What Has The Free Speech Coalition Been Up To Lately

[tony404]

Originally Posted by Fausty

The name is an absolute oxymoron at this point in time: Free Speech Coalition

Most of what I see coming out of their organization is a form of hyperventilating, overblown, "filesharing doom" nonsense that reminds of nothing more than "Don't Copy That Floppy" - pointless, and outdated before it's even written.

We approached them to discuss perhaps including some alternative perspectives on their demonization of "torrents" as the root of all evil. Perhaps, I suggested, talking with folks who actually work with these technologies and communities, in real life, might actually get a more accurate perspective on things than just panic mode hyperbole. Nope, not interested. That's their choice to make, of course, but it seems awfully small-minded.

Look: advocating suing people who share files, and general panic about sharing of information via the internet, is NOT "free speech" defense. Not even close. It may be justifiable, and it may or may not be the right thing to do in terms of the adult industry. But it is NOT FREE SPEECH PROTECTION.

Sheesh. Sorry, just had to say that out loud. Free speech IS under attack online, and you'd think the "porn industry" was concerned with that. Censorship is rampant and growing, many network-level tricks are being used by governments and religious extremists to squeeze various forms of adult content out of reach of most internet users. These are REAL issues, and the fact that the (US-based) adult industry seems utterly ignorant of them, or unconcerned - or both - is inexplicable. Panicking about filesharing is hardly the same level of concern as real censorship and pressure on freedom of expression online.

Win the battle, lose the war.

Anyway, the FSC is free to do what it chooses - but hiding under a name like "Free Speech Coalition," given their real agenda in terms of real actions and where money is spent, is absolutely dishonest and insulting. It would be like the Moral Majority renaming themselves "Diversity Celebration Coalition" - bullshit.

Fausty

Have you ever had your sweat and blood given away by someone who had no right?

[Fausty]

Originally Posted by tony404

Have you ever had your sweat and blood given away by someone who had no right?

Actually, something similar. I've had content that I busted my ass to create and distribute, for free, to the community - complete with watermarks and notice of ownership of copyright - end up packaged up in paid commercial websites. Not once, but many times. I learned the hard way that putting copyright info in a small notice on the bottom of photos or video doesn't work - the paysite scammers will just cut that part off and sell it anyway.

I think that's somewhat similar to having something one owns and sells be stolen and mis-used by someone else. I didn't lose money in the process, by my express intentions as a content creator were actively subverted and I was left holding the bag. It kind of sucks, so I think I can empathize.

So, yes, I have been in this situation myself. I am not some "information is free" cyber-hippie advocating for any and all manner of content ripping. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in stating that, but it's really true.

Point being: this issue has NOTHING to do with "free speech." Nothing. Nobody's ability to speak freely is being infringed if their intellectual property is mis-used by someone else. Apple, meet orange - two different issues.

. . .

In terms of the "battle against filesharing," my own position (for what it's worth) is twofold. First, the entire framing of the discussion is malformed: just like having a "war on terror" borders on self-parody (as The Daily Show remarked, declaring war on adjectives is epistimologically problematic), so is battling a basic element of electronic networks: sharing files. Chasing after widely-deployed technologies - rather than the more specific problems that their use has created during the development of the overall ecosystem in which they reside - misses the forest for the trees.

Second, continuing to pursue strategies that have proven to be absolute, total, irredeemable failures isn't a smart plan. Whether failed efforts against IP mis-use "make sense" or "should work" or whatever, if they have FAILED then perhaps it's time to try something else. The worst-case scenario is that the new effort fails as well - no worse than before. If heavy-handed fear campaigns worked, the mainstream music conglomerates would still be rolling in cash. They aren't - it didn't work. Time for a different plan - any different plan.

Closing the doors to the barn after the cows have already left may feel good. It may even feel "right." Locking them tightly, and posting signs ("note to cows, do NOT try to leave this barn") doesn't lessen the ineffectiveness of the ex post facto door-closing. However, going out to search for the cows is a much more useful strategy, at that point - and perhaps sitting down to think about ways to avoid such problems in the future by changing fundamental barn management procedures. Being mad about the open doors won't bring the cows home safely, no matter how mad one gets nor how much it is true that it "wasn't my fault" the doors might have been left open in the first place.

One more time: the fact that the FSC has taken a stance on the issue of filesharing and IP protection is hardly inappropriate (athough I, personally, think that their stance is not terribly effective). However, the simple fact remains: it is not a "free speech" issue, not even close.

Regards,

Fausty