tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post4704985463068431605..comments2023-09-07T04:13:08.133-04:00Comments on johndegen.com: oh, I get it nowUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-43828450556562549582008-09-03T23:05:00.000-04:002008-09-03T23:05:00.000-04:00digitalshaman here ... respectfully, why not simpl...digitalshaman here ... respectfully, why not simply post a response ... lack of understanding is no excuse & I am quite willing to startthe discussion by pointing to the foundation of security - Kerckhoff's Law ... try my OpenID contact - more than willing to clear up any misconception about the topic - in fact, I welcome it ... not hiding in plain view ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-52456971594040962342008-08-13T18:28:00.000-04:002008-08-13T18:28:00.000-04:00"usually live sports like TFC on MLSnet.com"I didn..."usually live sports like TFC on MLSnet.com"<BR/><BR/>I didn't see any live feeds, but went to the podcasts http://web.mlsnet.com/sights/podcasts.jsp , which pointed me to some .m4v files (H.264 video, AAC audio) which is about as standard as you can get for online video. It would play on my Neuros without any problem. MPEG-4/AAC is the native format that the Neuros creates.<BR/><BR/>Don't know if they do as well for their live streaming, but the podcasts look promising. They may be bright and realize that having $free DRM-free stuff, and then infecting their for-pay stuff would be counter-productive.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"I think we'll see increasing talk of 'access' rather than 'ownership' of content"<BR/><BR/>I'm not actually concerned about access vs. ownership of content, but access vs. ownership of devices. It is the hardware/software platform and standards around them that I am concerned about.<BR/><BR/>I think there are a wide variety of options for content that are quite legitimate, with ownership of a medium being an options we should strive for. I also recognize that enforcement of the options needs to be handled in the law (copyright, contracts and courts) and not in technology which neithor the copyright holder nor the device manufacturer own.<BR/><BR/>I would also hate to see us move away from device ownership. While only allowing rental of Blu-ray/DVD players, TV/Cable/Satellite tuners/PVRs, game consoles and cell phones would solve the underlying legal/moral/etc problems of "DRM", it would still have harmful economic effects from the lack of competition/etc.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-39668784770943366232008-08-13T09:29:00.000-04:002008-08-13T09:29:00.000-04:00"Can you give me some examples?"Well, I don't down..."Can you give me some examples?"<BR/><BR/>Well, I don't download, I just watch, usually live sports like TFC on MLSnet.com (I don't have cable TV, there's so little I'm interested in, it's much cheaper to pay the few bucks for this - and we finally won on the road!) so I don't know if there's DRM or not. I have no interest in keeping copies (maybe that'll change as we start to win more, who can say?).<BR/><BR/>So much of this issue hinges on the "owner's" rights - where I agree with you, by the way - that I think we'll see increasing talk of "access" rather than "ownership" of content. The ability to to view/listen/read anytime you want, but not to own your own copy on your own device.<BR/><BR/>The largest part of the market won't see any real difference between access and ownership and the fringes of any market are usually not well served. It's too bad, I agree, but it will "solve" the problem for most people.<BR/><BR/>Although your Neuros looks cool.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-31376247060235164482008-08-12T18:28:00.000-04:002008-08-12T18:28:00.000-04:00"Lots of shows are available to watch"Can you give..."Lots of shows are available to watch"<BR/><BR/>Can you give me some examples?<BR/><BR/>While the indies are increasingly making their music available on DRM-free systems like eMusic, and there are now audio books there as well, I don't see the same thing happening for television and movies.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you are aware of sites that I'm not. Every time I'm pointed at a site that alleges to make television and movies available, it is eithor free stuff (IE: http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/ ), fairly obviously infringing, or infected with DRM. Do you have some examples of legal for-pay content that is DRM-free?<BR/><BR/>I have a <A HREF="http://www.neurostechnology.com/" REL="nofollow">Neuros</A> OSD here that I would love to be downloading content for.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"It's the 'you steal from me, I'll steal from you,' kind of talk that gets us nowhere."<BR/><BR/>Not sure who in this discussion said that. We have enough different views in the threads on John's site without always bringing in (unnamed, unreferenced) people who aren't here.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-16674816897341383222008-08-12T18:13:00.000-04:002008-08-12T18:13:00.000-04:00"I'm looking forward to it, but I'm sceptical."Oh,..."I'm looking forward to it, but I'm sceptical."