Officials In The Philippines Want To Criminalize Downloading

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

We’re seeing crazier and crazier ideas for copyright laws lately. First, we had politicians in Brazil looking to criminalize ripping a CD and, now, Richard points us to the news that there’s an effort underway in the Philippines to make direct downloading of unauthorized works a criminal offense. Apparently, this is being driven by a government agency, in association with an industry “anti-piracy” group (of course). I’m curious if even our usual critics can defend why direct downloading should be a criminal issue, rather than a civil issue? Do you really think putting people in jail for listening to music will get more people to buy your product?

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Officials In The Philippines Want To Criminalize Downloading”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
out_of_the_blue says:

Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.

Disclaimer: I’M NOT FOR THAT.

But this helps the always increasing police state, so if you look only for some rational justification, you’re going to be surprised by brutal tyranny for its own sake.

And now I ask again, presumably rhetorically: are you going to download if might get tossed into jail?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.

People steal, murder, etc. despite jail sentences.

Jail isn’t a deterrent, its a punishment. People don’t commit crimes while weighing the risk/reward, they go into it planning to never get caught. The strongest deterring factor is personal morality that stops them from considering, or taking a step forward, in the first place.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.

It’s not a rhetorical question at all, and the answer is a resounding yes.

This law is (will be) draconian and should therefore not be followed. Just because something becomes a law doesn’t make the law right, just, or ethical. I believe we have a duty as citizens to not follow laws that are unjust, and the government saying “because I said so” is not proper justification. Governments that do that are tyrannical, and history has shown that people don’t put up with them for too long.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.

Agreed. Too often these days, it seems like corporations just buy laws to make citizens do what they want. But since the government is supposed to be “of, by, and for the people,” and should only pass laws “by the consent of the governed,” any law that is not written for the people is inherently invalid and should not be respected.

We all agree murder is bad, and would not like ourselves to be murdered. So we, as members of society, agree that murder should be against the law and murderers will face consequences for their actions.

A limited number of extremely rich corporations, who are not people and are not citizens of the country, agree that everyone else should pay them the most number of times possible for the least about of effort (which is also squeezed from the actual creators for insulting amounts), so we, as members of society, agree that these extremely rich corporations should go to hell.

Jeffrey Nonken (profile) says:

Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.

“And now I ask again, presumably rhetorically: are you going to download if might get tossed into jail?”

It has been proven time and time again that jail is an effective deterrent. Obviously it works because we have so few jails and they’re practically empty! The poor guards and wardens are bored stiff with nothing to do but play Parcheesi all day.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Your "should" constrains too much: /can be/, so will be.

“are you going to download if might get tossed into jail”

If I were to do that, I’d be sure to put things in place to stop me being caught, maybe set it up so that annoying neighbour who doesn’t know how to secure his equipment properly gets framed? Then when he goes behind bars and I’m scott free, sell some copies offline to people I know who aren’t so knowledgable? Sounds like there’s lot of profit to be had, so why not?

(disclaimer, the above doesn’t reflect my actual viewpoints, just pointing out how ineffective this would be at stopping the real “criminals”).

DannyB (profile) says:

How are you supposed to know if it is Unauthorized

If Yahoo, Google, YouTube and even the MPAA / RIAA seem unable to tell whether content is authorized or now, then how is the average person supposed to know?

If there is a site offering content for download, and it looks okay, how are you supposed to know whether it is truly authorized / unauthorized?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: How are you supposed to know if it is Unauthorized

That’s really part of the **AA’s plans. They don’t want you downloading PD, CC-licensed or just plain free content posted by the artist. They don’t want new business models that make them obsolete. They want their cut, and as much as possible. One way to do that is to get laws passed so that if you don’t download copies from a pre-approved source they get paid for, you risk jail.

Anonymous Coward says:

Define "direct downloading"

Would I be able to set up a site with a few of my photos on it. Add the caption, “you are not authorized to download this photo.” Pump some money into Google ad-words in the Philippines and wait for page views. Then press charges.

I have my server logs that list ip addresses and when they came to the site. I also can tell if you downloaded the “unauthorized” photo.

Lord Binky says:

Wow, laws are SUPPOSED to protect people, not punish people. I guess this protects the public from… Anyways, the jail is a punishment thing is really stupid. Jail was once, and better off as method of rehabilitation so people when let out, can rejoin society for the better and hopefully not go back jail, the purely punishment aspect simply disregards emperical evidence and all kinds of psychological knowledge that it punishment itself isn’t going be a cure all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Of course it’s a great idea to lock up your fans for listening to your music Mike! Think of all of the free advertising it would give the artist when people like you write about those outrageous arrests! The more people who hear of an artist’s music through the arrests the more who will buy it! Or of course, the more who will download it, in which case the artist get even more free advertising from people like you Mike!

(Yes I’m being sarcastic)

Anonymous Coward says:

I can tell you I don’t download music. Then again because I don’t hear new music, I’m not in the market for it either. I have absolutely no interest in music any more. You can thank the MAFIAA for that. I’m sick of their constant whining and sick of their constant back stabbing. I refuse to support them.

Like it, hate it, don’t matter. It won’t bring me back to the market with the way things are. Think they can justify a law to change that? Good luck.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yeah, Yeah, you can say that you don’t buy music because of the actions of the MAFIAA. But chances are you wouldn’t have bought music at this stage of your life anyway whether the MAFIAA were sane and sensible or not. So your view is irrelevant.

What is irrefutably true is that there is piracy and if the people who pirated actually bought the things they pirated then there would be a lot more money in the world than there is in the world, and if that was the case there would be no recession and everybody would be happy.

Why are Mike and most of the Techdirt regulars so opposed to a world where everyone would be happy?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Lack of acceptance of reality seems to be common with both Alice and with trolls.

Ever look lately at the newspapers? There is a depression (even though the government wants to white wash it) and people don’t have the money they once had.

When people are faced with a choice of spending what little money they have, it will be for food, electricity, and fuel. Luxury items such as music doesn’t place in the choices at all.

So your viewpoint is irrelevant.

Good Parenting says:

Do these people think they have a future?

I have lost all respect for any copyright because of these tactics and because I’ve learned that it really is descended from censorship. I am teaching my children–who are just starting out in school–that copying and distributing the products of your mind is right, and that trying to be selfish with your ideas is wrong. Eventually, I will explain copyright to them in the hope that they will some day contribute to its demise.

I’m certain I’m not the only parent out there doing this. How long do the MAFIAA think they can survive in this climate?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...