[Editorial note: I did start writing this post a while ago but got sidetracked into other projects and have just finished writing it now]
Thinking about this move is infuriating. Writing about, another thing entirely. First they started sending letters out in 2002, then in 2003 they started suing everyone, in 2004 it was all about BitTorrent and flimsy (both technically and legally speaking) “evidence”, 2005 they started attacking the sites themselves. 2006 and they had already started pissing and moaning again. 2007 and widely accepted practice that works for not just one entertainment medium but another for all other types and possibly the saving grace of data transmission sees other content providers using it. 2008…the shit hits the fan and the nanny state strikes again.
In a move which has seen them lambasted by their very own press for the nanny-state style attitude for treating its citizens like “a Headmaster would treat a schoolboy”, and after saying they would not become the Internet police (which considering it’s founding ideals, would never happen) AKA the gatekeepers of information exchange, 6 British ISP’s have folded to corporate pressure and Government interference (read: legislation) and have signed an anti-P2P agreement with the recording industry.
What serves as further antagonism is the RIAA’s new wish list in the form of ACTA – the Anti-Piracy Trade Agreement – already, they have been pursing their agenda at the G8 summit and now not content with making sure our own ISP’s are now becoming our gatekeepers, they’re now pushing for a virtual police state – the very antithesis of what the Internet was designed for: the free flow of ideas and information.
Is it not enough to live in a nanny state but we now have to live in a virtual police state as well?
30/08/2008 at 20:37
[...] Because it seems so apt, in the current climate…. [...]