<BR/><BR/>Oh, we're starting to seee it now. Lots of shows are available online - some not even available on broadcast. It's coming. Lots of shows are available to watch (I don't know about saving them, I have no real interest in that) for a buck - it's how I saw the final few episodes of Friday Night Lights (very under rated show btw).<BR/><BR/>"I think what you are asking is whether people will pay for things which the copyright holder has asked to be paid for. BitTorrent is not itself an issue, and it has many intended and lawful purposes.<BR/><BR/>I think we will have to wait to know for sure, assuming we are ever given that option. You appear to believe that if it is physically possible to take something for nothing, that everyone will."<BR/><BR/>No, not everyone. Once again, we just have to find that sweet spot. I think if content is offered for a fair price in an easily accessible way, most people will pay for it. Or at least as many as would have paid for it otherwise. I think we're already starting to see this.<BR/><BR/>In fact, this is what I'm afriad of losing. To much of the rhetoric in all this is, I think, pushing us away from this solution instead of towards it.<BR/><BR/>"I think that applies far more to those wanting to make radical changes to the law, than those who can't make sense out of the current law and practises of copyright holders."<BR/><BR/>This kind of rhetoric. It makes a competition out of it, it divides far more than it needs to. Does it matter who's in "more" of a rush if everyone's in one? It's the 'you steal from me, I'll steal from you,' kind of talk that gets us nowhere.<BR/><BR/>This stuff is complicated, but for all of us here who aren't shareholders in the manufacturers, we have the same goals. I think. Everyone says they think creators have some rights. I think.<BR/><BR/>But I'm never really sure.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-27450699787657211672008-08-12T16:56:00.000-04:002008-08-12T16:56:00.000-04:00"I suspect soon that option for this kind of thing..."I suspect soon that option for this kind of thing will be available right away."<BR/><BR/>I'm looking forward to it, but I'm sceptical. One of the things in the way are laws such as anti-circumvention legislation which confuses copyright holders into believing that there is a technological solution to a social problem. I believe that we will only really be able to deal with these problems once the decision makers realize that there is not, and can never be, a technical "fix".<BR/><BR/>"The question is, will the BitTorrent option also be available and which will people choose?"<BR/><BR/>I think what you are asking is whether people will pay for things which the copyright holder has asked to be paid for. BitTorrent is not itself an issue, and it has many intended and lawful purposes.<BR/><BR/>I think we will have to wait to know for sure, assuming we are ever given that option. You appear to believe that if it is physically possible to take something for nothing, that everyone will. I am of the belief that while there will always be some people who don't pay, the majority will and that with something with a marginal cost to the producer of zero that all you need is a majority.<BR/><BR/>It seems silly to me to give up a majority of a market and making it harder for them to access and pay (IE: what DRM does) in order to stop a tiny part of the market from infringing. That clearly doesn't work towards a goal of better compensating copyright holders.<BR/><BR/>"few more months leeway"<BR/><BR/>That suggests that a payment method for a comparable method of access was in the works. I see no evidence of this. And if you are talking about a DRM system, then this doesn't count as many people legitimately will not access DRM infected content and thus encoding the content this way is like throwing money out of your own pocket.<BR/><BR/>"I just wish people would stop being in such a rush"<BR/><BR/>I think that applies far more to those wanting to make radical changes to the law, than those who can't make sense out of the current law and practises of copyright holders.<BR/><BR/>To John D,<BR/><BR/>I decided to make my comment to you into an article: <A HREF="http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/08/12/technological-measures-study/" REL="nofollow">Ongoing legal study of “technological measures” done without understanding technology?</A><BR/><BR/>Feel free to comment there on the science, or if there is some relevant detail of those papers that I missed. I didn't read them as closely as I have C-60 and C-61.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-74221110767006544902008-08-12T13:17:00.000-04:002008-08-12T13:17:00.000-04:00"I agree, and it would have been great if the copy..."I agree, and it would have been great if the copyright holders would have been willing to accept this payment. You seem to believe that people were taking something for free when a payment option existed, but that payment option didn't exist."