One problem with the copyright laws is the system bills fifth parties to hire fourth parties to punish third parties who buy from second parties who have no obligation to first parties. So, if someone downloads a video off the net (third party) you and I (fifth party) must pay law enforcement (fourth party) to go after the entity that offers the video online (second party), a video which is putatively "owned" by the first party. Where is the agreement between the first and second party for the second party not to offer the download of the video? But it is against the law! When did the 2nd party agree to this law? but everyone must follow the law!
Why? These laws make for chaos, and interfere with the spontaneous order of a free market.
Look at Apple. Apple attracts artists by offering to pay them money on each download if the artists bring their work to Apple. This is contract law, not copyright law. Apple devised the supreme system for downloads, in both storage, delivery and the ipod players. Apple is example #1 of the real world without copyright law.
Now, the welfare queens who promote murder for oil with their propaganda films (Argo, Zero dark thirty) and applauds he whom minister Farrakhan calls the "murderer in the White House" by weirdly featuring the First Lady surrounded by soldiers at the oscars, now get to extend their reach, at the expense of fifth parties, for "copyright" enforcement.
Why? These laws make for chaos, and interfere with the spontaneous order of a free market.
Look at Apple. Apple attracts artists by offering to pay them money on each download if the artists bring their work to Apple. This is contract law, not copyright law. Apple devised the supreme system for downloads, in both storage, delivery and the ipod players. Apple is example #1 of the real world without copyright law.
Now, the welfare queens who promote murder for oil with their propaganda films (Argo, Zero dark thirty) and applauds he whom minister Farrakhan calls the "murderer in the White House" by weirdly featuring the First Lady surrounded by soldiers at the oscars, now get to extend their reach, at the expense of fifth parties, for "copyright" enforcement.
Proponents say the focus is on deterring the average consumer rather than chronic violators. The director of the organization behind the system, Jill Lesser of the Center for Copyright Infringement, said in a blog post Monday that the program is "meant to educate rather than punish, and direct (users) to legal alternatives."So the whole thing is pointless, who cares, it costs the beneficiaries nothing. Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Each Internet provider is expected to implement their own system. The program gives each customer five or six "strikes" after a music or film company has detected illegal file-sharing and lodged a complaint. The first alerts are expected to be educational, while the third and fourth would require the customer to acknowledge that they have received the warnings and understand their behavior is illegal. The final warnings are expected to lead to "mitigation measures," such as slowing a person's Internet connection speeds.
Officials involved in the effort acknowledge it's unlikely to stop the biggest violators. There are ways to disguise an IP address or use a neighbor's connection that is unlocked. Public wireless connections, such as those offered at coffee shops, also won't be monitored.
0 comments:
Post a Comment