by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jul 11th 2011 10:02am
Filed Under:
cultural acceptance, laws, protect ip, punishment
Why PROTECT IP Will Fail: Cultural Acceptance, Not Fear Of Punishment, Makes People Abide By Laws
from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept
This new proposed law is a terrible way to try to solve [infringement]. Its passage would only drive the culture further yet from any respect for the rule of law as it applies to intellectual property. But if Big IP hasn’t figured out yet that it is cultural acceptance of legal norms, not fear of punishment, that makes a free society a law-abiding one -- if Big IP doesn’t understand what the de facto attitude of consumers regarding copyright has already become, and where it is already going -- then heck, maybe at this point the law professors and the rest of us should just let Congress already go ahead and give them enough rope.This is the key point that many of us have been trying to drive home for years. It's the same key point that the SSRC report made in pointing out that "enforcement" and "education" are simply not strategies that work. And that wasn't based on theory. It was based on years and years of detailed research. And yet, to the industry and to the government there seems to be only one single tool in the box for dealing with the challenges of infringement: to scare people. But that only works if people are stupid. And we now have plenty of experience in recognizing that people don't culturally accept the claims of the industry on this issue, and no amount of threats and punishment are likely to change that.
IFPI/BPI: Picking Off The Weak In The Herd
from the attacking-grandmothers-for-fun-and-profit dept
My name is Tim and I'm an addict. Yes, friends, I have to stand up, get my first day of sobriety chip, and admit to you that I'm addicted. To Animal Planet. And National Geographic. Basically those nature shows that show me the beauty of the outside world through the sickly glowing television in my two story walkup on the north side of America's third biggest urban environment.
It's the whole predatory thing, see. I'm fascinated by the way we portray nature's biggest predators, be they sharks, or cheetahs, or falcons. Can't you just hear the calm voiceover now?
"The predator approaches from downwind so as not to alert his prey. He spots the heard, teeming masses of animals drinking from the same stream. Ah ha, he has picked out his victim. An old female, third generation from the looks of her, and perhaps not as spry as the others. Now he begins the chase. He zigs and zags, creating confusion amongst the herd. And then he has her in his jaws, tearing her limb from limb."
Wait. That's not Animal Planet. It's TorrentFreak alerting us that IFPI and BPI are going after an auxiliary nurse grandmother in Scotland whose documented obsessive compulsive disorder caused her to hoard (and apparently make available) thousands of music files (mostly kaoraoke files). In what is being called the first case of its type in the country, the music industry is going after the weak of the herd, apparently. The woman's lawyer noted:
"Alarmingly, this was not a commercial enterprise and Muir was not alleged to have made any money from these offences. She must be considered to have minimal culpability compared to others in the file-sharing chain. Yet again, the industry have chosen to pursue someone remarkable only by virtue of their vulnerability."
Now, before the normal pack of hyenas here begin circling the corpse and nipping at everyone's heels, it should be noted that she only made her files available because doing so was required for her to get access to the Direct Connect hub so she could hoard even more files which, again, was caused (as ruled by the courts, which ordered her to get cognitive therapy) by her obsessive compulsive disorder. And if you think this sounds familiar, it's because the RIAA has been going after grandmothers for years (perhaps they can patent the approach?).
Perhaps I'm just an old softy, but if you're really filing these suits based on principle, why do they have to go after certifiably ill grandmothers? I mean, I appreciate music labels trying to help me with my Animal Planet fix, but maybe mimicking predatory behavior isn't the best business strategy?
No Punishment For Bogus DMCA Notices If Service Provider Doesn't Take Down The Content
from the too-bad dept
limiting suits for damages to those caused by an actual takedown is a less effective deterrent than allowing suits based merely on the filing of a false Takedown Notification. But the statute is unambiguous in entitling an alleged infringer to damages caused “as the result of the service provider . . . removing or disabling access to the material"In other words, if the service provider doesn't follow through on the takedown, there's no punishment for filing a bogus DMCA notice. Too bad.