<BR/><BR/>You're right, that particular option wasn't available at that time. I suspect soon that option for this kind of thing will be available right away. The question is, will the BitTorrent option also be available and which will people choose?<BR/><BR/>(I still think it's too bad that the people who created and financed the show didn't get a few more months leeway to get on board an online payment option and someone else stepped in so quickly to circumvent this, and so many people were only willing to acquire the show in that particular way, but then I liked the show and would have liked to have seen more episodes - the movie doesn't even count for me because there was just no real reason to kill Wash - but I digress).<BR/><BR/>Maybe you're right that when both are available at the same time enough will choose the payment option over the free option. We'll see, I guess.<BR/><BR/>And you're right, I don't want a whole new set of rights granted to device manufacturers under the guise of "copyright."<BR/><BR/>I just wish people would stop being in such a rush (the BitTorrent stuff that hasn't even had a chance to become available online, or the creators of it are a little slow off the mark) and giving up so much ammo to cloud the issue.<BR/><BR/>I suspect there are very few examples like Firefly, far fewer than the manufacturers claim, but still, enough for them to make a lot of noise about.<BR/><BR/>My fear is that there will be a "solution" to this that doesn't please either one of us because in many areas we want the same things.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-7819185896983280902008-08-12T12:35:00.000-04:002008-08-12T12:35:00.000-04:00"You know, someone as dug-in as you asking other p..."You know, someone as dug-in as you asking other people to be more open-minded is pretty funny at this point, but I guess you don't see it."<BR/><BR/>I see and am proud of the ways that I'm dug-in.<BR/><BR/>a) I recognize that when it comes to the question of who should control communications tools, that "Communication is King". Issues about content are and must be considered separate and secondary, if at all. If this issue were removed from the debate, the conversations would be much calmer.<BR/><BR/>b) I do not subscribe to the "Rob Peter to Pay Paul" philosophy, and I do not believe that decimating areas of creativity to prop up specific business models is reasonable.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, lots of things are up for debate. I have my experience and you have yours, and we can share that.<BR/><BR/>"What I'm working with is a generations old tradition of having control over what I create."<BR/><BR/>"Manuscript"right is a small set of activities which require the permission of (or payment to in the case of compulsory licenses) the copyright holder to do. The type of control you seem to be talking about never existed in the past, so can't be claimed to be generations old.<BR/><BR/>What the bulk of C-61 is about is extending that narrow set of permissions to including an exclusive right of non-interoperability where the copyright holder gets to decide what brands of technology can access the content.<BR/><BR/>Built on top of this, and assumed to be protected by new "copyright law", is a brand new right being granted to device manufacturers to apply foreign locks which lock out the owner of the hardware. This will lock out not only 'audiences' of encoded content, but creators who would otherwise be able to use these devices for their own creativity.<BR/><BR/>This is what the "technological measures" debate is about. The idea that it is about enabling legitimate new business models (as opposed to ones based on theft) or stopping copyright infringement is spin, not reality.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"A good example of this is the TV show FIREFLY - if everyone who downloaded it from BitTorrent had each paid a buck, the show would be back in production."<BR/><BR/>I agree, and it would have been great if the copyright holders would have been willing to accept this payment. You seem to believe that people were taking something for free when a payment option existed, but that payment option didn't exist. Most of the infringement I am aware of are in cases where <A HREF="http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/06/28/buy-me-now/" REL="nofollow">comparable legal options simply don't exist</A>.<BR/><BR/><BR/>JohnD,<BR/><BR/>As to the summary of the papers you linked.<BR/><BR/>a) The <A HREF="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885371&rec=1&srcabs=908998" REL="nofollow">first paper</A> sidestepped the entire debate, talking about "local authorization" and "remote authorization", without addressing the fundamental question of what technology is doing this authorization, and who owns this technology. The DRM debate is not about the specific rules that are encoded in software by a DRM manufacturer, which are then run on our hardware, but whether foreign locks and software should be mandated to be running on our hardware in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Back to your house -- would you worry what specific rules your neighbour was using to allow you into your own home, or would you be upset at the fact that someone other than you placed a lock on your home and are requiring *any* permission (for any reason) for you to enter?