ASYLUM

* The Other Shoe Drops

So in my previous post I discussed attempts by incumbent communications providers to stifle people's access to programmable technology. Here we see a parallel as the MPA and IFPI (the internetional movie and music copyright-industry organisations) try and persuade ISPs to:

[...] enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server [...] — Article at Constitutional Code

Long before mp3 technology even existed, I remember discussing with tech-literate friends the possibility of small, agile companies selling music online and bypassing the existing, largely broken, music industry. It was wishful thinking, then, and common practice now.

But only because it's easy for "little people" to provide content.

But obviously, a wide variety of powerful (either rich, well-placed, or both) companies have vested interests in preventing this. They've failed, so far, but they keep pushing, and this has been annoying me far longer than the programmable-technology issue.

The A in ADSL stands for Asynchronous, meaning you can download (consume their services, watch their adverts, buy their products etc) many times faster than you can upload (provide your own content, be an active citizen with something to say, sell your own products, etc). ISPs often already prevent people running servers, with firewalls, terms of service, or both. Some ISPs will discount out-of-hand any email that originates from someone's personal server. "Active" facilities, such as having your own home page, are often not part of basic internet service any more. Fortunately Blogger came along and made it mainstream to have your own voice. Blogs are just home pages, with a trendalicious name and a convenient user-interface.

The point here is the internet is not cable tv, but once again incumbent industries are trying to make it that, by a variety of means.

This latest move is part of an overal initiative to try and persuade ISPs to screw their customers in the name of "copyright protection". By this, I do of course mean, "enforcing the status quo of a corrupt industry of parasites". Hyperbole? "Stick-it-to-the-man" copyright-anarchist ranting?

Hardly. Steve Albini wrote years ago about the problem with the music industry, and file-sharing wasn't exactly his prime concern. Seen it before? OK, OK.

Check out the Grokster case: Here, the MPAA is suing the pants off Grokster, who offered a software package that lets you download content (both legal and illegal) from peer-to-peer networks. Personally, I care little for Grokster themselves — they're fundamentally just a marketting firm redistributing first Kazaa, then Gnutella — but I do care about the principle at stake.

See, an important take-home message here is that the various copyright-industry bodies do not represent the creators of music, movies, television or the other creative works you enjoy. Grokster's legal bills are being footed by Mark Cuban, who makes television programmes, operates movie theatres, distributes film and owns lots of content.

The only difference between Cuban and the others, is he's not in Hollywood, and he's not scared of new technology. If he's smart about it — and he seems to be, so far — he'll still be standing when the other dinosaurs crumble to dust.

This isn't the big content companies against the technology companies. This is the big content companies, against me — Mark Cuban and my little content company. It's about our ability to use future innovations to compete vs their ability to use the courts to shut down our ability to compete. It's that simple. — Mark Cuban

Bonus: figures drawn from the Canadian music industry