thank you

I understand why those who value the bill of Rights have such a hard time: it is statements like this.

Presumably, because TIVO very often is used for infringement, we should just roll through the purchase records, and issue search warrents, after all, only the law breakers should be offended, right?

Well that is exactly the recipe for a POLICE STATE, my friend.

There has to be actual suspicion, just a percentage chance is not enough.

Privacy is not my first concern, it’s the DMCA which is in direct contradiction of the FIRST AMENDMENT. There is nothing implicit about the FIRST AMENDEMENT:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The DMCA works against the very principle of FREE SPEECH by outlawing a whole class of speech, that is disclosing even the principles that underlie how something works.

It is no accident that Diebold used the DMCA to try to suppress information re: how voting machines work, or that the DMCA was cited in the prosecution of Dmitry Sklyarov, and Ed Felten.

If the record companies stoped trying to pass such vile laws like the DMCA I would start buying their records again, but they will get none of my money until they advocate for the repeal of the DMCA.

No, wait, I retract that.

You don’t sound clueless – you sound like a RECORDING INDUSTRY SHILL.

1) Sure…good musicians get paid and play live shows. Just like a company like Sony will still get paid even if people steal some T.Vs. Yes, they will have to sell more of them though or sell other products. At some point though, concert ticket prices are raised to make up the difference caused by the theft. Just like stolen merchandise always raises prices in any type of store.

2) Who cares about the Detroit example? That is capitalism at work. The fact is, I don’t personally want to pay $18 for a crappy CD that only has 2-4 good songs on it. End of story. So I rely on things like word of mouth, listening stations, reviews in periodicals I trust, etc to help make CD purchasing decisions easier. I think there are HUGE problems with the way th music business has been operating. Specifically the fact that pencil pushers with no real love for the aesthetics of music. THAT is a problem with the current business model. Replacing people that have a passion with music with accountants or dispassionate businessmen is a problem. It shows too. Especially in the singles driven market that emphasizes quantity over quality. There ARE things wrong that need to be corrected, however stealing from people (even stupid people) that are the investors in aesthetics isn’t a way to help the problem. The file barterers (to borrow Chris’ phrase) aren’t stealing out of charity because they want to help out the “struggling artist” or help out the quality of music that is being put out. That kind of altruistic argument is absolutely silly. They steal music because it is easy, accessible, and the chance of getting caught is next to zero. It isn’t to change the dominant paradigm of business models in the music business.

2) You talk of Chris Castle’s proposed solution as a bad thing because it “takes freedoms away.” I already addressed this in my last post. I want ANY privacy advocate to explain why the right to privacy ought to outweigh the right to property. Both are enumerated in the Constitution (although not explicity).

3) Source code is protected speech and it is also protected privacy. Countries like Europe have ruled in favor of forcing companies like Microsoft and Apple to disclose their source code (Windows Media player case and the recent case when the EU ruled in favor of forcing Apple to disclose it’s DRM technology). In this country however, that source code is someone’s property.

To use a metaphor, words in a book are protected speech. Compiling a vast library of books is protected via the right to privacy. Compiling a vast library of stolen books is NOT.

As for unreasonable search and seizure? To call it unreasonable requires that there isn’t such a thing as “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion.” The fact that over 75% of P2P traffic is due to illigal file bartering gives you probable cause to at least search. If 90% of people wearing red tennis shoes were armed with pistols (to use an example) and you were managing security at a n event…it isn’t unreasonable to search a person wearing red shoes. Searching isn’t tantmount to imprisonment. Searching isn’t tantamount to randomly seizing your property either. It would be unreasonable if someone just randomly came up gestapo style and was like, “Lemme see your computer” and they found nothing…but kept your computer anyway. Or if they forcibly searched your computer with no reason whatsoever. However…the presence of a p2p program by itself would make the search completely and totally warranted. After all, if you are just using a p2p program to send legitimate files to your friends or share open source software (in other words LEGAL stuff) why would you be so damn up in arms over such a search? Your property wouldn’t be seized, you wouldn’t be in trouble, and you would have nothing to hide. This is the thing that drives me nuts about file barterers. The people defending this crap “on Constitutional principles” or attempting to make rights based arguments are almost always the ones with something to hide. I can tell you that I would have NO problem letting the government search my computer if I was running Kazaa/Limewire/Morpheus if I was engaged in legitimate activities. Can you?

