Electronic Frontier Foundation on file sharing

[Miniver]

Some great info on file-sharing politics from my favorite freedom fighters The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

http://www.eff.org/share/

It's time to face the fact that in today's world, copyright law is broken. Our current copyright regime makes criminals out of music lovers. Worse, it makes suspected criminals out of all Internet users.
Congress has given copyright holders expanded subpoena powers similar to those granted to government officials under the USA PATRIOT Act. This means that whether or not you use peer-to-peer file-sharing programs, the recording industry (or anyone who claims to be a rights-holder!) can easily gain access to your personal information - without a judge's oversight.

Industry representatives say that the subpoenas and lawsuits are necessary to protect recording artists. But suing fans doesn't pay artists. Neither does threatening every Internet user's civil liberties. We need a constructive solution. EFF advocates offering fans a legal way to use P2P programs while ensuring that artists get paid.

EFF isn't alone in recognizing that lawsuits are not the answer. We have assembled some information on compensating artists while making P2P legal. Feel free to read it and pass it along.

There are over 60 million people in the United States who use file sharing - more than the number of people who voted for our current President. If we all band together and stand up for our rights, we can change the law.

Help end the P2P war. Become an EFF member today so the music can play on.
- Making P2P Legal
- Making P2P Pay Artists
- A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing
- Has Your Information Been Subpoenaed by the RIAA?
- How Not To Get Sued By The RIAA For File-Sharing
- Suing Your Customers: A Winning Business Strategy? Op Ed by G. Richard Shell
- RIAA v. The People - Lawsuit documents, subpoenas, and other resources
- Subpoena Defense
- Ask Congress for public hearings on P2P

[rastilin]

Brilliant, thanks for the link.

[Malicious Intent]

They also support everyone switching off sharing. I know it isn't going to cause everyone to do so, it is the way they tell people to do it without any explaination other than "to avoid getting sued".

I know what I mean, and it annoys me.

[Afn]

There are over 60 million people in the United States who use file sharing - more than the number of people who voted for our current President. If we all band together and stand up for our rights, we can change the law.

That is a great quote. If you do not mind, I would like to use it.

[shawners]

They also support everyone switching off sharing. I know it isn't going to cause everyone to do so, it is the way they tell people to do it without any explaination other than "to avoid getting sued".

I know what I mean, and it annoys me.

lol I know what it means, and it annoys me??LOL thats just the funniest thing i ever heard =) knowing what you mean doesnt annoy me

[Malicious Intent]

You know what I mean!

[Miniver]

That is a great quote. If you do not mind, I would like to use it.

Don't ask me...ask EFF. They are their words not mine.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

Hate to quibble, but all that stuff about:

can easily gain access to your personal information - without a judge's oversight.

didn't they change that? Don't they need to go to a judge for a supoena now?

Did I miss something, or does the EFF need to update it's website?

[Miniver]

no they just have to file it as john does...then the judge orders the isp's to give up the information

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

So you mean a judge oversees it, just as he would oversee any other supoena, in any other lawsuit?

In the old days under the DMCA that didn't happen, right? Isn't that what the EFF article is refering to? Just nitpicking of course, but if we're going to hold the EFF up as our beacon of truth, perhaps we should insist they be up to date, and accurate.

[ASUmusicMAN]

So you mean a judge oversees it, just as he would oversee any other supoena, in any other lawsuit?

In the old days under the DMCA that didn't happen, right? Isn't that what the EFF article is refering to? Just nitpicking of course, but if we're going to hold the EFF up as our beacon of truth, perhaps we should insist they be up to date, and accurate.

From Patriot Act


"ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211."

"USAPA sec. 213. Can delay notification for "a reasonable period" and can be "extended for good cause shown" to court for any wire or electronic communication or tangible property. Problematic because notice to a searched person is a key component of Fourth Amendment reasonableness."

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

Wow, that Patriot act is spooky. I hope it's not available to the music industry. It's scary enough to think the government can use it.

As far as I know the music industry hasn' t sought information from ISP's under the Patriot act yet, have they?

Are filesharers charged criminally under criminal law, or sued under civil law?

[carltonf]

