while the other is a classic theft.
ReplyDeleteMegaUpload was a for-profit piracy website. I actually think their arrests were warranted based upon what I've seen reported, and they certainly weren't any friends to the very folks who are defending them now.
I think the issue with the internet isn't so much in the nature of it -- yes, it is designed for rapid dissemination of information -- but in the nature of the access some users grant. For the vast majority of websites it's a wealth of useful information designed to derive a legitimate profit. But for a handful -- it's always the handful -- of people who are in it for themselves, the net is a tool for stolen property.
As I noted above, I am foursquare against the selfish thugs who steal copyrighted material and make personal gain from the theft -- including using it only for themselves. But SOPA and PIPA are just bad legislation.