Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizla
It's a question of two parts:
First of all: is digital (and I'm talking e-book) copyright incompatible with technology? Piracy has proved resilient. Can piracy be physically halted? The methods of piracy AFAIK are 1) torrents, 2) download sites and 3) usenet.
1) Torrents can be stopped. It is not anonymous. Torrent users are easily identified and open to prosecution.
2) Download sites can be taken down. The famous recent case is megaupload. The owner was dragged from his mansion and held to the ground at gunpoint. Ouch. Yet download sites continue to operate and ply their nefarious wares. But if they can't be taken down, they can be fire-walled like they do in China.
3) Usenet. This is private file-sharing network, but it relies on central servers. These can be taken down too.
So it seems to me that, from a technical perspective, digital copyright is not incompatible with technology. Copyright can continue to be effective in the current technological landscape and the prospects are gloomy for our swashbuckling friends.
|
Not sure I understand the first part of the question. Technology is 'know how' and I'm not sure know how is compatabile with or incompatible with anything. Unauthorized duplication and sharing of digital media is not difficult. Many people are capable of unlocking the protections and some see each new protection as a challenge. I do not think there will ever be a lock that cannot be picked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizla
The second part of the question is: is e-book copyright incompatible with democracy?
Consider megaupload. It seems it was take-downable because it hosted servers on US soil. The owner was not sufficiently careful regarding the letter of the law. Yet other sites continue. Presumably they operate from countries that do not share a common appliable law on copyright. To finally stop pirates accessing these sites, either 1) a common international law must be agreed upon and applied (i.e. send in the INTERPOL SWAT team) or 2) they are blocked via firewall. It seems to me that fire-walling a country will prove to be damaging to democracy. Do you trust the law-makers? What will they stop? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
So it seems to me that that realistically digital copyright is incompatible with democracy. The tools to block piracy will also be used to reduce democracy.
|
Democracy is from Gk. demokratia, from demos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength"
(I lifted that without attribution using the technology of cut and paste. Just saying
)
Democracy establishes the will of the majority. Laws are created to protect the rights of the minority. If you held a vote today, I suspect unauthorized duplication and sharing of copyrighted materials would be legalized. (I would vote for it.) In a republic we surrender some of our rights to institutions with the hope that they will protect our rights when we are not part of a majority. So, yeah, copyright would probably not exist in a pure democracy because the majority would vote themselves free stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizla
I am opposed to piracy (and incidentally to monopolistic price-gouging, but that's another story), but I am pro-democratic. I expect to see the internet become a less free and more controlled environment. I think that's bad news, and I'd be delighted if anyone can dissuade me of my ominous opinion.
|
You're pretty conflicted. You support the right of the majority to rule, but want someone to protect authors from the will of the majority and to rein in publishers that charge what the market will bear. That hardly ever works out.
I'm not a democrat (small d); I'm a republican (small r). I support the concept of laws that protect the rights of minorities. I abide by a lot of them. Usually, I abide because the [potential] value of the consequences is greater than the value of not abiding. Sometimes I abide because it's the right thing to do. There's a little bit of both in my choosing to abide by copyright laws.
If the creator provides me with value and I want to encourage continued creation, I want to reward the creator. I have a shareware product, for instance that does 100% of what I want without registration. I sent the guy a check (paypal, actually) to register because I wanted to support his work. I pay top dollar for movies that provide great entertainment value to me. I always dig through the value bins for great movies because it's easier than downloading the same thing, there is no risk of not complying with copyright law, and the financial cost is small.
On the other hand, I have no problem with converting a purchased DVD to a different format. The creator was compensated with the original purchase and I think it is FAIR that one be able to play the purchased content on any device. Some people purchase entire TV series. It's a lot of work to rip these to files for a portable device. I see no ethical issue with downloading the files from a web site. Again, the original purchase compensated the creator. I have no problem with someone replacing a no-longer-usable movie or book by either duplicating a working copy or downloading the movie or book. In fact, the licensor should be responsible for ensuring performance for the duration of the license.
I don't see technology or idealogy as being compatible or incompatible with compensating creators of content. Both do, however, complicate the crafting and enforcement of copyright law. In the end, I suspect the market will solve the problem for the government.