The music industry is abusing the legal system by using it's money to buy terror. It is our system which allows this, but this is un-constitutional. When anyone with a lot of money can buy the result they desire, we no longer live in a free society. The judges who decide these matters are easily-duped simpletons who don't understand the fundamental issues around what the music industry is doing. The music industry has embraced a technology with which to distribute their products which makes copying them trivial. It is like someone setting up a table and putting a bunch of cd's on it in a public park, then leaving, and then people come up and take the cd's, because they think they are free, since there is no price and nobody charging anything. It is like a rancher setting his cattle free to roam all over the countryside, without putting up any fences, and getting mad when someone kills a cow that is muching on their lawn and makes steaks out of it. It's like someone planting an apple tree in a park, and then getting mad when people pick the apples off it. The material is in the commons, unprotected, apparently free. The companies have failed to protect their rights. The product they deliver is flawed, but the flaw hurts them and not the user. They want to blame the user for the flaw in their product. This is easier and cheaper than solving the tough technical problems with their products. The person who goes online and downloads a song using file-sharing software or from a website is not committing a crime. The record companies have built their empires based on technology which does not protect their copyrights. They are at fault for not protecting their copyrighted material, not the person who unwittingly accesses the un-protected material. Who has the money, and who profits from this? If they are to reap the rewards of peddling their music using digital technology, they must be held accountable for the technology they are using. A bank would not be able to provide online services without giving customers secure access to their accounts. If anyone could log in and look at your accounts and take money out, no-one would use it. A store cannot stay in business unless it has a well defined process for the customer to know that these products in this area are for sale, marked with prices, and there is someone to take their money and provide a transaction. In this same way, it is the company which delivers its product or service via electronic media which needs to be held responsible for securing it. A product that is so poorly protected is not a product at all. It is like trying to sell water or air. If the company does not understand the technology or does not have the ability to deliver the product that protects its rights, that product or service should be discontinued. The people who take advantage of flaws in the system should not be punished. Who is to say that the ease of duplication of music is a flaw and not a great feature? It is a great feature, to be able to make perfect copies of music in an instant. It allows the record companies to mass-produce the music, to instantly deliver new material to cd-factories around the globe, to use cheap, ubiquitous media such as cd's to sell it on. There is the goldmine of online music distribution awaiting them. But should the consumers pay for their irresponsibility? Shall the companies be permitted to terrorize the public by buying the legal-system and using it to threaten children across the world? There are great new opportunities for making enormous amounts of money for these corporations using this technology, and with their money and power, they will soon enough devise a way to protect their property. But when they can use their unlimited financial resources to twist the legal system and conduct terrorist attacks on innocent children, our system is broken and this is a defining time.

[Malicious Intent]

Wow carltonf, this is perhaps the most pro-DRM post I have seen at ZP.

[Afn]

The music industry is abusing the legal system by using it's money to buy terror. It is our system which allows this, but this is un-constitutional. When anyone with a lot of money can buy the result they desire, we no longer live in a free society. The judges who decide these matters are easily-duped simpletons who don't understand the fundamental issues around what the music industry is doing. The music industry has embraced a technology with which to distribute their products which makes copying them trivial. It is like someone setting up a table and putting a bunch of cd's on it in a public park, then leaving, and then people come up and take the cd's, because they think they are free, since there is no price and nobody charging anything. It is like a rancher setting his cattle free to roam all over the countryside, without putting up any fences, and getting mad when someone kills a cow that is muching on their lawn and makes steaks out of it. It's like someone planting an apple tree in a park, and then getting mad when people pick the apples off it. The material is in the commons, unprotected, apparently free. The companies have failed to protect their rights. The product they deliver is flawed, but the flaw hurts them and not the user. They want to blame the user for the flaw in their product. This is easier and cheaper than solving the tough technical problems with their products. The person who goes online and downloads a song using file-sharing software or from a website is not committing a crime. The record companies have built their empires based on technology which does not protect their copyrights. They are at fault for not protecting their copyrighted material, not the person who unwittingly accesses the un-protected material. Who has the money, and who profits from this? If they are to reap the rewards of peddling their music using digital technology, they must be held accountable for the technology they are using. A bank would not be able to provide online services without giving customers secure access to their accounts. If anyone could log in and look at your accounts and take money out, no-one would use it. A store cannot stay in business unless it has a well defined process for the customer to know that these products in this area are for sale, marked with prices, and there is someone to take their money and provide a transaction. In this same way, it is the company which delivers its product or service via electronic media which needs to be held responsible for securing it. A product that is so poorly protected is not a product at all. It is like trying to sell water or air. If the company does not understand the technology or does not have the ability to deliver the product that protects its rights, that product or service should be discontinued. The people who take advantage of flaws in the system should not be punished. Who is to say that the ease of duplication of music is a flaw and not a great feature? It is a great feature, to be able to make perfect copies of music in an instant. It allows the record companies to mass-produce the music, to instantly deliver new material to cd-factories around the globe, to use cheap, ubiquitous media such as cd's to sell it on. There is the goldmine of online music distribution awaiting them. But should the consumers pay for their irresponsibility? Shall the companies be permitted to terrorize the public by buying the legal-system and using it to threaten children across the world? There are great new opportunities for making enormous amounts of money for these corporations using this technology, and with their money and power, they will soon enough devise a way to protect their property. But when they can use their unlimited financial resources to twist the legal system and conduct terrorist attacks on innocent children, our system is broken and this is a defining time.

I like your post. My view is that p2p networks are in the greater public good than restricting access for excessive profiteering. Long term the music, television and content industries are going to go out of business as more and more information is sourced from the internet and p2p networks bypassing the publishing and electronic publishing industries.

You may like the National Peer To Peer radio show, It also is more or less and extended and researched discourse on some of the ideas you presented in your post.