[LINK] Does copyright have a future? [WAS: iinet wins!!]

Frank O'Connor foconnor at ozemail.com.au
Tue Feb 9 10:27:27 AEDT 2010


Yo Kim,

At 10:12 AM +1100 9/2/10, Kim Holburn wrote:
>On 2010/Feb/09, at 9:24 AM, David Boxall wrote:
>
>>  On 7/02/2010 5:14 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>>>  ...
>>>  Enforceability of copyright probably isn't the issue ... that's a
>>>  simple problem of evidence and process ...
>
>It's definitely not a simple process.
>
>There's the problem of going from an IP address to a person - 
>definitely not a simple process.  There could be a network of 
>computers, there could be multi-user computers, wireless connections, 
>malware, trojans not to mention mistakes and time inconsistencies in 
>the ISP logs.
>
>Then if you had someone's computer and had to determine what was 
>infringing material and what wasn't I bet even with the co-operation 
>of the owner it wouldn't be simple.  Do you have a receipt for 
>everything on your computer? Do you have a receipt for every book in 
>your collection?  Every CD and DVD?
>
>Then with protocols like bittorrent to prove that someone downloaded 
>say a movie from you?  After going through the same process on them 
>that we've just been through on you, maybe they got only pieces 24 and 
>135 from you.  Is that copyright infringement?  And even proving that 
>wouldn't be simple.
>
>And allowing companies to go down these paths would mean severe 
>intrusions into people's personal privacy and for what?  Something you 
>can maybe buy for $12.99 from Woolies?  What kind of society would we
>become?

What you're referring to is evidence rather than process. I believe 
others have outlines how this is accumulated (using modified bit 
torrent software), and which could/can be done in a number of 
different ways that yield IP numbers that can be compared against 
service provider logs, that can be baited with low quality 
copyrighted files with digital signatures.

The point is that the copyright licensees  can do a lot of the 
evidence gathering automatically, using software they have developed, 
without the need to go to third parties or the copyright infringers 
hardware.

The great thing about the iiNet case was that it established that 
there is no obligation on these third parties to assist the copyright 
holder in their business.

As for access to the supposed infringer's hardware, I believe in in 
Australia the Copyright ACt specifies this is only possible under a 
court order. But I may be wrong. If not, the process is even simpler.

Finally, the process of issuing legals (summonses and writs) is 
depressingly easy ... I know, I did it for years to thousands of 
people (on non-copyright related matters).

							Regards,



More information about the Link mailing list