Is digital copyright incompatible with technology and / or democracy?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by plib

Can you please point me to the public sessions of ACTA and TPP?

The first two results on a simple Bing search:

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk held a question-and-answer session Monday on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in the wake of his decision to suspend ratification of the measure.

Over 100 people registered to participate in the discussion, in which members of the public could participate, with others posting questions on the Twitter and Facebook pages of the prime minister's chancellery.

Public information and consultations on ACTA

Australia consistently advocated the maximum possible transparency for the ACTA negotiations. During the negotiations, several versions of draft text were released to the public containing the various proposals put forward by parties.

Throughout the ACTA negotiations, DFAT led extensive whole-of-government consultations with stakeholders, and information sessions on the published ACTA text.

ACTA was first publicly announced by the United States on 23 October 2007. In November 2007, DFAT published an Australian discussion paper outlining the details of the proposed ACTA, its purpose in the international IP system and its likely impact on Australia. DFAT published the paper on its website, with a request for submissions on the merits of participating in negotiations. The majority of submissions received favoured Australia’s participation in negotiations. Australia announced its decision to participate on 1 February 2008 and posted a media release on the homepage of the then Minister for Trade.

Further information about ACTA can be found in the ACTA Factsheet.

Dunno where you are located , mate. But maybe you just need to pay attention and participate in the political process. Just sayin'.

I would urge everyone reading to do the same. OK, gotta pay attention to the spousal unit. TTFY.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The first two results on a simple Bing search:


Dunno where you are located , mate. But maybe you just need to pay attention and participate in the political process. Just sayin'.

I would urge everyone reading to do the same. OK, gotta pay attention to the spousal unit. TTFY.

The first quote refers to the refusal of the Polish government to ratify ACTA, not the ACTA negotiation sessions. One of the reasons they refused it was the fact that it had been a closed door process with no public input or publication of the interim negotiating sessions. The US specifically forbade participants from publishing any of the details of the negotiations.

The second quote refers to Australia's decision to originally participate in the negotiations, and the "several versions of draft text released to the public" were versions that had already been leaked by Wikileaks and others. The Aussies were one of the few that held "public consultations" but the only people who had consistent access to the details of the negotiations were "an advisory committee of large US-based multinational corporations" and some other US corporations under NDA's.

Australia had already been worked over by the AUSFTA so probably figured they didn't have much to lose anyway. On the other hand the EU negotiator resigned in protest, his replacement has recommended that it be rejected by the EU Parliament, and at the moment it looks very likely that it will be, which will effectively kill it entirely as no other country has yet ratified it.

"Extending the reach of US LE" may look wonderful from inside the Beltway, but the rest of the world has its own ideas.

P.S. I have voted in every election that I have ever been eligible to do so and I am not, and never will be, your "mate".

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Artists, like everyone else, want to make a living. Their overwhelming preference is to make a living practicing their art.
I am not an artist, but my preference is that artist focus on making good art. Furthermore, I want to make it easy and straightforward for artists to get paid for their art. I don't want them to have to think up "new business models", develop " new income streams", or do any of the other nonsense that piracy enablers want them to do.

It's not about what pirates or anybody else wants artists to do. The fact is changes in the market place can sometimes render long established and once lucrative business models obsolete. Whether or not artists decide to think up new business models in face of that is up to them. A company that has the attitude that they shouldn't "have to think up new business models, develop new income streams" isn't a company I would want to work for or invest in, that's for sure.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by cjr72

It's not about what pirates or anybody else wants artists to do. The fact is changes in the market place can sometimes render long established and once lucrative business models obsolete. Whether or not artists decide to think up new business models in face of that is up to them. A company that has the attitude that they shouldn't "have to think up new business models, develop new income streams" isn't a company I would want to work for or invest in, that's for sure.

This. The business has changed. The traditional publishers need to adapt or get out. New publishers and publishing mechanisms are already in place. There are changes then need to be made in the laws that govern these businesses (including copyright).

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by cjr72

A company that has the attitude that they shouldn't "have to think up new business models, develop new income streams" isn't a company I would want to work for or invest in, that's for sure.

Every book they publish is a new income stream.

Random House seems to me innovative in charging libraries much more than other eBook purchasers. The HarperCollins 26 borrower limit is another innovation. Heck, no so long ago eBook DRM was an innovation. Agency pricing was, for the US, an innovation.

I want a steady supply of current books, all stupendously well-written, incisively and carefully edited, heavily researched, focusing on topics interesting me, and at tiny prices -- preferably free. The publishers come close to giving me what I want, but they would be foolish to give in to me to everything -- especially price.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by kennyc

New publishers and publishing mechanisms are already in place.

Then why the bellyaching? If copy editing is good enough for you as a reader, all you need to do is celebrate the new.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Then why the bellyaching? If copy editing is good enough for you as a reader, all you need to do is celebrate the new.

Can you not read?

Because the transition is not complete and the TPH are still trying to block the new instead of get on board. Copyright (and other laws) need to change to support the new business and environent.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Every book they publish is a new income stream.

..

Wrong way of looking at a business model.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Can you not read?

