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

[Kim Holburn]

On 2010/Feb/09, at 10:27 AM, Frank O'Connor wrote:

> 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.

I don't think it's nearly that simple and it has never really been  
tested properly in court (IANAL).  Like I said, how much (how many  
parts) of a file do you have to share to prove significant  
infringement?  And there's a lot more happening than bittorrent p2p  
and other things.  If the distribution industries do concentrate on  
bittorrent, people will move (are moving) to other forms of sharing.

> 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.

Like I said, catching one person sharing a $12.99 file, how much is  
that going to cost and how much disruption to the family on the  
painful end of this.

> 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.

Yes, agreed.  I should add, extremely successful businesses in most  
cases.  So successful in spite of alleged piracy that one wonders why  
they cry wolf so much.

> 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.

Like I said, you have to go from an IP address to a particular  
computer.  OK they descend on a family and impound all the family's  
computers, phones, ipods, hard disks, memory sticks?  And the wireless  
leecher from next door and his or her family as well?

> 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).

Still costs and, as seen in America, everyone gets hurt not just the  
defendants.

I think it would be much harder than you think and if it were easier  
it would have been done, would be being done.  Despite the whinging  
about sanctity of ownership of intellectual property the law has not  
addressed what's happening with current technology.  I have no idea  
what the answer to this conundrum is.  We live in interesting times.   
(I have been told this is an ancient Chinese curse but no classical  
Chinese scholar I have asked has heard of it).


-- 
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