From: Alex F. Bokov (alexboko@umich.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 29 2001 - 07:19:43 MDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 29 Jun 2001, Felix Ungman wrote:
> It is possible to write a contract that states that you may listen to my latest symphony in return for one dollar, but not replicate what you heard (or pay damages of $1000). I may choose to have anyone sign that contract before listening to it. Or I have the power to keep the symphony for myself - unheard by noone but me. So far we have to rely on legal means to defend this kind of "property". And in most jurisdictions copyright is a default agreement in situations like these.
I would not call such a contract robust. By way of comparison, if you
offer to sell me a physical object or the service of your skills, you
can withold the good or service if I do not pay. The
"goods/services-for-cash" exchange therefore enforces its own terms.
If no cops, courts, governments, or jails existed you could still run
a shop or ply a trade. Now try saying that about a copyright.
You can't enforce a copyright without relying on a huge, global
network of bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers. So instead you
appeal to morality:
> Copyright laws is also related to personal integrity. You shouldn't be allowed to take my symphony and call it your own, nor distort it and claim it's still a work of mine.
"Integrity"? "Shouldn't"? Why not? Who defines these values? God? Some
kind of morality inherent in the fabric of the universe? You recieved
these values by a pre-information culture during your formative
years. That culture has since become an information culture. Time to
update the values.
By the way, what if I take Symphony #5 by Felix, add some movements
and call it Symphony #5 by Felix and Alex. Or even Symphony #5 by
Felix with some minor enhancements by Alex. What makes you think this
evidences a lack of integrity? I cite you as the original author, and
I honestly disclose where I've altered your work.
> >At any rate, common good, individual good, ethics, justice, etc. have
> >nothing to do with my position in the intellectual property debate. I
> >have the opinion that open content materials have a selective
> >advantage and we have three ways to respond-- adapt; fail to adapt;
> >rely on government to postpone the time when we will have to either
> >adapt or fail.
>
> Regardless what happens to IP, we'll surely see an adaption toward stronger technical protection of software and media content. We've seen it already with sattelite/digital TV. There's no longer an obstacle to require online registration for software (in fact it's becoming integrated in the download/install/upgrade process). The bandwidth is now sufficently high to make make you want to prefer streaming internet media (instead of download).
Certainly. I'd respect inherently *uncopyable* software far more than
software that somebody else's ethics or laws presume to restrict me
from copying. That said, I will believe it when I see it. Users can
capture streaming content; they can use debuggers and disassemblers to
crack any password or serial number; they can then use p2p networks or
anonymous online space to share the 'liberated' software. Until image
recognition technology catches up, hardware protection *might* work
for a while, but it suffers from the shared secret problem, the same
one that made DVD protection a joke recently. Shared secret refers to
the decryption keys you have to give to every manufacturer of
monitors/printers/disk-drives/speakers/whatever. The security of your
scheme then depends on these manufacturers protecting the key you gave
them. The more manufacturers get on board, the greater the chances
that one of them will let the cat out of the bag. What then? A
hardware recall? Nor can you restrict your key to just yourself or a
few close business partners if you have anything less than a monopoly
over that sector of the hardware market. Otherwise, your 'secure'
hardware will be competing against ordinary hardware that is cheaper
because its manufacturers didn't invest in copyright-babysitter chips
that the customers never asked for anyway.
Oh, I thought of one more way software can remain controlled-- making
the server an indelible part of the process. Sort of like what
Microsoft seems to be trying to do with its NET object model. I don't
know enough about it yet to have an opinion as to whether it will
work. I just hope that if it works, it doesn't end up doing so at the
expense of privacy and freedom of choice. I guess the market will
decide.
- --
Kahl Gore bomb
Why are the above words in my signature? Check out:
http://www.echelon.wiretapped.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQBoAwUBOzyAcZvUJaRNHMexAQGzwAKVHiBG4Lj/g63gMR6xTTg9LElAohwY5WxH
YG8bMl4YMP+jYKzaydW0cOvmT9LAK0iaLwfDezoHM7ha9Z64m+7Rf022C/MOsEcI
HU63rpz/HIOSoMY=
=jK04
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:21 MST