First it was napster and metalica, then limewire, Jammie Thomas-Rasset and the RIAA. Fining $1.9 millon dollars for downloading $10 worth of music off the internet is quite a way to make a point. It was the first time I’ve really seen the seriousness of the internet in regards to media and copyright laws. It brought to light some important issues that needed to be solved with regards to access on the internet. And resolved it was, with new avenues such as iTunes, Rapshody, and ironically even Napster is back without stepping on any toes.
Today the latest scandal in regards to fair use and the media have recently been most prevalent in Britain. Smart phones have opened a whole new window of security issues through the internet. It's ironic how some newspapers and magazines, who's sales fell victim to information on the internet have managed to leverage the internet to get news first (and illegally) to increase their sales!
Yes the media can be ruthless and in Britain there is a line that has been crossed to get the story. Hacking the phone of a murdered girl, and potentially deleting messages, is tampering with evidence. Just because people can do it, doesn’t mean they should do it. The media has gone from hacking the phone of Paris Hilton to hacking the phones of family members of dead soldiers and missing children. It’s audacious, unethical, illegal, and a complete violation of privacy.
When it was the music, the fear factor was that any individual could be sued for ridiculous amounts of money; it didn’t matter if you were a 12 year old girl, you download music without paying for it and you were a target. Though what will be our solution for this new type of conduct? The difference here, is the media against the individual not the individual against the media. In this situation the media has so much money they have been sued repeatedly since 1995, but they can afford to settle and still continue to hack stories because they make so much profit. I am interested to see how it gets resolved.
Today the latest scandal in regards to fair use and the media have recently been most prevalent in Britain. Smart phones have opened a whole new window of security issues through the internet. It's ironic how some newspapers and magazines, who's sales fell victim to information on the internet have managed to leverage the internet to get news first (and illegally) to increase their sales!
Yes the media can be ruthless and in Britain there is a line that has been crossed to get the story. Hacking the phone of a murdered girl, and potentially deleting messages, is tampering with evidence. Just because people can do it, doesn’t mean they should do it. The media has gone from hacking the phone of Paris Hilton to hacking the phones of family members of dead soldiers and missing children. It’s audacious, unethical, illegal, and a complete violation of privacy.
When it was the music, the fear factor was that any individual could be sued for ridiculous amounts of money; it didn’t matter if you were a 12 year old girl, you download music without paying for it and you were a target. Though what will be our solution for this new type of conduct? The difference here, is the media against the individual not the individual against the media. In this situation the media has so much money they have been sued repeatedly since 1995, but they can afford to settle and still continue to hack stories because they make so much profit. I am interested to see how it gets resolved.
No comments:
Post a Comment