news.com
As of Tuesday, the toll for film piracy in New York is now a misdemeanor "that carries up to six months in jail and penalties of up to $5,000". Because the illegal videotaping of movies in theaters and bootlegging attribute to 40% of film piracy annually, Mayor Michael Bloomberg responded by enacting more serious consequences for the crime.
Since bootlegging accounts for billions of dollars the movie industry is robbed of on a yearly basis, I'm not sure why it has taken so long for state governments to respond. Home-recorded movies have been around for years, and only now is NY cracking down on the copyright infringers. Moreover, this legislation has come at a time when, in my opinion, the move towards laws prohibiting Internet downloading should be the main focus. Bit Torrent software allows millions of users to get, not only single movies, but also entire seasons of TV shows, and the consequences for people uploading and downloading are lacking. It seems that the approach is to focus on agreements with production companies to sell the rights to use their material, with a fee of course, rather than punishing the illegal file-sharers themselves. Congress has already dropped the ball on controlling in-theater tapings, and policy needs to be enforced sooner than later to prevent that mistake for the illegal distribution of media via the Internet.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Music industry wins UW IDs in file-sharing case
Wisconsin State Journal
With the increasing issue of illegal file sharing and downloading, it is no surprise that the RIAA is cracking down on policy. The University of Wisconsin was forced to give the names and contact information of fifty-three students allegedly responsible for 24,977 shared music files. Past file-sharing lawsuits have ended in "default judgments or stipulated settlements [...] ranging between $5,000 and $15,000", a price that would make any student reconsider the whole process.
In researching this topic for my final paper, I found a list the RIAA and MPAA published this February, ranking the top twenty-five Universities who have received warnings about students illegally downloading files. Among the list of "the most piracy-ridden schools in higher education" sits UMass at number six for music file sharing and number nine for film and TV show downloads.
From students' perspectives, it seems that most know file sharing is wrong but do not care. The media industry has tried several different approaches to control the issue, including the ridiculous slogans like 'You wouldn't steal a car, would you?', or even temporarily removing Internet access. All of the campaigns have been unsuccessful until now, and the RIAA and MPAA are imposing heavy fines on offenders. I think, if strictly enforced, this may work in scaring people, particularly college and high school students, into actually purchasing music, movies and shows.
With the increasing issue of illegal file sharing and downloading, it is no surprise that the RIAA is cracking down on policy. The University of Wisconsin was forced to give the names and contact information of fifty-three students allegedly responsible for 24,977 shared music files. Past file-sharing lawsuits have ended in "default judgments or stipulated settlements [...] ranging between $5,000 and $15,000", a price that would make any student reconsider the whole process.
In researching this topic for my final paper, I found a list the RIAA and MPAA published this February, ranking the top twenty-five Universities who have received warnings about students illegally downloading files. Among the list of "the most piracy-ridden schools in higher education" sits UMass at number six for music file sharing and number nine for film and TV show downloads.
From students' perspectives, it seems that most know file sharing is wrong but do not care. The media industry has tried several different approaches to control the issue, including the ridiculous slogans like 'You wouldn't steal a car, would you?', or even temporarily removing Internet access. All of the campaigns have been unsuccessful until now, and the RIAA and MPAA are imposing heavy fines on offenders. I think, if strictly enforced, this may work in scaring people, particularly college and high school students, into actually purchasing music, movies and shows.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Pew study finds teens limit social-networking data, access
SiliconValley.com
In a phone study conducted last October through November, 935 teens were surveyed on their use of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. The study reported that only 55% of teens ranging from twelve to seventeen-year-olds actually have online profiles, and of that percent only a third post their full names and email addresses. Moreover, younger teens seem to be staying away from the site, something the article attributes to the age requirements on the networking sites.
In response to this article, I was interested to learn how difficult it is to find someone who does not put their full name on their profile. Since Facebook is typically viewed as the safer of the two sites, I started there by creating a fake profile of an Amherst Regional High School student. Once you're in the network, you can search anyone in the HS, alum or current students. Of the results, only four of the first 150 did not put their full name; however, I was unable to find more information on those few people. On the other hand, people can be messaged directly on the site, and since it is very easy to join a network, it is up to the users not to respond to people they don't know.
