Post by Crosbie FitchPost by David C. DiNucciThe "Almost FAQ" that I post at times here contains the phrase that one
challenge of distributed resource collectives to be discussed here is
"Evaluating and proposing mechanisms and policies for the protection of
intellectual property in an environment explicitly designed to
facilitate instant sharing."
Alternatives that spring to mind are distributed systems that require either
the participants and/or the content to assert that the content may be freely
distributed.
Either the content is intrinsically freely distributable (open source or
creative commons), or the participants assume responsibility for content
they introduce (and culpability for unauthorised distribution).
It would be much simpler of course, if copyright was simply dissolved (at
least in the networked domain).
Simpler, but too much agenda, and too wide consequences. _All_ data is
digital, if not yet, then in time. and in essence (quanta and all that).
All data is _not_ public domain, except in the sense that it all can be
regarded as a subsequence of an infinite random bitstream.
OTOH, copyright wasn't meant to be extended indefinitely; it was meant to
be a _limited_ grant, to help encourage creativity by providing a means
whereby it could be profitable.
And except for those (mostly younger) folks that are perfectly comfortable
with umpty-ump webcams all over their residence, most people like a little
privacy.
The problem areas are twofold, IMO:
* data that is somewhere between totally private and totally public
* financial interests of the distribution channels (record companies,
publishers, etc.)
Digital may mean that the latter becomes less of a problem as direct
distribution from the creator to the consumer, with very low overhead,
becomes possible, resulting in more $$ for the creator and so much less
spent by the consumer that there's less incentive to rip off the creator.
(not to say that ripping off distributors is justified - they do have to
front quite a bit of $$ to get something out there by traditional channels,
and sticking it to investors is no way to build an economy, create jobs,
etc.)
The first of those points is the most complicated and the least likely to
solve itself. All the different issues come into play, like ROI,
security (national, commercial, personal), societal standards, etc.
It's a balancing act, with lots of different interests pulling in
different directions. Any reasonable position should probably exclude
both the extreme of regarding all shared data as public domain _and_ the
extreme of remote control of hardware to ensure protected data stays
protected (or of the prior restraint of precluding data sharing systems
simply because they're capable of being abused).
Post by Crosbie FitchHowever, it would be a sad day if developers of distributed systems must
assume culpability for the copyright infringements of users of those
systems. Very sad, if the crime occurs simply in inducing infringement, by
dint of providing a mechanism that in a litigant's opinion induces.
If INDUCE is passed then the obvious consequence is that distributed systems
developers become anonymous.
One might imagine that a distributed system could require all participants
to share in bearing the costs of defending any one of them should any
copyright infringement occur, however, whilst that might protect those users
against claims of inducing infringement, the distributed system could still
'escape' into the wild and be used vicariously, thus the developers are
still liable for inducement.
In a way, the faster and more exhaustively that the copyright of all digital
content known to man is infringed, the sooner it is realised how ridiculous
it is to attempt to assert intellectual property rights over digital
content, and thus the sooner will come the day when copyright law is
dissolved and R&D of distributed systems is no longer considered inducement.
Unfortunately the new luddites like those of old consider themselves to have
the moral high ground. More unfortunately still, they also have colossal
lobbying and litigation budgets.
It's not going to be pretty.
P2P is digital terrorism: intellectual property theft, film & music piracy,
drugs & terrorism funding, porn & paedophilia, insurrection, military
strength processing/decryption resources, collaborative virus development
and distribution, etc.
Are you a known p2p developer? Are you, or have you ever, engaged in the
research or development of distributed systems? Do you know someone who is
or was?
After INDUCE, expect INTERN.
If that's the objective, then there'll always be some excuse. P2P, like
anything else, is a tool. Tools aren't moral (or immoral); that's up to
the people that use them. Setting up a P2P network shouldn't be a problem
in itself; the problem is what some folks use it for. The developers or
operators shouldn't be a problem unless they're knowingly conspiring with
those planning or engaging in some illegal use.
What if you have a sharing system where every peer, to be accepted into
the network, needs a site certificate, and every file to be introduced to it
must be signed by the introducing site? Then you at least have some
accountability. Each site could then have additional restrictions
(requiring validated individual signatures for no, some, or all data types,
etc.), and publicize its policy (which might also be a criteria for joining
different networks). There's plenty of choice as to the level of
accountability you want to require, the legal implications, etc.
(However, I'd be strongly opposed to requiring as a matter of law that
all sites require all data types to have individual signatures - that's
too close to the "mark of the Beast" scenario.)
--
mailto:***@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil