From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Copyright on USENET/Internet -- ASCP-type enforcement issues..
Keywords: Digital Signature ASCP Copyright Doom Gloom Net-Armageddon
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:10:44 GMT

In article <lb7h41INNg14@lovelady.cs.utexas.edu>, jonabbey@cs (Jonathan David Abbey) writes:
>I suspect it will have to be one or the other, or we will not see the
>greatest possible benefits from network technology.

I don't see why we can't have two or more different systems with
different rules (like we currently have different countries with
different laws).

>| 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.

OK, I reacted too hastily and assumed too much without having read the
article.  Sorry.

>| 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.

The topic is appropriate, but I don't think the current system of
"intellectual property" laws (or worse, the current trend of expanding
the monopolies) is suitable to be used for long without significant
changes, ie. I reacted against that premise.  On second thoughts, I
think I reacted at least partly too hastily and probably read
something to your post which wasn't there.  I apologize for the
probably at least partly uncalled-for attack .. but see below, there
is more to it that this.

>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.

Again, I don't accept this premise and don't agree with you at all.
The reason for the "intellectual property" laws in USA at least is to
promote the progress of scienses and arts, not to guarantee income to
Rick Recordcompany-owner, Peter Publisher or even William Writer or
Ivan Inventor.

>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.

This really seems like a totalitarian system to me - if privacy is
guaranteed as you say, perhaps a somewhat less drastic than I
originally though but still.

>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.

To clarify my position: I am not against commercial transactions on
the net, I just don't think the current "intellectual property" laws
are the right model for such.

>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.

To oversimplify, it seems like you think the net should change to
accommodoate to the power structures and economics of today's society
and naturally the net must be confined (I would say it's natural
potential would get destroyed), while I think the society should
change to be able to use the possibilities of the net.

>|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.

I was serious there for a big part.  PTT's and such really won't be
happy about it, and it might be some serious fireworks due to their
influence unless they can cope with to the new situation.  The Finnish
PTT is offering TCP/IP networking and ISDN connections, and the laws
have changed to make more competition possible, so it looks like at
least here it could happen relatively easily.  Now, to be more
precise, I don't think networks such as the Internet will replace
telephone network very soon, but there will be competition.

//Jyrki