At 11/17/2011 11:00 PM, Butch Evans wrote: >On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:01 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: > > Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not > > adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-) > >Really? Hiding a customer identity behind a NAT in order to make it >harder for law enforcement is your argument against IPv6?
No, it's not the primary reason to avoid IPv6 (there are many), just one reason why users might like to avoid IPv6. And if law enforcement can make use of the info, so can, well, the other side. IPv6 is insecure by design. > > 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. > >I know that when another company took MY work (training materials) and >attempted to sell "THEIR" training class, I certainly did not look on it >as increasing the value of MY work. You can say it as many times as you >want, but it doesn't make you right. That was unauthorized use of what I presume was your intellectual property. It probably constituted a civil tort, and you should have legal recourse. I never said that valid copyright should not be enforceable. I question the use of the criminal process for what is basically a civil matter. Civil penalties go straight to you. Criminal penalties go to the state -- you'd get the moral satisfaction of knowing that the other guy was punished, but it wouldn't compensate you. Which do you prefer? > > 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. > >Theft is theft is theft. While there is some support for this being a >civil action, the reality is that the end user is taking something that >was created for the purpose of making money (CD, movie, etc.) and doing >so without compensating the seller of that product. To me, this is not >grey...it IS black and white. I am not a lawyer and I don't know (or >really care) exactly where the law sits here. I am simply expressing my >own opinion of what I think SHOULD be. Besides, any way you slice it, >whether civil OR criminal, there ARE ALREADY LAWS TO ADDRESS THIS. >There is no reason to add more. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, though in practice, law get pretty complex, which is why we have so many lawyers. You are using a word "theft" pretty loosely, and by semantic extension, treating all uses of the word the same way. Kind of like levying sex-offender charges against someone selling canola oil. As I noted, if copyright violation harms one's interests, the violator should be held to account at civil bar. > > No, fair use is statutory. You should read up on it. > >Why? In case I ever decide to become a lawyer? No thanks. No, because it matters. The lawyer is there to tell the court. You should know what is and isn't legal. Especially if you are creating materials under copyright and concerned about violation, as seems to rightly be the case. I'm sometimes involved in things that may or may not be fair use, depending upon judgment. And I've written books. So I've had to learn about it. > > 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. > >So perhaps you are talking about something other than what I am. I am >not talking about LEGAL use of materials. I am speaking about what is >ILLEGAL. There IS a clear line there. Downloading of a movie, music or >other IP without paying for it, when it is CLEARLY supposed to be for >sale is theft. I am not trying to draw out an argument over what the >law says or which law is what. I honestly don't care to get into a >debate over the finer points of the law about fair use or anything else. >If you want to be a lawyer, then go do that and leave the networking >behind. So yes, some things are clearly illegal today, which is why we don't need new laws. The problem with the proposed new laws is that networks will become much more closely involved with the law than before. The law currently grants ISPs certain protections -- for instance, they're not responsible for what their customers do, but may have to respond to takedown notices. If those protections for ISPs are weakened, it will be much harder to run an ISP. The big national ones already have law staffs to handle takedowns. What WISP can handle that, if new law puts more onus on the ISP to become an intellectual property enforcer for the coyright industry? -- 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/
