[LINK] Labels may be losing money,

Tom Koltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Mon Nov 16 10:03:30 AEDT 2009


> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Stilgherrian
> Sent: Monday, 16 November 2009 5:59 AM
> To: Link list
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Labels may be losing money,
> 
> 
> Thanks for finding this, Stephen. What's rather interesting 
> is how The  
> Inquirer's story that was first linked to vastly overstates 
> the scale  
> of the shut-down.
> 
> On 15/11/2009, at 12:40 PM, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> > 
> http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20091109/UPDATES01/91109015/Il
> > lega
> > l-movie-download-forces-shutdown-of-free-Wi-Fi
> 
> 
> " ... a free wireless Internet connection available in the block  
> surrounding the Coshocton County Courthouse at 318 Main St."
> 
> and
> 
> "Mike LaVigne, IT director, said the number of people who access the  
> Internet using the connection varies widely, from perhaps a dozen  
> people a day to 100 during busy times such as First Fridays and the  
> Coshocton Canal Festival.
> 
> It's used by Coshocton County Sheriff's deputies who can park in the  
> 300 block and complete a traffic or incident report without leaving  
> their vehicle. Out-of-town business people can park and use their  
> laptops to make connections."
> 
> 
> 
> However The Inquirer ends up saying...
> 
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1562057/the-mpaa-runs-amok

>"... the MPAA forced the town to shut down its entire free municipal  
>WiFi network ..."

>and

>"The closure of the network means that the Coshocton County Sheriff's  
>deputies can't complete a traffic or incident report and out-of-town  
>business people can't park in town and use their laptops to connect to

>the Internet."

>Well, they can't do these things *using that specific free network*,  
>though of course there are other options for connecting to the
internet.

>Stil

Actually Stil, The inquirer was quite right to point out that the entire
"Municipal Network" was shut down. Because it was.
The network was run by the Town as a Municipal public service for it's
employees and made available for others to use on an ad-hoc basis.

What I don't understand is why you need to take a stand against the
article.

It was factual, proved to be factual and was targeting the concept of
commercial interests interfering with local towns being able to do
business because of a single file-sharing download.

Lets examine the following example and see if it merits action?

A shop-lifter pinches a CD from Grace Bros. in the Pitt Street Mall.

Police place a cordon with road blocks around George St, King St.
Castlereagh Street and stop all traffic until the shop lifter is caught
a few hours later. 

Hundreds of people are inconvenienced.

The question Stil, is should Grace Bros. have the right to stop the town
being able to do it's legal and lawful business for the loss of a single
CD?

I think the Inquirer article stated the ridiculous situation the town
found itself in merely to protect A solitary corporate interest.

Not something that I would think any country that values it's citizens
rights and freedoms and it's hard won sovereign status should surrender
lightly.

However unfortunately a train wreck called ACTA is speeding towards us
at high speed, designed to do exactly this.

Tom


_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.6.4
http://www.iolo.com




More information about the Link mailing list