[LINK] iinet wins!!

[Kim Holburn]

I think the problem, as Cory Doctorow says, is that the main thing  
computers and the internet do is that they copy.  They copy almost  
instantly and whatever else they do, they make copies as they do it.   
The old business methods don't really work.

Copyright was originally created by pressure from publishers, not  
authors.  Most of the rights somehow or other went to publishers and  
so it has been since.  The underlying issue with the internet is that  
artists don't need publishers nearly as much anymore therefore  
publishers are trying to kill competition by nobbling the internet.   
The real problem with the pirate bay is the amount of independent  
musicians, authors and even movies using bittorrent to distribute  
their music, books and other stuff.   Those independent publishers  
don't have the resources, ie, bandwidth to distribute stuff but  
bittorrent allows them to do this without huge upload costs.  This is  
why the pirate bay is one of the main targets of distributors and  
publishers.

Copyright up till recently was designed for commercial and industrial  
copiers because that's who had the resources to do it.  Current  
copyright law is not appropriate to deal with non-commercial copiers.

Don't say to me that copyright infringement is stealing.  It's not, we  
are not talking about a scarce resource and we are not talking about  
depriving someone of something.  If you follow your argument you would  
have to say that borrowing a book or a DVD or CD from a library is  
stealing, that libraries are hives of piracy that they help and  
encourage people to break the law.  The act of borrowing a book or CD  
or DVD from a friend, or lending one or listening to music on the  
radio for free is theft.  It's a silly, vapid and self-seeking  
argument by copyright distributors.

In any case the real piracy, the people really stealing other people's  
work has been the music industry among others.  Read what Courtney  
Love has to say http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love .   
You might also read Steve Albini: http://www.negativland.com/ 
albini.html (warning strong language).

People have always been able to share things like books and music and  
movies, they are not going to stop if they have to go back to  
sneakernet.

You say:
> and surely the business of copyright holding is
> private industry.

The business of copyright holding is with the creators of the works  
that are worth copyrighting.  Why should business have this ability?   
Why not devolve copyright back to the creators?

We are seeing an amazing push by large corporate interests to limit  
people's rights on their way to enforcing copyright and other IP.   
Companies are pushing to be able to check other people's computers for  
copyright data, they are pushing to have everyone's electronic devices  
checked at borders - like your laptops, phones and ipods.  These are  
serious privacy issues.  Perhaps corporate desires align with  
governments desires in this too, which is scary.

Kim

On 2010/Feb/07, at 5:14 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:

