Is digital copyright incompatible with technology and / or democracy?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well, Amazons KDP Select is experimenting with this, but they don't have a bureaucracy doling out the funds, it's an algorithm. It's a simple algorithm, only factoring in the number of downloads, but algorithms can be improved upon. Netflixs algorithm uses time spent watching as a factor for instance...

Amazon is doing this directly. All the data is on their servers. But how would you get all the data what anyone in the world downloads at any time via torrents or countless websites? Private sharing? Not to mention the fact that there are many different ISP's involved.

Unless you monitor all traffic centrally it could never be done, and such 100% monitoring wouldn't be practical in any case. Well if all traffic was being monitored, then we could just keep the current system and piracy would be eliminated. Everything could be traced, we could continue to use the much fairer system of paying for what we use and not paying for what others use.

So in reality the surcharges would have to be collected and then distributed by the government with incomplete data --- or the industry.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by darryl

Some of the suggested solutions here go to the very heart of the thread topic.

Great post. I'm not sure I agree with you. Sure, piracy will always exist. Perhaps I should have nuanced my initial question to: Is main-stream mass piracy incompatible with technology? I think ultimately piracy can be pushed underground and thus be massively reduced.

[kennyc]

The answer to piracy is not technology (been there done that in the video, audio, and game worlds), it's marketing, pricing, and ethical behavior.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

My point being, your use completely devalues the word monopoly. That should be used for market dominance of a product category, it shouldn't apply to virtually every single, non-commodity product on the planet.

My point is that copyright was defined as being a granted temporary monopoly on your creative work.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Amazon is doing this directly. All the data is on their servers. But how would you get all the data what anyone in the world downloads at any time via torrents or countless websites? Private sharing? Not to mention the fact that there are many different ISP's involved.

Unless you monitor all traffic centrally it could never be done, and such 100% monitoring wouldn't be practical in any case. Well if all traffic was being monitored, then we could just keep the current system and piracy would be eliminated. Everything could be traced, we could continue to use the much fairer system of paying for what we use and not paying for what others use.

Downloads don't have to be tracked. Without a copyright no book would be sold, but books would contain links back to the creator. There would be no reason for piracy.

So yes, copyright is incompatible with democracy.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

There's nothing incompatible between copyright and democracy. Copyright (in the U.S.) was created to serve democracy... that is, to serve the people by providing legal protection to encourage members of the people to create, and thereby provide more creations for the public to access and enjoy. That was its original intent; and although copyright law needs updating to fit the digital world of the 21st century, that remains its intent.

Limiting access to files through copyright laws is not a severance of democracy, any more than denying me the right to shoot my neighbor with my lawfully-purchased gun is a severance of democracy. Laws are designed to protect the majority from the acts of the minority (not the other way around, as so many would like to think), and thereby to help preserve the democracy.

It is also possible to create a technology platform that all but eliminates piracy. Unfortunately, that won't happen under the present, open and insecure internet and computing base that the world uses. And the public is too afraid of a draconian, Big Brother future to support the adoption of a new, secure and monitor-friendly internet and computing base.

But that could change.

Computer and internet users (and other groups, such as cable subscribers) have already shown a historic willingness to accept features and systems that they did not want, in order to get something else that they did want. This premise--opt-in and accept A in order to obtain B--can be applied to computer security as well. And it probably will be applied, when members of the public feel sufficiently threatened by hackers and pirates that can tap into their personal security, invade their privacy and access their most personal secrets and most valuable assets.

Presently, the public is not faced with that reality. But we are approaching it, undeniably closer every day. When the public realizes that even turning on their computers, to do the simplest things they desire to do, immediately compromises themselves and everything they know and own, the prospect of a more secure internet and computer system may seem very desirable... in fact, preferable.

When that day comes, we will see a new, secure and monitor-able internet being created... and a public that will cheer for it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Laws are designed to protect the majority from the acts of the minority (not the other way around, as so many would like to think), and thereby to help preserve the democracy.

No, that goes both ways. We do indeed have laws designed to protect the minority from the majority--that's what the whole civil rights movement was about. (However, for the most part, yes. Laws are mostly designed to prevent dangerous individuals from harming multiple others.)

It is also possible to create a technology platform that all but eliminates piracy. Unfortunately, that won't happen under the present, open and insecure internet and computing base that the world uses.
...
But we are approaching it, undeniably closer every day. ....

