A discussion with Indiana Gregg – Setting the record straight.

on
Indiana Gregg has been the victim of a lie campaign, Openbytes had the pleasure of speaking with in regards to this and her views on piracy.
Indiana Gregg has been the victim of a lie campaign. Openbytes had the pleasure of speaking with in regards to this and her views on piracy.

When is citizen journalism a bad thing?  A question which I never thought I would have to ask.  I champion the power of the personal blog and the way that the internet has enabled “real people” to get their views over to many.  In respect of Open Source Software, the advantages of it over closed source and being able to highlight the alternatives to Microsoft products, the personal blog’s worth has massive value.

There are times though when personal bloggers can be harmful.  One example would be a blogger paid with gifts to promote a certain viewpoint (and something the FTC is tackling) and another would be why I am writing this article.  So why can citizen journalism be a bad thing? When, in the case of Ms Gregg, accusations are allowed to be spread around the net  to the point of discrediting her.

I wrote an article presenting those allegations and Ms Gregg has responded to me with her answers.  It is only fair that I now document her voice and her answers.

Indiana Gregg is an artist who came to notice of tech users and geeks because of the file sharing debate.  She was one of the artists who asked the Pirate Bay to remove links to torrents infringing certain copyright material.  A reasonable request?  I would hope everyone thinks so, regardless of peoples views on the copyright laws and putting them to one side, at a base level sharing of material is wrong if it goes against the wishes of the owner/creator.

I have often argued the need to have a proprietary model in respect of the entertainment industry, I don’t believe a FOSS ethos would work purely because of the amounts of revenue needed to make a return and make the fostering of new talent/work worthwhile.

Anyway, I digress.  After sending emails to TPB, what happened next was, a rather nasty series of allegations and aspersions on Indiana Gregg that have been allowed to fester on the Net for too long.  When I challenged Indiana Gregg over these, I was under the impression that if they had been untrue Ms Gregg would have more robustly countered them.  That was wrong and I failed to appreciate just how far those libelous comments had spread about her.  It would not be reasonable to expect anyone (even me who is often accused of having too much time on his hands) to counter them all.

I have uniquely (for a personal blogger) had an opportunity to have direct communication with Ms Gregg who has more than answered the allegations by others and provided evidence in relation to those allegations.  I was in two minds if I should print the evidence that was sent since to me it was very personal to Ms Gregg and I resent that the libel of others has meant Ms Gregg feels the need to provide this material just to clear her name.  This is not a court of law, I am not a judge and all I can do is print my experience and chats with Ms Gregg which are wholly different to some of the remarks posted about her around the net.

Before we move onto the allegations specifically and address them, I would ask any readers who are new here to browse through my site.  I spend a lot of time exposing underhanded practices on the net, I openly confirm that I have never nor will accept gifts, enticements, perks, payments or anything else, in fact the opposite, if I receive the offer of a gift I will publish that offer and politely refuse.  I hold my posting integrity as the most important thing I have, which is why this article needs to be written.  I chose to write this and in fact I don’t think Ms Gregg was too keen on the idea.

When I saw the allegations and rebutles by Ms Gregg I must admit I had doubts, in my opinion they did not go far enough and left questions unanswered, I was probably looking at it from my point of view where I would have printed denials/evidence and robustly defended myself if I had been in her shoes.  After receiving her answers I now present them to you and I consider that not only is the matter fully answered, but that Indiana Gregg has my full support not only as a commenter on the file sharing issue but also as an artist.

After putting the allegations of others Ms Gregg said this:

..hopefully this answers some of your questions and may shed some light on your perception of who I am and how I’ve approached things both now and in the past. I don’t make it a habit to write to bloggers. This is the first time I think I’ve ever sent an email to a blogger and it’s only because you’ve asked me to respond and because now a few people have written me messages about it

After chatting with Ms Gregg at length, she provided passport photo’s which showed that she was out of the country when it was alleged that either her or her husband edited Wikipedia.  I have decided not to post these as I feel a little resentful that the comments of others have made Ms Gregg feel the need to have to send this material to me (a total stranger to her)  On the subject of editing Wikipedia she had this to say:

Anyway, I do know where I was during the summer of 2008 and now you know as well. Attached are photographs of my passport entry stamps into France (nice cote d’azur) and entry back into the UK on June 24, 2008 and August 16th 2008 respectively. After August 16th, I was in London for a while, but, I don’t have stamps in my passport for those flights because they were domestic flights. The only other proof I have is bank and credit card statements which show that we were staying in Cannes. I wouldn’t want to divulge my credit card statements online and to be honest, when I had read this yesterday, I didn’t think it was an issue of any importance.

and the material she sent to me proves this categorically.  I was somewhat humbled that Ms Gregg would chose me to send this material to , she didn’t need to and she certainly didn’t need to spend so much time talking with me.  I would have been prepared to write the same article without evidence (afterall who am I to make judgement and the aim of Openbytes has always presented opinion and let others make up their own mind)

In respect of the original TPB request, Ms Gregg had this to say to provide background to the issue:

The downloads that are mentioned happened in April 2007 (a year before the TPB emails and my blog was published) Within the first few weeks of the release of the album, over a quarter of a million downloads were documented. At the time, I printed out the stats from what seemed like hundreds of sites including a label in China who were actually selling physical copies of the album from a few different urls with full track information and relatively hi-res artwork. Russian sites, various torrent trackers including TPB and quite a few that don’t seem to be active anymore. I gave the information to Gavin Docherty. a journalist from a national newspaper here in the UK. I think we also gave print-outs to the BBC at the time. Piracy didn’t seem to be on the mainstream press’s radar at that point in 2007 but, I made it a point to let them know what was going on anyway.

CONCLUSIONS + THE OPENBYTES SOLUTION!

