Can you imagine that what you download from the internet can be tra
cked and disclosed in some situations?
Yes, it is true.
In the case “TorrentSpy ordered to start tracking visitors”, a court decision reached could force websites to track visitors if the sites become defendants in a lawsuit. TorrentSpy, a popular BitTorrent search engine, was ordered by a federal judge in the Central District of California in Los Angeles to create logs detailing users’ activities on the site although TorrentSpy has promised in its privacy policy never to track visitors without their consent.
You may say that it is normal that some websites will record your activities in their web services. If you don’t agree their term of service, just don’t use it.
All right, let’s take another look. In this article “Piracy and Privacy”, it says that in an effort to stymie Internet pirates, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a music industry group, is asking European lawmakers to require Internet service providers to use filters to block the illicit transfer of copyrighted material.
It is the case that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org), a privacy advocate, responded by sending a letter to the European Parliament arguing that such filters would be an “ineffective measure that will do little to practically address the concerns of major rights holders while imposing serious costs on the individual rights of European citizens.” I very much agree with EFF’s opinion that the filtering technology would not be effective because pirates would simply encrypt files to bypass it in the same way that banks encrypt credit card information.
However, it seems to inevitably become a trend that internet service providers (ISP) are requested to help prevent from piracy. In 2008, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) at G8 meeting in Japan may have far-reaching consequence that anyone who offers copyrighted files over the internet or downloads them may be labeled a criminal and forcibly disconnected from the net, which may become internal law in the future.
Moreover, according to the article “Leaked ACTA draft treaty reveals plans for Net clampdown”, the author states that ACTA proposes making ISPs (Internet service providers) liable under civil law for the content their subscribers upload or download using their networks. To avoid being sued by a record company or Hollywood studio for illegally distributing copyright-protected content, the ISP would have to prove that it took action to prevent the copyright abuse. An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider’s system or network of repeat offenders.
It seems reasonable for me that ISP terminates subscribers who illegally distributing copyright-protected content. However, this means ISP will be spying you all the time to see if you do something illegal. Why do I lost my privacy because piracy from others?
In the article “Net piracy: The people vs the entertainment industry”, Marks mentions that ISPs would have to scan the contents of every chunk of data, using what is known as “deep packet inspection” technology, which is used by China and Iran to monitor and censor internet communications. But even if ISPs install such technology, identifying infringers will be far from straightforward. The EU has ruled that before anyone can be sent a warning letter, rights holders must take an ISP to court to get the name and address of an alleged culprit. You will expect this is kind of snooping won’t be happened in a modern western democracy. It would raise huge questions that ISP invades customers’ privacy by sifting through their personal data and freedom of expression.
On the other hand, ACTA should think that such threats would deter some people from illicitly sharing content. Others, though, will simply seek ways of carrying on regardless. Marks states that freeloading on an unsuspecting neighbour’s Wi-Fi connection is one option – and is possible even if the connection is secured. YouTube carries videos on how to use free software to “sniff” the passwords of protected connections. The ease with which people can “borrow” Wi-Fi in this way undermines the assumption that the owner of a connection can be blamed for everything downloaded by it. The mobile broadband connections provided via cellphones or computer USB sticks offer another loophole to the disconnected. Mobile providers do not assign IP addresses to users as fixed line providers do, so it’s not possible to track file sharing to individuals.
“Public attitudes and the nature of digital information mean that large numbers of people will continue to breach copyright”, says Danny O’Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Meanwhile, O’Brien predicts offline sharing will become more common, as ultra-high-capacity hard drives get cheaper.
I highly disagree with the treats ACTA try to propose. In my opinion, what ACTA try to do is only track “online piracy”. Even only tracking online piracy, people will still try to find a way to breach copyright. However, those treats invade our privacy. In addition, I personally agree with the declaration of The Pirate Party (course reading): The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected. Their agenda is:
- Reform of copyright law
- An abolished patent system
- Respect for the right to privacy
Many corporations often use copyright to protect their own profit and block knowledge distribution, which limits creative works. On the other hand, I very much agree with “Piracy is just a business model”. The co-chair of Disney’s board has recognized piracy as a “business model” to be competed with, instead of a war to be fought on Disney’s customers:
“We understand now that piracy is a business model,” said Sweeney, twice voted Hollywood’s most powerful woman by the Hollywood Reporter. “It exists to serve a need in the market for consumers who want TV content on demand. Pirates compete the same way we do – through quality, price and availability. We don’t like the model but we realise it’s competitive enough to make it a major competitor going forward.”
Companies or organization should try to make their product or content competitive to appeal customers’ purchase instead of fighting piracy while sacrificing customers’ privacy.
First image source from http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/28/business/29online.190.jpg
Second image source from http://stuff.lifetimeblood.info/piracy-is-not-theft.png
{ 4 } Comments
This is interesting posting from Josh Thank you for your effort to expand my knowledge. The picture you posted makes me sense what is different between Theft and Piracy. So you said Piracy is kind of activity of copy a material from others. If you have a copyright of the product, you can copy the product as much as you can. but this is not piracy it is just copy or produce more. I think Piracy is not only copy activity but also theft activity. Piracy is capturing a creative though or principle that was not from my head without notice of owner of it. Therefore, I think piracy is definitely theft too.
How do you think?
Joe, I agree with that “Piracy is capturing a creative though or principle that was not from my head without notice of owner of it.” You can definetly consider that behavior a theft.
Regardless of that piracy is a theft, in the post, I was trying to get a attention that how ACTA try to fight piracy without thinking privacy. In my opinion, it is avery serious issue for me because I cannot stand ISP monitor what I do online all the time.
This war on “piracy” is a waste of resources on part of companies. The end result will not be in their favor either. For my team’s case study, we did research on the area of copyright infringement which is tied to piracy. I remember reading about the controversial strategy of filing copyright lawsuits against individuals accused of copyright violations by the music industry. 30,000 people or so were suited, legal costs were HUGE and it was a public relations nightmare. PIRACY still continued. Piracy needs to be seen a competing force. There are certain ways to leverage value out of it. Could it be that those they pirate are fans of your products? can you use those that pirate to help market your product? what new business model can you develop to compete with it. Look again at music industry and growing popularity of iTunes as a means to distribute it has been successful but is not perfect. There needs to more of this kind of forward thinking as oppose to looking have piracy as some kind of evil force we must go to war against.
This article clearly distinguish the difference between “Privacy” from “Theft”
And it also gives users about the concept of privacy and defines the behavior of “Theft”. It’s really an interesting article. And in my opinion, I don’t think ISP should monitor what uses do all the time.
Post a Comment