Actual cause of Internet slowdowns
An extremely dangerous law has been passed in New Zealand and goes into effect on February 28, 2009. This law enables a person’s internet access to be permanently terminated if they are accused of copyright violation three times. No trial. No judge. No jury. No conviction. Just an accusation by a copyright holder.
We’ll get to the legal stupidity of this in just a moment. Let’s establish why this matters: because this is 2009, and the Internet is no more optional than power or water to a civilized society. Banned from the ‘net, you and your children will be at an increasing disadvantage in education, commerce, career advancement, and more.
There’s a long litany of lawmakers and judges who enact legislation, set precedent, and make policy decisions regarding the Internet that, at best, illustrates how uninformed they are and, at worst, encroaches upon fundamental freedoms that are supposed to be protected by the laws of the land in which they reside. This law, specifically Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act in New Zealand, may just take the cake for dangerous ignorance in the realm of legislation aimed at controlling the Internet. Well, ignorance in the case of the lawmakers at least, but the organization pushing for such laws can hardly claim ignorance. This is exactly what they want, and they’ve been pushing for something similar in the USA. What organization would that be? Wait for it…wait…
…Oh yes! Our old friends the Recording Industry Association of America/New Zealand/[insert country name here].
The RIAA and its international devil spawn have become notorious in the last few years for extorting thousands of dollars at a time out of mostly clueless individuals by threatening to sue them for copyright violations. Not suing — just threatening to sue. Basically, they would say “pay us $5,000 (or whatever) or we’ll take you to court, which we can afford to do and you can’t.” I’m not kidding, they did this to thousands of people and got away with it for awhile. Some of the accused, however, with the legal and financial backing of groups like the EFF, have called the RIAA’s bluff and in many cases won because the RIAA actually didn’t have any proof these people were knowingly infringing on copyrighted material. The RIAA had “logs” that simply were rarely concrete enough to a identify a specific individual. For example, people were sued because they had open wireless access points and neighbors shared music through it — OK, not a smart thing to leave your wireless AP open, but there’s nothing in our laws that makes it criminal, nor that makes you responsible since you weren’t “knowingly” sharing copyrighted material. Or more often, records and IP addresses got mixed up at the ISPs (some of whom just handed this stuff over to the RIAA, shame on them), and the wrong person was fingered. Most often, the accused simply didn’t know they were sharing music or movies, because their computer was just infected with some really nasty stuff (as unmaintained Windows machines can be) and was acting as a file-sharing hub for all the internet. Ignorant users? Yes. Criminal? Hardly. You want to slap them with something, slap them with a “how to properly use a computer” book, not a lawsuit where the payment goes to a huge media corporation.
But wait, we’re not done. I’m still not to the law passed in New Zealand. Just so you know how specious it is that the RIAA should be allowed to serve as judge, jury and executioner in this “three strikes you’re out,” “guilt upon accusation” law, consider their record with their traditional lawsuits. The RIAA has sued dead people, a woman who was getting a transplant (they won a default judgment against her when she didn’t respond to their request…hmm, wonder why?), and another woman who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life. In one instance, even after the court smacked down the RIAA because they were suing the wrong person in the household, the RIAA argued that the defendant could still be held liable because “the computer may well have been in a common area such that defendant heard music coming from the computer when [the] admitted infringer … was using it.” Yes, the RIAA was arguing that simply hearing music coming from a PC is copyright infringement. When they lost that court battle too and the court ordered the RIAA to pay the defendant’s attorney fees, the RIAA appealed the order to pay the fees so that other individuals might still be scared of going to court, and they could go back to their extortion scheme.
This, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg, just a tiny sampling of what the RIAA has done and how they have extorted people and abused the legal system over the past decade.
