Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Pete Ashdown Comes Out Swinging

From Pete Ashdown's Campaign Journal: "Senator Hatch’s stands on copyright have been repeatedly one-sided; protect the recording and motion picture industries. In doing so, he has caused immeasurable harm to technology. My own Internet Service Provider business, XMission, has had to deal with being the media companies’ unpaid copyright police since Digital Millennium Copyright Act became law. Every week, we handle hundreds of spurious complaints with no compensation from these entities for doing so. We’ve also seen the DMCA levied by third parties attempting to thwart the business of their competitors." Pete needs to swing this bat as often as he can. He OWNS this issue, and it's a big one.


Anonymous Citizen 451 said...

Pete complains that XMission is the unpaid copyright police for copyright holders. But isn't XMission paid by its subscribers? I mean, aren't the costs of policing copyright infringement ultimately passed on to subscribers through higher connection fees?

This would seem, at first glance, to be a somewhat fairer system than making the copyright holders pay for enforcement. Their costs are ultimately passed on to the licensees of their copyrights, i.e. people who buy music, movies, and software through legitimate means. It hardly seems fair to make the law-abiding licensees pay to police copyright infringement.

It seems fairer to make those who use the medium pay to police it. We all pay taxes for police enforcement of local criminal laws. Why shouldn't internet users pay to police the internet?

Don't get me wrong, I like Pete Ashdown, and I'm all for getting rid of the Hatchet. But I don't buy his argument about enforcement of the DMCA. He needs be responsible for the service he provides. Moreover, we all need to be responsible for conduct on the internet. It is, after all, a community.

12/13/2005 02:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Citizen 451:

Does a Ford Rep stop by and sit with you in the car, making sure that you obey every law? No?

Didn't think so.

The DMCA is expensive, just not for the people who bought the legislation from Hatch and Cannon

12/13/2005 09:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Ryan said...

Ethan is right...Pete needs to swing his bat more often - and not just on technology issues.

I just don't see the momentum building.

While an important issue - I don't think the average voter is personally concerned with technology issues. Pete's campaign needs to reach out more - it has to be more than anti-Hatch. Right now all I see (and not necessarily from Pete himself) is the 'anything but Hatch' noise which is by nature unorganized and ultimately ineffective (Bush v Kerry sound familiar?).

12/14/2005 08:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Citizen 451 said...

Anonymous, you, as a citizen of your state, pay for police, through taxation, to enforce the traffic laws. You use the roads, you pay to police them.

Increased subscriber fees to police copyright infringement are really just a de facto tax leveled on the internet community to police it.

12/14/2005 11:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about Hatch's support for the CIA torture amendment... Did you know Hatch's people recently denied to the ACLU that Hatch has had any complaints about this. What liars.

12/17/2005 01:09:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home