I think it's interesting that the main tool used by the RIAA and ASCAP for taking people to court is FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) such as Azureus and Kazaa. Without access to the source code of such software, the ability of these large organizations to isolate users would be limited, to say the least. Clients such as uTorrent and BearShare, on the other hand, are closed source, and though on the same network the lack of ability to use these as effectively for the purpose of infringing on the privacy rights of end users means that they are less likely to be used.

Not to mention, closed-source isn't as attractive to end users either, because if you don't know what the software actually does, and you cannot trust the people who write it because you don't know them, then the paranoia level increases. And such paranoia is good to a point, but all it really does is raise the bar on maintenance of private communications on the internet.

Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, has openly stated that the idea that communications on the internet could be considered private is "bizarre" but I suspect that's only because he believes if privacy online could be established, then he'd have to find some other way to secure the rights of his company. Not so, Mr. Sherman. One right does not diminish another, and privacy has very little to do with enforcing copyright. Except when you use the system to do an end-run around privacy so that you can stealthily nab the less technically-inclined whom you say infringe upon your copyright.

Which brings me to another point: if privacy rights don't exist because the internet is a public medium, what makes that essentially different from radio? I know for certain that ASCAP agrees with me on this point, but let's look at a few facts, and then I'm sure that ASCAP will be put to shame.

First and foremost, radio stations are the basis for our telecommunications infrastructure. Radio is fundamental to the continued ability of people who are on the go to stay informed. Even wireless internet cannot compete with radio, because of the fact that if people are out in the middle of the woods in a car, unless they have a nearby wireless access point, the internet is utterly useless. Radio, however, continues to allow them to have news even where cellular phones don't work. Radio is also a means of maintainng a pleasant work atmosphere. Radio is important.

But this past summer's ruling that internet radio stations must pay a per-listener/per-song fee for each song they play flies in the face of this logic. And ASCAP used this ruling to put radio under attack. Radio, which has been under the protection of Congress for more than 50 years from the likes of ASCAP and RIAA, was finally threatened seriously. It caused a reevaluation of the per-pay/per-click ruling.

Online rights should be equal to those found in the real world. Broadcast media should remain broadcast media. Private communications should remain private. And while the Pirate Party doesn't condone the infringing use of copyright, we also think that things have gone quite far enough. It's time to restore fair use rights to the population, invoke broadcast rights for broadcast media, and invoke privacy rights for private communications, whether on the internet or not.

Free P2P software should be protected either under privacy laws or by broadcasting laws. If we are serious about taking back our ability to broadcast, let's make sure we have a real understanding of the issues at stake.

--
Ray Jenson
Interim Administrator
Pirate Party of Utah