It is my opinion that the results of this survey are a false attempt to make people believe that these sites are less concerning than they actually are, reporting that "teens, particularly girls and younger teens, have gotten the message about protecting themselves on social networks". Another article sent out in the BNA highlights email discussed how online predators are becoming increasingly vulgar, and the matter of increasing membership to these networks is thus an even more serious issue. The survey results were most likely skewed by the twelve-year-olds questioned, and it would be interesting to see the difference in statistics had the results been grouped by age or class year.
In a phone study conducted last October through November, 935 teens were surveyed on their use of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. The study reported that only 55% of teens ranging from twelve to seventeen-year-olds actually have online profiles, and of that percent only a third post their full names and email addresses. Moreover, younger teens seem to be staying away from the site, something the article attributes to the age requirements on the networking sites.
In response to this article, I was interested to learn how difficult it is to find someone who does not put their full name on their profile. Since Facebook is typically viewed as the safer of the two sites, I started there by creating a fake profile of an Amherst Regional High School student. Once you're in the network, you can search anyone in the HS, alum or current students. Of the results, only four of the first 150 did not put their full name; however, I was unable to find more information on those few people. On the other hand, people can be messaged directly on the site, and since it is very easy to join a network, it is up to the users not to respond to people they don't know.
It is my opinion that the results of this survey are a false attempt to make people believe that these sites are less concerning than they actually are, reporting that "teens, particularly girls and younger teens, have gotten the message about protecting themselves on social networks". Another article sent out in the BNA highlights email discussed how online predators are becoming increasingly vulgar, and the matter of increasing membership to these networks is thus an even more serious issue. The survey results were most likely skewed by the twelve-year-olds questioned, and it would be interesting to see the difference in statistics had the results been grouped by age or class year.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Thailand orders popular political Web forum to close
SiliconValley.com
Yesterday, April 9th, Thailand demanded that "one of the country's most popular chat sites to shut its political forum because of postings deemed insulting to the revered monarch." The site, pantip.com, criticized a number of government issues including the monarch and military, and was closed for concerns over what the government felt to be national security issues.
Moreover, the Thai government is demanding the removal of videos posted on YouTube that criticize the country's king, an action that over 1,00 people have since posted messages about. While YouTube is refusing to take down the media, Google is currently trying to resolve the issue with Thailand officials. Although pantip.com is operating under the legislation of the Thai government, YouTube is governed by American laws. Thus, the issue at hand is the conflicting rights to freedom of expression. Should YouTube be able to post media bashing another country's leader considering the videos are viewable globally? Which country's laws should apply here?
I think in the case of political figures, such as Thailand's king, or even our own George Bush, laws of slander and the like often do not apply. I'm not sure why it is okay to fabricate stories or post falsities about an individual when they are in a position of power, yet the average citizen would not stand for the same treatment. We are very protective of our own rights, yet expensing that of other individuals for humor's sake is okay. Nonetheless, I honestly could care less about the mocking of national leaders, or even our own president for that matter. A lot of the stuff posted by users of the site is very entertaining, and trampling the rights of others should apply to the King of Thailand and average Joe alike.
Yesterday, April 9th, Thailand demanded that "one of the country's most popular chat sites to shut its political forum because of postings deemed insulting to the revered monarch." The site, pantip.com, criticized a number of government issues including the monarch and military, and was closed for concerns over what the government felt to be national security issues.
Moreover, the Thai government is demanding the removal of videos posted on YouTube that criticize the country's king, an action that over 1,00 people have since posted messages about. While YouTube is refusing to take down the media, Google is currently trying to resolve the issue with Thailand officials. Although pantip.com is operating under the legislation of the Thai government, YouTube is governed by American laws. Thus, the issue at hand is the conflicting rights to freedom of expression. Should YouTube be able to post media bashing another country's leader considering the videos are viewable globally? Which country's laws should apply here?
