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

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 07:47:40PM +1100, Martin Barry wrote:
> $quoted_author = "Stilgherrian" ;
> > I read it as a little more precise than that. At the point that a
> > participant in a BitTorrent swarm obtains the last piece of a file, their
> > status in the swarm is changed to "seeder", indicating that they are now
> > offering the entire file. At that point, it can be said that they are
> > "making available" the copyright material.
> 
> That was the threshold he defined.

if that holds, then it would be easy enough to modify a BT client
to *never* enter seeder state, and to never offer or xmit certain
parts of the file (reserve 1%, 10%, whatever) - this could be done in
co-ordination with other "almost-seeders" so that it has little or no
impact on availability of the complete file.

and how much does/would/should "fair use" allow?  10%?

> But my reading was he choose that specific point in time because they
> are likely to have uploaded a similar amount of data to other peers.

it's impossible to say that with ANY certainty. it would be just a guess
and an unsupported (unsupportable) allegation. some clients may upload
10 times what they download before they get the complete file. others
may only upload 1%. some "cheating" clients never upload anything (these
tend to get banned by BT sites when they are discovered).


> > Justice Cowdroy was at pains to stress that looking at this problem
> > at the level of "pieces" or "packets" was wrong.
>
> Which is why he wasn't counting the amount of data uploaded nor the
> timeframe the bittorrent client was running.
>
> He was keen to define a binary state. You either shared 100% or you
> didn't.

see above.

binary states are easy to work around.

subjective rulings are not.

fortunately, laws tend to be binary because consistency is a very
desirable attribute for laws (certainly from a citizen's POV, and most
of the time from the government, police, and court POVs too).

civil matters aren't quite so clear cut. and, funnily enough, civil
court is *precisely* where copyright infringement cases belong, not in
criminal court.


> But by making continued seeding a single infringement his
> interpretation reduces the damages that the copyright holder could
> seek.

and so it should.

fines of hundreds of thousands or millions for "making available" a
handful of songs are absurd, they bring the law into disrepute, and
inspire civil disobediance.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>