Why You Hate Net Neutrality if You Love Copyright By Chris Castle
Posted July 27, 2006 — in Music News
When we go to the post office to mail a letter, we can choose how we want the post office to rank our mail compared to other mail in the queue. We can buy a first class mail stamp, but if it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight, we would turn to Federal Express or its competitors. We would expect to pay a premium in exchange for the carrier ranking our mail above someone who didn’t pay that premium.
For example, when we purchase a book from Amazon.com, we are given several options for how we want our book shipped to us. If Amazon were to offer us the option to buy a book at a few percentage points off of the retail price we might pay if we went to a bookstore without the convenience of near immediate delivery, Amazon would be at a competitive disadvantage to, say, Barnes & Noble, Book People, or your local independent bookseller. If all the books had to be shipped at the lowest rate, e.g., the book rate (remember that?) there probably would be no Amazon.com.
The Internet, on the other hand, ranks every piece of traffic at the same priority and that priority is the “going? rate, which often is the slowest rate unless you’re on a virtual private network (one of the several examples of violations of “net neutrality? that demand in the marketplace has already created). This is one of the definitions of “net neutrality?, meaning that ISPs treat each piece of traffic in a “neutral? manner, meaning ISPs do not let anyone jump the queue and wouldn’t let you if you wanted to—even if you were willing to pay more for the benefit.
Understanding the implications of this “neutral? policy as it applies to illegal file bartering (the euphemism this writer prefers over illegal file “sharing? as it is a more accurate description of the commerce that is occurring) requires digging a little bit beneath the surface of what goes on when a file is transmitted over the Internet, a “packet switched network?.
It’s important to realize that when we view our email program sending an email, for example, what we are viewing is a graphical rendering of what is “really? happening under the hood on the Internet. An email and any file attachment are broken down in elements called “packets?. A file attachment we “see? may be megabytes in size, but when broken down into a packet, each packet will be between 1,000 and 1,500 bytes regardless of the size of the original file.
Each packet creates a header file and footer file for the packet that is wrapped around the “payload? which is part of the original file that is being transmitted. The header file has information that describes the packet to the network, which includes the length of packet, synchronization data that help the packet match up to the network, a unique packet number (which packet this is in a sequence of packets), the protocol (i.e., the type of packet being transmitted, such as e-mail, a Web page, streaming audio), a destination DNS address (where the packet is going) and the originating DNS address (where the packet came from). Privacy advocates (aka illegal file barterers) will have issues with how accurate the DNS addresses might be and whether anyone can actually tell anything about the payload, but we will leave the complications and consequences of encryption to one side for the moment.
When using peer-to-peer clients and networks, huge numbers of packets are being transmitted around the Internet. Even though BitTorrent (using “swarming? techniques) greatly reduce network load because it permits peers to download files from each other—at the packet level—instead of from a central file server. As peers using BitTorrent begin to receive packets from the “seeder? (or the first client to download a file), they begin to share them among all peers over the peer network until each peer has a copy of the file.
BitTorrent is, however, an extraordinary bandwidth hog because the “overhead? required to keep it running is exponential to the number of connections and the speed of those connections on the peer-to-peer network. If you want to delve into this deeper, I have included some links below, but for our purposes of discussing packet pricing, accept the premise that file bartering takes up a huge amount of ISP bandwidth resources. Some have estimated it is as high as 90%, and one would have to assume that nearly all of this traffic is illegal. As one ISP operator notes “…One student, [using Bit Torrent or p2p networks] without bandwidth restrictions, could easily soak up 10 Mbps of continuous backbone bandwidth, which in our location can cost as much as $6,000 per month wholesale…. That’s why we were among the first ISPs to implement P2P mitigation. Had we not done so, those users — perhaps unwittingly, because many of them did not realize that they were transmitting as well as receiving illegal copies of music — would have choked off those engaged in legitimate activities and we would have lost their
business. Many P2P applications, upon discovering an unfettered fast “pipe,” quickly make the computers on which they’re running major hubs in the P2P network, consuming all the bandwidth they can.?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons and other front groups that make up the global web of Professors Lawrence Lessig’s and Terry Fisher’s global anti-copyright campaign have fought to protect illegal file bartering around the world, and will probably contest such a figure with a variety of arguments based on dubious theories of “fair use? and the like. Even so, if you use the 90/10 rule that closely approximates the arguments of the EFF in the Grokster case, 90% of the activity is illegal, so it is probably safe to say that approximately 70% of the bandwidth on the Internet is used for illegal activities.
A reasonable person might inquire as to why so much illegal activity can go on over the infrastructure owned and operated by legitimate companies. Is there nothing that can be done about it? Some would say nothing can be done to identify these illegal packets because they can be encrypted (a form of hacking). More about this later.