Here's what I read:

Originally Posted by kennyc

New publishers and publishing mechanisms are already in place.

This means the innovations you want have already occurred. Random House can't stop you from reading books coming out of the new publishers and mechanisms, just as you can't stop me from reading the supposedly non-innovative non-fiction Random House books I seem to (now that I am noticing publishers) latch onto fairly often.

Because the transition is not complete and the TPH are still trying to block the new instead of get on board.

Nothing like this is ever complete. There will always be at least a few paper books being manufactured. And, baring some science fiction-like global calamity, threads this will be created for centuries to come.

As for TPH, maybe here I indeed can't read. What is TPH?

Copyright (and other laws) need to change to support the new business and environent.

Probably I've been playing in threads like this for too long, and you have hit me on a cranky evening. I'm wondering whether there is any possible legislative compromise that wouldn't be widely branded as another SOPA.

[Rizla]

The thread seems to have served it's purpose, so as the OP I'll offer my conclusion.

1) Is copyright incompatible with technology? Nope. Sure, piracy will always exist, but as it is pushed further underground, so it will become rarer. Authorities will be able to use legal and technical means to achieve this.

2) Is copyright incompatible with democracy? When combined with technology, yes, copyright will be damaging to democracy. Authorities will be able to use the laws and technology developed to combat piracy, and will apply them to reduce freedom of speech and the free exchange of information.

So there you have it. We will have copyright in a 1984 state

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Here is what another artist says ( rather intemperately):
LINK

His rant is skewed in several directions.

"Refusing to enforce existing copyright law and allowing rampant unauthorized use amounts to mass collectivization. "

Nobody's talking about refusing to enforce existing copyright law; we're talking about not extending it to new arenas and forbidding enforcement methods that aren't currently legal. Rightsholders and, much more often, their agents are complaining that existing copyright law is not enough, and they need more power to restrict people's use of the content.

"Further the for-profit-unauthorized-use industry is what inhibits the formation of additional legal media sites. Not the other way around. Basic common sense should tell you this."

I don't see him offering any actual evidence of this--he falls back on the "why would people buy a car when they could steal one for free" metaphor and ignores the most profitable denial of that claim: the bottled water industry. People do, indeed, buy things they can easily get for free--if the purchases are convenient and inexpensive enough.

Basic common sense would tell you that there's no way people will pay as much for distilled water as they will for a carbonated soda... but common sense is wrong.

"There is nothing in the architecture of the internet that makes policing and free speech incompatible."

No, not inherently. There is something in the *culture* of the internet that makes them incompatible, and I don't just mean in the geeky hacker technophile corners of the web. Aside from the thousands of businesses that want speed and efficiency that would be greatly affected by the implementation of "is it copyrighted?" checkpoints, there's the Cute Cat Theory of the Internet:

• Web 1.0 was invented to allow physicists to share research papers.
• Web 2.0 was created to allow people to share pictures of cute cats.

Joe Average Internet User and his wife Jane don't give a damn about "piracy" online, for or against, and if their favorite authors and musicians say it's bad, then they'd like it gone. But that doesn't mean they're happy to have their emails inspected, or that they want their baby pictures impounded because they put a onesie that said "SEXY THING" on a 6-month-old infant.

I notice he doesn't actually say *how* the internet can be regulated. He mentions traffic regulations on physical highways--but we know how those are done: police are assigned to drive around the area and pull over anyone they think looks dangerous, as defined by law. If there are too many dangerous people to pull over at once, police can take license plate numbers and go after them later. If the potentially-dangerous people think they were misidentified or weren't actually breaking the law, they can say so in court.

How will police be assigned to the internet? What will they watch? Much of the internet, unlike our highways, is private transactions--will they be watching those? (The equivalent of patrolling roads on private property--except that they far outnumber the public lanes.) For the public areas, how will they "pull people over?" Assuming anonymity is removed and the internet requires a license--will someone immediately call the house of whoever's being accused of wrongdoing? Will an arrest warrant be issued? "On this date, Officer [Name] observed IP Address ###.##.#.###, assigned to [User], commit the crime of..."

Wait. Copyright infringement on a small scale is not a crime; it's a civil offense. Officer [Name] can't report it.

Okay, let's assume the officer saw money changing hands and that bumped it into criminal jurisdiction. "...commit the crime of copyright infringement. An arrest warrant for [User] is hereby issued in the state of..."

Where will the case be tried?

What happens if [User] is in another country? I don't mean, "how will we ever get international support for this?" I mean, what if [User] is a student in London and a US net-cop notices him paying to join a bootleg-album-download site?

Issue arrest warrant; he doesn't show up. Now what? Does the US netcop call London and say, "you need to arrest [User] for the crime of downloading 12 songs illegally?"

How many netcops are we talking about paying for, here?

The Trichordist says it's possible to police the internet without breaking it... but he doesn't mention how. Perhaps because... he has no idea how. People have been trying to figure that one out for more than a decade; if it were simple, it'd be done by now.

He's just morally convinced that it *is* possible.