-Evan

Here’s a newsflash: The reason that there has been a decline in the music business is in huge part because of *theft* not because of competition. Police deal with thieves. Japanese cars and stealing have nothing to do with each other, and it’s rather insulting to Japanese cars to try to link the two. You seem to think that there has been an introduction of a business model somewhere in this process. You may wish to ask Kazaa about how that business model is going.

Personally, I haven’t seen a business model or a better product or anything of the kind introduced by the file bartering community. What I have seen is a bunch of law professors and the EFF defending the most massive copyright infringement of all time. For myself, I work with clients every day trying to make a legitimate music space, but I don’t typically engage with “privacy advocates�? who won’t sign their own name, unless you really are named Enigma Foundry.

Here’s the hypocrisy: When it was the Japanese cars flooding the market, and taking away jobs from the autoworkers in Detroit, did you speak up? Detroit looks worse than parts Europe did after the Second World War. That is damage. What you are talking about is someone having to change a line of business, or work for less or change how they work. That is just competition. Good musicians can still get paid, its called a gig, a live show. They’ll have to do more of them.

Second, it is fine for you to propose solutions, but not just to protect a dated business model, especially when your proposal to protect it is to take freedoms away.

First Amendment: Source code is protected speech. My ability to compile source code is protected by right to Privacy. I have right to associate, that is to use P2P, and I am (or should be) protected against unreasonable search and seizure, as occurs under the DMCA.

Just thank heavens the DMCA did not work, and will hopefully be withdrawn soon…

Sorry guys!

-E

1) What rights are you referring to in the Bill of Rights (specifically the first ammendment?). The “Right to privacy” can be inferred by some ammendments. For example, you cannot be forced to quarter soldiers unless you are in a time of war. You can’t force people to incriminate themselves (5th ammendment) either which creates a domain of personal privacy around people.
However, there is also a level of protection for personal property written into the Constitution as well. Ever heard of the ammendments regarding illigal search and seizure? If we were in some sort of monarchy/Communist country/etc everyone’s stuff would be at the behest of the state (historically speaking) had the ability to seize lands at any time and redistribute them. The fact that you see it as some sort of tenuous position to place the right to property at least equal to the right to privacy is just goofy…especially since there isn’t an ammendment explicitly guarenteeing either. The First amendment has really nothing to do with this.

Here is the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The fact is, property rights are HUGELY important which is why there are some big time fusses over the state seizing personal property for big business under the banner of “community interest” via emminent domain (see Keylo v. City of New London).

2)Rights don’t exist in a vacuum. They are connected to real life utility that is gained by having them. Do you really think the other freedoms in the Bill of Rights matter much if you take away any of them?
Imagine a country that has freedom of the press but not religion. Or a country where you have freedom to assemble, but not any privacy rights. Or a country where you have privacy rights, but no personal property. On a side note, separating out privacy and property rights can be a tricky thing legally speaking and in general. After all, there is a domain of privacy that exists about our personal effects (search and seizure has to do with both privacy and property rights for example).

3) As far as the invectives used…eh. Doesn’t bother me. As a former debater, I don’t care if people engage in ad-hominems. They don’t by themselves constitute good reasoning or argumentation, obviously. However, they can be utilized to supplement a point.

I mind people saying, “John is a doody head.”
I don’t mind people saying, “John is a doody head for these 10 reasons including the very definition of doody head as given by Merriam-Websters Collegiate dictionary.”

Maybe that is me, but placing a premium on dispassionate argumentation ignores the fact that everyone has a personal stake in arguments and positions (especially on a BLOG site…lol).While it is important for our passions to not control us, I think the whole Jedi “suppress your feelings and passions” (to use a metaphor) is absolutely silly.

-E