I recently stumbled upon the musings of Sandra Alistair and must thoroughly question how she's come to some of her viewpoints with very little in the form of research to back her up.
"Some background: Individuals and crime syndicates – oftentimes outside the United States – are setting up websites that traffic in unlicensed intellectual property, selling everything from counterfeit drugs and auto parts to ripped off e-books and unlicensed streams of live sporting events."
[Citation needed]
"These are not legitimate or licensed products, and they often come with nasty surprises for the consumer, such as malware, spyware and other means of facilitating identity theft."
Has Sandra read the GAO Report? Sounds like she's parroting points from the trade industries. If you can't force someone to buy from you, then scare them away from your competitors.
"The sites are often operated by criminals, who use the profits to finance gang and other illegal activities. No money is returned to the individuals who created the works."
And yet, she has no proof of gang related activity...
"This is the online equivalent of a back alley black market. "
So is a flea market, making her suggestion even funnier.
"Further, unlike a back alley that can be patrolled by local police, law enforcement does not have adequate tools to reach these illegal activities because so many of these sites operate by storing files abroad"
Yes Sandra, that is very much correct when ICE decides to seize domains with nary a thought into the after effects. There is also a massive exodus of domains to .eu, .ch, or even .ph over seizure worries. For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.
"Policymakers are discussing measured, common-sense steps---"
I get a chuckle when people put this with:
" to protect consumers and American intellectual property makers from this criminal behavior by giving law enforcement the tools they need to act against these web site operators, and by seeking cooperation of online intermediaries to cut off sources of funding (like ad networks and payment processing) to infringing internet sites."
This. Protect consumers. Let's think about this... If consumers WANT counterfeit goods or cheaper drugs, won't they go to get them? So the second part of policy makers protecting IP makers? That's yet another dubious claim. There's more evidence of those artists that are creating content using other means to get by. What's probably meant here is copyright holder. To which, Hollywood and music industry (the main ones lobbying the government) are quite explicit they want more control of the internet by turning Google into copyright cops.
"Specifically, draft legislation favorably considered last year, and likely to be reintroduced in some form again this year, would have allowed the Attorney General to take action against sites “dedicated to infringing activities”. "
Looked at favorably, when it was stopped by Ron Wyden. Right...
And there's already evidence that this approach is not the best: Link to Heesob's IP blog
In total, by the thirty-one individuals, 544 pieces of computer game software, 216 pieces of motion pictures, 113 pieces of cartoons and 23 pieces of TV shows have been transmitted through ten ISPs. Interestingly, no musical works were involved. On average, 22.67 pieces of computer games (24 users), 10.8 pieces of motion pictures (20 users), 22.6 pieces of cartoons (5 users), and 23 pieces of TV shows (one user) have led up to the temporary disconnection.
It's a very flawed argument to say that a copyright holder can talk to the AG, call a site infringing, then get it kicked off the internet. How about a better system than one where collusion is rewarded?
"...protect American creators and their products from online theft as threatening the Internet, free speech, and apple pie."
When Congress does that, I'll be surprised. Right now, it seems they are only interested in who is supplying them with the most cash.
"In fact, the nine sites seized during the original phase of Operation in Our Sites were taken down and remain down"
Ninjavideo
TVShack - By the way, they got seized twice.
TorrentFinder
In other words, out of the 100+ sites that ICE has seized so far, they've failed miserably
"Moreover, it is highly ironic that these anti-copyright extremists would argue that free speech is being stifled when criminal sites are shut down, when their most recently favored tactics seem to consist of online bullying of artistswho speak out in favor of their rights and outright malicious attacks on the websites of individuals and entities supporting the rule of law on the internet."
One of the things about Due Process is facing your accuser in a court of law. One of the things missing right now, is facing the person that has made an accusation. These have yet to be found out as criminal sites, that's only an allegation. So the question we should ask is one that has yet to be answered:
When do these people get a court date BEFORE they lose their website. By all means, the domain seizures seem to be successful by the "data". But when you look at the exodus of websites from .com domains, you have to question if this will be an effective method when we have more .eu, .info, and .ph domains that ICE lost access to.
Maybe the enforcement is working...
But when the net result is people finding better alternatives in other countries, we should look into that instead of effectively saying that ICE has done a successful job.
No comments:
Post a Comment