[Lynx-lynx]

Anyone else taken note of Kobo's views on being able to read your books on the device of choice?

"Your Books are Your Books

At Kobo, we believe in Freedom. We believe if you buy a book it should be yours. You are free to read your books on any open device — regardless of brand."

http://www.kobobooks.com/ereaders?__...utmk=149740086

I can't complain about Kobo's view!!

(I'm purposely going to double post this .... in the Piracy thread as well .... relevant to both Discussions)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The thread seems to have served it's purpose, so as the OP I'll offer my conclusion.
...

Sorry, but threads have lives of their own, something many misunderstand, kinda like copyright.

[spindlegirl]

I found another example of someone who practically dislikes libraries MORE than pirates!

I am not just a reader: I write and publish books, too. And in my experience, the main non-paying competition for my books is not pirates but libraries.

...

Offhand I would guess that about 10 - 20% of my readers get my books at their library, rather than at the bookstore or through amazon, B&N, or, in Canada, Chapters/ Indigo. Some readers even have the gall of admitting this outright, when they email to otherwise wax enthusiastic about a book I've written.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

His rant is skewed in several directions.

"Refusing to enforce existing copyright law and allowing rampant unauthorized use amounts to mass collectivization. "

Nobody's talking about refusing to enforce existing copyright law; we're talking about not extending it to new arenas and forbidding enforcement methods that aren't currently legal. Rightsholders and, much more often, their agents are complaining that existing copyright law is not enough, and they need more power to restrict people's use of the content.

"Further the for-profit-unauthorized-use industry is what inhibits the formation of additional legal media sites. Not the other way around. Basic common sense should tell you this."

I don't see him offering any actual evidence of this--he falls back on the "why would people buy a car when they could steal one for free" metaphor and ignores the most profitable denial of that claim: the bottled water industry. People do, indeed, buy things they can easily get for free--if the purchases are convenient and inexpensive enough.

Basic common sense would tell you that there's no way people will pay as much for distilled water as they will for a carbonated soda... but common sense is wrong.

"There is nothing in the architecture of the internet that makes policing and free speech incompatible."

No, not inherently. There is something in the *culture* of the internet that makes them incompatible, and I don't just mean in the geeky hacker technophile corners of the web. Aside from the thousands of businesses that want speed and efficiency that would be greatly affected by the implementation of "is it copyrighted?" checkpoints, there's the Cute Cat Theory of the Internet:

• Web 1.0 was invented to allow physicists to share research papers.
• Web 2.0 was created to allow people to share pictures of cute cats.

Joe Average Internet User and his wife Jane don't give a damn about "piracy" online, for or against, and if their favorite authors and musicians say it's bad, then they'd like it gone. But that doesn't mean they're happy to have their emails inspected, or that they want their baby pictures impounded because they put a onesie that said "SEXY THING" on a 6-month-old infant.

I notice he doesn't actually say *how* the internet can be regulated. He mentions traffic regulations on physical highways--but we know how those are done: police are assigned to drive around the area and pull over anyone they think looks dangerous, as defined by law. If there are too many dangerous people to pull over at once, police can take license plate numbers and go after them later. If the potentially-dangerous people think they were misidentified or weren't actually breaking the law, they can say so in court.

How will police be assigned to the internet? What will they watch? Much of the internet, unlike our highways, is private transactions--will they be watching those? (The equivalent of patrolling roads on private property--except that they far outnumber the public lanes.) For the public areas, how will they "pull people over?" Assuming anonymity is removed and the internet requires a license--will someone immediately call the house of whoever's being accused of wrongdoing? Will an arrest warrant be issued? "On this date, Officer [Name] observed IP Address ###.##.#.###, assigned to [User], commit the crime of..."

Wait. Copyright infringement on a small scale is not a crime; it's a civil offense. Officer [Name] can't report it.

Okay, let's assume the officer saw money changing hands and that bumped it into criminal jurisdiction. "...commit the crime of copyright infringement. An arrest warrant for [User] is hereby issued in the state of..."

Where will the case be tried?

What happens if [User] is in another country? I don't mean, "how will we ever get international support for this?" I mean, what if [User] is a student in London and a US net-cop notices him paying to join a bootleg-album-download site?

Issue arrest warrant; he doesn't show up. Now what? Does the US netcop call London and say, "you need to arrest [User] for the crime of downloading 12 songs illegally?"

How many netcops are we talking about paying for, here?

The Trichordist says it's possible to police the internet without breaking it... but he doesn't mention how. Perhaps because... he has no idea how. People have been trying to figure that one out for more than a decade; if it were simple, it'd be done by now.

He's just morally convinced that it *is* possible.

It can be done, the Puzzle Palace (NSA) is setting up the supercomputer server farms across the US to capture, decrypt and store all transmissions in side the US, whether or not they connect outside the US. (Per Wired magazine.)

Illegal? Of course. But the NSA never pay much attention to the law, always citing "National Security" and pitching away the subpeona.

All you have to do is clone the server farms, submit your own expert system to flag the suspicious activity, and start breaking down doors. No problem at all....

Of course you'll have to build a whole bunch of jails, too....