Well that’s obviously a false claim.

“Prostitution has spiked since online (anonymous) advertising and arrangement.”

Prostitution is not illegal everywhere.

“Hackers break into secure sites everyday but don’t generally mirror breaking into buildings IRL. Fraud is also rampant on the network at the moment, a multiple of the same crimes IRL. DDOS attacks are common but storming a building IRL is a rare occurrence. The distinction goes on and on.

Those distinctions just mean that the penalties must be different in order to properly fit those ‘crimes’. You are blind to base of these distinctions: cyberspace is not physical/real space.

“Somehow the digital generation appears to take activity online with LESS respect, as if it had fewer or non existent consequences. This is very bad for a reliable, secure and functioning future network.”

Which generation? The ones who grew up with analog and then adopted to digital, or the ones who grew up with digital all their lives?

Your statement offends all those in the true digital generation. They learn online acceptance, etiquette, and tolerance all on their own and at very young ages. Of course, there would be exceptions due to chaos, but this reality is prominent.

“So the facts actually appear that people have a tendency to make a significant distinction between online and IRL and use THAT distinction to justify anonymous and often illegal behavior they wouldn’t even consider IRL.”

This ‘distinction’ that you declared is NOT used to justify anything. Do you know why would people use the Internet for ‘illegal behavior’? Well not one of the reasons is justification.

This article is about P2P. Are you trying to compare mere P2P to real crimes?

“I think the network will be a lot better sorted out when behavior offline is more properly mirrored online.”

That’s the most naive statement that I have read today.

“[...] What choice does government really have? Surrender to anonymous internet anarchy and give up the promise of digital distribution forever? I doubt that.”

Now you have acknowledged comparing real crimes to mere P2P.

Are you so hysterical that you cannot have realistic ideals and make grounded claims, and are you so selfish that you must demand others to see the world the way you see it?

Not all crimes are equal in severity and not everything is defined to be a crime just for the moral sake of it or for the interests of anyone.

You are an imbecile.

Just an aside: Prostitution is actually legal in Australia, and many countries in the world other than the US. Just to remind you that morality and legality of various actions varies from culture to culture. For instance, I’d assume that filesharing is not becoming much more commonplace in the US with all the legal hoohah going on, but out here more and more of my non-geeky friends are beginning to turn away from poor TV programming and get their shows from the bittorrent channel (most of my geeky friends are already doing this). The mood, at least amongst those I know, is that if you’re still spending money on cultural content, be it seeing live bands, movies at cinemas, hiring DVDs (even if only when you can’t find the movies/shows on the net), then its pretty much morally acceptable to access some stuff on the net (especially US TV shows that you’ve heard of but that will probably never make it across the pacific except maybe on DVD four or five years after they air initially), especially given that our legal avenues for doing so are restrictive both in terms of what is available, where it can be bought from and what you can do with it (i.e. formatshifting or moving to other devices you own) when you do buy it.

By and large, Australians feel that they are a decent people and don’t want morality dictated to them by their government, business interests (local or foreign), special interest groups or any other body.

Ooh, ooh, here’s an idea, Senator Conroy. Copyright holders could GIVE THE PUBLIC A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO FILESHARING, then you wouldn’t have to embarrass yourself any further.

“Shouldn’t Australians have a say on such an important “change” in their lives?”

We did. Don’t you remember? It was the DBCDEQWERTNQW blog, run by Senator Conroy himself! You can find it at… wait, I know it’s here somewhere…

Trying to connect serious online crime with sharing of content is frankly ridiculous.

I can agree with some points you make in regards to peoples behavior online. It is important however, to distinguish between people who have adopted online personalities (aged 30-40) vs people who grew up online. I believe there is significantly more tolerance and calm acceptance of the environment in the younger demographic.

Yes there should be better policing of people who break into secure sites with the intention of doing harm… but the penalties need to match the crime, ie. would you throw the book at a thief who breaks into a shop and takes nothing? The hysteria you are promoting with your comments is unrealistic and unfounded. The situation online is simply reflecting everyday society.

There are certain streets you can walk down safely and others you can’t.

In regards to your other moral proselytizing When there is a demand for something in society, ie prostitution, industry will evolve to fill that demand. It isn’t illegal in many places…

“The lack of an online/offline distinction by digital natives throws into sharper relief ……………..”

That seems untrue, in fact an entire digital generation makes a very clear distinction BETWEEN on and offline, and expressly views a very different set of rules for online and offline behavior.

And at least a decade of accrued evidence appears to indicate this.

The distinction “it’s only the internet” facilitates piracy amongst a much larger group who would not necessarily infringe the same digital files in (merely) a different format. Prostitution has spiked since online (anonymous) advertising and arrangement. Lori Drew would likely not have badgered Megan IRL the way she could and did online. Hackers break into secure sites everyday but don’t generally mirror breaking into buildings IRL. Fraud is also rampant on the network at the moment, a multiple of the same crimes IRL. DDOS attacks are common but storming a building IRL is a rare occurrence.The distinction goes on and on. Somehow the digital generation appears to take activity online with LESS respect, as if it had fewer or non existent consequences. This is very bad for a reliable, secure and functioning future network.

So the facts actually appear that people have a tendency to make a significant distinction between online and IRL and use THAT distinction to justify anonymous and often illegal behavior they wouldn’t even consider IRL. I think the network will be a lot better sorted out when behavior offline is more properly mirrored online. And that, frankly, is where I think we are inevitably headed. What choice does government really have? Surrender to anonymous internet anarchy and give up the promise of digital distribution forever? I doubt that.