[LINK] New lawsuit targets '21st century piratical bazaar'

[bscott@gtlaw.com.au]

Kevin Littlejohn wrote:

> ...all of which could otherwise be phrased as "criminals will use
resources to
> do bad stuff".

No, that is a premise I assumed.

The point I am (and indirectly Mark was) making is that it is driving the
development of a resource that would not otherwise be created (or, perhaps
more accurately, would not be created as quickly or with the same level of
technical competancy) by manufacturing a larger (and, I assume, more
skilled) pool of programming talent devoted to the task.

On reflection it also does so in a way which draws attention to the
resource, thereby increasing its distribution for illicit use.  If the
police were to crack an abhorrent content ring any similar resources they
had purpose built would (hopefully) be lost to other criminals.

My comment was sparked by reading the original document to which Mark's
email related.  That document noted that in some instances the creators of
the software had assisted police in relation to tracking down [truly
abhorrent] material in a manner which indicated that the lawyers arguments
could benefit from this fact.

Brendan





                                                                                                          
                    Kevin                                                                                 
                    Littlejohn            To:     link@www.anu.edu.au                                     
                    <darius@obsidi        cc:     (bcc: Brendan Scott/Gilbert & Tobin/61)                 
                    an.com.au>            Subject:     Re: [LINK] New lawsuit targets '21st century       
                                          piratical bazaar'                                               
                    04/10/01 03:32                                                                        
                    PM                                                                                    
                    Please respond                                                                        
                    to Kevin                                                                              
                    Littlejohn                                                                            
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                          






>>> bscott@gtlaw.com.au wrote
>
> I think Mark's analysis is very revealing.
>
> I see the interests of three key groups here:
>
> G Geeks who are copyright infringers
> R RIAA and associated copyright owners
> C Criminals - I put into this people who want to covertly trade something
> truly abhorrent (choose your poison - terrorists, child porn etc etc)
>
> Whatever one thinks about copyright infringement it's in a different
league
> altogether from child pornography.
>
> The fallout between the G<->R interaction will ultimately benefit C.  R
is
> forcing G to create a robust trading system which, one day, will probably
> have military strength protection against snooping/tracking/resilience
> against being shut down. Further, it is one which C wouldn't be able to
> create off their own bat.
>
> Copyright is making the geeks do criminals dirty work, so to speak.
>
> Brendan

...all of which could otherwise be phrased as "criminals will use resources
to
do bad stuff".

Describing it in the terms below seems counter-productive.  You could
describe
the invention of cameras in the same vein - they enable Criminals to do
things
they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise.

It's a scary world out there, innit?

KJL
(*sigh*)
--
Internet techie                    Obsidian Consulting Group
Phone: +613 9653 9364                    Fax: +613 9354 2681
http://www.obsidian.com.au/           darius@obsidian.com.au