Commenting the WSJ article, FindLaw’s Marci Hamilton discusses what should be done with the underground torrent trackers and guerrilla libraries. She has a very dangerous idea: controlling the data flow on the internet to filter not only the usual suspects like child predators, child accessible porn sites, but infringing content (classified as someone’s property that is being used without their permission) as well – because “it is the American way”. But why stop there Marci? If you agree with the content industry policing my internet traffic, and yours and every other American’s, then you sure agree with allowing the Church of Scientology, Dow chemical, the DoD, Halliburton, Senate members, who oversee the page-program and Diebold to do the same and prevent us from accessing things they wish to hide from us. I am sure as hell that lots of people want to control information they believe its theirs. I wish you lived just a few month in a in a dictatorship where there was a near total control of information flows, so you knew what you are talking about. Because what you propose seems to me a Stalinist way more than anything else.

Yahoo’s pathetic face-saving concerning their Chinese failure should serve you as a stark warning:

“Yahoo! is distressed that citizens in China have been imprisoned for expressing their political views on the internet. We call on the US Department of State to continue making this issue of free expression a priority in bilateral and multilateral forums with the Chinese, as well as through other tools of trade and diplomacy, in order to help secure the freedom of these dissidents.

We have not had time to review and analyse the lawsuit being filed today, and so it is premature for us to comment on the specifics of this case.

However, the concerns raised about the Chinese government compelling companies to follow Chinese law and disclose user information are not new. Companies doing business in China must comply with Chinese law or its local employees could be faced with civil and criminal penalties.

We believe deeply in human rights, and as a company built on openness, we strongly support free expression and privacy globally. Yahoo! has worked in different ways to address issues that arise at the intersection of human rights and technology. We’ve engaged formally with other information, communications, and technology companies, human rights organizations, the U.S. government, academic institutions, and socially responsible investors on initiatives to promote free expression and privacy. We’re committed to remaining actively involved in exploring new approaches to protect and promote human rights globally.” (via The Register)

Sure. Thanks. I would rather opt for an internet infrastructure where no private companies or governments can peep into my communication.

FindLaw’s Writ – Hamilton:

It took lawsuits and threats to universities to bring file-sharing sites like the early Napster somewhat under control, and it will doubtless take similar measures here. No doubt, these measures will be at least somewhat effective: Once any potential advertisers understand the illegal nature of the service they are supporting, and their own possible legal exposure, they are likely to take their dollars elsewhere.

On the other hand, users may still end up being directly charged – or voluntarily paying to keep the sites afloat, as sometimes occurs with popular blogs. In addition, the site creators may continue to work onward for the sheer thrill of lawbreaking and prestige within their communities.

In sum, the video guerillas are engaging in blatant contributory infringement — and that justifies shutting down their sites. But how? When one site closes, another may open soon after. Enforcement remains very expensive for the copyright owners – and that is a serious problem.

There is, however, at least a silver lining here. It is in everyone’s interest to encourage the wealthy television and motion picture industries to research technological means of setting up effective “fences” and “alarms” on the Internet. Instead of chasing infringers, we need better means of preventing poaching in the first place.

After all, we will not have creative and original works of art – such as television shows and movies worthy of copying — unless those investing in them can ensure a return on their investment. Moreover, “fences,” “alarms,” and tracking devices have important side-benefits, too: They can be used to protect our children, prevent predation or catch predators, and shut down child-accessible pornography sites. The copyright industry has an opportunity here to protect its own wealth, which is the American way, but in so doing, it can also contribute to the greater safety of every American.