I think Indiana Gregg and Ian Morrow (her husband) have been victims of a rather nasty campaign.  If we look at it in its most simplest form it all started simply because a BT tracker was asked to remove material which infringed copyright.  As I said before, whether you agree with the copyright laws or not, you have to agree that sharing material that goes against the wishes of the owner/creator is wrong on a moral level at the very least?

I believe Ms Gregg is only guilty of being too nice, I would have dealt with the issue far more harshly if it had been me and even after she sent me all the material she did, she shows concern for me and my blog by raising her worries about starting a flame war.

Beware, whatever you post, it could produce a ‘flame war’.

Does this sound to you like someone who is trying to “cover their tracks”? (like its being alleged elsewhere) Does this sound to you like a person who wants to kill free speech?  Or does this in fact sound like a person who is concerned about another blogger at the expense of herself? Just like we’ve seen when some of the MS faithful use underhanded tactics a decent person (like Ms Gregg) is at a disadvantage when attacked by those who have no morals, no sense of decency or fair play.

Contrary to what you may read, Indiana Gregg is a very genuine, kind person.  She spent the time talking with us and showing a massive leap of faith in providing material to a blog that proves she was the innocent party.  Its a shame that she had to do this at all so the least we can do is print the true version of events.
Contrary to what you may read, Indiana Gregg is a very genuine, kind person. She spent the time talking with us and showing a massive leap of faith in providing material to a blog that proves she was the innocent party. Its a shame that she had to do this at all so the least we can do is print the true version of events.

Ms Gregg’s latest blog post (and comments) can be found here. At the end of this article are links to projects/work of Ms Gregg and I would encourage you to visit them.

I’ll let you decide, but I for one am entirely convinced that Ms Greggs work has worth and has been unfairly undervalued over the years.  I would ask one thing of anyone reading this; if you see a post/blog/comment mentioning Ms Gregg and the past allegations, please link this one.  It is important that Ms Gregg gets as much opportunity to put her views across.  In the last article I asked the question is Ms Gregg really suitable to be a crusader for a sensible file-sharing debate?” – To which the answer is YES.

So how do I think the piracy problem should be solved?

I think firstly that legislation as it stands is wholly unsuitable to tackle the massive issue of piracy.  I think any government legislation which implements deep packet inspection technology would fall under eyes of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and in my opinion would be a dangerous route to go down (if only in terms of public perception), as I’ve said before there are policies in place for directed covert surveillance which I think not only is there a need for but as seen in the press used responsibly and effectively.  We do not live in some sci-fi big brother state (as some would like to imply) and there comes a point where you have to trust in the actions of authorities to keep us safe and deter/detect crime.

That being said its very different for the entertainment industry.  I think that just like the pub landlord and him/her being responsible for selling alcohol, their customers (and subsequently loosing their license should the laws not be obeyed), ISP’s should be held responsible for the content passing through their servers.  Whilst a government run deep packet inspection MAY fall foul of Article 8 in this respect, I think that one written into the T&C of your ISP would remove any such issues and would give the responsibility of dealing with copyright infringers to the ISP.  This would have the knock-on effect of any civil case being easier to be heard and the teenager in the bedroom not being taken to court.  There are always going to be difficulties to challenge defences for the file sharers and IMO  it is much easier to show in a court that an ISP has allowed copyright data through its server.  The ISP’s seem to want your custom by offering faster connections, they don’t seem as keen (IMO) to steer you away from file-sharing.  I expect at the moment, the ISP’s will look at file sharing as a problem between the copyright holder and the sharer.

Give the responsibility to the ISP, I think this will make them approach it differently.  This would be part one of my solution. – Of course this still leaves the binary newsgroups, however if we are looking for putting the onus on the ISP, then this could be extended to the NG providers aswell.

Part two would be for ISP’s to actively ban known private and public tracker sites.  Whilst there will be those that will have the knowledge to circumvent this, one of the appeals of the BT protocol to the average user is in my opinion that it is so simple to use.  I think a block such as this would wipe out a massive amount of file-sharing overnight. (I think this could be considered as a “reasonable step” to prevent piracy on behalf of the ISP.  This could be used in a civil case to prove/disprove the ISP’s actions to prevent its customers filesharing.)

Part three (after piracy is shown to be reduced) would be to re-look at the business model of selling media.  If file sharing was dramatically reduced then I would expect this to be passed on to the end user in terms of better value for money.  I think Itunes has proved there is a viable market with online paid downloads, if the industry did not have a piracy problem I wonder what sort of prices would be charged for a download?  Presumably it could be much less.

Whilst it will be said (in the case of NG’s) that servers located in another country don’t fall under the remit of any ISP directed legislation in the UK, I think at the present time to the average user, the NG’s are not seen as a viable alternative, if only because it is not as simple as BT.  Sure it may not wipe out piracy overnight but it will certainly make a massive dent in it.

LINKS / POINTS OF INTEREST

Indiana Gregg Blog

Official Indiana Gregg Website

Kerchoonz

Goblin – bytes4free@googlemail.com

42 Comments Add yours

  1. Bing says:

    didn’t she write to tpb and tpb said that piracy was legal in sweden? what does wikipedia have to do with it?

  2. openbytes says:

    There was an allegation over WIKipedia entries that claimed Ms Gregg and her husband had something to do with it. This was untrue.

    Yes, Ms Gregg did write to the tpb. However this was misrepresented and was afterall a reasonable request (that being to remove a torrent that infringed copyright)

    I have received many emails on this topic and its a shame that Ms Greggs supporters are frightened to post publically for fear of getting the same treatment she got.

    I will be covering these emails in a few days.

  3. microslobs says:

    Today there are reports about Norah Jones and Nelly Furtado challenging Lily Allen to a file-sharing debate. After the record companies have put millions behind them when people were still buying CDs now they too have something to say about file-sharing. I wonder what Gregg would have to say to that?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Publishers often refer to copying they don’t approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

    If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

    1. openbytes says:

      Quote “In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.”

      Is it? Or could it simply mean “jumping on board and taking that which doesn’t belong to you, distributing it without the owners consent and literally taking it over”?

