Is digital copyright incompatible with technology and / or democracy?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Want DRM free books? Make it so authors won't have to worry about some pirate using an illegal copy of his ebook to draw eyeballs to his ads for fake cancer drugs.

Since DRM might delay the books getting onto pirate sites by at most a few minutes, this doesn't follow.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Since DRM might delay the books getting onto pirate sites by at most a few minutes, this doesn't follow.

Agreed. This has been covered many times here on MR. DRM does not affect pirates, DRM affects paying customers.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Agreed. This has been covered many times here on MR. DRM does not affect pirates, DRM affects paying customers.

There is only one way to stop piracy, make piracy obsolete. All things that can be transferred digitally will be transferred digitally, forever and ever.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

There is only one way to stop piracy, make piracy obsolete. All things that can be transferred digitally will be transferred digitally, forever and ever.

That's like saying the only way to stop arson is to burn every building.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That's like saying the only way to stop arson is to burn every building.

Well, you do have to admit it would be effective

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That's like saying the only way to stop arson is to burn every building.

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Well, you do have to admit it would be effective

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That's like saying the only way to stop arson is to burn every building.

Well no, it is nothing like that, why do arsonists burn things? Besides the obvious(crazy), for money. Pirates pirate because pirated goods can be pirated.

Burning every building would just make the arsonists build new buildings to burn down, creating new DRM schemes just requires the pirates to create new anti DRM schemes.

The sale of counterfeit goods has been with us since we started selling. Perhaps it is time to get at the root of the problem??

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That's like saying the only way to stop arson is to burn every building.

That made me giggle a ton, thanks.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Want DRM free books? Make it so authors won't have to worry about some pirate using an illegal copy of his ebook to draw eyeballs to his ads for fake cancer drugs.

Since when does DRM have anything to do with piracy?

[stonetools]

People misunderstand. The point is not that DRM stops piracy, the point is that effective LE stops piracy. Once the piracy sites are closed down, authors will feel secure about giving up DRM. .
At this point, we are telling authors " Give up on DRM and in return, we'll do nothing about protecting your IP rights". Not surprisingly, they're not convinced.
Putting down the threat of losses due to filesharing would reassure authors and other copyright holders. It would also move us to a public, politically accountable process of protecting copyright holder's rights instead of a private, proprietary, and largely ineffective solution.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

It would also move us to a public, politically accountable process of protecting copyright holder's rights instead of a private, proprietary, and largely ineffective solution.

Disney, MPAA, RIAA, all the lobbyists etc. are going to make their political meetings, phone calls, PAC contributions etc. a matter of public record? ACTA and TPP are going to hold public negotiating sessions and release their meeting minutes? Terrific.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

People misunderstand. The point is not that DRM stops piracy, the point is that effective LE stops piracy. Once the piracy sites are closed down, authors will feel secure about giving up DRM.

How do you define "the piracy sites" such that they can be shut down without destroying the commercial aspects of the internet?

I don't mean, "what's your top ten list of sites focused on piracy;" I mean "how do you prevent future sites from springing up in their wake if those are shut down; how do you define a piracy site so that policies can be made to prevent them from becoming large focuses of illegal data exchanges?"

At this point, we are telling authors " Give up on DRM and in return, we'll do nothing about protecting your IP rights".

No, we're saying, "give up on DRM so you can focus on maximizing sales and use the law to go after those infringements which are causing you damage, rather than those caused by people just trying to use what they paid for."

Putting down the threat of losses due to filesharing would reassure authors and other copyright holders.

Certainly. And as soon as someone comes up with a way of establishing what those losses are, so they can be mitigated or prevented, policies can be established and legal action can be taken.

You can't prevent losses that don't exist.

I am not saying "there are no losses from filesharing." I *am* saying, "in order to establish the best methods to mitigate those losses, we need to know how many dollars are involved." Who is losing how much money to whom--if we can't answer that, we can't decide on an action.

We could cut back on losses from filesharing by requiring that every post, email, and file transferred online be checked by an individual searching through the entire copyright registry... but that, of course, would be ridiculous. The cost wouldn't be worth the gains.

