On 01/05/12 18:31, Alec Edworthy wrote:
> On 1 May 2012, at 16:32, "Neil J. McRae" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Whilst I personally believe that these solutions don't work as a standalone
>> option I think we also need to remember that many if not all of the people
>> downloading stuff via TPB are actually breaking the law.
>
> So? I believe the correct name is either the Betamax or VCR defence. Just
> because a technology CAN be used for illegal purposes doesn't mean a
> technology should inherently be banned. If that's how we pursue things then
> ban and block NNTP and the BitTorrent protocol. Where do you draw the line?
The problem is that things have moved on so much since betamax, VCR, or
printing presses, that *any* form of electronic communication (even
tunnelling over DNS) could be used to communicate with unrestricted and
even encrypted data. That means you provide *anything* whatsoever by way
of communications and you allow *everything*.
So, restrictions on electronic communications can only ever be effective
if we break the whole communications system so badly it is not usable.
Everything else is partly effective at best. Of course knowing how to
bypass things used to be hard too - but if you have access to "the
Internet" and "a computer" you can find the tools and instructions to
bypass things easily.
This means if people want to communicate then they will be able to.
The only fix is to stop them being motivated to communicate. That means
a business model for things like copyright that make it simpler, and
easier and cheaper for people to do the right thing. Right now, even
people that have a strong bias to do the right thing, and the means and
desire to pay for things, find they cannot do so because of the chosen
business models of the copyright holders. When you have that scenario,
not only will people communicate, but there is suddenly a black market
where people can charge money to make things easy - money that should,
and could, go to the artists if only they would try to work with their
customers.
Copyright law could change - it could be (as is some countries, I
belive) that non profit personal copying is always allowed, and that
only commercial exploitation (which has a money trail to follow and
enforce) is a problem. That would avoid the need to do anything at the
ISP level, just follow the money!
This whole issue is very topical as well when considering the calls for
filters on porn ("think of the children", yet again).
A filter can work if its objective is to help people avoid seeing
something by mistake (IWF blocking for example) - where the users are
actually keen to have the block. This applies to thinks like blocking
"malware" as well, and is why many ISPs do offer spam and virus
filtering stuff. The users want it, and will even pay for it, so the
blocking works.
The second you have someone with motivation to work around the blocking,
it will not work. You make it a tad harder, maybe, and that is all. You
don't change behaviour. You can't block people motivated to find porn on
the internet (e.g. teenage boys). You can't block people motivated to
find music and videos that they want. The best you can do is mask the issue.
I think we have to campaign for a clear separation of responsibility.
Just like the post office is not expected to open every letter (whether
technically possible or not), we should not be expected to police or
inspect or filter internet access. There is no point, and there is a lot
of harm in trying.
Even suggesting the likes of facebook are legally liable for what is on
their site, as some suggest, would make facebook impossible as a
service. There is no doubt that services like facebook and google and so
on are there because of the freedom the internet currently offers. We
would stifle that sort of innovation and business growth if we make a
"locked down" internet, whatever our motives.
That does not stop ISPs offering services that do filter some things in
some ways or applications on PCs, but we should not be forced to look at
a single packet.
Not only are there the whole cost; technical; and pointlessness issues,
but we have the whole "free speech" and "thin end of the wedge" issues.
I hate to say "I told you so", but when there was campaigning for 100%
IWF block list take up by ISPs, I spoke out against it. I said it would
quickly expand beyond its remit. Now we see that, not just within the
IWF, but by the courts using the monster we have created. We see the
easy targets first - porn, copyright, terrorism. But you can push it one
step further every time until you are banning free speech and creating a
repressive state. It has been seen so many times before and the only way
to tackle it is at the start - not to allow that thin end of the wedge
and to suffer the comparatively minor inconvenience that results.
</rant>