      If you look at the early routes of “piracy” it was IMO the cracked software and cracktro’s of the 8bit computers. In that instance a group would break the copyprotection add a trainer/cracktro and sometimes even alter the code. That to me is very similar to “taking over and assuming the ownership of”

      Quote “If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder,”

      We are all aware of the differences between copyright piracy and piracy on the high seas. What about pirate radio stations? There is no suggestion that copyright piracy is engaging in murder and its simply a term that has been adopted into our vocab to have multiple meanings. Look at the term “do a Google” – no such thing as a google but we all know what that means.

      By the way, useless fact here but did you know that in the UK its still an offense to fly the jolly roger flag on its seas and waterways?

      Quote “Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.””

      and if its with the consent of the IP owner then it is.

      1. Johnny says:

        “Is it? Or could it simply mean “jumping on board and taking that which doesn’t belong to you, distributing it without the owners consent and literally taking it over”?

        If you look at the early routes of “piracy” it was IMO the cracked software and cracktro’s of the 8bit computers. In that instance a group would break the copyprotection add a trainer/cracktro and sometimes even alter the code. That to me is very similar to “taking over and assuming the ownership of””

        Actually it is very different – file-sharing is not selling your product. It’s sharing it – fundamental difference. Cracked software was sold – for profit of crackers. Filesharing is dissemination of information – with no cost to the reciever.

        “We are all aware of the differences between copyright piracy and piracy on the high seas. What about pirate radio stations? There is no suggestion that copyright piracy is engaging in murder and its simply a term that has been adopted into our vocab to have multiple meanings. Look at the term “do a Google” – no such thing as a google but we all know what that means.”

        Are you also aware that there is no such thing as copyright theft? copyright is a right, not a property. You cannot steal a right – it can be infringed upon. That is why it’s copyright infringement – it’s a civil offence, similar to not paying the parking meter. ACtually – it would bi similar, if you could copy the parking space for yourself and then use it without paying.

        “and if its with the consent of the IP owner then it is.”
        hmm… what if I buy it and then share it? I don’t need any consent for using something I bought – in USA they have something called First-sale doctrine. Google it, alstavista it, yahoo it, ehm, search for in on the internet!

        1. openbytes says:

          Cracked software was sold – for profit of crackers. Filesharing is dissemination of information – with no cost to the reciever.

          I’m not quite sure where you got that from. Being around the days of the 8bit and the demoscene which stemmed from Cracktro’s, the situation then was very similar to what it is now. The material was released and others profited from selling the material.. Fairlight sold their material did they? I don’t think so. The cracktro’s merely facilitated the sharing in those days.

          Are you also aware that there is no such thing as copyright theft? copyright is a right, not a property.

          I’m not sure if you’ve read my blog before, but of course its not theft (I’ve quoted the theft act plenty of times)

          Sec(1) Theft Act – To dishonestly appropriate property belonging to the other with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

          Since you are making a copy, there is no deprivation and thats without looking at the rest of the wording. No theft. Simple.

          hmm… what if I buy it and then share it? I

          If this wasn’t such an old post I’d probably have more time to spend debating the issues Ive covered numerous times since, however: If you buy a book and give it to a friend, thats a very different “share” to putting up a copy to allow others to duplicate from it. The copyright laws are old, they are flawed and they favour industry, I have no issue with that stance at all also I think the most popular shared titles are the ones that make the most money, what I take a exception to though is the stance that this is anything but getting something for free. It seems in order to justify themselves people will dress it up with comments about property and sharing, but lets be honest, does the average joe who downloads Lady Gaga have any interest in these issues or merely wants it for nothing.

          File-sharing? People can make their own minds up, but lets not dress it up as some moral crusade.

  5. openbytes says:

    I haven’t read the opinions in question yet (due to a busy workload) and I could’nt speak for anyone else but myself, however are you suggesting that Norah and Nelly are complaining about file-sharing after they have made “millions” or are they supporting file sharing?

    I think regardless of which stance they are taking and regardless of what your views on the copyright law, on a moral level if you are sharing something which goes against the wishes of the owner/creator then it is wrong, regardless of how much money is made.

    People forget the empire that Bill Gates built on the back of Windows, if people are so much against individuals making money from IP then why have we not seen a mass boycott of the Windows platform in favor of Linux?

    People have a right to make money, people have the right to become wealthy (good luck to them) if you disagree with music prices then simply don’t buy the material.

    I am a supporter and champion of the FOSS model, however even I say that in respect of entertainment industry its not viable. The monies needed to get a return on products within the entertainment industry cannot be raised with a FOSS or a GPL model, take TPB…its alleged that millions were made from advertising on the site, however when you look at how many artists had their material shared, it would hardly be enough to pay for the production costs.

    I think, just like speeding (and speed cameras) if people are left to their own devices they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. I don’t believe the teenager in the bedroom should be criminalized for downloading/sharing music, so the only viable (IMO) alternative would be to hold the ISP’s responsible.

    The ethos of filesharing is a good one (if its with the artists endorsement) however as it stands at the moment there is no way a return can be made from it which enables everyone to make a profit from it.

    Artists earn millions? So what? Does anyone here go to work for free or do they expect a reward from doing a days work? If you could earn more money wouldn’t you want to? We all expect/want to make money, some of us manage to make alot others not so, its the way the world works.

    An artist wants to endorse filesharing? Fine, but they don’t speak for everyone. Personal opinion and freedom are things that we hold dear are they not?

    Goblin.

  6. @anonymous says:

    @anonymous Oh, I get it. I guess that’s why there is a “Pirate Party”. It must be a political party that plans to ‘attack ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them’

    Don’t vote for them. They are going to kill us all

    (laughs, sighs.)

    (is now calm again).

    1. openbytes says:

      I think the comments about using the word piracy are weak. Its not propaganda to use the word piracy because everyone knows there is no similarity between the act committed on the highseas and that committed via sharing copyrighted material.

