From: jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Copyright on USENET/Internet -- ASCP-type enforcement issues..
Date: 13 Sep 1992 17:45:21 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelady.cs.utexas.edu
Keywords: Digital Signature ASCP Copyright Doom Gloom Net-Armageddon

In article <1992Sep13.094933.9286@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI 
(Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

|You are calling for totalitarian control and laws which don't fit at
|all in the new world of networks.  Please don't.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying that I don't see a way to build a true
information society (one in which people and companies will be able
to make a living generating and providing useful and/or entertaining
information/data) without having such a system. 

I understand that there is an argument to be made that we are
currently doing just that.  Sure, there is large amount of piracy
going on, both in the audio/visual realm and in computer
code/information, and yes, we are doing relatively okay right now.
But tools like Internet, especially if ubiquitously available (i.e.,
every teenager in America has net access), can change all that.  We
will have to either change the structure of Internet of change the
structure of our society and how we conceive of the value of software.

I don't see the latter occuring unless and until we automate to the
degree that we have enough leisure time that information production
for aesthetic value (a la the FSF) can be widespread.

I don't know which way it will go, but I suspect that there are far
more people in the world who would seek to change and limit Internet
than would be willing to give up their currently profitable business
in providing software.

I suspect it will have to be one or the other, or we will not see the
greatest possible benefits from network technology.

| Jon >Is it simply an intractable problem in a free society?  
|
|I would like the society to remain free instead of forcing everyone to
|use Big Brother-approved tools, badges, labels etc.
|
|Just say No to mandatory ID's.

Actually, if you take a look at the Scientific American article, it
describes a way in which digital signature technology can provide both
intellectual property right protection and privacy protection
effective well beyond what we have today.

|
| Jon > I would love to hear some good discussion on this.
|
|Just if you happen to get your kicks by breaking the current copyright
|laws (or perhaps it's fair use, dunno) and announcing it in the net it
|doesn't mean that we all should call for an invasion of law
|enforcement or an army to the Internet.  How about we just put the
|dogs after you instead?

When I saw this, my initial reaction was to take offense.. I spent an
hour on my post, writing and editing, trying to make my point as
cogently and concisely as possible, because I really do believe that
this is a significant issue that our society will have to deal with,
and I thought it an entirely appropriate topic of discussion for
comp.org.eff.talk.

I grant that my announcing the songs from the ftp archive was a rather
overly-cute way of attempting to dramatize the issue, and further I
grant that it was poor judgement and self-control to download
materials from the archive knowing that it was most likely a violation
of copyright laws.  Guilty.  No question.  Unjustifiable.  I can even
concede that perhaps the folks at sciences.sdsu.edu have the archive
for the purpose of playing music they have legally purchased while at
work, and thus that the archive does in fact fit under the fair use
provisions of current copyright law.  (Although it would be more
difficult to extend this rationale to the uploading of songs to this
archive, as encouraged by the administrators of the site) My using ftp
to access the archive thus constitutes the sole violation, and I am
entirely and solely the guilty party.

As I can't undo my mistake, I'll just have to move on, but I do
acknowledge this point.  But I am speaking as much about
practicalities as I am about legalities here.

There have been a number of technologies that have made it easier to
violate copyrights.  The tape recorder, the floppy disk, the modem,
the video tape, the photocopier, the fax machine, all have made the
duplication of information in violation of copyright a larger and
larger problem.  Yet, all of these technologies have inherent
deficiencies, either in ease of copying or in the quality of copying,
that makes them a poor second choice for people interested in
obtaining the information.  For a long time, such practical
limitations were instrumental in making the production of
information for market feasible.  Now, this may no longer be the case.

For instance, DAT/DCC is good enough that there are few such
technological impediments to second sourcing information, and as a
result, congress saw fit to enact legislation to restrict the
technology.

It *is* happening in our society today, and when people in the real
world discover that the net makes it possible to not only produce
perfect copies (the limitations of today's bandwidth aside), but also
to ship said information point to point anywhere in the country
instantly, I think that the net, be it Internet or whatever successor
global packet network replaces it, will be subject to such
legislation.  The FBI wiretapping bill is just the tip of the iceberg
in terms of the net coming out into the real world.  If the net is
going to replace combine and replace the telephone and the television,
it must not be possible for Joe Pirate to set up his own ftp archive
and provide music or video that he has copied from legitimate sources.

Perhaps the copyright holders could just use Archie to check around
for such violators, or law enforcement agents could set up sting
operations, posting to rec.audio for a song request.. I can imagine
ways in which current practices could map on to the net.  But I can't
imagine any way short of a comprehensive authentication system and
technology restriction that could prevent two individuals from copying
copyrighted materials over the net illegally.

Is the goal to have a free network or is the goal to have a ubiquitous
network serving as the basis for a new kind of society?  I would like
to be able to cash in on the possibility of commercial participation
in information provision on the net.  I'd like my grandchildren to
live in Alaska and get their schooling through the computer.  I'd like
to see the car decline in usage as spatial commuting becomes obsolete.
I'd like to see new job categories arise, as the processing and
provision of information becomes possible for everyone, not just those
who have a television station or a radio station or a newspaper.  I'd
like to see all the neat stuff we've been dreaming about for so long,
but I'm not sure I see a way that it can all occur in today's society
with today's unrestricted Internet.

|
| Jon >There is
| Jon >already software available for the Sun that supports real time talk
| Jon >over an IP network, using a microphone on each end.  Will the net
| Jon >survive such abuse? 8-)  Sure, it's not like I'm downloading the
| Jon >X distribution, but..
|
|Internet will replace the telephone networks and the PTT's and The
|Telephone Companies won't be happy about this.  Imminent death of the
|net predicted.

You're right, people do go off the deep end on this kind of thing a
lot.  I think this issue is a serious one, however, and that we the
net community have an opportunity to discuss how we will meet the real
world pressures that the net will inevitably encounter as it grows.


|
|//Jyrki


Note: I wrote this article trying to be as non-flammatory as I
could.  I then went back and cut the heat in half again.  Please flame
me in email if you must flame at all.

-- 
Jonathan Abbey                                 jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu
the university of texas at austin             "He's cleaning up his systems
computer science/math/psychology               to keep his nature pure" - Rush