In order to decide if the cost of a particular measure is worth what it gains, we have to know what losses it's trying to prevent. "Author is deeply offended that people are reading without paying" is not something copyright law addresses.... people have been reading books without paying for them for centuries.

It would also move us to a public, politically accountable process of protecting copyright holder's rights instead of a private, proprietary, and largely ineffective solution.

Sure. Does that include rights to noncommercial IP, like individual blog posts, which are often copied against the will of the author? Or is copyright protection only extended to those creative works attached to a paycheck?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

There is only one way to stop piracy, make piracy obsolete.

The day after you make piracy obsolete, a best-selling author may -- and probably will -- put up a web site offering, for a price, his or her new book with a requirement that the buyer agree not to pirate it. Maybe the new book will be paper only, and maybe you can get an eBook. Either way, you'll have to read, or at least scroll through, a contract, and agree to it before buying.

Unless you are going to steal our freedom to enter into civilly enforceable commerical contracts, piracy is back.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe DOJ turned over what it thought was sufficient evidence. The NZ judge wants them to disclose everything.
Clearly, the defendants are getting their due process-and maybe even a little bit more.

New Zealand, like it or not, is a sovereign nation. While this remains the case, the New Zealand court and not the US DOJ is the arbiter of what is sufficient evidence. The disclosure the New Zealand judge requires is clearly relevant and the Defendant is entitled to it. Access to such basic and relevant material does not amount to "maybe a little bit more".

[stonetools]

How do you define "the piracy sites" such that they can be shut down without destroying the commercial aspects of the internet?

I don't mean, "what's your top ten list of sites focused on piracy;" I mean "how do you prevent future sites from springing up in their wake if those are shut down; how do you define a piracy site so that policies can be made to prevent them from becoming large focuses of illegal data exchanges?"

It's actually pretty difficult to keep setting up pirate websites from inside the Jessup Correctional Facility. I don't think they have guaranteed Broadband Internet there.
My guess is that prosecuting pirates is going to be an ongoing activity like prosecuting bank robbers, counterfeiters, and money launderers.

No, we're saying, "give up on DRM so you can focus on maximizing sales and use the law to go after those infringements which are causing you damage, rather than those caused by people just trying to use what they paid for."

IOW, just give up DRM for the convenience of certain customers and good luck with those decreased sales and those extra lawyer fees you will pay for going after those copyright infringers. Gee, if you put it that way....

Certainly. And as soon as someone comes up with a way of establishing what those losses are, so they can be mitigated or prevented, policies can be established and legal action can be taken.

You can't prevent losses that don't exist.

I am not saying "there are no losses from filesharing." I *am* saying, "in order to establish the best methods to mitigate those losses, we need to know how many dollars are involved." Who is losing how much money to whom--if we can't answer that, we can't decide on an action.

If your point is that you can't move against rights violators until you precisely determine the losses, you are wrong once again. The law has never held that view , since before there was a United States. You can't exactly determine the amount of losses from passing counterfeit currency and often even who the losers are, but the US government has been prosecuting counterfeiters for over 200 years. The DOJ prosecutes makers of counterfeit drugs and counterfeit products every day, without any objection that they are doing anything wrong. I guess its because this doesn't directly involve the Holy Internet. I might add that there was all sorts of rejoicing around these parts about the DOJ going after the Price Fixing BPHs, although the alleged damages there can't be precisely fixed. Its only when it comes to the rights of copyright holders that precisely quantifying losses becomes a bar to action.

We could cut back on losses from filesharing by requiring that every post, email, and file transferred online be checked by an individual searching through the entire copyright registry... but that, of course, would be ridiculous. The cost wouldn't be worth the gains.

In order to decide if the cost of a particular measure is worth what it gains, we have to know what losses it's trying to prevent. "Author is deeply offended that people are reading without paying" is not something copyright law addresses.... people have been reading books without paying for them for centuries.

Well, we could do all sorts of stupidity. I'll settle for extending the rule of law so that those setting up piracy sites in foreign safe harbors can be brought to justice.

Sure. Does that include rights to noncommercial IP, like individual blog posts, which are often copied against the will of the author? Or is copyright protection only extended to those creative works attached to a paycheck?

We don't have to solve every problem in copyright law before we bring Internet pirates to justice. False dilemma attempt DENIED.