      As I said before whether you agree with the copyright laws or not, if you are doing something that is against the wishes of the owner then to me on a moral level at the very least its wrong.

  7. Chips B Malroy says:

    Now this link has nothing or little to do with the young lady you are writing about. In fact its more of a topic that I had bought up before in another article of yours.

    End of the world as Hollywood knows it
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10378654-261.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

    The comments are more interesting to me than the actual article that I linked to. Again, the moral ground here has been discussed very widely. It the end game that is more interesting now. The rational that people use in their comments, you can almost see the “Robin Hood” effect of the rich actors/hollywood media companies, vs people who view themselves as poor.

  8. openbytes says:

    Thanks for the link chips!

    I’ll read with interest.

  9. If we are referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like you are making mention of, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Article 17.(1): “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” And if we are referring to the intellectual property as one particular field of the global property, like specified by the WIPO, see http://www.wipo.org Through the perspective of the Article 27.(2): “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” The Article 28.:
    “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.” give us the inalienable right to expect from a third party or the others, to not share our scientific, literary or artistic production without an official agreement or authorization… So, unauthorised file-sharing, dowloading, downlaod computing, are making real damages & prejudices, and must be considered like it!! And this is just one of numerous reasons that we must really all become aware of this true spoilage for everybody, authors & users, and we must solve this problem, as more cleverly as possible!! Cordially!! Best Regards!!! LeChatdOsiris®

  10. openbytes says:

    No..I was making reference to Article 8 (as I put in my text)

    The point I was making was that with “right to private life” issues of Article 8, if the government was to legislate deep packet inspection, they may fall under the eyes of it. Thats why I suggested it being part of the ISP/user agreement, thus making it a “condition of entry” so to speak.

    I thought that would have been clear when I made reference to RIPR in respect of covert/intrusive observation.

  11. Bing says:

    With the reference to article 8, I agree that the ISPs could make this a condition of entry in the user agreement.

    Thank you for the links in the above article to Gregg’s point of view. I believe that it is interesting what both you (openbytes) and Gregg have put forth in your blogs. I admire the willingness to rid the net from fud.

    More interesting is the issues that have been brought forward. I believe that ISPs are responsible but, having read the Gregg’s World blog, I also believe that a license for media may likewise be fair. Many sites are exploiting music and media and from that they do raise their profile, generate traffic and sell advertising. Myspace, for one, being an example. A license across the board combined with the ISPs contribution could work. I do agree about potentially banning file-sharing except in the case where it could potentially be embraced through such a license.

    Chips- the link you provided and the comments are indeed a sign of the times. The Robinhood effect. I’m shocked that people say entertainment has always cost too much in the past. The only difference is that before, people had to chose which entertainment the could own. The current financial crises shows how spoilt the general population has become. People were able to live well beyond their means, have every gadget and create debt five times what they earned. Yet they complain about the price of entertainment in the past?

  12. Like referring in the Article 8. of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.” Every unauthorised file-sharing, dowloading, downlaod computing, is violation of applicable laws and violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as mentioned above!! To can have a good & balanced consideration of your rights in the field of the private life, you surely must not be in violation of applicable laws against the private life of some others!! Illegal file-sharing, download computing, downloading, are violation of the others life & rights!!! Sorry!! But this is the reality!! Cordially!! LeChatdOsiris®

    1. openbytes says:

      Quote “To can have a good & balanced consideration of your rights in the field of the private life, you surely must not be in violation of applicable laws against the private life of some others!!”

      Completely agree, but as I said before when suggesting a solution to piracy, the act of downloading copyrighted material in itself IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. There is no provision in UK criminal law for the downloading of material per say. When money is changed hands you fill the criteria of copyright theft legislation. The cases brought against the average filesharer are CIVIL not CRIMINAL.

      This is why Article 8 would be relevant. If we agree that filesharing (without monies) is unlawful and not illegal, we agree that its a civil and not criminal matter, then a legislation imposed, government run deep packet inspection would certainly fall foul of article 8. In cases of criminal matters then rightfully intrusive/covert observation can take place and the best practices are highlighted in RIPR policy.

      1. Violation of the others rights, or violation of applicable laws, is outlaw!! And outlaw is outlaw!! Sorry!! To differentiate between the civil & the criminal involvement is easy… Every civil has still the right of a one & only one private copy for a private/familial use!! All The Best!!! LeChatdOsiris®

  13. openbytes says:

    Quote “Many sites are exploiting music and media and from that they do raise their profile, generate traffic and sell advertising.”

    Completely agree, I think (my) misinterpretation of Indiana’s view was that it would somehow cover the unlawful sites too (which would obviously be impossible) For the legitimate sites out there its a great idea.

    Quote “I do agree about potentially banning file-sharing except in the case where it could potentially be embraced through such a license.”

    and I hope you agree in the case of FOSS p2p technology would still be promoted (otherwise my favorite site Linuxtracker would disappear along with the opportunity to have more exposure to diverse Linux distros!)

    Quote ” I admire the willingness to rid the net from fud.”

    Thanks. Its also a “stand up and be counted” blog! In respect of Ms Gregg, I have recieved a plethora of communication from other commenters/bloggers who support her, its a shame that they feel they cannot voice their opinions for fear of abuse and insults being thrown at them.

    *NOTE* Can I appologize to all those people I have not been able to respond to. There were far too many messages.

  14. openbytes says:

    Quote LeChatdOsiris® “Violation of the others rights, or violation of applicable laws, is outlaw!! And outlaw is outlaw!! Sorry!! To differentiate between the civil & the criminal involvement is easy… Every civil has still the right of a one & only one private copy for a private/familial use!! All The Best!!! LeChatdOsiris®”

    Never said it wasnt, however the difference between civil and criminal law is necessary because thats the law we live under in the UK.

