Several days ago I got involved in a discussion regarding file sharing, digital rights management, copy protection, etc. in which some asserted that the sharing of copyrighted music, video, or graphic files online, commonly called filed sharing, was nothing more or less than stealing and thus morally wrong, case closed. While I find that view simplistic at best, I do not entirely disagree with the underlying premise, to wit that those who create art or some form of intellectual property deserve whatever compensation they desire for their work just as much as those who work 9-5 jobs for some nameless corporation deserve to be compensated for their work.
One of the points I raised in this discussion is that the act of file sharing itself is not, in my view, the main issue. Yes, artists deserve to be compensated for their work, but the methods currently being imposed and suggested by groups like RIAA are not the way to go about ensuring that this takes place. The end result of this battle of copyrights, if it is won by RIAA and the media corporations, will be a severe limiting of all our freedoms to the extent our privacy and freedom of expression will be severely curtailed. I was challenged on this in such a way as to indicate that the challenger did not believe any answer I could offer would indicate my privacy or legitimate freedoms had been or could be endangered. I offered a response but received no reply.
As this battle continues, artists in the end may get paid their due, but those who are artists will be defined in the corporate board room, and anyone outside whatever corporate society defines as the mainstream will have his or her voice effectively silenced. Further, the methods groups like RIAA seek to impose will lead ultimately to a society in which we are all afraid even to read a simple passage from a news story for fear of violating some copyright and being jailed as a result. The point is that the debate over file sharing, commonly represented as sharing digitally encoded music or video files, represents a larger battle involving every mode of expression possible, everything from the written word to computer programs to visual art. As newer technologies are increasingly used as a medium for the packaging of art and information, these technologies hold both the possibility of universal access and the capability of limiting that access to those deemed worthy, typically those who have paid a premium. The latter is in severe danger of winning out over the former. The simple right to an education, which the right-wing has long denounced in deed if not in words, is at stake. If you don't think that's a plausible outcome, I can only suggest you're not really paying attention to the lengths RIAA and others wish to take their crusade.
In any case, this discussion has made me think more deeply on the subject. As a result, I've been doing some reading and random research, and I ran across this short, illustrative piece written by Richard Stallman called _The Right to Read_. I found this article after reading a news story on Slashdot.com regarding the imminent release of the latest Harry Potter book. Such extreme measures have been taken to ensure that not a single person reads a single syllable from the latest book prior to midnight on the day of its release that some are beginning to question whether the scenario related in the story presented at the link below has not come close to fruition.
Using what amounts to the logical equivalent of reductio ad absurdum, Mr. Stallman expresses in a brief illustration where I and many others believe this battle is headed.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.htmlFor those who won't click the link, the following is from the author's note. (Note to mods: This article is distributed under a general public license and may be reproduced here in its entirety.)
The right to read is a battle being fought today. Although it may take 50 years for our present way of life to fade into obscurity, most of the specific laws and practices described above have already been proposed; many have been enacted into law in the US and elsewhere. In the US, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act established the legal basis to restrict the reading and lending of computerized books (and other data too). The European Union imposed similar restrictions in a 2001 copyright directive.
Until recently, there was one exception: the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for personal computers, and not let you have them, was not proposed until 2002. It is called "trusted computing" or "palladium".
In 2001, Disney-funded Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the SSSCA that would require every new computer to have mandatory copy-restriction facilities that the user cannot bypass. Following the Clipper chip and similar US government key-escrow proposals, this shows a long-term trend: computer systems are increasingly set up to give absentees with clout control over the people actually using the computer system. The SSSCA has since been renamed to the CBDTPA (think of it as the "Consume But Don't Try Programming Act").
In 2001 the US began attempting to use the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas treaty to impose the same rules on all the countries in the Western Hemisphere. The FTAA is one of the so-called "free trade" treaties, actually designed to give business increased power over democratic governments; imposing laws like the DMCA is typical of this spirit. The Electronic Frontier Foundation asks people to explain to the other governments why they should oppose this plan.
The SPA, which actually stands for Software Publisher's Association, has been replaced in this police-like role by the BSA or Business Software Alliance. It is not, today, an official police force; unofficially, it acts like one. Using methods reminiscent of the erstwhile Soviet Union, it invites people to inform on their coworkers and friends. A BSA terror campaign in Argentina in 2001 made veiled threats that people sharing software would be raped in prison.
When this story was written, the SPA was threatening small Internet service providers, demanding they permit the SPA to monitor all users. Most ISPs surrender when threatened, because they cannot afford to fight back in court. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1 Oct 96, D3.) At least one ISP, Community ConneXion in Oakland CA, refused the demand and was actually sued. The SPA later dropped the suit, but obtained the DMCA which gave them the power they sought.
The university security policies described above are not imaginary. For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original):
"This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials."
This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