I think in the case of political figures, such as Thailand's king, or even our own George Bush, laws of slander and the like often do not apply. I'm not sure why it is okay to fabricate stories or post falsities about an individual when they are in a position of power, yet the average citizen would not stand for the same treatment. We are very protective of our own rights, yet expensing that of other individuals for humor's sake is okay. Nonetheless, I honestly could care less about the mocking of national leaders, or even our own president for that matter. A lot of the stuff posted by users of the site is very entertaining, and trampling the rights of others should apply to the King of Thailand and average Joe alike.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Jail time increased for online sexual predators
boston.com
Despite efforts, or lack thereof, to keep kids off of MySpace and Facebook, most teenagers today have an account with at least one of these sites, posting pretty much everything a stalker or pedophile would want to know. This in mind, one of the major concerns surrounding these sites has been the threat posed by online sexual predators. In the midst of connecting people through hundreds of networks nation-wide, there have been several cases where minors have fallen victim to sexual predators, for which the punishment was initially 30-90 days in jail. As the number of users and offenders have increased, the sentence has also increased to an average one year for a first offense.
To start, parents are ridiculous. I know most kids have easy access to computers and can get online to make an account, but c'mon...give your sons and daughters a sense of self-respect so they're not posting vulgar pictures of themselves on the Internet, and right next to their contact information nonetheless. Moreover, these sites should be required to extensively monitor the operations on this site. It is VERY easy to create a fake profile or lie about your age, something that makes users more vulnerable, and while the site does not allow pornographic images, there needs to be stricter regulations to monitor images.
While it is good to see that the punishment for online sexual predators are becoming more serious, it seems that this issue is being dealt with mostly in the aftermath. Why has there not been more legislation imposing more regulations on these sites to prevent these problems in the first place? It seems that the current solution has been to educate teens on not meeting with someone you only know online, rather than allowing users to provide so much personal information in the first place, something that should change in the near future.
Despite efforts, or lack thereof, to keep kids off of MySpace and Facebook, most teenagers today have an account with at least one of these sites, posting pretty much everything a stalker or pedophile would want to know. This in mind, one of the major concerns surrounding these sites has been the threat posed by online sexual predators. In the midst of connecting people through hundreds of networks nation-wide, there have been several cases where minors have fallen victim to sexual predators, for which the punishment was initially 30-90 days in jail. As the number of users and offenders have increased, the sentence has also increased to an average one year for a first offense.
To start, parents are ridiculous. I know most kids have easy access to computers and can get online to make an account, but c'mon...give your sons and daughters a sense of self-respect so they're not posting vulgar pictures of themselves on the Internet, and right next to their contact information nonetheless. Moreover, these sites should be required to extensively monitor the operations on this site. It is VERY easy to create a fake profile or lie about your age, something that makes users more vulnerable, and while the site does not allow pornographic images, there needs to be stricter regulations to monitor images.
While it is good to see that the punishment for online sexual predators are becoming more serious, it seems that this issue is being dealt with mostly in the aftermath. Why has there not been more legislation imposing more regulations on these sites to prevent these problems in the first place? It seems that the current solution has been to educate teens on not meeting with someone you only know online, rather than allowing users to provide so much personal information in the first place, something that should change in the near future.
Monday, March 26, 2007
yahoo news
Symantec Corporation, an anti-virus firm, reported that 70 percent of all emails coming from Asia are spam. The company claims that China leads the continent with 30 percent of that total, and the almost 90 percent of emails sent from the Philippines are spam as well.
I would never have considered Asia to be the leading sender of spam mail. With such high restrictions on Internet use, as well as the underdeveloped technological resources in most parts of the continent in comparison with other countries, I don't see why so much junk mail is coming from Asia.