    Its not about being easy, its about whats law. At the present time the differences between the two are as I have described. This means thats its an important consideration when discussing the issue of piracy/filesharering. Until such a time that there is legislation to criminalize all filesharing then we are stuck with whats in place.

    As I said before forgetting the criminal/civil issues of filesharing, in its simplest form (that being it goes against the wishes of the IP owner) its wrong on a moral level.

  15. Chips B Malroy says:

    Quote (Openbytes) “As I said before forgetting the criminal/civil issues of filesharing, in its simplest form (that being it goes against the wishes of the IP owner) its wrong on a moral level.”
    ——————————————————
    Of course you are entirely right here, on a moral or ethical agrument. I would add, without being a lawyer, on the legal end of the argument as well. As you might remember, its was I who said that if one is going use windows, they should buy it, more than once. The silver lining here is that if people did that, there would be more GNU/Linux users.

    BUT, and you know it was coming, it not quite a black and white issue, the filesharers that is. The problem is a deeper one than just the moral/ethical one of copyright infringement. While this is going sound like the two wrongs do not make a right agrument, its really not my point, only to show both sides are wrong, but not necessarily equally wrong. The media industry’s (not counting the artists here) have been getting away with payola and price fixing for years now and paying the artists very little. Even notice that the cost of cd’s/dvd’s is about the same everywhere, except at the $5 bin at Wally, which are mostly old closeout stuff.

    Price fixing is what happens when monopolies are not broken up to create a real free capitalistic marketplace. Windows Tax pricing is a prime example of this. Just look at the current lawsuit that Redbox has now started against the media corporations for them refusing to sell dvd’s to Rebox, because Redbox will not agree to rent for more and not sell their used dvd’s. That is price fixing. Now while I use Linux, have stopped listening to music a long time ago, only watch a few vids (rentals), because I do agree with the filesharers on this point mostly, the media is way too expensive. Heck, to go watch a movie now at the threatre, costs $9 to $12 per head, and the cost went up during this depression.

    And since the economy is getting worse, you can expect more filesharing to be a fact. Don’t believe me, well Uncle Fester is never wrong (LOL):
    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Says No Recovery for Media Companies
    http://trendstoday.today.com/2009/06/26/entertainment-trends-microsoft-ceo-steve-ballmer-says-no-recovery-for-media-companies/

  16. @chips says:

    I don’t think anyone can seriously accuse the music industry as ‘price fixing’. We all need to look at retail for that one. I find it shocking that this argument is used over and over again. But, it’s ok for a pair of adidas or an old nintendo came to end up in the bargain been at ‘Wally’. Dear folk, it’s simply supply and demand. Music was never more expensive than a cool T-shirt with an ‘in’ brand name or it or a designer perfume. The problem is that the file-sharer is trying to use nearly ANY argument to justify themselves (similar to an evil spouse who justifies his naughty affair and points the finger at his partner). It’s become a form of acceptable propaganda amongst file-sharers to claim that music was simply too expensive before. However, before, people were still buying music. The only truth that can be told is that now there is a way to rip off musicians, film makers, and everyone else’s work and file-sharers are simply greedy and think they should be able to ‘have it all’. These are the same people who probably have been caught in the credit crunch because they went into debt to buy PCs, mobile phones, the latest Xbox or Wii and more than likely have exploded their tiny credit cards whilst on the dole living with their parents. The true ‘deeper’ side of this argument is certainly the moral issue of rationalizing theft. This is not the same as tape-recording a song on the radio my friends. This is purely sabotaging every musician’s chance to earn a living. Regardless for the average p2p user’s contempt of the music industry or their contempt for rock stars who they think make too much money, for every rock star, there are hundreds of musicians who work as session musicians, support artists, back-up vocalists, play in orchestras, engineer, mix, master, style, design, make videos, and the list is far too long for me to go on about. For every unauthorised download, you cut off thier arms, their legs, their livelihoods. It’s not just morally wrong, it’s worse. It’s a reflection of a society that is heading towards complete disaster.

  17. Scientes says:

    “I have often argued the need to have a proprietary model in respect of the entertainment industry, I don’t believe a FOSS ethos would work purely because of the amounts of revenue needed to make a return and make the fostering of new talent/work worthwhile.”

    -Proprietorship holds back artistic endeavors similarly (not critically) as it holds back software endeavors. To think of the extreme, imagine if there were patents of musical ideas, if a patent could be held on a scale, or a chord chart. If so, bethoveen could have never written his symphonies, RMS has spoken about this.

    Certainly there are differences. There is more music than software, and music is not practical. This is the why proprietorship is tolerable in music as opposed to a practical matter of software. However free content radically increases creativity, alowing remixes. Lots of ideas are throws aside simply because they comes from someone who has not signed a waiver. Laurence Lessig has a whole talk on on the difference between the free software and free content movements– http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7661663613180520595 .

    He also wrote for creative commons a short video directly at artists, and what the licenses can provide as a tool for taking control over their copyright.
    http://creativecommons.org/videos/creativecommons-and-commerce


    On DMCA takedown notices

    Compared to much of the DMCA the take down process is fairly tame, and reasonably thought out ( not that it does have problems—it certainly has, such as lack of penalties for bogus claims, claims which can stifle free speech http://www.eff.org/takedowns )

    However, the DMCA certainly does not apply in Sweden.

  18. Scientes says:

    I should have used “utility” where I used “practical” in ref to music. I have long played music, and listened with an ear to music, and do not mean to disparage it.

  19. openbytes says:

    I think the proprietary model is to be looked at as a necessary evil. I would ask you to consider if GTA4 (for example) would have ever been made if no proprietary model existed. The monies needed to make a return on such as project would not (IMO) be recouped either from a FOSS model and/or a ad laden effort.

    I think if you could come up with a way to solve the above then you would have cracked the proprietary question.

    I have much respect for RMS but the argument that proprietary in nature is wrong I believe is false. I do agree that innovation can be harmed by patents for example, but then again when looking at proprietary projects such as GTA, COD etc then I fail to see how any other model would have allowed their creation.

