On 11/22/2010 4:00 AM, Will wrote:
I think the problems are how this kind of
legislation can be used. Allowing a bunch of faceless
political assistants the power to close anything down
on the pretext of copyright infringement means that any
site could be closed to gag opposing political views.
In principle I agree with this. The problem is in the expectation that musicians should be expected to take the financial "hit" to protect the "free speech" of the thieves (by "free", I guess they mean that they don't have to pay for it - it has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional Law), and to do so graciously.
The problem, then, is where to draw the line. What is an acceptable trade-off of rights. The American people seem all too willing to allow meaningless strip searches in airports and 4th Amendment violations of their rights in subways, trains, banks, and soon probably fast-food restaurants, but to protect real copyright ownership they have a problem. The real problem is not the rights of these thieves, but the fact that they are thieves in the first place. If people could be trusted not to steal, then all of our laws regarding theft would be unnecessary. It would be nice to think you'll never be robbed, but I'm guessing that you are not taking the locks off of your doors anytime soon.
best,
Bobby
