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

[David Boxall]

 > Yours is a real "my dick is bigger than yours" world, isn't it?
No Frank, I'm just amused by your refusal to answer the question.

 > Gathering evidence and instituting process is a relatively simple
 > exercise ...
In my experience, a case of any substance involves thousands of hours of 
work, even before a decision can be made as to whether there is a case 
at all. When I was in that field, there were some teams from which the 
prosecutors hated taking cases: they too often found faults which didn't 
show up until they were in court and ended up with egg on their faces. 
For cases of substance, effective legal process is far from simple. That 
said, legal process alone does not enforcement make.

 > Costs are an issue,
True; and not all costs are as obvious as those involved in litigation. 
One of the worst for the industry lies in the loss of public support. As 
it stands, copyright has virtually no support among the general public. 
To most, it's irrelevant.

Whatever replaces copyright will need to address its shortcomings. 
Industry won't see it that way, of course. They'll want to tinker around 
the edges. I'm reminded of common business responses to the discovery 
that the horse they're riding is dead: 
<http://www.lrdev.com/lr/cache/3c5905aa.html>.

-- 
David Boxall                    |  The more that wise people learn
                                 |  The more they come to appreciate
http://david.boxall.id.au       |  How much they don't know.
                                                         --Confucius


On 10/02/2010 11:08 AM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
> Jesus Dave,
>
> Yours is a real "my dick is bigger than yours" world, isn't it?
>
> The bottom line is that the copyright holders have been looking to get
> government and/or third parties like ISP's to do their enforcement for
> them. They have been largely successful with government (and
> particularly Conroy and his lot) in getting the amendments to the
> Copyright Act that they wanted ... it's now effectively criminalised in
> Australia, and enforceable by the government ... because of the US Free
> Trade requirements. That said, the government seems very reluctant to
> litigate on the industries' behalf, and would much prefer that they
> exercise their civil options.
>
> Gathering evidence and instituting process is a relatively simple
> exercise ...
>
> Costs are an issue, but the various industry bodies in the States have
> proven that they will litigate on an individual (and relatively wide)
> basis to stem the flood-tide as they see it. I'd anticipate that they'll
> do the same here picking their targets for maximum publicity and minimal
> ability to defend themselves ... as they have done in the States. Hey,
> to make it worthwhile on a costs basis they rely on the fact that 70% of
> actions against users result in settlement money before process is even
> initiated, 70% of legal actions are undefended (with resultant
> settlements more than reimbursing the costs), the ancillary benefits of
> contested legal action from their perspective are publicity they don't
> have to pay for and attendant fear and expectation of dire consequences
> for piracy amongst their user base.
>
> Before they get into the civil actions the companies tried to co-opt
> third parties (ISP's and the like) to assist them. When the third
> parties balked (as was to be expected) the copyright licensees and
> holders initiated legal action. They were subsequently told by the
> Federal Court that there was no obligation by third parties to assist
> them in their business endeavors .
>
> I anticipate that the companies will now appeal the decision, and try to
> wear down the ISP industry, and simultaneously negotiate with them on
> the basis of a cut of the content provision moolah to sweeten the pot.
> I'll be interested to see who the ISP's see themselves as representing
> (their users or their accounting bottom line) as that develops. Given
> the effort involved in monitoring their users extensively, maintaining
> extensive copies of logs and other records, I wouldn't be surprised to
> see them conclude that unless reimbursement is forthcoming from the
> copyright industry, the copyright industry can go take a flying leap.
>
> I'd also anticipate that they'll try on a few cases to test the waters
> so to speak, to force the issue with the government, and to keep the
> publicity up. They'll also be making representations to the government
> to try on a few criminal cases under the Copyright Act, and I'd reckon
> be getting the US government to lean on the Australian government to
> encourage same.
>
> Now, for Chrissake get off your damn high horse, find something else to
> bitch about to someone else, and leave me alone.
>
> Your myopic, didactic manner wearies me.
>
> At 10:08 AM +1100 on 10/2/10 you wrote:
>> > But we weren't arguing about costs. We were arguing whether the
>> > process and evidence gathering was simple
>> Actually Frank, the question was: "Is copyright realistically
>> enforceable?"<http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2010-February/086778.html>.
>>
>> You seem to be arguing that that it is, regardless of cost. I reckon, if
>> the cost exceeds the benefit, it isn't. The paucity of enforcement seems
>> to support me.
>>