    Software freedom (for example) to me means freedom for a developer to do what they wish with their material. Just like how you wouldn’t appreciate your data being copied without concent off your machine, if the owner of any IP doesn’t wish it then that should be respected. People who believe thats wrong should simply boycott the products not share them.

    “free content radically increases creativity, alowing remixes. ”

    Agreed but then it comes down to a question of ownership and the persons wishes in respect of that. Just like I can allow people to read my emails or I can stop them…freedom of choice.

    What often isn’t mentioned about FOSS and creativity is that whilst yes, it does produce some great projects from it, there is an awful amount of rubbish which has been created from the same “open ethos” of which I have seen decent work taking the backburner to a plethora of rubbish….just a point that whilst FOSS is a great ethos, it too does have its flaws.

    Without doubt FOSS is responsible for some of the greatest packages made, then again the drawback is with so much creativity going on, the waters of the decent software get “muddied” (IMO)

    I think proprietary and FOSS can co-exist providing better value for money for proprietary customers and excellent software for FOSS users with both constantly being in competition with each other. Thats a good thing and why I believe proprietary solutions need to exist.

    I think the filesharing issue should be put onto the ISP’s. That way the ISP is responsible for making the decisions of what its users can and cannot access. I think for any government to be involved in those practices does indeed suggest a stiffling of freedom of speach/expression.

    ISP’s taking the lead would mean any restrictions are a condition of entry and if a customer didn’t like that they could take their money elsewhere.

    Just an idea.

    1. scientes says:

      RE: propritary model

      RMS doesn’t contradict you. He believes copyright in artistic, non-utilitarian things, can make sense. You are making false comparisons.

      Also, you do not seem to understand the difference between patents and copyright. These two things are totally different.

      “ISP’s taking the lead would mean any restrictions are a condition of entry and if a customer didn’t like that they could take their money elsewhere.”

      most places there are only 1 or 2 providers of internet access. there is no choice.

      1. openbytes says:

        Quote “RMS doesn’t contradict you. He believes copyright in artistic, non-utilitarian things, can make sense. You are making false comparisons.”

        I think thats a misunderstanding of what I meant. RMS is a champion of free software he’s gone on record (I believe, for example) of praising Mono in itself but warning of the use of development and reliance on that platform for fear of patent traps/attack. I on the other believe that software freedom is a two way process being freedom for the IP holder and developer. Sure Mono may have patent issues pending if a reliance was ever made on it, but be it patents or copyright I don’t think its a bad thing. The point of this site and my opinion on anti-piracy stem more from wanting to challenge unfair tactics and FUD of proprietary firms. Sure the MS patent portfolio is an issue to me that can be used to harm innovation and I think my sentence that you refer to needed a little punctuation in order to make my point:

        ” I do agree that innovation can be harmed by patents for example.

        When looking at proprietary projects such as GTA, COD etc then I fail to see how any other model would have allowed their creation”

        As the second part of that refered to copyright. The first part patent (see below)

        “Also, you do not seem to understand the difference between patents and copyright. These two things are totally different.”

        I do and I think if people havent seen why I bring patents into the equation. Ive challenged filesharers/pirates over their copyright understanding/belief. One of the common justification about breaching copyright law is that copyright in itself harms innovation. I bring up patents as a point to counter that as I ask why pirates (if they believe in innovation so much) don’t tackle the issue of those too.

        The whole point of asking the patent question to a filesharer was IMO to highlight that infact the average filesharer does because they are wanting to get something for nothing, not because they are on some mighty crusade to preserve innovation.

        I hope thats cleared that up.

  20. Chips B Malroy says:

    Openbytes says: “I think the proprietary model is to be looked at as a necessary evil. I would ask you to consider if GTA4 (for example) would have ever been made if no proprietary model existed. The monies needed to make a return on such as project would not (IMO) be recouped either from a FOSS model and/or a ad laden effort.”
    ——————————————————–
    I do not in any way or form suggest that you are wrong in this point, in fact I agree. However, what I have suggested is that gaming is moving to consoles because its easier to use the consoles DRM to protect them from “infringers.” The other reason that games are moving more and more to consoles, is because, (in my opionion) Vista (and VistaSP@b=Seven) is not very suitable to gaming unlike XP. The moral and ethics of infringing have been agreed as wrong, only the degree of wrongness and punishment is in debate. Which leaves only the outcome, or rather the end result of this massive infringing as an interesting topic, at least for me.

    I would suggest that indeed the games you mentioned all almost gone as future products. And Windows (well, maybe only XP) we be the legacy gaming platform, with Linux becoming the future PC gaming platform, after consoles. Because I do believe, that in time, FOSS will catch in even in “free” games to match that which is now being lost on the Windows platform in gaming. Gaming is just another form of software, and GNU/Linux has overcome almost every form of software to produce the best software in almost every catagory. Games will be no difference in time.

  21. openbytes says:

    Quote ” The other reason that games are moving more and more to consoles”

    Completely agree and I think when that happens Windows in the home is in real trouble with its last bastion of salvation (games)

    Quote “Gaming is just another form of software, and GNU/Linux has overcome almost every form of software to produce the best software in almost every catagory. Games will be no difference in time.”

    Quite possibly, in the util sector we have already seen the viability of FOSS. Gaming? We will see. I still wonder on how the production costs will be met by users who demand actors voices, fmv, motion capture et al by the FOSS model…and whilst games like Alien Arena are impressive they simply don’t fill the need for the media rich entertainment products which users demand these days (and are willing to pay for)

    Time will tell. Ive always said the proprietary model (in respect of utils) will remain in the area of custom apps for enterprise and in that respect I don’t think the FOSS model will ever completely take over.

    Nice to talk to you again Chips!

  22. LeChatdOsiris®’s Position About File-Sharing, Download Computing & Downloading:

    <>

  23. LeChatdOsiris®’s Position About File-Sharing, Download Computing & Downloading:

    “ If we are referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Article 17.(1): “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.”

    And if we are referring to the intellectual property as one particular field of the global property, like specified by the World Intellectual Property Organization, http://www.wipo.org

    Through the perspective of the Article 27.(2): “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”

    And, taking into account that every author has the liberty to accept or decline to share, copy, duplicate, reproduce, hire, sell, lend, perform in public, transmit, and/or broadcast his scientific, literary or artistic production, referring to the Article 3.: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

    The Article 28.:“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.” give us the inalienable right to expect from a third party or the others, to not share, copy, duplicate, reproduce, hire, sell, lend, perform in public, transmit, and/or broadcast our scientific, literary or artistic production without an official and valid agreement or authorization…

    It goes without saying that the lack or absence of an official and valid agreement or authorization couldn’t be considered like an agreement or an authorization, tacit or implicit.

    So, unauthorized file-sharing, download computing, downloading, copy, duplication, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance, transmitting, and/or broadcasting is making damages & prejudices, and is violation of applicable laws, and must be considered like it!!

    This is just some reasons that each author and his lawful steward or representative, has the legitimacy and the lawfulness to officially have a request in damages law and to expect redress!!

    To be fully understood, it is more than necessary here to make it clear, that, a one & only one private copy for a private/familial use is still always tolerated!

    With hope to be understood in the better way as possible & to clear some of LeChatdOsiris®’s thoughts about!! “

    Cordially!

    LeChatdOsiris®

    Wrote on: 2009, October 23th…

    LeChatdOsiris® ©2009 / All Rights Reserved All Countries!!

  24. openbytes says:

    Can’t fault what you’ve put…Great post!

    The problem comes (as far as IP owners are concerned) when the issue of “sharing” no longer comes into play.

    This is why I consider the only answer to preventing piracy is to make the ISP’s responsible in law for the data that passes through their servers.

    If we look at Bittorrent for a minute and imagine that everyone tonight was to stop using it and head towards the binary newsgroups, where would this leave legislation in order to deal with the issue then? The same could be said for IRC. This I think is the problem which has not been thought out with the “three strikes policy”

    The other problem I see is that IP holders are playing catchup to the filesharing technology and why I think it makes more sense that the target be the ISP’s. If, as a result of that ISP’s make the decision to cut off their own customers then fine, but a government instigated three strikes policy? Its a nightmare waiting to happen IMO and only would work if you guarantee a 100% accurate detection system.

    Its right that IP owners should be allowed to keep control of their property. Its right that IP owners should be able to seek recompense for the loss of income attributed to filesharing, I simply think we should have an ISP licence for providers to adhere to (in much the same way as an alcohol licence).

    Responsibility needs to be apportioned to someone and I think that if ISP’s are making money selling fast connections then they should be responsible for the purposes of which that data is used. When looking at some of the “deals” some ISP’s offer, I wonder if secretly ISP’s love filesharing as it gets them more custom.

    Nice chatting with you.
    Goblin.

  25. Internet Services Purveyors are responsible in law to not protect the authors’s rights & to not respect applicable laws!! It is a fact & a reality!! And this way we need an international license as the same way as the pirates radios’s problem of the 80’s…
    The 3 strikes are just an ultimate tool to be used after an independent judgment court!! It is to can, at end, protect the authors’s rights, not to restrict the others’s rights!! It must be understood this way & not to be confused with some limitation of our freedom & liberties!!!
    Kind Regards!!
    Cordially!!!
    LeChatdOsiris®

  26. Chips B Malroy says:

    All the laws, having ISP’s and gov prod and poke into what the internet users are doing isn’t going to solve the problem. In fact, it reminds me a whole lot about the book “1984.” These measures, are nothing short of “locking the barn door after the horse has left it.” Its too late, and there will always be a way for the infringer to get stuff. The greater danger is the gov or corporations snooping on citizens, the the loss of freedom that can occur from such actions. Just Image, if Stalin could have done this.

    As I say, the end results of all this “infringing” is the most interesting aspect of it. FOSS software will come out on top, because the propitiatory model is doomed except for a few niche types areas. As far as arts and entertainments, you make your own guesses there.

  27. cabalamat says:

    “After chatting with Ms Gregg at length, she provided passport photo’s which showed that she was out of the country when it was alleged that either her or her husband edited Wikipedia.”

    If someone is outside the UK, that does not prove that they didn’t edit Wikipedia during that time. They do have internet access in other countries, you know, including France!

    I have no idea whether Indiana Gregg has edited Wikipedia; however if she gives as evidence that she hasn’t, that she was in France at the time, then that’s such a feeble attempt at rebuttal that I am more likely to believe any such accusations.

  28. openbytes says:

    Quote “If someone is outside the UK, that does not prove that they didn’t edit Wikipedia during that time. They do have internet access in other countries, you know, including France!”

    Firstly, I believe the IP addresses were located in the UK, were not proxies…

    At the end of the day, professional lady with photographic evidence V filesharer with poor grasp of the English language? I know who I believe.

    Please check out my previous articles, you will see I am opinionated and ruthless in my damning of certain viewpoints on the net, I have never before stood up and said “Hang on, Ive got this person all wrong” until I communicated with Indiana Gregg. Love me or hate me, you have to agree I don’t back down on anything…in the case of Ms Gregg who is charming, honest and friendly I wanted to do my bit to help put her version of events over on the net.

    In my opinion Ms Gregg has suffered a great injustice and looking at the massive amount of support communication I recieved, she speaks for many people who are very afraid to make their support known publically for fear of receiving the same disgusting abuse Ms Gregg did.

    I hope the piracy debate can move forward with real solutions and I truely believe Ms Gregg and people like her are the ones to do it.

    In respect of your party (if your link implies that you are a member) I would like to have a debate with you in regards to filesharing/piracy. To be honest with you I think your proposals/ideals/ideas are flawed. Amongst many other areas I would like to know what you are doing/believe in regards to software patents (which I don’t believe many of your supporters would have a grasp of) Maybe you could email me as I have a few questions which I would like to put to you for an article.

    Goblin.

  29. Ryan says:

    You know, i came here after someone kind of impersonated my user name and thus posted as me on another forum, because I had posted an openly critical comment on Indiana Greggs ‘mental skills’ when it comes to current technology (In short I said she know as much about current technology as I do of inventing the next alternative fuel), I came here with an open mind, and after reading the whole ‘article’ I was tempted to just go away because I was really not sure who was more of a moron, the author of this article or Indiana Gregg, in all honesty… I have still been unable to make up my mind.
    while the first few paragraphs could just be put away to to creative ass kissing, the text from:
    “Give the responsibility to the ISP, I think this will make them approach it differently. This would be part one of my solution.”
    kind of made me want to laugh and throw up at the same time, thats actually quite an accomplishment for any writer although I wonder if those were the emotions you were going for.

    Anyways, good luck with stopping the evil pirates on the ocean thats the internet, extending copyright forever, internet passports,etc and so sorry that the internets (just a series of tubes really) does not ‘get’ the huge intelligence of Indiana Gregg, Ian Murrow/Morrow and… Paris Hilton (same group).

    Feel free to post under my comment, flame etc
    I wont be checking back here.

    /Ryan
    http://www.eZee.se

  30. openbytes says:

    Firstly I’ll appologise that Akismet blocked your post for approval. I have no idea why, theres no moderation on this site.

    Quote “You know, i came here after someone kind of impersonated my user name and thus posted as me on another forum, because I had posted an openly critical comment on Indiana Greggs ‘mental skills’ when it comes to current technology (In short I said she know as much about current technology as I do of inventing the next alternative fuel)”

    Sorry, you’ve both lost and bored me with that pointless little story. Fact is you are here and you are making an opinion.

    After you’ve finished being sick and laughing at the same time (and hopefully cleaned yourself up) maybe we can look at your view. You’ve given no opposition to why you think my idea was bad.

    But you do say “Anyways, good luck with stopping the evil pirates on the ocean thats the internet…”

    Eh? Ryan?….hello? The whole reason I propose that the ISP takes the responsibility for the data is the reason that I DON’T BELIEVE the filesharer should be criminalised. Please read and at least try to understand the points made.

    On the basis of your poor comprehension of the concepts of what was being discussed (and your implication that I consider filesharers evil) when you say:

    “‘get’ the huge intelligence of Indiana Gregg, Ian Murrow/Morrow and… Paris Hilton (same group).”

    I’d say that they’ve at least proved they have one over on you since this articles proposals were not lost on them.

    You will be checking back here, you are a liar imo, people like you always do. Your’e frightened of a counter so you save yourself trouble by pretending to be passing through…

    I (or anyone else here) doesn’t need to flame you, you’ve done a great job of making a spectacle of yourself without any help from us.

    When you are ready to grow up and engage in adult debate you are more than welcome to post your idea’s and solutions and maybe even say why you don’t think an ISP licensing policy (similar in vain to a liquor license) would be a good idea.

    I am not trying to stop “evil pirates” (your words) I put my views and idea’s across and since I am a FOSS advocate and have no real interest in whats being d/l’d of any tracker…sthe only proprietary works I have on my machine are my Nvidia drivers.

    BTW – Its taken you a while to get here, but thanks for coming.

    Regards
    Goblin.

  31. yarr says:

    first off..indiana greggs music is trash..she should b lucky anyone wants to download it for free..second,everything you fools have talked about is worthless cus i still download from tpb.. the only reason i found ur dumpy blog is cus i click a google searched image of indiana gregg and read ur site before i clicked the “See full size image” link. tpb owns all. if ur a good artist, who makes good music, and can make good money, tbp is of little concern to you. indiana gregg is just weak.i even thought she was cute till i saw her smile…im gonna go download some free porn from tpb and pound my monkey for free………….i wonder why jenna jamison isnt complaining to tpb…

  32. openbytes says:

    Quote “first off..indiana greggs music is trash..she should b lucky anyone wants to download it for free..second,everything you fools have talked about is worthless cus i still download from tpb.”

    Oh this is good. I must first appologize to the readers, I am obviously not worthy of talking to “Yarr” who is of such awesome intellect that us mere mortals cannot comprehend the sheer scope of their understanding..?!?!?😉

    Lets have a look at this little cracker, who is a contender for “Clueless comment of the year”

    Quote “indiana greggs music is trash”

    And that has anything to do with a debate on piracy because?

    Quote “everything you fools have talked about is worthless cus i still download from tpb.”

    There you go folks, how to disprove anything….if Yarr does it, it must be ok.

    Quote “he only reason i found ur dumpy blog is cus i click a google searched image of indiana gregg and read ur site before i clicked the “See full size image” link.”

    Er, thanks for that. Relevance?

    Quote “ndiana gregg is just weak.i even thought she was cute till i saw her smile…im gonna go download some free porn from tpb and pound my monkey for free”

    Ok…..How on earth can anyone counter stupidity like that?

    I hope this Yarr never represents a piracy viewpoint in an adult debate….I think he/she would do more harm than good.

    I give up. Trying to debate with Yarrs mentality would be like trying to teach a dog trigonometry.

  33. Gary Wildes says:

    What she & her husband did was over the top. She burned her own bridge with those actions. Lost many fans, lost money, lost respect, and now has to basically post anonymously on the internet because so many people hate her & her husband. Let this be an example for others who try to act out and demean people and articulate laws in locations they’ve never had citizenship.

  34. objectiveD says:

    I think a lot of people respect her because she had the balls to present an argument to the pirate bay. It’s not her fault that they were sentenced. I agree with her that independent artists should have a choice about their music and tpb were complete dicks about it. http://current.com/entertainment/music/89094255_indiana-gregg-vs-pirate-bay-the-internet-police-are-coming.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s