4 ms·

potatolicious argued that perhaps if we saw injustice, we'd move to correct things. I'm arguing, simply, that the RIAAs lawsuits are chock full of injustice: a

by roc 17y ago

potatolicious argued that perhaps if we saw injustice, we'd move to correct things. I'm arguing, simply, that the RIAAs lawsuits are chock full of injustice: a flawed core conceit (that IP addresses can identify individuals), lawbreaking (unlicensed PIs) and piles of collateral damage (file-sharing grandmothers?). It's not that I think file-sharers should be able to violate copyright law. It's that I see no evidence that the public is particularly motivated by injustice to seek change.

Silhouette 17y ago
> I'm arguing, simply, that the RIAAs lawsuits are chock full of injustice: a flawed core conceit (that IP addresses can identify individuals), lawbreaking (unlicensed PIs) and piles of collateral damage (file-sharing grandmothers?). The problem I have with this argument is that, despite all the legal chicanery, the chances are that most people the RIAA are going after really did do it. I understand the desire not to punish the innocent, and the reaction of the public when such stories make the headlines, but don't forget the other perspective: big media companies may adopt naive policies in an attempt to reduce piracy, but the guys running them are staring at 10 people, knowing that 9 of them are ripping them off, and listening to lawyers telling them they can't have any money back because no-one can prove to some practically unachievable degree of certainty who the 10th is. > It's that I see no evidence that the public is particularly motivated by injustice to seek change. This is a big problem with a lot of legal issues relating to modern technology and the new abilities it gives us. The implications of fundamental shifts like having the Internet or being able to store and analyse vast quantities of data probably won't be fully understood even by interested parties or expert observers for several years. The average guy on the street will probably never appreciate some of the subtleties in any given area of law, even if it does affect him, because unfortunately people don't always think things through and research the facts before forming opinions. For example, how many people in any given copyright debate on a geek-friendly forum will ignore the fact that big business is mostly owned by institutional investors who run things like pension funds? Mass copyright infringement is not a "victimless crime", and it doesn't just hurt "those big studios who were ripping us off for years". It hurts people's savings accounts, and pension funds, because when profits are reduced at the big media companies, the values of the investments goes down. At this point, someone traditionally trots out the old "illegal copy != lost sale" argument, again invoking something that while true some of the time is clearly not true of a lot of illegal ripping. And so the argument continues, with the critics using individual cases that appeal to emotional responses, wilfully ignoring the big picture because it's "just greedy businesses taking the hit, not real people". This is why it is important for laws to be made by people who have spent the time to look at the facts, think through the implications, and then adopt a policy that is consistent with principles the general public support when fully aware of the implications. But it is then incumbent on those who make the laws to justify them on demand to a sceptical public, and right now this is where the copyright brigade are failing miserably.
- roc 17y ago
  > "the chances are that most people the RIAA are going after really did do it" Unfortunately, our legal system isn't supposed to tolerate that sort of process. 'Better guilty men go free than an innocent man be punished' and all. Very real, very serious consequences are befalling innocent people. Very real laws are being broken in this process with little to no repercussion. If my store is looted during a riot, we don't simply round up 10 people without proper evidence and due process, just because it's extremely likely that 9 of them really are guilty. That just is not how our system is supposed to operate.
  - Silhouette 17y ago
    Which is all very well, but does absolutely nothing to restore justice or equity to the damaged party. This is the point when the "better a guilty man go free" argument really breaks down, which is why I wish people wouldn't treat the fact that privacy allows this no-win situation as a good thing. Privacy is important for many constructive reasons. Permitting someone to damage someone else while effectively immune to any personal consequences is not one of them.

by roc 17y ago

Silhouette 17y ago

> I'm arguing, simply, that the RIAAs lawsuits are chock full of injustice: a flawed core conceit (that IP addresses can identify individuals), lawbreaking (unlicensed PIs) and piles of collateral damage (file-sharing grandmothers?). The problem I have with this argument is that, despite all the legal chicanery, the chances are that most people the RIAA are going after really did do it. I understand the desire not to punish the innocent, and the reaction of the public when such stories make the headlines, but don't forget the other perspective: big media companies may adopt naive policies in an attempt to reduce piracy, but the guys running them are staring at 10 people, knowing that 9 of them are ripping them off, and listening to lawyers telling them they can't have any money back because no-one can prove to some practically unachievable degree of certainty who the 10th is. > It's that I see no evidence that the public is particularly motivated by injustice to seek change. This is a big problem with a lot of legal issues relating to modern technology and the new abilities it gives us. The implications of fundamental shifts like having the Internet or being able to store and analyse vast quantities of data probably won't be fully understood even by interested parties or expert observers for several years. The average guy on the street will probably never appreciate some of the subtleties in any given area of law, even if it does affect him, because unfortunately people don't always think things through and research the facts before forming opinions. For example, how many people in any given copyright debate on a geek-friendly forum will ignore the fact that big business is mostly owned by institutional investors who run things like pension funds? Mass copyright infringement is not a "victimless crime", and it doesn't just hurt "those big studios who were ripping us off for years". It hurts people's savings accounts, and pension funds, because when profits are reduced at the big media companies, the values of the investments goes down. At this point, someone traditionally trots out the old "illegal copy != lost sale" argument, again invoking something that while true some of the time is clearly not true of a lot of illegal ripping. And so the argument continues, with the critics using individual cases that appeal to emotional responses, wilfully ignoring the big picture because it's "just greedy businesses taking the hit, not real people". This is why it is important for laws to be made by people who have spent the time to look at the facts, think through the implications, and then adopt a policy that is consistent with principles the general public support when fully aware of the implications. But it is then incumbent on those who make the laws to justify them on demand to a sceptical public, and right now this is where the copyright brigade are failing miserably.

roc 17y ago
> "the chances are that most people the RIAA are going after really did do it" Unfortunately, our legal system isn't supposed to tolerate that sort of process. 'Better guilty men go free than an innocent man be punished' and all. Very real, very serious consequences are befalling innocent people. Very real laws are being broken in this process with little to no repercussion. If my store is looted during a riot, we don't simply round up 10 people without proper evidence and due process, just because it's extremely likely that 9 of them really are guilty. That just is not how our system is supposed to operate.
- Silhouette 17y ago
  Which is all very well, but does absolutely nothing to restore justice or equity to the damaged party. This is the point when the "better a guilty man go free" argument really breaks down, which is why I wish people wouldn't treat the fact that privacy allows this no-win situation as a good thing. Privacy is important for many constructive reasons. Permitting someone to damage someone else while effectively immune to any personal consequences is not one of them.