On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 08/02/07, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deterring the general public from blatant file-sharing. > > It fails at this purpose. I disagree. It fails at preventing all of the public from sharing files.
By how much, at what cost? Very little, at a very dear cost, I'd say.
> Firstly, file sharing in itself. Most importantly, this is very > unethical. Sharing is the basis of friendship, neccessary for > community, and important for a good society. To divide the basis of > friendship in the age of computer networks is deeply wrong. No > publishing is better than restricted publishing. Sharing is good for society, but only when sharing things you have permission to.
It is true that breaking agreements is not good. However, all iPod owners intuitively understand that agreements not to share are more bad than the act of breaking them, and is thus justified on a 'lesser of two evils' basis. Of course, not getting into an ethical dilemma is preferable to making a 'lesser of two evils' choice, which is where copyleft comes in to trump copyright.
I suspect we will never agree with each other about the ownership of music or specific cultural output
I'm not sure - I am not close minded...? Not sure what you're saying tbh.
but I'm sure you can see my point if you think of a physical posession.
Analogies between the physical and digital are almost always confusion. That's exactly the purpose of the term "intellectual property" - it implicitly carries an assumption that you can treat culture like physical property, and mixes up totally different laws that are wholly different in all aspects so anything you say about "intellectual property" is totally confusing.
My position on music was made up when I considered how I would react if a piece of music I composed were to be used to promote a cause I disagreed with. If music belongs to the public domain, then I have no ability to control who can use my creations.
If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all.
> Secondly, deterrents. For the general public, the deterrents do more > harm than good because they cut into private use that is allowed in > the law (or should be, cf Gowers). But isn't allowed as yet. ;)
The law is not an authority on ethics; we do what is right, not what is permitted.
Nonetheless, DRM can allow fair use.
I am yet to see any evidence that DRM allows the same freedoms that are permitted in law - in all cases, it acts to create a kind of private copyright regime, where company policy replaces public policy and is even more restrictive. This is the concept behind Lessig's famous phrase, "Code is law."
> I can download BBC shows > transmitted through analogue radio broadcasts onto a VHS tape. I can > keep the copy as long as I want, and copy it to my portable video > player. I can download BBC shows transmitted through digital radio > broadcasts onto a file in my computer. I can keep the copy as long as > I want, and copy it to my portable video player. I can download BBC > shows transmitted through the Internet onto a file in my computer, > and.... my computer deletes it after 7 days, and I can't copy it to > any other device. There is something deeply wrong here. This comes back to the ownership question again. If I own the IP in a file
Why do you use the vague term "IP" when you really means "copyright"? It is gratuitous vagueness, which can only serve the ends of those who prefer unclear thinking. Confusing copyrights with trademarks impedes comprehension of either one. The basic idea of copyright is not like that of physical property rights. Copyright is an artificial incentive for the sake of public benefit.
why shouldn't I be able to specify that you're only allowed it for a week?
Certainly not. Ford has copyrights, trademarks and patents for all aspects of their cars. They don't get to sue you if you pimp them out in a way that doesn't suit the brand. They may like to. But they don't get to.
One of the complaints I often hear is that music companies are not adapting their business models to take advantage of the "Internet generation" - and yet the subscription model (ie explicit music rental) can only really work when the right to play the song for a restricted time exists.
Thinking that rental is an adaptation is bizarre. Renting is commercialised lending. If I buy a spade, I can lend the spade to my neighbour. If the spade manufacturer made it illegal to lend the spade, the world would see that as wrong of the manufacturer - evil even. (The same argument doesn't apply to cars, or guns, though - which is interesting.) File sharing is _not_ file lending. It is file _duplication_. When you lend, you take a loss. If I lend you my book, I can't read my book. If I need to refer to it badly, and you aren't reachable, I have to buy another book. Ease of duplication is an affordance of the medium. Why are rights holders so against this? (In the case of music, they distribute digital audio on a handy disc with the same affordances. Why don't they stop this?) This affordance is a great improvement over lending, since we don't take that loss, and makes our lives more enjoyable. Yes, this kills off the commercialised version of lending, renting. So be it - there are plenty of other business models. Perhaps the term "sharing" implies a similarity to physical property more than alternatives (copying, duplication, diffusion, publishing, broadcasting, etc) but I generally use this term as it highlights the psycho-social value of digital duplication: lending a spade is an act of friendship, and duplicating a digital file is today's version of that. As with the spade, it would be wrong to restrict that.
> This is not an 'implementation problem' - if it was, software > program proprietors would have implemented it 20 years ago. No, this /is/ an implementation problem, and can be overcome with a trusted hardware element on the platform. At that stage, the hoop will be more than simply running some code.
You may be right. That is what makes Treacherous Computing such an attack on our freedom, and why we are fighting it.
> Say that there are a few hoops though, so "the majority won't bother." > For the minority who do jump the hoops, the copy-enabled data can be > shared. > > How many hoops do the recipients of the copy-enabled data have to jump? > > Zero. The primary aim is to reduce the number of sharers (cf sharees)
This is an evil idea: Restricting us from duplicating files is destroying the basis of friendship, and cannot be excused.
> > It's a first step. Security is almost never a simple choice between > > absolute protection or none. > > Security is usually a charade, and security experts are usually > charlatans :-) :) I spend a lot of time with security experts. A few are indeed charlatans. Most are scarily clever!
Alright, that was not a good argument for me to make... Its silly to tell say "Security experts can't win," because I do not know that; they may be able to win. I wish I really could be sure that they will lose, but tyranny does not always lose. The way to make tyranny lose is to show it is evil, and I hope I have explained how DRM is evil :-) -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
