On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Seth Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Never mind, you're not talking copyright. > > I would think the issue would be translated into some concrete aspect > of the situation and what either formal or informal practices have > been. At best. But I think abstraction as such gets a strong > assumption it isn't "owned," in any body of law in the US unless some > statutory basis has been created. So it would be more what are the > regular practices that can be discerned for the way these things are > done with the information, not some exclusive right associated with > the information as such. > > Information is free. Unless there's a statutory basis otherwise. And > some harms are barred in use of information. That's the way it works. > (i.e., the situation is really not "information wants to be free" -- > it just is free, unless there's for instance, a copyright -- which we > wouldn't have for a number. Perhaps a trademark in a very unique > situation, but I'd guess not even then. This is really what the > "third party" doctrine really means -- you give someone information, > you really don't have control over it, because it's essentially > published. Unless you have an NDA.
Editing some pronouns for clarity: Or unless, if the third party is a telecom, they're actually recognized as performing a public function -- in which case, fundamental right limits can apply against them as they would apply against the government. Smith v. Maryland was about the fact that Verizon was regarded as a private party, not really about the fact that the data in question was metadata. It might well be decided differently today, if Verizon is regarded as a public utility.) > > > Seth > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as >> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:15 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be >>>> indication of an “exclusive right to use” accompanying the number >>>> registry. Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a >>>> precedence-based presumption about the determination of who is the >>>> “interfering party” in a case where interference exists. However, an >>>> exclusive right to use would go further than that. >>> >>> Hi Owen, >>> >>> That's possible. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on a judge not >>> following the path from tortious interference to its natural >>> conclusion: that a block of Internet addresses is documentary >>> intangible property under common law, subject to centuries of well >>> understood precedent over folks' rights. When in doubt, what quacks >>> like a duck is a duck. >>> >>> >>>> As an example, if Company A has a registration for 1.2.3.0/24 and uses it >>>> entirely on their internal network without advertising it to the internet >>>> and Company B also uses it on their internal network without advertising >>>> it, there are then at least two possible legal scenarios… >>>> >>>> Scenario 1, A’s registration includes an exclusive right to use. In this >>>> case, if A were to learn of B’s usage, they may well have a civil claim >>>> against B for violating that exclusive right to use. A case for tortious >>>> interference really doesn’t exist here because there is no interference. >>>> >>>> Scenario 2, which I believe is applicable in this case… Since B’s use does >>>> not interfere with A’s use, there is no interference and no case for >>>> tortious interference exists. >>> >>> I think you've offered a pretty tortured chain of logic. A far simpler >>> explanation is that the rights in question are constrained to the >>> public Internet. IP addresses are more than integers only when they >>> appear in someone's Internet routing table. The law is long familiar >>> with intangibles whose existence is bound by context. Indeed, the law >>> already has excessive precedent establishing the number on a bank >>> check as an intangible property, but only in a specific context. >>> >>> >>>> Thus, the possibility of a case of tortious interference alone is >>>> insufficient to prove a right to exclusive use. >>> >>> Perhaps. Time will tell. >>> >>>> There is precedence for this in the Amateur radio system as well. Nobody >>>> has >>>> any exclusive rights to frequencies or frequency pairs used for repeaters. >>>> However, a repeater which is registered and allocated frequency pairs by >>>> the >>>> local repeater coordinator (a non-government body, similar, but not >>>> identical >>>> to ARIN) gets interference from a repeater which is not “coordinated”, the >>>> FCC will side with the coordinated repeater and ask the non-coordinated >>>> repeater to take steps to resolve the interference. >>> >>> Dubious as precedent. Regulation of Ham radio frequencies flows >>> directly from current federal statute. The only vaguely comparable >>> source of governmental authority regarding Internet routing stems from >>> a National Science Foundation research project that ended 20 years ago >>> with something that could be reasonably described as abandonment. >>> More, during the project's run, the NSF failed to offer any guidance >>> that was particularly on point for this debate. >>> >>> >>>> Like it or not, the internet is held together by good will and cooperation. >>>> The high level of cooperation from ISPs with the RIR system is what >>>> gives registration in the RIR system meaning and not some sort of >>>> government-like power or army of enforcement officers. >>> >>> All common law starts as a violation of some mass-respected convention >>> of human behavior that victims choose to challenge in court. At which >>> point the court fits the facts into the nearest framework precedent >>> provides. The decisions the judge makes then establish the new >>> precedent, the new law, that governs how similar sets of facts are >>> treated in future cases. Such law endures until and unless overridden >>> by statute. >>> >>> I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense >>> within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks >>> are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't >>> help but notice that when ARIN has been in court, counsel has been in >>> no rush to induce a judge to clarify the matter. Indeed ARIN appears >>> to have sought every other avenue in which each case could be >>> concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. >>> >>> I think ARIN counsel is far less confident of prevailing on the >>> address-aren't-property claim than John lets on. And I think he has >>> good reason for concern. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bill Herrin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] >>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
