From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:58:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.224608.12016@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.155639.27923@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>>the
>>>fact remains that Playboy wants the material off systems that are not
>>>claiming ownership of the images.
>>
>>   I don't agree, but parhaps it isn't worth argueing. I haven't heard of
>
>What's to agree or disagree. Playboy has said this, according to news
>reports.  You're saying you don't think Playboy has said this, or you don't
>think they really want their material off of pirate image boards?
>
   I meant that I hadn't heard them saying this. I am willing to be proven
wrong. But of course there is always a difference between what they say and
what they mean.

>>   What is the easy damage calculation? I'm sure you know more about this
>>than I do. How would a monetary figure be calculated?
>
>Well, when somebody's been selling, your damages are, at a minimum, the
>sales they had.  EH probably kept records of downloads which they were
>required to hand over during discovery.  (Unlike criminal law, there are no
>protections against self-incrimination in a lawsuit.)
>
   This brings up an interesting issue. If you are being sued, can they
make you give them access to your files. Even files that are guaranteed
private by your usage policy (one's you wouldn't look at yourself).
   Business records are different in that they are sort of public. Transactions
can't be secret even if they can be obscure.

[text deleted] 
>
>Fact remains that they can take action if
>there are lots of their images on your disks, and they can show you knew
>they were there and knew they were pirated and didn't remove them.
>
   I presume that many of the images in a.b.p.e are pirated. I don't _know_
this. Noone else does either. Do the publishers have the responsability
to tell you what files they object to prior to taking action?
   If a publisher wrote to you and said file ds-f-024.gif is a coded image
that we own, please delete it from your site (and provided proof), then
I think that would be OK. Impractical, but OK.

[about controlling distribution of BBS held images]
>
>Don't be silly.  Of course they have an expectation of controlling
>distribution of their images.  You may be stupid to leave your keys in
>your car.  It is still car theft if people jump in and drive away.
>
   I don't think so. You don't have any real expectation of stopping
software theft, but you can take some steps to reduce it. Copy protection
and secret words in the manual don't apply to gif files. Penthouse can start
a BBS, and they can collect payment for the first copy. But the image will
be copied rapidly and without payment after that.
   When something can be so easily copied, we have to question thier _ability_
to own it. You can't own rain for example. It's not a simple question. If
you simply say "people shouldn't copy it", it may make you feel morally
superior, but it would be a case where the law is totally irrelevant to
reality.

[...]
>
>But if you ask most people if the ability to post pirated stuff is a major
>or even important part of the net's character, I don't think they would
>agree with you.  Instead, they are willing to take part when they see a good
>dirty picture go by.

   Well, I always say that the first and best reason for the existance of
anything is that people want it.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1493 news.admin:8610 news.admin.policy:506