Nonetheless, the general problem with excessive spamming seems to be the bigger picture here. It is as if nothing is being regulated to stop spamers, and the only defense for email account holders are filters. Still, this leaves the problem of accumulated space junk mail takes up in accounts, as well as the hassle of having to delete so many messages. Moreover, once you open a spam email, it's as if there's no way of ever stopping them from coming. We need better ways to deal with spam mail where junk messages will be denied acceptance in the first place.
Symantec Corporation, an anti-virus firm, reported that 70 percent of all emails coming from Asia are spam. The company claims that China leads the continent with 30 percent of that total, and the almost 90 percent of emails sent from the Philippines are spam as well.
I would never have considered Asia to be the leading sender of spam mail. With such high restrictions on Internet use, as well as the underdeveloped technological resources in most parts of the continent in comparison with other countries, I don't see why so much junk mail is coming from Asia.
Nonetheless, the general problem with excessive spamming seems to be the bigger picture here. It is as if nothing is being regulated to stop spamers, and the only defense for email account holders are filters. Still, this leaves the problem of accumulated space junk mail takes up in accounts, as well as the hassle of having to delete so many messages. Moreover, once you open a spam email, it's as if there's no way of ever stopping them from coming. We need better ways to deal with spam mail where junk messages will be denied acceptance in the first place.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Internet gambling charges settled
KATC.com
Charges were dropped against online gambling company Sportingbet PLC and its chairman. The company operates out of England where online gambling is legal, but was prosecuted for violating anti online wagering laws in Louisiana. After a 400,000 dollar settlement, the case was settled.
Being that Louisiana is one of the few states that has prohibited online banking, it is no surprise that the Sportingbet case was one of the first of its kind since the 1997 ban. I don't see the difference between online gambling and playing tables at the casinos, other than enforcing the age restrictions. Moreover, with so few places enforcing the laws, how does jurisdiction apply? Since the company was located in England where their particular service is legal, and they are capable of running the company from that region, which laws apply?
I don't see online gambling as the threat that people make it out to be. If companies put a cap on wagers and limit users to a certain number of hours, I don't see the harm in online gambling. As far as addiction and abuse go, I think it would be much easier to limit people from excessive online gambling than actually gambling. There can be restrictions set on the hours the business operates, as well as limitations put on the money invested and withdrawn. Overall, I think the practice can be safe and fun with the proper regulations.
Charges were dropped against online gambling company Sportingbet PLC and its chairman. The company operates out of England where online gambling is legal, but was prosecuted for violating anti online wagering laws in Louisiana. After a 400,000 dollar settlement, the case was settled.
Being that Louisiana is one of the few states that has prohibited online banking, it is no surprise that the Sportingbet case was one of the first of its kind since the 1997 ban. I don't see the difference between online gambling and playing tables at the casinos, other than enforcing the age restrictions. Moreover, with so few places enforcing the laws, how does jurisdiction apply? Since the company was located in England where their particular service is legal, and they are capable of running the company from that region, which laws apply?
I don't see online gambling as the threat that people make it out to be. If companies put a cap on wagers and limit users to a certain number of hours, I don't see the harm in online gambling. As far as addiction and abuse go, I think it would be much easier to limit people from excessive online gambling than actually gambling. There can be restrictions set on the hours the business operates, as well as limitations put on the money invested and withdrawn. Overall, I think the practice can be safe and fun with the proper regulations.
Friday, March 16, 2007
CD with medical data of 75,000 is found
news.com
After three months of searching, Blue Cross Blue Shield found a missing CD with information on over 75,000 clients. It was mistakenly mailed to the wrong address and recovered Wednesday, March 14. Although the package was opened by the resident, the company has concluded there should be no grounds for concern and the information was not tampered with.
My main concern regarding this issue is the fact that the insurance company sent the CD unencrypted through the mail. It seems ignorant and rather primitive for such a large corporation to, first of all having the wrong mailing address, and, more importantly, sending personal information like social security numbers without data protection. Considering the CD contained medical histories and personal data of so many people, why would Blue Cross take any risks?
This raises many questions concerning recent proposals to make medical information available on the web. To my understanding, individuals wishing to participate would have a special code that they could put into an online system to access all of their medical files. Doctors would also have access to this information, given the patient's permission, and things like prescriptions could be coordinated with pharmacies. This would also provide immediate access to critical information like allergies and conditions in emergency situations.
Overall, I think the security measures in a system like such would be insufficient in protecting people from identity theft and the like. We have a hard enough time now with online banking and shopping. Plus, if Blue cross can't even handle mailing things correctly, what companies can be trusted to ensure the privacy of our health information?
After three months of searching, Blue Cross Blue Shield found a missing CD with information on over 75,000 clients. It was mistakenly mailed to the wrong address and recovered Wednesday, March 14. Although the package was opened by the resident, the company has concluded there should be no grounds for concern and the information was not tampered with.
My main concern regarding this issue is the fact that the insurance company sent the CD unencrypted through the mail. It seems ignorant and rather primitive for such a large corporation to, first of all having the wrong mailing address, and, more importantly, sending personal information like social security numbers without data protection. Considering the CD contained medical histories and personal data of so many people, why would Blue Cross take any risks?
This raises many questions concerning recent proposals to make medical information available on the web. To my understanding, individuals wishing to participate would have a special code that they could put into an online system to access all of their medical files. Doctors would also have access to this information, given the patient's permission, and things like prescriptions could be coordinated with pharmacies. This would also provide immediate access to critical information like allergies and conditions in emergency situations.
Overall, I think the security measures in a system like such would be insufficient in protecting people from identity theft and the like. We have a hard enough time now with online banking and shopping. Plus, if Blue cross can't even handle mailing things correctly, what companies can be trusted to ensure the privacy of our health information?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
eBay CEO: Phishers threaten user trust
news.com
In aims to stop phishers from targeting eBay and Paypal users, eBay has taken three steps to "plug the holes in the system". First, in collaboration with Microsoft, eBay has made a 'blacklist' of fake sites that can now be detected by Internet Explorer. While these sites may look legitimate, they are designed specifically to steal customers' personal information.
Second, the company is digitally signing and encrypting all emails sent from eBay and Paypal, as well as encouraging email providers to filter out emails without this 'domain name signiture'. They have also made available a Paypal key fob which provides additional security with user passwords. eBay intends to uphold the trust with its customers by implementing these three solutions, as well as continuing to improve the system.
With identity theft and online privacy amongst the current Internet concerns, it seems like eBay is trying to maintain a secure system. I have used eBay in the past and trust the company and Paypal, and it is important that they maintain their customer-client relationship. They provide a unique service with the means to exchange pretty much anything, as long as someone is willing to buy, and are responsible for eliminating any security breaches. The way things are going these days, however, I think the safest thing for online shoppers to do is not rely on the company, but themselves. Some banks offer separate checking accounts where money can be transferred through online banking as necessary, which I think is the best option right now. Even if the companies fail and you are using an insecure or fake site, you would only loose the money for that purchase and all of your personal information, other than your name and address, is maintained.
In aims to stop phishers from targeting eBay and Paypal users, eBay has taken three steps to "plug the holes in the system". First, in collaboration with Microsoft, eBay has made a 'blacklist' of fake sites that can now be detected by Internet Explorer. While these sites may look legitimate, they are designed specifically to steal customers' personal information.
Second, the company is digitally signing and encrypting all emails sent from eBay and Paypal, as well as encouraging email providers to filter out emails without this 'domain name signiture'. They have also made available a Paypal key fob which provides additional security with user passwords. eBay intends to uphold the trust with its customers by implementing these three solutions, as well as continuing to improve the system.