The fundamental reason that massive file bartering can continue is that it doesn’t cost users anything more to use their high speed Internet accounts to send an email to their granddaughter as it does their granddaughter to illegally download 5 gigabytes a day of copyrighted materials.
One can easily understand why the Lessig/Fisher cabal supports “net neutrality? given their continued support of massive copyright infringement through “nodding and winking? litigation. However, it is easy to see how Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand could be used to make free riders pay for their use of the Internet for illegal purposes.
Many BitTorrent and p2p connections are excruciatingly slow as it is. Imagine if end users of these products found themselves dumped to the end of the line unless they wanted to pay for higher speed connections. And for users who wish to encrypt the files they barter out of “privacy? concerns, they would be free to do that, but they would go even further back in the queue. The very, very end, in fact.
Therefore—price ranking alone might cause many illegal users to find ways to illicitly barter copyrighted materials somewhere other than out in the open on the ISP’s networks.
Of course, in the Skippy Dot Com world of price competition in a “gas war? style race to the bottom, the cost of excessive use of fast bandwidth would have to be great enough that ISPs would have no choice but to pass it along to end users. The idea is not to gouge consumers—the idea is to make free riders pay the freight, and to curtail excessive bandwidth usage that can best be attributed to illegal activity.
Can users (and their defenders in the EFF) come up with alternative reasons in speculating why someone might want to be using high levels of bandwidth for lawful purposes, or would “need? to encrypt packets for “privacy? concerns? Sure. Maybe the dog really did eat the homework. But if you ask ISPs privately, they will tell you they have a pretty good idea of where these packets are coming from and where they’re going.
So if you are an artist or someone who benefits from the creative community, understand that when the Lessig cabal try to get you to support “net neutrality? there’s nothing neutral about it all, and it is all of a piece in their campaign to crush our rights and our business. As the Nutty Professor put it succinctly in one of his anti-copyright diatribes: “We’re bigger than them [so if you contribute to EFF we will win].? Meaning they’re bigger than us, so they should get to have their way. He said it, I didn’t.
Description of p2p mitigation by ISP: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200504/msg00131.html
P2P Fuels Global Bandwidth Binge (Wired Magazine): http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67202,00.html
Chris Castle is a music attorney in Los Angeles where he represents artists (including KOAR fav 10 Years), producers, music industry executives, songwriters, independent publishers and record companies, and technology companies. Chris is a contributing editor to Entertainment Law & Finance and writes the Music-Tech-Policy blog (http://music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/). He is on the board of directors of the Austin Music Foundation and moderates the digital panel at SXSW. Before law school, he was the drummer for Jesse Winchester, Long John Baldry and Yvonne Elliman.
i fell asleep about 3 graphs in on that one. i’m still for net neutrality. once the government starts regulating the internet you really think it’s gonna get better? no.
Comment by ryan — July 30, 2006 @ 8:51 am
Well, the mis-information in this post deserves to be corrected.
First, the choice of metaphor, the postal system is wrong for the internet. I prefer the information super-highway. There is such a thing as a sped limit, and it applies to everyone, democratically.
Secondly, there almost seems to be invective, even hatred in the tone of this post. Can’t we dispassionately debate these issues?
For example: “The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons and other front groups…”
& “Privacy advocates (aka illegal file barterers)…”
You use such invective in your analysis, that it clouds the piece as a whole. I’d suggest you save the judgment for the end, where it belongs, rather than just call those you disagree with crooks as an aside.
Third, you jump right in and try to outlaw a technology that does have a substantial non-infringing use. I use bit-torrent to download linux distros that I use, effectively donating the bandwidth that I pay for to the distribution of my choice. So it may be the case that 70 or 80% of the bit-torrent is illegal. I’ll concede that for the sake of this argument. However, what you are saying is that Property Rights can trump rights that I have, granted to me by the Bill of Rights. I am very reluctant to allow property rights supersede First Amendment rights.
Fourth, clearly those who have created Free and Open Source software and the creative common movements are neither thieves nor ‘fronts.’ But it is undeniably true that they have created massively disruptive business model. That is, however, exactly how markets create value. The music industry will be transformed, and probably the musicians will as a whole, be in about the same place they are now. My prediction is that there will be less superstars, but with the long tail phenomena, the average musician will be better off, and the diversity of the music will be greater. That is cultural value judgment, and a qualitative plus that creative commons will bring to the market, and the monetary value of this will be difficult to assess.
What will be absolutely decimated will be the distribution channels, the middle men and the marketing department, the publicists, lawyers for the music industry etc.
Thus, I do see dislocation created by this event to be an issue, and one that should be dealt with by policy makers. I am not sure exactly how to do that, but the first step to to recognize the problem, and then to discuss solutions. Do you have any ideas about this?
