At 11/17/2011 07:10 PM, Butch Evans wrote: >On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: > > Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of > > proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP > > than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does not like the > > Internet at all. It breaks their artifact-based business model. > >This is, unfortunately, one of the costs for ISPs who NAT their customer >traffic. When all users have a public IP (say, an IPv6 address), then >the problem of identifying thieves would be much simpler and can be >easily identified by the ISP AND law enforcement.
Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-) > > There's also a question of what constitutes "theft", vs. other > > copyright violations. Literal theft refers to rivalrous goods: If I > > steal the dish off of your tower, I have the dish, you > > don't. So-called theft of so-called intellectual property -- more > > accurately, simply the violation of copyright -- does not deprive the > > legitimate owner of their property, it merely deprives the seller of > > the *opportunity cost* of the sale that was not made. Which in most > > cases, frankly, would not have been made. > >SO, if you owned a Ford dealership and I came onto your lot and used one >of your vehicles, it wouldn't be theft since I would never purchase that >car anyway? What a stupid argument. Of course not. An automobile is a rivalrous good. Using it lowers its value. Knowledge is a different type of good -- it sometime is worth more the more it's disseminated. > > So there's a real spread between true piracy and some of the casual > > copyright violations that are being called piracy. True piracy is the > > crook who counterfeits a CD and sells it as real, or sells a > > counterfeit software DVD-ROM as the real thing. > >So downloading a movie without paying the author/owner (who IS selling >that movie) is not piracy? You really are as good as my first >impression of you lead me to believe. Downloading a whole movie is a borderline case. It's clearly a violation of copyright, so there's some loss to the seller. But it's not conversion of rivalrous property, or fraudulent substitution of counterfeit goods. So the download strikes me as a good example of a civil tort, actionable at law but not, when done on a small scale, in criminal law. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the use of criminal law when civil law is adequate. Just to give an example, Jewish Law (Halacha) is entirely civil. What the west calls criminal acts are viewed as civil torts against the society as a whole. I like that approach. Criminalizing civil disputes bothers me. > > But some of these copyright extremists want to put you in jail for > > having the radio on in a YouTube home movie (they've issued takedowns > > to "look at our toddler dance, isn't she cute" videos). Just to give > > an example, my son just had a college class (TV production) > > assignment to make a music video. So he had to take a copyrighted > > record and use it. (Hey, I was the star! We filmed at Occupy > > Boston.) In class, it's no doubt Fair Use, though I suspect the RIAA > > wishes that weren't the case. Is he a pirate if he posts it on > > YouTube? I think not, but the RIAA probably does. But somehow I > > don't equate that to the guys selling fake CDs to record store owners. > >"Fair Use" is defined by the owner of the content. Note that "owner" is >NOT the person who purchased a CD. No, fair use is statutory. You should read up on it. (I suggest reading the Supreme Court's ruling in Acuff v. Campbell, which addressed the role of parody as applying to one of the factors. Including the lyrics to the "parody" version of Pretty Woman.) US copyright law defines fair use by the balancing of four factors, not one bright line. As a general rule, copyright owners NEVER admit that ANYTHING is fair use, but they don't get that say. It's just a bargaining position. I have a really good musical comedy that my son wrote this year, with my help (as co-creator), that's stalled because while we are pretty sure it makes fair use of the tunes (not the lyrics or script, just the melodies, which are out-takes from a Broadway show's early drafts, used somewhat satirically), it's hard to get anyone to say it clearly enough to let us produce it (not for money, just for the glory, on YouTube). The point is that there is no clear bright line about what constitutes fair use, so a misjudgment here could lead to criminal charges, and allow a take-down of valid, fair-use content or loss of a domain without due process. That sort of guts fair use. > > In other words, intellectual property law is a confused mess already, > > and the proposals on the table just make it worse, and won't actualy > > help the industries they're trying to help. They're like ILECs, who > > harm ISPs because it's what they do, even if it costs them. The > > scorpion and the frog comes to mind. > >Adding still more laws is that I said was a problem. Glad you had a >place to rant, though. As do we both. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
