Music industry bullying continues

Songwriters and musicians are among the world's greatest creators of art, and they deserve to be paid for their work.

But the RIAA and the major record labels don't give a shit about them. They're more interested in exploiting the artists' work and pocketing many times as much money as the artists get.

When the industry speaks, it's never about protecting performers and writers. It's always about padding corporations' coffers - even as they refuse to adapt their business model to the digital age.

Now the industry is trying to mandate a "3 strikes" policy for alleged file sharers. In a few countries, they've already begun this. EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner got Eircom - Ireland's leading Internet provider - to begin yanking accounts of users accused of illegally downloading copyrighted music.

Just as bad, Eircom promised to begin blocking a website that directs users to illegal downloads.

Even if a site does tell folks where to download music illegally, blocking it is improper and may be illegal (depending on a country's laws). It's not much different from a phone company snooping at customers' phone conversations and cutting them off.

The industry - ever gleeful about its victories in Ireland and elsewhere - are now trying the same shit in the good ol' U.S. and A.

Under this plan, folks who are accused of 3 illegal music downloads would be banned for life from ever accessing the Internet again.

Since when do we go around punishing people based on mere accusations instead of actual convictions? And since when do we place the power to punish in the hands of corporations instead of a judicial system that represents the people?

Under this proposal, criminal charges wouldn't even have to be filed. Your ISP or some record label could just accuse you, and you'd be considered guilty (whether you're really guilty or not). There would be no recourse.

The Internet is so central to modern America that banning someone from it for life would be like banning them from the phone for life. Even the most durable phone harassers don't face such a penalty. (In Kentucky, they don't face any penalty, as I've seen.)

While it's reasonable to bar certain violent predators from the Internet because they endanger the public, unproven allegations of copyright infringement are a different matter entirely.

The industry is working with public officials to try to work out a "3 strikes" system, but it would require collusion by ISP's. After the telcom industry conspired with Bush in the illegal wiretap program, I don't expect ISP's not to buckle under.

This follows years of RIAA bullying. For most of the decade, the RIAA has been extorting money by accusing folks of copying music, demanding money from them, and threatening to sue for a larger amount if they don't pay up.

If the "3 strikes" policy takes effect, ISP's may try to hide behind contracts with customers that supposedly give the ISP's permission to cut off their access. Under current U.S. laws, however, that would likely be illegal. Still, the laws may need to be strengthened to provide greater protection for consumers against such quirky contract clauses.