Spooks in the Machine

A bill under consideration would give the FBI jurisdiction over peer-to-peer trading of copyrighted material. Expect this to become a topic of serious debate in weeks to come.

Comments

[Ken]

I would suggest that the government use the resources to go after these scofflaws instead.

Boast of Refusal to Pay Taxes Leads to 27-Count Indictment

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/national/22IRS.html

Here are a couple of quotes:

"After years of not enforcing the law against business owners who openly boast that they do not pay taxes, the Justice Department has obtained an indictment of one of thousands who refuse to pay taxes because they claim they are voluntary."

***

"The I.R.S. has acknowledged that it knows of at least 1,500 businesses that support Mr. Simkanin's position on taxes. Because of budget constraints, about 80 percent of known tax evaders of all kinds are being allowed to get away without paying, much less being charged criminally, I.R.S. documents show."

[Porpoise the Dolphin]

Yeah, or dismantling ICANN (and all gov't involvement with the Internet).

Congressmen turn on ICANN

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31357.html

A couple quotes:

"When, despite hundreds of critical voices from all over the world over several years, the only change that can be made to an organisation that is running the World Wide Web is one that is run through the United States legal system because of the fear of loss of jobs in Washington DC, well, then we have a situation that is never going to be right."

***

"This corrupting process has seen ICANN rewrite its own rules at will, keeping people on the Board for years after they were supposed to have left. This process has written out the Internet users' right to vote for members of the board - just this week we heard that the people that will be running ICANN for the next three are almost to a man from its tightly defined elite. This process has alienated most other countries in the world to the extent that they are refusing to contribute funds to the organisation. This process has turned what was supposed to be a standards body interested only in the technical side of the Internet into a political animal whose budget and staff has expanded out of all proportion to the job it needs to do."

[Porpoise the Dolphin]

I don't see what is wrong. Clearly it is an interstate trade issue, so what's the problem? If people are breaking the law, which is what file sharing of copyrighted material is, then it should be investigated, a case made and the perpetrators brought to justice. I would expect no less from our law enforcement agencies.

If you believe the law is wrong, then have it changed through your legislators. Willfully flaunting the law by downloading contraband with the expectation that one will not be caught is disrespectful of our legal system and leads to the erosion of civil society.

[$2.95]

Porpoise nails it.

Is there a reason that normally sane people -- people who otherwise respect property rights -- go off their rockers when it comes to the downloading/copyright topic?

[Steven Crane]

Well, I, for one, don't want to see the 2003 version of Elliot Ness beating my computer with a hammer for all the illegally downloaded 80's tunes I have.

[Julian]

If you follow the link, you'll see a number of concerns folks have with the effect of turning what is typically a civil issue into a predominantly criminal one. Thus far, it's generally been up to the recording company in question to initiate action against, say, an ISP. The worry is that they'll be more readily intimidated, and perhaps overly ready to turn over private information, when the FBI comes calling.

As for why people "go off their rockers," at least some people who are pro-private property simply don't recognize "intellectual property" as a legitimate form of property at all. One of those people is Tom Palmer of Cato, who has some good essays on the topic linked from his site.

[Sandy]

Why do I go off my rocker?

A) Cassette tapes were just as illegal and just as widespread, yet the FBI wasn't called in. Let he who never taped an album be the first to condemn a downloader.

B) This is about property rights the way hairstyle licensing is about health and safety. Filesharing and enabling technology has fair uses, such as distributing the work of unsigned bands or just-signed bands that aren't getting promoted by their owners (remember, artists do not own these works, record labels do, so incentive to create is not an issue--perhaps incentive to distribute is). Many of the bands that today bitch the loudest about filesharing became big by illegal copies of their music, which they encouraged (Metallica). This is about protecting an established elite of artists.

C) Sales aren't being lost. The RIAA membership has lost sales to about the tune of the decline in the overall economy. I have downloaded two (count 'em) illegal tunes in my life, one of which I already owned but didn't have with me, the other of which convinced me to go and buy the CD.

D) With the abovementioned lack of harm, the FBI has much better and more important things to do than prop up the business plan of record industry lawyers. If they put effort into the fight against terrorism, we wouldn't need the PATRIOT act.

E) The RIAA and software industry have acquired for themselves or attempted to acquire rights that no other property owner has. Rights such as demanding proof of purchase of a license at any time, invading your privacy to look for evidence of theft, and recently they've tried to be able to take action directly against your computer if they suspect, merely suspect, that you have something you didn't pay for. When I can do that as a shopowner, I'll complain less.

[Porpoise the Dolphin]

I myself do not recognize as Julian says, '"intellectual property" as a legitimate form of property', but again, our legal system does. Therefore, I am to conclude that we as a society do as well. If I want to live within the bounds of that society then I will abide by its laws and proper enforcement. If I do not agree with the law and its enforcement, then I will work within the system to get it changed; NOT to blithely ignore it.

[Special Agent Brown]

Sandy wrote:

"I have downloaded two (count 'em) illegal tunes in my life"

Your ISP has been logged. Two agents will be arriving shortly. Please remain where you are. Failure to cooperate fully may be interpreted as an act of domestic terrorism...

[Sandy]

That's good--they clearly have captured all of Al Quaeda in the US, so they have the spare time, right?

And since they have all that staff sitting around, just waiting for you to call in and report interstate fraud or hacking attempts and don't have to limit it to major corporations who have lawyers who can prove damanges of $5K or more, I think this is a good idea.

I mean, we don't want them to get bored, do we?

[Kevin Carson]

Porpoise:

What does the actions of the State have to do with where "we as a society" stand on anything, including the price of tea in China? The government is not, as Slick Willie said, just "all of us working together." Free people working together through voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, the last I heard, do not have access to the services of uniformed goon squads, prosecutors, judges, spies, jailers and executioners to carry out our will.

The State is not a legitimate moral agency. It is an instrument of coercion by which some folks live off the labor of others (the holders of patents who charge monopoly prices in violation of the free market, for instance). The State's policies are not the action of "us as a society," but rather what some people do to other people (as Lenin put it, kto-kovo). It is not us, it is THEM.