funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
A copyright filter has to comply with the copyright law
said by TKJunkMail  :In short, Comcast customers who want to use P2P to trade copyrighted files are about to either become second class citizens, or find themselves booted from the Comcast network entirely. Copyright infringement should be booted from the network. And while many say ISPs should stay out of being copyright cops, it is the best place to put an end to that practice. There is no way to systematically prevent copyright infringement on the Internet because the question of infringement is decided on HOW the content is used. The courts have already ruled that making it available is not infringement. Using it for educational, non-profit, news, review, or commentary purposes is not infringement. The 17 USC 107 "Fair Use" test is a great text as to why no electronic system can say that copyright has been violated.
A copyright enforcement system has to be compatible with copyright law -- otherwise it's broken.
Technology that distinguishes between copyrighted works and non-copyrighted works is dangerous, as it is inconsistent with the copyright laws around the world, including those here in North America.
In the US, everything written or drawn is protected by copyright laws, without any requirement for upfront registration.
To design a copyright filter to act correctly according to US law, it would have to block all transfers unless some bitprint was registered somewhere as allowable to be transferred:
1. Because its copyright has expired (currently 70 to 90 years from the date of the works creation or the death of the creator).
2. Because the content was explicitly placed into the public domain by the owner, a recognized authority, or a treaty provision.
3. Because the content's owner explicitly allows such distribution while retaining other rights.
AND THIS IS A REALLY INTERESTING ONE -- this is the issue that makes filtering impossible:
4. Because the downloader claims the right under Fair Use. (The owner does not get to decide "fair use." If the owner consents, that's called a license and it would be handled by #3 above.
So, unless the filter works in the way that I've described above (it's impossible), it's broken by design. It is incompatible with the Copyright laws of the United States -- and our laws have aligned with the various treaties and laws of other major world powers.
And there is still much case law to consider, some of it still controversial, and it would have to be incorporated into that system:
a. Does the protectee (author, owner) place any limit on the duration or places of distribution? (Some say that such limits exceed the exclusive rights granted under copyright.)
b. Does the protectee place a limit on the number of transfers? (ditto)
It's madness.
To fix this system, we have to fix the part that's broken -- and the Internet is not broken. We need to fix the laws.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Dont worry, a federal judge or SCOTUS can easily rewrite the law by writing some carefully crafted case law. Remember, your rights only exist in a court room. A judge is not required to follow the law. You can't appeal a judge's personal opinion, since its the law now.
Judges INTERPRET the law, which gives lots and lots of leeway for modification. |
