P2P-Zone - View Single Post - ZZzzz - Britney, Sting to Whine In "Anti-Piracy" TV Ads

Mazer · 27-09-02, 12:24 PM

I think it's good to continue beating this dead horse because it's still squirming and trying to stand up.

The DMCA is such a big law with so many words that I'm sure they'll find a loophole that will allow them to shut file sharing down while we're finding loopholes that allow file sharing to persist. That's the real problem with the DMCA, it's too wordy and it reaches farther than it can see. Maybe it is illegal to share MP3's, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer either. I'm a law abiding citizen but I do believe in civil disobedience. If file sharing is illegal then it has gone way over the line of civil disobedience, file sharers are showing outright disregard for the law and they even brag that they break it. Now, for something as fickle as file sharing I don't think this kind of anarchy is particularly dangerous, but I don't necessarily want to live in a country where lawmakers make laws they know people disagree with. It's supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" after all. If a law exists that 1) limits the natural rights of the people, 2) cannot be enforced in any reasonable way, and 3) incites the citizens to break it then it has no business being a law in the first place. Under those terms I think the DMCA has to go.

So I, for one, think the real battle has to happen in the courts and in congress to revert copyright law to its original form, that which protects creators for a limited amount of time. In its present form it protects distributors for an unlimited amount of time and it is an obvious detriment to creativity and the economy. A gaggle of movmentarians isn't going to initiate the kind of change that need to take place. Napsterites have never been the kind to march on the streets carrying signs and chanting; we know that there are better ways to impart our knowledge, and we can do it without getting bogged down it the technicalities of fair use and analog and lossy copies. The simplest message is probably the best one: file sharing may be illegal but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong.

We're limited by the fact that only half of our benefactors support us. File sharing is good for musicians too but they don't know that. That's where most of the confusion begins, people listen to celebrities condemning the medium that has boosted their popularity, and condemning their own fans too. They're saying what they truly believe because that's what they get paid to do, and it's their right to say whatever they want no matter how ignorant they are. And people do take them seriously despite their lack of education. Some musicians do eventually learn but not until after people have stopped listening to them. Those that do stick up for themselves discover the small print in their contracts that remind them that the record company owns them for life; even if they wanted to distribute and promote their own records they wouldn't be allowed to. Those contracts extend to retailers too, promising to kill their businesses if they sell non-label music. So copyright law isn't the only weed that needs to be plucked, labor law and antitrust law also need to be amended in order for us to succeed. And the people who live under those laws don't want to change. What we have here is a failure to communicate, the surface dwellers can't hear us from underground.

Still, from underground we have direct access to the grass roots. We can't succeed if we play the role of gilded consumers who want something for free, because we're more than just consumers. We're more than just computer nerds and internet addicts, we're not the stereotypical losers living in dark basements. We're not all sheep, and we're not all wolves either. We all have real lives in the real world, those are the roles we should play, and that's how change begins. A hundred celebrities on TV can't compare to a hundred million neighbors and friends chatting in their homes and at work. When we talk about it online we're beating a dead horse, but outside of NU it is a new and misunderstood concept. When it's time to educate people about the music business and copyright law, piracy and sharing, creativity and contracts, the responsibility falls on us because we know. Even if we don't all agree, even if some of us vehemently oppose each other, this debate needs to get out into the open and the arguments need to be made again and again.

27-09-02, 12:24 PM	#16
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	I think it's good to continue beating this dead horse because it's still squirming and trying to stand up. The DMCA is such a big law with so many words that I'm sure they'll find a loophole that will allow them to shut file sharing down while we're finding loopholes that allow file sharing to persist. That's the real problem with the DMCA, it's too wordy and it reaches farther than it can see. Maybe it is illegal to share MP3's, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer either. I'm a law abiding citizen but I do believe in civil disobedience. If file sharing is illegal then it has gone way over the line of civil disobedience, file sharers are showing outright disregard for the law and they even brag that they break it. Now, for something as fickle as file sharing I don't think this kind of anarchy is particularly dangerous, but I don't necessarily want to live in a country where lawmakers make laws they know people disagree with. It's supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" after all. If a law exists that 1) limits the natural rights of the people, 2) cannot be enforced in any reasonable way, and 3) incites the citizens to break it then it has no business being a law in the first place. Under those terms I think the DMCA has to go. So I, for one, think the real battle has to happen in the courts and in congress to revert copyright law to its original form, that which protects creators for a limited amount of time. In its present form it protects distributors for an unlimited amount of time and it is an obvious detriment to creativity and the economy. A gaggle of movmentarians isn't going to initiate the kind of change that need to take place. Napsterites have never been the kind to march on the streets carrying signs and chanting; we know that there are better ways to impart our knowledge, and we can do it without getting bogged down it the technicalities of fair use and analog and lossy copies. The simplest message is probably the best one: file sharing may be illegal but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong. We're limited by the fact that only half of our benefactors support us. File sharing is good for musicians too but they don't know that. That's where most of the confusion begins, people listen to celebrities condemning the medium that has boosted their popularity, and condemning their own fans too. They're saying what they truly believe because that's what they get paid to do, and it's their right to say whatever they want no matter how ignorant they are. And people do take them seriously despite their lack of education. Some musicians do eventually learn but not until after people have stopped listening to them. Those that do stick up for themselves discover the small print in their contracts that remind them that the record company owns them for life; even if they wanted to distribute and promote their own records they wouldn't be allowed to. Those contracts extend to retailers too, promising to kill their businesses if they sell non-label music. So copyright law isn't the only weed that needs to be plucked, labor law and antitrust law also need to be amended in order for us to succeed. And the people who live under those laws don't want to change. What we have here is a failure to communicate, the surface dwellers can't hear us from underground. Still, from underground we have direct access to the grass roots. We can't succeed if we play the role of gilded consumers who want something for free, because we're more than just consumers. We're more than just computer nerds and internet addicts, we're not the stereotypical losers living in dark basements. We're not all sheep, and we're not all wolves either. We all have real lives in the real world, those are the roles we should play, and that's how change begins. A hundred celebrities on TV can't compare to a hundred million neighbors and friends chatting in their homes and at work. When we talk about it online we're beating a dead horse, but outside of NU it is a new and misunderstood concept. When it's time to educate people about the music business and copyright law, piracy and sharing, creativity and contracts, the responsibility falls on us because we know. Even if we don't all agree, even if some of us vehemently oppose each other, this debate needs to get out into the open and the arguments need to be made again and again.