Separately, I hadn't realized just how ridiculous the DMCA notice was. It didn't just ask for a takedown of the virtual animals itself, but of the food for the animals, in order to make the virtual animals die. This snippet from the ruling struck me as amusing:
The Notification sought, among other things, the removal from Second Life of Amaretto's virtual "food" and "water." Had the takedown occurred, the virtual horses would have "died" from "starvation" and/or "thirst" within 72 hours.Yup. Using copyright to "starve" to "death" virtual animals. I'm sure that's exactly what our Founding Fathers were thinking about when they wrote the Constitution.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Feb 8th 2010 8:01am
Filed Under:
jurisdiction, punishment, social networks, students
Court Disagrees On Whether Or Not Schools Can Punish Students Over Fake Social Network Pages
from the first-amendment? dept
Both cases involved students creating fake MySpace profiles of the schools' principals. Both students were punished, but in one case the court said the school went too far ("Public schools are vital institutions, but their reach is not unlimited...") while the other said it was fine ("We decline to say that simply because the disruption to the learning environment originates from a computer located off campus, the school should be left powerless to discipline the student."). The difference appears to be that in the latter case, the school claimed that the fake profile resulted in disruption in the classroom because "students were talking about the profile rather than paying attention to class."
That seems like a pretty fine line, because now a school will have to do is suggest that students in the school were discussing an activity that took place outside of school to allow the school to punish the student for off-campus speech. From a First Amendment standpoint, that seems pretty difficult to accept -- and certainly seems to go against the principles set forth by the famous Tinker decision concerning free speech rights of students on campus.
Tough To Punish Those Who File Bogus DMCA Takedowns
from the little-punishment dept
Eric Goldman highlights a case where an ISP tried to use section (f) to go after a bunch of folks who issued questionable DMCA takedowns that were clearly designed to harass a couple of websites (and, at one point, were used to try to take down the entire ISP). The details are a bit convoluted, but basically, a group of people critical of what was being said on a website issued a series of DMCA takedowns to keep the site down every time it came back up following a counternotice. This seems like a perfect case where the takedown issuers should be hit with sanctions of some sort, but the case was dismissed on procedural grounds instead, which seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the DMCA itself.
But, more important is how this case demonstrates how the DMCA is abused not to prevent copyright infringement, but to try to silence speech that someone doesn't like. We've had plenty of discussions about the conflicts between the First Amendment and copyright law, but here is a case where Congress has made a law that is all too often used to stifle speech.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Nov 13th 2009 12:43pm
Filed Under:
anti-piracy, copyright, punishment, wipo
Companies:
wipo
WIPO Director General Against Draconian Anti-Piracy Punishment... But For The Wrong Reasons
from the not-quite-there-yet dept
It's not that he thinks that the better approach is for companies and content creators to adjust their business models -- but that he's afraid the draconian punishment schemes are basically a PR nightmare for WIPO's continuing fruitless effort to convince people that infringement is evil:
"I don't believe we are going to win this, (to) find the solution by putting teenagers in jail," Gurry said in an interview on a visit to India. "I think that is not going to win public sympathy."Amusingly, the whole reason the RIAA kicked off its lawsuit strategy was based on similar thinking: that it was an "education" campaign that would convince people that there was "harm" done from file sharing. Of course, it didn't work. At all. And no education campaign is going to work, because it's just the basic nature of economics. If the technology has made the product infinite, it's not a moral issue or a legal issue: it's a business model issue. The answer is to change business models, not hope and pray that you can somehow convince people that it's "bad" to do something that obviously can be done quite easily.
"Part of the battle here is to sensitise the public to the fact that there is a real issue involved. It is not simply a victimless crime...."
So, yes, Gurry is correct that draconian punishment has created a massive PR backlash that has helped make things even worse, but an education campaign isn't going to make a difference. Only a business model change can fix a business model situation -- and we're already seeing that happen just fine in many parts of the world. It's not an education campaign that will help the content industry. It's smarter business models.
How Do You Ban Someone From Posessing A 'Recording Device'?
from the seems-to-rule-out-a-lot... dept
That seems a bit broad. After all, most mobile phones these days are recording devices. Any computer is a recording device. An iPod can be a recording device. I can understand the thought process that went into such a ban, but it seems to overreach in its intended impact.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Sep 13th 2007 2:44am
Filed Under:
constitution, jeremy jaynes, punishment, spam, spam laws, virginia
Convicted Spammer Claims Anti-Spam Law Is Unconstitutional
from the well,-he-would-say-that,-wouldn't-he dept