Comment by enigma_foundry — July 31, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
If you want to mitigate peer-to-peer traffic, there must be better ways to do it than to destroy the neutrality principle, which will have side effects reaching into many other legal activities that we do on the net. Plus, by your estimate 10% of p2p is legal anyway, so unless a strategy to reduce copyright infringement is carefully targeted, it will unfairly inconvenience the people we least want to hurt — people using the net for normal and explicitly legal activities, like making internet phone calls, for example. Or legal freeware distributions via p2p. Or independent artists who like having people share their music. I know a few, and I download their music (from their own websites or from mp3 blogs) and buy their albums.
I don’t use any peer to peer programs, so I don’t have a dog in that fight. I do hate the larger music industry, because there seem to be so many crooks in it. I have to say I feel little sympathy for the large record labels. Their criminality is legion. Go, Mr. Spitzer, go! And terms and extent of copyright protection has been expanded beyond its original Constitutional intent, in my opinion.
If I could wave a magic wand, and make all the unauthorized transfers of major-label music files go away in a second, I would do it. If I could wave a magic wand, and destroy the big four music labels in a second, I would do it. A pox on all their houses. But leave the net neutral. That is important for many legitimate reasons.
Now, that does not mean I want the government to regulate neutrality, unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Often the government’s cure is worse than the disease.
Comment by e anderson — August 1, 2006 @ 8:52 am
You get it! In a very sophisticated way, from someone with real world experience on how the “I want it for free” crowd can be unreasonable and very anti-business. It is very datatopian — others pay for the cost of the production and on the Internet they do not warrant compensation for their goods, labor or innovation.
Kudos! blog more on this.
I think you will find our site http://www.netcompetition.org and http://www.precursorblog.com very useful to you in your further thinking on NN.
Scott Cleland
Comment by Scott Cleland — August 1, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Chris: Well put on NN. Ryan’s comment is both completely on target and 100% wrong at the same time. It is the NN proponents who want the government to jump in and regulate what is now a largely unregulated but well functioning market driven system. So, Ryan–I agree that it will not get better if the government regulates, but that is precisely what the NN crowd wants.
Comment by Duff Berschback — August 2, 2006 @ 5:34 am
Many of the technical assertions in this post are wrong. Packets don’t contain DNS addresses; VPNs make net access slower, not faster; all Internet traffic uses packets; packets don’t contain header and footer files; BitTorrent overhead is not exponential in the number of connections; 10 Mbps of bandwidth can’t possibly cost $6k/month retail; and so on.
Even if you don’t understand how the Internet works, it’s hard to see how you can believe simultaneously that “BitTorrent greatly reduces the network load” and “BitTorrent is an extraordinary bandwidth hog”.
Comment by Ed Felten — August 2, 2006 @ 9:16 am
appreciate everyone who posted a comment on the net neutrality article. Obviously it is a hot button issue. I wanted to respond to some of the critical posts:
1. If I get upset when I see my friends laid off, when I see families decimated by the huge downsizing that has hit my business, when I see artists struggling like never before to sell records, when Lawrence Lessig and Terry Fisher and their fellow travelers stand on the sidelines defending the most massive copyright infringement of all time in the name of “the commons? whatever that is, when technologists act as if they have no social or moral responsibility, not to mention legal liability, for their inventions in some machine language version of the Nuremberg defense—shall I go on—then yes, you are dang right I am angry about it, guilty as charged and proud of it. And I would just betcha that so are most people who read KOAR. I’m not going to give the record companies a pass on how this was all handled, and I take a back seat to no one in terms of what I have done personally to try to stop the bleeding, but no one who has the ability to think sequentially is going to believe that the downturn in sales has nothing to do with the “can buy won’t buy? crowd who gleefully steal our work every day, all behind the veil of “privacy? and “commons?. Not to mention scary movie skater boy handles like some who commented.
If I design a car with no brakes and leave it running with the keys in the ignition and the windows down in front of my house, can I reasonably argue that I have no responsibility if a child takes the car for a ride and causes harm to themselves or others? Can I say that I bear no responsibility because I could have included brakes in my design, but didn’t? That it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that the harm would occur? That if I can think of a machine, society has to permit me to put it into use—with no restraints. This is what the advocates of “innovation? want you to believe. Just read the Induce Act testimony. When I hear this kind of thing, I get the distinct impression that someone thinks the rules don’t apply to them, and if they break the rules, they ought to get a pass.
Those of us who work in the entertainment industries are used to addressing our responsibilities to the public in the products we sell. We can’t just put any record into record stores—parents want to know if the record has adult lyrics, so sometimes we have to put a parental advisory sticker on the outside of the packaging and in the metadata for digital distribution. Movies, television and games have ratings. We don’t particularly enjoy labeling, but we’d rather have that than censorship. Music has been the driving force of major social change, but we play on a field and we have some—not many—rules. When we break the rules, bad things happen, just ask General Spitzer.
