[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I think both LE and the publishers are quite aware of the technology . (Its only the technologists conceit that publishers are Neanderthals who don't know nothing bout computers). DNS filtering has its place but its not a particularly effective tool .

Publishers may be aware of the technology; legislatures aren't. How many congressmen said "I am not a geek" while trying to discuss SOPA and PIPA? As if it were perfectly reasonable to pass laws about technology-based communications and commerce without any idea how that technology works.

The recent demand for "cut off internet to the IP address" based on accusations, not proofs in court, is another example of not understanding the technology, how it works and who's affected by it. (Will they cut off a school's internet if a few students are downloading? Can a student *make* a school's internet go away by figuring out how to torrent with the school's servers? ...Seems like a great way for a disgruntled ex-employee IT specialist to take down a company's internet.)

I see no need to re-write from scratch.

I do; the current orphan works problem is a notable part of that. Another part is the lack of definition of "publication;" fifty years ago, the difference between published-and-not was mostly easy to figure out with some rare exceptions that the courts sorted out. Today... is an email private or published? If it goes to a list, is it published? If that list has only 5 people on it, is it published? Is a friendslocked blog post published? Are PMs published? Do they become published if they're sent to a swarm of phones at once?

Whats needed is to give courts and LE jurisdiction to enforce laws, regardless of where the servers or operators are located.

All they need for that, is an international agreement about where computer activity takes place.

It should be a simple issue--a few tech experts & politicians sit down and sort out some details, and decide whether the activity takes place at the user's physical location, the server's physical location, or the legal-jurisdiction location of the site(s) involved. They can even decide on variables, like whether the jurisdiction of intermediary servers are relevant. No problem.

Of course, that has problems. If it's "your computer activity takes place where your body and keyboard are," then the US can't punish piracy by people in other countries. If it's, "your computer activity takes place where the URL's servers are located," georestrictions on ebooks go out the window. Right now, they want it both ways: your location is "here" when we want to punish you, and "there" when we want to play tax and commerce games.

Its one thing to thumb your nose at authorities if you know they can't send their agents across borders to arrest you. Its different if you have to contemplate federal agents showing up with warrants in the middle of nights seizing your computers and freezing your accounts.

Indeed. As I said, this has a simple solution: the UN can get together and declare a location for computer activities, which would establish which legal jurisdictions have the right and obligation to take action against crimes.

As to copyright law, adjustments can be made so long as to core is preserved.

What core? Several of us are fond of the "preserve for a limited time" aspect that seems to get shoved aside a lot. What do you consider the "core" of copyright is? (That's a *big* question, possibly worth a new post.)