begin quoting Bob La Quey as of Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:22:35AM -0800: > On 11/22/06, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:43:21AM > >-0800: > >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 06:04:18PM -0800, Stewart Stremler wrote: > >[snip] > >> > Copy-protection technology isn't part of a (decent) copyright system; > >> > rather, it's what's used when the copyright system can't enforce > >> > copyrights. We'd see *more* copy protection. > >> > >> Well how would you propose to enforce copyrights then? > > > >Law. > > > >(That's a really dumb question.) > > An even dumber answer in a world where enforcement > is not possible.
Using that inane logic, we might as well dispense with laws entirely. * * * A low level of piracy (and indeed, all sorts of other crimes) is not an issue. Enforcement only catches a fraction of the law-breakers, and that's considered "good enough" for all but the fascists. Enforcing copyright doesn't mean you have to determine every time someone duplicates a CD for a friend, or someone photocopies a book they borrowed from the library. A certain level of piracy is a GOOD thing. Go after the thieves that are engaged in wholesale piracy. Go after the businesses that have built up a model based on violating copyright. If the thief is 14 years old, or is a cripple, or a grandma... they're still lawbreakers. Being on the network doesn't make you impossible to identify. You can, with time, effort, and your target engaging in long-term illicit behavior, track someone down. The guy who shares *a* song can't be tracked. The guy sharing 1,000 songs per day, day after day, week after week, *can* be tracked down, and the law can then be brought to bear. In fact, it's a lot easier to do than tracking down some jerk who does a smash-and-grab. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
