Every technology can be used in good and bad ways. Cigar-sized USB storage devices are handy and convenient. As this article notes, they're handy and convenient for other things like kiddie porn and criminal files as well.
This is an interesting harbinger in a couple of ways. On the one hand, it's just one more development that law enforcement needs to consider. Thus it has ever been, of course, and there are many ways to work around or even with this development. I'm sure they'll figure it out.
It's also one more piece of evidence that the effort to stop file-sharing is essentially useless, unless technology is built with so many lockdowns and surveillance modes in it that it becomes a threat to freedom generally. As SparcVark put it:
"I think what's happening here is that RIAA is coming up against the philosophical issue of limits of control. Like it or not, they're competing against file piracy. Barring a totalitarian state, file sharing will continue. It's too difficult to lock down entirely without the collusion of OS programmers and the like."Which does indeed describe the Orwellian vision of the RIAA et. al., and makes recent moves like the recent Microsoft/AOL settlement worthy of our attention as potential stepping-stones along that path. As Armed Liberal correctly notes, Self-policing has its limits.
What RIAA seeks is not only a threat to our well-being and liberties in and of itself; it is also an ideal enabler of far greater threats once implemented. Industry self-policing won't protect us, and the political system hasn't shown much interest either. Citizens will need to change that, or forfeit an important part of our future.
In an age where technology developments and the logic of "Cyberocracy" are breaking down the traditional barriers between public and private, governments are not the only source of serious regulatory-type threats to our freedoms. That's a difficult argument for some conservatives to swallow, but it's where the logic of events and devlopments is pushing us. This dawning recognition will be one more tectonic slip in the political realignments that are rearranging left and right.
Absent new laws, what exactly can the RIAA do to us that's Orwellian? Their vision depends entirely on new legislation, such as that mandating anti-piracy hardware. Without such law, there will be plenty of manufacturers putting out hardware that avoids content management.
This can be accomplished in many ways, legislation being just one approach. As for your assertion that alternatives will spring up, you're not taking into account the potential of a "Microsoft strategy" that forces the hardware to be in place or content won't play.
As for the "Orwellian" aspect of all this:
RIAA has gone after backbone Internet providers, invaded P2P networks, and sponsored bills that would allow them to hack your PC. The consistent trend is toward a strategy of "sniffing, surveillance, and legalized attack" which reaches beyond even the extinction of "fair use" and the public domain. See our CIVIS: Copyright Wars category archive for more.
Think about it. A pervasive system that looks at digitally transmitted content and filters based on required codes can filter a lot more than just copyright.
I feel like I owe you a comment here, Joe.
RIAA's actions are part of what I see as a philosophical disconnect that a lot of other parties share - they are unable to accept that there are things they cannot control.
Pirating music is theft. It costs artists and labels vast sums of money. I know people who have huge music libraries for which they haven't paid a dime, people who have $400 to blow on an iPod but who "can't afford" CDs. I actually agree with RIAA that piracy is wrong.
But stopping it is beyond RIAA's power. It's beyond Microsoft's power, it's beyond the power of the US government as presently constructed. If people are willing to break the law to get free stuff, piracy will continue. Like drug prohibition, like gun control, the people most affected by attempts to control the situation will be those who are already law-abiding.
New OS-level/file-level restrictions will serve to madden the remaining legitimate customer base for music, and will have a limited effect on piracy. Allowing RIAA to hack into private computers will make them far more hated than they are, and grant pirates a legitimacy they did not previously possess. As strange as it may sound, RIAA needs to admit that the primary check on piracy is the conscience of the consumer, and look at making their product more convenient and affordable, as with the new Apple iTunes venture.
Like it or not, well-ordered societies function because their members voluntarily obey the rules and maintain order, not because of control by authority. And ignoring this fact leads groups like RIAA to expend their time, money, and reputation on fruitless attempts to exercise a control that does not really exist.