With identity theft and online privacy amongst the current Internet concerns, it seems like eBay is trying to maintain a secure system. I have used eBay in the past and trust the company and Paypal, and it is important that they maintain their customer-client relationship. They provide a unique service with the means to exchange pretty much anything, as long as someone is willing to buy, and are responsible for eliminating any security breaches. The way things are going these days, however, I think the safest thing for online shoppers to do is not rely on the company, but themselves. Some banks offer separate checking accounts where money can be transferred through online banking as necessary, which I think is the best option right now. Even if the companies fail and you are using an insecure or fake site, you would only loose the money for that purchase and all of your personal information, other than your name and address, is maintained.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
"Fox: It's prime time for show downloads"
news.com
While Fox TV shows have only been available on limited sites with annoying commercial ads interrupting the feed every six minutes or so, Fox is making deals with a number of companies that will allow people the buy and download episodes and seasons via the Internet. Episodes will cost about $1.99, and whole seasons up to $39.99, all available to any Internet-friendly device.
Overall, I think the expansion of Fox On Demand is a good move. With the current trends in a society completely focused on convenient and efficient technology, making prime-time TV available whenever-time is a strategy a lot of networks are moving towards. The company will profit off of sales per episode and season, as well as the advertising on the site, and customers can now download missed shows onto their computers, phones or iPods for less than two dollars.
My only skepticism of the Fox On Demand project is concerning the on-line distribution of entire seasons. Personally, I don't really see any great benefits for the network over selling them in stores. Because the episodes are only available after they have aired on Fox, someone would have to wait until the entire season ends for it to be available, which I think contradicts the company's intentions with the program in the first place. Even if people are buying previous seasons that they missed out on, it seems illogical to wait for all 13 episodes to download to your computer when you can go to the nearest Target and get the eight disc set for basically the same price. Also, I think this will provide an even easier way for people to copy and distribute the media illegally, something the article did not mention in terms of prevention on Fox's part.
While Fox TV shows have only been available on limited sites with annoying commercial ads interrupting the feed every six minutes or so, Fox is making deals with a number of companies that will allow people the buy and download episodes and seasons via the Internet. Episodes will cost about $1.99, and whole seasons up to $39.99, all available to any Internet-friendly device.
Overall, I think the expansion of Fox On Demand is a good move. With the current trends in a society completely focused on convenient and efficient technology, making prime-time TV available whenever-time is a strategy a lot of networks are moving towards. The company will profit off of sales per episode and season, as well as the advertising on the site, and customers can now download missed shows onto their computers, phones or iPods for less than two dollars.
My only skepticism of the Fox On Demand project is concerning the on-line distribution of entire seasons. Personally, I don't really see any great benefits for the network over selling them in stores. Because the episodes are only available after they have aired on Fox, someone would have to wait until the entire season ends for it to be available, which I think contradicts the company's intentions with the program in the first place. Even if people are buying previous seasons that they missed out on, it seems illogical to wait for all 13 episodes to download to your computer when you can go to the nearest Target and get the eight disc set for basically the same price. Also, I think this will provide an even easier way for people to copy and distribute the media illegally, something the article did not mention in terms of prevention on Fox's part.
Friday, February 23, 2007
"Apple and Cisco share iPhone name"
Apple and Cisco have recently resolved the dispute over the ‘iPhone’ title. Although Cisco has had the name registered since 2000, something the company said Apple was aware of, the two corporations agreed to share.
Now there will be two ‘iPhones’?! The iPhone that Linksys, a branch of Cisco, is producing is a phone used for Internet telecommunication services. With services such as Skype and features including web browsers and access to music and videos, the Linksys iPhone is a convenient tool for people who utilize Internet phone systems and don't want the hassle of speaking into the microphone of their computer. It basically acts as a regular house line phone would, only you are communicating via the Internet and, thus, have access to other online features. Most are compatible with Macs and PCs and eliminate the costs of information calls (411) and phone bills all together.
The iPhone that Apple is planning to release in June is a cellphone with unbelievable capabilities. Behind the ridiculous graphics on a widescreen touchscreen, the phone offers new texting and voice mail features and Internet technologies.
Although the two phones have the same basic purpose, they are in different markets and, therefore, not competitors. I can see why Cisco would have taken a settlement being that Apple's iPhone would not be taking any of their profits or customer base, yet, I don't see why Apple took the name in the first place. They knew the 'iPhone' was already registered, and it's not like they couldn't have sold something like 'iTel' instead.
