Extralegal Methods for Protecting Our Perceived File-Sharing Rights
In response to this dig on This Recording (where Alex Carnevale compares siding with the RIAA as supporting lynching): I can’t say that I support what the RIAA is doing. I think, reflecting upon Tim Wu’s articles on socially-acceptable crime, the RIAA is a private interest forcing the hand of government to expend tax-payers’ money in an area it might not be all that interested in. But by the current writing of the law, it has every right to do this.
Tim Wu argues that this is a failure in the political process: We have this law that doesn’t make sense and no one who can change it. Something has to change. Maybe the law *has* to change—but we, the people, don’t have the money or the political willpower to do that. In today’s society, we’d ideally want businesses to adjust their models, practices, and ultimately their ethics to suit their consumer base. But we know that’s not going to happen.
Our inability to act towards our own wants and desires in this sense is credited to our fear of the government watching us, catching us, and throwing us in the can. We get scared off from demonstrating to the government—or to the RIAA—what we think the law should really be.
In an upcoming article on privacy and e-mail, I wrote:
The panoptical society restricts individual autonomy by “unnecessarily constraining individual decision-making” through the constant threat of visibility leveraging the inherently unbalanced power dynamic favoring governmental actors.
(That’s academic-speak for saying the government, by watching us, scares us from making our own decisions about things.)
With the courts and Congress offering little protection for [our privacy concerns], and with the threat of a panoptical society on the horizon, individuals may be forced to adopt extralegal methods of protecting their perceived expectations of privacy. Fortunately, a number of technological innovations offer a variety of methods of prophylaxis from government intrusion.
And this is where things like OiNK come in. OiNK was an “extralegal” method of protecting our perceived rights. But it wasn’t secure enough. Now, to protect those perceived rights, people could then resort to better, more technologically savvy methods. Tighter, “more private” trackers. Tighter file-sharing communities. WASTE networks. Maybe even (gasp) BitTorrent over Tor.
And then hopefully Big Music and the government will see where this leads: They lose their ability to control the people when the people fritter away underground. Is this the type of arms race we want to be involved in? There’s obviously something wrong here—there’s this well-established disconnect between how music is consumed and how Big Music wants to distribute it. So someone’s got to give. And might it not be, in this case, the purpose of business to cede to consumers, and the government to cede to the people?
I suspect the MediaDefender debacle and this OiNK shut-down just hits the techie, hipster, and blogging communities closer to home than the everyman Napster and Kazaa controversies. This will soon blow over, and we’ll be back to the SNAFU we’ve be involved in for the last 20 odd years.
October 25, 2007 11:19 am 5 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By Alex Carnevale, October 25, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Aw, we don’t dig, we love!
I’ve enjoyed reading your writing on this issue, and this post was no exception.
By paul, October 25, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Thanks. It’s all about love!
By Chris Brunner, October 26, 2007 @ 8:09 am
“And then hopefully Big Music and the government will see where this leads: They lose their ability to control the people when the people fritter away underground.”
Come on, now. The War on Drugs has been going on for how long? Damn near a century, right? I haven’t seen anyone make any statements on behalf of the government along the lines of “Well, it seems that we lose our ability to control the people when they fritter underground. Maybe this is the wrong way to go about things.”
Don’t hold your breath on that one. What I hear from them is more like, “OMG, we need more money so we fight even harder against natural economic law! We’re going to raise taxes so we can fight demand, even though we have no control over supply and don’t really have control over demand. Basically, it’s just an excuse to raise taxes.”
Don’t you see? The government has *incentive* to make things illegal even though they can’t be stopped. It means indefinitely enlarging budgets and an excuse to write new laws and remove freedoms.
By damilola, June 13, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
it is very unfortunate that even our democratically elected government are handling their work with levity in view of this it could be regarded as a fallacy or rather a great blunder to regard these act as a treasonable fellony due to this fact i will view it from two perspectives. 1subjective 2. objective
since there are provisions in the constitution taking care of the we should allow the constitution to prevail while in the other sense till when shall we continue to make it treasonable fellony when our leaders are found of stealing,corrupt act,embezzlement,and enrichment of perty members grossly neglecting the citizen in abject poverty(leaders needs to be overhawl in discharge of their duties). the legislature and the judiciary should also be awoken to their responsibiliteis although they are also involved in this corrupt practice but despite that they can still check on the activities of one another…
By Roberisco, March 18, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Every time i come here I am not dissapointed, nice post