When that day comes, we will see a new, secure and monitor-able internet being created... and a public that will cheer for it.

Not gonna happen; that's not how computers work.

Computers are devices created to copy, process, edit, and transfer data. That's their purpose. They are meant to move data securely--which means "only the intended recipient can open it," not "only acceptable types of data can be transmitted."

A "monitor-able" internet is one where every word typed goes through a human filter before being allowed to reach another screen... business would grind to a halt.

Setting aside the issues of "who watches the watchers" and the time-and-tech constraints of setting up a system where all encrypted data filters through some kind of gov't approval process, there's the not-insubstantial problem of existing technology.

As in, too many people have computers, routers, data lines, and the other hardware necessary to set up their own networks. Nobody *bothers* anymore, but that's because the internet works. Remove the internet as a way to transfer data easily, and ten thousand indie nets would pop up overnight. It'd be like the old-time BBS systems, only with faster modems and bigger storage drives.

The internet as we know it could be controlled (by destroying a lot of its use for businesses that rely on the ability to send data securely), with only the occasional datasplosion as some entry-level office-worker in an ultra-secure facility accidentally or deliberately releases a week's archives to the public. But that wouldn't stop swarms of tiny private networks from springing up... and getting bigger, because the only thing that stops them now is lack of motive.

TPB is public. Snearkernet is not. Dead drops are public and unstoppable. Moving piracy farther away from Google's search engine won't prevent it--and won't slow it down enough to make media corporations happy.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Copyright (in the U.S.) was created to serve democracy...

The USA ignored UK copyright (despite protests) in the late 19th and early 20th century in much the same China has more recently. So I don't think your statement is quite true...

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Remove the internet as a way to transfer data easily, and ten thousand indie nets would pop up overnight.

Yes, but these 'indie-nets' must still communicate over local lines controlled by companies that can record and block that traffic. The only alternative I can see is satellite. Unless you mean the aether...

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

When that day comes, we will see a new, secure and monitor-able internet being created... and a public that will cheer for it.

The first problem I see here is that having an internet that is both monitorable and secure is an oxymoron. After all, if a third party can monitor a channel then that channel is insecure by definition.

The second problem is that even human beings can find it very difficult to determine if something is a violation or not. Creating software to do the same task is likely to be an AI-complete problem.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

When that day comes, we will see a new, secure and monitor-able internet being created... and a public that will cheer for it.

Nice copyright pipe dream, Hollywood/BPH/RIAA wet dream, CIA/FBI/NSA/FSB etc. heaven.

Not going to happen. "The public" aren't that dumb, nor compliant. Plus there are still a few countries in the world where corporations aren't considered "people".

But whatever you're ingesting, I'll take some of it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not gonna happen; that's not how computers work.

Computers didn't invent themselves; people created computers. And they can re-create them, as they have many times since their initial creation, to perform as required.

Don't assume that the way computers (and the internet) work now is the only way they can work; that's a fallacy akin to assuming a car can only work if it has a hand-crank on the engine.

Originally Posted by plib

Not going to happen. "The public" aren't that dumb, nor compliant. Plus there are still a few countries in the world where corporations aren't considered "people".

Overestimating the intelligence or compliance of "the public" is truly a fool's game...

[Penforhire]

Cryptography is an arms race. As computing power scales up so do encryption techniques. As long as encrypted internet traffic is possible you cannot shut down the free exchange of information.

Now, if you go further and say no data packets shall be allowed that are encrypted, well, my arms escalation analogy says go look up steganography and be prepared to admit defeat. You think a book can't be encrypted into a "legit" digital video signal? Guess again.

You can't stop the signal.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Cryptography is an arms race. As computing power scales up so do encryption techniques. As long as encrypted internet traffic is possible you cannot shut down the free exchange of information.

Now, if you go further and say no data packets shall be allowed that are encrypted, well, my arms escalation analogy says go look up steganography and be prepared to admit defeat. You think a book can't be encrypted into a "legit" digital video signal? Guess again.

You can't stop the signal.

But why does the book need to be encrypted? Not for commercial purposes, no books are sold. For military purposes? Why not stop fighting instead. For personal reasons? Perhaps there can be an exception.

Legitimacy? All signals are legitimate.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But why does the book need to be encrypted? Not for commercial purposes, no books are sold. For military purposes? Why not stop fighting instead. For personal reasons? Perhaps there can be an exception.

Legitimacy? All signals are legitimate.

As it turns out, books are sold.