The law about to take effect in New Zealand, as I said, allows for any user to get banned from obtaining personal Internet access if they get accused of copyright violations three times. Accused, not convicted. By the copyright holder — often, the RIANZ. Somehow, either through bribery and kickbacks (probably — the RIAA et al spend hundreds of millions of dollars around the world on lobbyists and legal fees) or sheer, astounding ignorance (probably some of that too), the law was passed by the New Zealand government. In addition, it changes the definition of ISP to include anyone who runs a DHCP server — in layman’s terms, basically anyone who provides a shared internet connection. Have a home router? You’re now an ISP. From the Creative Freedom Foundation site:
ISPs now include businesses, schools, libraries, government departments and any organisation that provides internet services. Odds are, you’re an ISP.
Why is this important? Because under the new law, ISPs have to keep records of all internet activity through their network for a period of two years, just in case the police need to come sifting through in order to confirm future accusations. This could come at significant cost of both time, money, and manpower for everyone now identified as an ISP.
So let’s review: the Recoding Industry Association, which has been pushing for this type of law almost everywhere, including the United States, finally managed to get their baby passed in New Zealand. It will allow them to kick anyone off the Internet simply by accusing them three times of copyright infringement with no trial, no due process, no proof, nothing. This is a vile, horrible, dangerous law and of course has ignited the attention of a great deal of the ‘net in the hopes of getting the word out before it goes into effect.
But how did it get passed in the first place? Here we come to the really important part, at least for the rest of us. In our government, like in many, there’s a representative who is in charge of education plans and policy, of energy policy, of transportation policy — all people who spend their energies on one area of public infrastructure and who are responsible for making sound decisions for their field of influence. For the most part, this works. And that’s why scary laws like the one in NZ and other disturbing digital surveillance and anti-privacy laws here in the US have gotten passed — because there’s no one person in our government responsible for the Internet. Fortunately, President Obama has pledged to appoint an “Internet Czar” (terrible name) or “US CTO” (Chief Technology Officer) to do just that — and it’s quite evident that we need it. One tactic of the RIAA is to attach “but there could be child porn!” to any legislation to get it passed. For example, discreetly through lobby groups, the RIAA has tried at various times to make all P2P software illegal, to require ISPs to log all P2P traffic, and has encouraged legislation empowering the FBI and other federal agencies to have ridiculous power over the Internet because “P2P networks are rife with child pornography.” Few politicians with a hope of reelection are likely to vote “no” on a law billed as preventing child pornography, no matter how stupid or unjust it is, so combating these ridiculous proposals is quite the uphill battle for people who actually — how do I put this — “get” the Internet and…what was the other one…oh yeah, the Bill of Rights.
These battles and the RIAA’s idiocy have been going on for some time now, but I never want to miss the opportunity to make regular people — non tech-industry folks — aware of what’s going on. There are several salient points to be made here:
- The Internet is not optional in our society, just like power is not optional, water is not optional, basic education is not optional.
- Any lawmaker who allows an independent, for-profit organization to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a matter of law should be immediately removed from office, slapped in some way for egregious ignorance, and perhaps put on trial (if possible) for the civilian equivalent of dereliction of duty of a public officer and disregard for the Constitution of the United States.
- The RIAA needs to have the tables turned on them. THEY should have a “three strikes” law levied against them, perhaps — three frivolous lawsuits and you’re done, you can’t file any more? Would be nice.
- Be aware of this kind of thing and contact your representatives if you hear they’re on a committee that’s considering such a law. It’s less likely something scary will be passed with the Obama administration, which seems to have met the Internet, unlike the Bush administration, but it’s still possible. There’s at least as many idiots as smart people.
Let me make something clear before I conclude: I’m not saying copyright violation/piracy is OK. Not at all. Especially as a content creator myself (in the form of software and user interfaces), I understand that copyrighted content needs to be protected and the creator should received their due. What is not OK is the RIAA extorting people and then being handed the power to remove them from the Internet without the involvement of any legal or governing body whatsoever.
Everyone hope for the best for our friends in beautiful New Zealand. And send dark, evil thoughts the RIAA’s way.
A few more stories about the RIAA