I am prepared to accept that there is a new level of piracy that we have to work around, but I am not prepared to accept that it is cool, inevitable, respecting of the rights of artists and songwriters, and most of all lawful. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides to understand how we got here, but it doesn’t change the fact that “file sharing? is 90% stealing—and a huge bandwidth hog.
If anyone is truly convinced that file bartering is proper, lawful and an entitlement, let them come into the public square and identify themselves and either make their case or take their lumps. Let them say “My name is John Smith, my address is x and my phone number is y, and I am proud of all my file sharing so come get me and do your worst, for truth and righteousness are on my side.? Funny thing—that never seems to happen. “File sharers? must be “privacy advocates?.
If you are wondering why I refer to EFF, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons, etc., as “front? groups, check http://friendsofthecommons.org and http://onthecommons.org, it should all get clearer for you. The Lessig groups are part of the global “commons? movement. I’m still not sure what you call these folks, I think they prefer “commoner? to “commons-ist?.
2. Regarding technical definitions: Try searching “packets header footer? on Google, and then go argue with the 218,000 results. Re Bit Torrent, I have no problem with Bit Torrent as a technology, just like the Supreme Court had no problem with p2p as a technology. I have a problem with the fact that 70-90% of all Internet traffic (including that from Torrent sites) appears to be illegal file bartering, and speculate that MOST of that is due to the fact that the true cost of that bandwidth usage is not passed on to the end user. I also take the position that someone in the ISP food chain is profiting from all this illegal activity, and that if they are going to be allowed to charge to carry the bits—an open question that is currently the subject of several lawsuits–those bits should go to the very, very, very end of the line. Bit Torrent/swarming technology is extraordinarily useful in reducing bandwidth costs for legitimate uses of the Internet, but Bit Torrent technology—as used in illegal activities—is a huge bandwidth hog. In other words, if you inhibit the stealing by downloading instead of encouraging stealing by downloading, there would not be as much overall usage of the network. I would have thought this point was obvious, but I guess not. When I say encryption is another form of hacking it is in the context of encrypting illegal files to intentionally disguise their content—fooling the system, like hacking. A crime, incidentally.
3. If you think that massive copyright infringement deserves to get the same treatment as legitimate uses of the Internet, then you’re going to have to do a better job of justifying it to me, because I ain’t buying it. Neither is the U.S. government. If you read the FCC’s “Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities? (FCC 05-151, CC Docket No. 02-33, September 23, 2005), one of the clearest statements of the government’s policy on “net neutrality? you won’t find one word about illegal file bartering
Comment by koar — August 3, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Ryan,
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
Comment by Evan — August 3, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
Ah yes. My apologies for the inevitable spelling and grammar errors. I hit submit and realized that I forgot to spell check my post. I think I spelled amendment wrong like 10,000,000 times.
Sorry guys!
-E
Comment by Evan — August 3, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
1. If I get upset when I see my friends laid off, when I see families decimated by the huge downsizing that has hit my business, when I see artists struggling like never before to sell records, when Lawrence Lessig and Terry Fisher and their fellow travelers stand on the sidelines defending the most massive copyright infringement of all time in the name of “the commons? whatever that is,
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…
Comment by enigma_foundry — August 3, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
Actually–your example is inapt Mr. Enigma Foundry. You’re right, the reason Japanese cars did well is because they were “better” and that caused a reshuffling of the market based on competition.
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.
Comment by koar — August 4, 2006 @ 7:30 am
[...] IPcentral drew my attention to Chris Castle’ article on net neutrality and copyright in which he argues, no, rants about net neutrality supporters who are defending illegal downloading by opposing people peeping into IP packet contents. As for myself, this is certainly a reason supporting net neutrality. Another one is that I dont want people like Chris policing my communications. Comment this post [...]
Pingback by warsystems » Net Neutrality and Illegal Filesharing — August 4, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Enigma Foundry-
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
Comment by Evan — August 6, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Wow, Chris, you sound even more clueless than Senator Ted “THE INTERNET IS A SERIES OF TUBES” Stevens.
No, wait, I retract that.
You don’t sound clueless - you sound like a RECORDING INDUSTRY SHILL.
Comment by Macavity — May 22, 2007 @ 8:50 am
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).
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.
Comment by enigma_foundry — December 7, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
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?
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.
Comment by enigma_foundry — December 8, 2007 @ 10:57 am
wow ))
its very interesting point of view.
Good post.
realy good post
thank you
Comment by unehync — September 2, 2008 @ 1:02 pm