> At 2:21 PM +1100 on 7/2/10 David wrote:
>> On 7/02/2010 2:02 PM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>>> It's nasty no matter which way anyone jumps on this one.
>> Would the least nasty way to jump be to conclude that the problem is
>> with the law? As it stands, is copyright realistically enforceable?
>
> My take on the matter is that both sides of the copyright debate (the
> pirates and the copyright holders), and government, have all been
> instrumental in creating the problem.
>
> The copyright holders are hardly ones to go to governments and the
> public 'with clean hands' so to speak because for decades they have:
>
> 1. Lobbied for and received extended periods of copyright (from the
> original 25 years to 75 years beyond the death of the creator of the
> copyright) across multiple jurisdictions, sought to downplay 'fair
> use' and user rights, sought to profit to the extreme on new mediums
> for copyright that users may have bought on old mediums and have
> lied, cheated and stolen from the original copyright owners like you
> wouldn't believe. (The vast majority of copyright cases are the
> original copyright holder suing the publisher, beneficial owner or
> whatever)
>
> 2. Had a stone age attitude to any new technology (vinyl record,
> radio, tape, video tape, CD, VCD, DVD, BR etc etc) that can act as a
> content recording and distribution medium, and attempt to actually
> shut down these new mediums or otherwise control them until they can
> make the necessary change to their business model ... after which
> they promote them like crazy. The internet is simply a new medium
> .... but they don't see that yet as their physical product retail-end
> business model simply can't handle it. (Although some network
> distribution business models ... e.g. iTunes ... are starting to
> prove that it can be quite profitable.)
>
> The sad thing is that the copyright holders are way behind what their
> major consumers (15-25 year olds) simply regard as the normal way of
> doing things ... they cater to grumpy old farts like myself, but not
> to the young.
>
> 3. Lied comprehensively about the effect on their bottom line. On one
> hand we have the financial pages (and the companies themselves in
> shareholder reports) stating to readers and shareholders that music
> and movies are accruing boom and record profits, but every time they
> appear in court (or are the subject of a newspaper story - usually by
> an affiliated newspaper or magazine) they plead impoverishment, point
> at the huge and largely fictitious numbers of people actively
> involved in the industry who will miss out (50,000 in Australia alone
> ... Chuckle), and try to mount moral arguments that are hugely at
> variance with their behaviour at Point 1.
>
> They also do not admit that 90% of the piracy would never have
> amounted to a real sale (the pirates simply would not have bought
> it), that some studies show that availability of pirated items also
> results in sales of the better quality industry product that would
> never have occurred without the piracy in the first place (watch a
> grainy low quality sound version of a movie you liked, or listen to a
> low quality mp3 or Ogg version of a complex song you like, to see
> what I mean)
>
> I would really like to see a defendant's lawyer question the
> credibility of the copyright industry on the basis of the porkies
> they tell in the media, in courts and the like which are patently
> untrue if one looks at the information they give markets,
> shareholders, banks and other third parties showing a glowing story.
> (Or even the claims that producers and the industry money men make to
> prospective investors ... which, believe me are so far from the truth
> you'd need the Hubble Telescope to nail them down.)
>
> 4. Promoted a broadcast business model (together with their
> associated industries like radio and TV) that seeks to restrict
> material by geography, time and the sheer bloody mindedness of
> programmers and the vagaries of ratings ... so that whether or not
> you get to see episodes of TV series, versions of movies, or albums
> or songs is completely at the mercy of the middleman. I have to say I
> have some sympathy for people who download episodes of TV series or
> documentaries that have been slotted into inconvenient time slots,
> discontinued due to low ratings, not shown due to timidity of the
> local TV industry or whatever.
>
> 5. Finally they never admit that other variables may have an effect
> on their bottom line (prevailing economic conditions for example) and
> require adjustments to their price structures and business models to
> increase sales.
>
> The pirates seek to take the high moral ground when questioned about
> their activities, but they fail. What they do is stealing ... both
> technically and morally. That said the bottom line is that the
> average person will always be that if it's free they'll take it ...
> and they find it hard to distinguish between stuff that is broadcast
> (for free) and stuff that is available online.
>
> Governments in many ways have made the present situation ... by their
> regulation and control, by copyright laws overly favourable to the
> copyright holders, by copyright laws that basically have destroyed
> the rights of the people who created the copyright in favour of the
> people of licensed it for distribution, by creating copyright and
> patent laws that actively dissuade innovation and invention (see the
> Men at Work kerfuffle of late .... but many instances of this exist),
> and creating a situation where only the lawyers seem to benefit.
>
> Any rationale examination of copyright and patent law (in Australia
> and overseas) would be viewed by an alien outsider as a sign of
> societies that have given up the will to live, that paradoxically see
> the right to live forever off the past as 'wealth creation', and that
> view innovation and invention as another source of income for those
> who have the money but not the creativity to innovate or invent ...
> because suing the creative for a slice of the cake is much easier
> than working for a living.
>
> Enforceability of copyright probably isn't the issue ... that's a
> simple problem of evidence and process ... the problem is that it is
> being selectively enforced against those who have neither the
> resources or the nouse to defend themselves. The problem is also that
> copyright violation is so widespread ... I'd guess that at least a
> two hundred million people on this planet have at one time or another
> downloaded films or music, played pirated discs or whatever.
>
> But as the judge said in the iiNet case, it's not up to third parties
> to enforce the copyright holders copyright - that is the
> responsibility of the copyright holder. It's also not up to
> governments to enforce the copyright ... because its the taxpayer who
> pays for that ... and surely the business of copyright holding is
> private industry. (Else the government and taxpayers should get a cut
> of the copyright holder's profits, shouldn't they? But I don't see
> the copyright holders offering this through their PR machines.)
>
> Just my 2 cents worth ...
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request