ChoralNet

The professional networking site for the global online choral community.

You are here: Home / Others / Punished because of suspicion, not conviction

Punished because of suspicion, not conviction

by Leave a Comment


I work to avoid posts of a political nature on this blog.  However, this bit of news played into an ongoing discussion regarding copyright that we have in this space:
Top-ranking Obama administration officials, including the U.S. copyright czar, played an active role in secret negotiations between Hollywood, the recording industry and ISPs to disrupt internet access for users suspected of violating copyright law, according to internal White House e-mails.
I’m not in favor of breaking the law, please understand that.  Having said that, I have these questions:
  • What is the government doing when it secretly plans ways to disrupt internet access to people suspected of violating copyright law?
  • Why is the internet provider intentionally disrupting access to their paying customers when no one has been convicted, just suspected of an illegal act?
  • Why wasn’t anyone representing the average American at this secret meeting, or is that why it was held in secret?
For more on the secret meeting, read this article.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. I am not for government “poking” unreasonably into private business, but we need to remember that regulation is necessary to prevent total chaos.  The article describes that is is graduated – that several warning emails are sent, including an educational one, so the person has an opportunity to defend themselves, or to request that the copyright enforcers investigate who is using their technology inappropriately.  One insightful commenter divided society into 4 categories – those who download constantly, those who do it some, etc.. – and had interesting insights, but still does not seem to understand the concept of “creative property”. 
    Based on the comments following the article, there is rampant misunderstanding about “intellectual/creative property”.  Many seem to think that whatever is taken must be tanglible to be defined as “stealing”.
    I have always been told, “If you make a copy/download/publicly show anything to avoid purchase, you are stealing/violating copyright law.”  Even writing poetry/lyrics on a chalkboard, or displaying them onto a screen, is an action to avoid purchase.  Filesharing may seem innocent, and I admit to sending videos from Facebook or Youtube, but it is still an action to avoid purchase.  Before we had the current technology, we had to buy the vinyl singles or LP albums.  Most folks did not have the tech to copy those.  So the artists/producers got their appropriate percentage – assuming the contracts were fair. 

  2. First they imprisoned alleged terrorists without a trial, but I didn’t speak, because I’m not a terrorist.
     
    They they cut off the Internet of alleged copyright violators without a trial, but I didn’t speak, because I’m not a downloader.
     
    When I’m punished for something I didn’t do without a trial, who will speak for me?

Leave a Reply

© 2025 American Choral Directors Association. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy