Re: Is the RIAA carrying out its threat to destroy the world's economy?

[Dave Farber <dfarber () me com>]

> From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
> To: "'Jon Urdan'" <jon () advbits com>, <dave () farber net>
> Cc: "'Lauren Weinstein'" <lauren () vortex com>
> Date: May 13, 2010 01:07:08 PM EDT
> Subject: RE: [IP] Is the RIAA carrying out its threat to destroy the world's economy?
>
> Thanks. I'm cc'ing Lauren who also watches such efforts. I should've also
> mentioned the MPAA and others but the RIAA seems to be the most aggressive.
>
> I found
> http://jamesgannon.ca/2010/03/01/reaching-new-lows-charity-album-piracy/ to
> be interesting because it emphasizes the tactic of creating this idea of the
> "pirate" when there are different flavors. It cuts both ways -- why is
> buying an album the right charity vehicle. It's valid but copying the music
> is not the same as not making a donation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Urdan [mailto:jon () advbits com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 12:50
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com
> Subject: RE: [IP] Is the RIAA carrying out its threat to destroy the world's
> economy?
>
> http://www.ifpi.org/
>
> Hi Bob -
>
> I'm a former music industry exec and long-time IP lurker.  If you're
> interested in these issues, you might want to bookmark the link above.
> This is the worldwide org that coordinates the RIAA-type activities outside
> the US.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:19 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Is the RIAA carrying out its threat to destroy the world's
> economy?
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
> Date: May 12, 2010 12:51:39 PM EDT
> To: <dave () farber net>
> Cc: <nnsquad () nnsquad org>
> Subject: Is the RIAA carrying out its threat to destroy the world's economy?
>
> This German decision follows on the Digital Economy Bill rammed through the
> parliament in the UK.
>
> Of course it's the RIAA's equivalent in each country. Back about 1999 at a
> meeting about ICANN and the DNS an RIAA representative told me he would be
> willing to destroy the Internet in order to protect their content. He was
> not kidding and we can see the result.
>
> This attempt to make protecting their content the most important factor in
> the economy does real damage. It makes it illegal to have a communications
> commons and for people to add capacity.
>
> By making it illegal for people to contribute capacity we require everyone
> go through a carrier and create a billable even. We can see a simple example
> -- if two adjacent cell phones (using peer protocols) communicate directly
> there is no significant cost. But instead we require they go through distant
> towers in order to create a billable event and force them to buy a service.
> If open Wi-Fi (or a successor) is the norm then they can use any path
> already available without creating billable events.
>
> These billable events add up to a trillion dollars a year world-wide give or
> take a few hundred billion. That could make a real difference to world's
> economy. After all a single trillion dollar bailout is a big deal, imaging
> doing it every year ad infinitum.
>
> But wait wait, there is further damage. If we use the cell phone example
> they can't communicate if there isn't a tower nearby or if they don't have a
> billing relationship with that particular tower and every element along the
> path. Repeat this for each device and each path and the cost to the world's
> economy and our quality of life is very large.
>
> It's not entirely the fault of the RIAA as the problem appears in other
> forms as when the various state legislatures ban paying for fiber and other
> bit infrastructure based on the idea that its unfair competition for the
> carriers. Yet they pay for roads. Why are they protecting an industry whose
> business model no longer make sense?
>
> It's more ignorance the malevolence but the damage is real.
>
> Fortunately the US has the First Amendment and communications is speech.
> Unfortunately that idea isn't fully accepted or understood.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com () nnsquad org
> [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com () nnsquad org] On Behalf Of
> Lauren Weinstein
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:26
> To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
> Subject: [ NNSquad ] German court "bans" most open Wi-Fi access?
>
>
> German court "bans" most open Wi-Fi access?
>
> http://bit.ly/9s9rLg  (AP / Palm Beach Post)
>
> Since the court has apparently ruled that "all" Wi-Fi access point operators
> must password protect their Wi-Fi, by extension this suggests that home
> users at least can't "legally" provide conventional open Internet access
> even if they wish to (whether they should or not is a different question
> from a security standpoint, of course).
>
> I wonder if the court has ruled on the strength and secrecy of such
> passwords.  That is, what if very short passwords are used under WEP, which
> are easily broken.  What if fans of open home Wi-Fi agreed en masse to use
> the password "Aufgeschlossenheit" -- or set their password to the same
> string as their Wi-Fi SSID?
>
> Of course, since the fine is relatively modest and the court did not rule
> that open Wi-Fi owners had responsibility for any third-party illegal
> downloads -- and the fine only comes into play when a downloading violation
> occurs -- many users may just decide to keep their Wi-Fi open and risk the
> fine for now.
>
> --Lauren--
> NNSquad Moderator
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com