Interestingly enough, both products can be viewed online through the company homepages, and the domain name iphone.com actually belongs to an Internet phone company. I would be interested in whether or not the settlement touched on online marketing for these products and what trademark laws will be enforced in ecommerce.
Friday, February 16, 2007
"Email warnings deter Canadians from illegal file sharing"
CBC News
Apparently, Canada has solved the uncontrollable illegal downloading issue plaguing the media and software industries. According to their "notice and notice program", simply informing users they are downloading copyrighted material and asking them to remove it works...well, in Canada anyway. The program claims to have distributed "tens of thousands of e-mails" urging felons to "take immediate action to stop this infringing activity", to which they kindly oblige based on the fact that "no one has been prosecuted for copyright violation as a result of the notices".
Not only do I believe this system couldn't possibly be affective in Canada, but also maintain it would be a waste of time and money to try anywhere else. To start, the nature of the 'notice' is not something I feel that Americans, in particular, would be responsive to. The system we have now, which has been far from successful based on the fact that people continue to download copyrighted media, basically notifies offenders that they have downloaded copyrighted material and that action will be taken if it is not removed. If this hasn't worked, why would saying, 'please take down the video because it's not yours to post', be any more affective?
The article also mentions how people feel the program "really respects privacy and free speech" of users by notifying them and asking them to remove material rather than sharing their information with corporations who threaten to prosecute. Clearly these people are big supporters of rights and privacy, only after they steal from media and software companies.
Moreover, I think it's safe to say that most of the people using copyrighted material know its protected, or they wouldn't have had to use illegal software to over right the copyright protections to get the file in the first place. It's common sense that if you did not produce it, you don't own it and, therefore, can't use it without paying for it in some way (unless it was made by some average Joe who didn't copyright his stuff or a corporation specifying it's free, which is generally not the case). This in mind, the idea of informing people that they have downloaded something illegally is a mood point; they are already aware that they have broken the law.
All that aside, even if the 'notice and notice' program works, it's unlikely that it will be effective for long. It is only a matter of time before these emails are no longer threatening, and Canada will have to come up with a new way to politely appeal to the good nature of people stealing copyrighted material.
Apparently, Canada has solved the uncontrollable illegal downloading issue plaguing the media and software industries. According to their "notice and notice program", simply informing users they are downloading copyrighted material and asking them to remove it works...well, in Canada anyway. The program claims to have distributed "tens of thousands of e-mails" urging felons to "take immediate action to stop this infringing activity", to which they kindly oblige based on the fact that "no one has been prosecuted for copyright violation as a result of the notices".
Not only do I believe this system couldn't possibly be affective in Canada, but also maintain it would be a waste of time and money to try anywhere else. To start, the nature of the 'notice' is not something I feel that Americans, in particular, would be responsive to. The system we have now, which has been far from successful based on the fact that people continue to download copyrighted media, basically notifies offenders that they have downloaded copyrighted material and that action will be taken if it is not removed. If this hasn't worked, why would saying, 'please take down the video because it's not yours to post', be any more affective?
The article also mentions how people feel the program "really respects privacy and free speech" of users by notifying them and asking them to remove material rather than sharing their information with corporations who threaten to prosecute. Clearly these people are big supporters of rights and privacy, only after they steal from media and software companies.
Moreover, I think it's safe to say that most of the people using copyrighted material know its protected, or they wouldn't have had to use illegal software to over right the copyright protections to get the file in the first place. It's common sense that if you did not produce it, you don't own it and, therefore, can't use it without paying for it in some way (unless it was made by some average Joe who didn't copyright his stuff or a corporation specifying it's free, which is generally not the case). This in mind, the idea of informing people that they have downloaded something illegally is a mood point; they are already aware that they have broken the law.
All that aside, even if the 'notice and notice' program works, it's unlikely that it will be effective for long. It is only a matter of time before these emails are no longer threatening, and Canada will have to come up with a new way to politely appeal to the good nature of people stealing copyrighted material.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)