<BR/><BR/>b) The <A HREF="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=785945" REL="nofollow">second paper</A> is even more offensive in many ways. It starts by talking about whether copyright includes a digital access right, repeating the highly controversial suggestion that accessing involves copying into RAM and thus requires permission. The sentence "Thus, access controls underpin the reproduction, communication and distribution rights" is on page 7, which could alone be considered the conclusions of the paper. Thus the expansion of this exclusive "access right" in the DMCA is claimed to be non-controversial, and copyright holders having the ability to impose specific brands of access technology is claimed to also be non-controversial.<BR/><BR/>The statement that, "The US experience to date indicates that legal protection for technological measures has helped foster new business models that make works available to the public at a variety of price points and enjoyment options, without engendering the "digital lockup" and other copyright owner abuses that many had feared" is just that, a statement. Nothing in the paper lends credibility to that unreferenced statement. Like the first paper, the key controversy around technological measures is simply not discussed (locks on devices), and the entire paper presumes that technological measures worked as advertised in the brochures, ignoring the technological reality of how they actually work.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I know that these summaries will fail your test as they use technical knowledge and not marketing brochures as the basis of the analysis. I still invite you to <A HREF="http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4814" REL="nofollow">look at the handouts</A> from my recent presentation so you would have that same technical knowledge, and can spot these flaws in these papers yourself. I am willing to spend the time to discuss this on a voice call if you wish, using the handouts to move the conversation forward.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-47281949983636532042008-08-12T09:36:00.000-04:002008-08-12T09:36:00.000-04:00I'm out of the ring for the next couple days -- de...I'm out of the ring for the next couple days -- deep into a first draft, trying to get to the finish line. Please continue to wrestle amongst yourselves while I'm gone. <BR/><BR/>There will be a quiz on those two essays I linked to when I return.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-61368822114261479632008-08-10T15:03:00.000-04:002008-08-10T15:03:00.000-04:00"By the way I think Russell is doing a great job. ..."By the way I think Russell is doing a great job. I agree with pretty much everything he is saying. Any contribution I'd make would just be to nod my head when he talks."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, we're used to that this in these discussions... ;)<BR/><BR/>It's amazing there's any issue at all with you guys being so obviously right about everything ALL the time ;)<BR/><BR/>"While it is difficult to prevent people from downloading via BitTorrent, it is easy to track what is being downloaded and how much it is being downloaded."<BR/><BR/>A good example of this is the TV show FIREFLY - if everyone who downloaded it from BitTorrent had each paid a buck, the show would be back in production. I guess none of them liked it enough to want to see new episodes.<BR/><BR/>But you're right, this kind of data could be used in some kind of "subsidy system to be tied directly to the popularity of the author." That will be a lot easier than asking people to not give the stuff away to strangers, won't it?<BR/><BR/>I wonder, will governments be responsible for these subsidies alone, getting the money through taxes, or will companies that profit from the inernet have to kick in? Would that be, oh I don't know, some kind of levy?<BR/><BR/>The BBC, of course, is going through some big changes, and many of those British shows people like are not actually produced by the BBC with public money. So, it's possible public money works - it usually needs to be in conjunction with other investment - and individual consumer investment might not be a good thing to lose. <BR/><BR/>Of course, I'm open-minded enough to say it might be okay to lose that.<BR/><BR/>Having dealt with both government granting agencies in Canada and for-profit US publishers, though, I'd hate for this to become an either/or situation. I would doubt that would be benefit consumers, and as I am one, I worry about that.<BR/><BR/>"I've downloaded and read a few books now. The ones I like, a few times, I have turned around and bought hard copies to give to friends and family."<BR/><BR/>Well then, let's hope the new technology doesn't send the hard copy the way of the buggy whip.<BR/><BR/>"We're getting a little off the copyright debate here."<BR/><BR/>Well, as Russell points out, a lot of stuff is being dragged into copyright law that probably shouldn't be.<BR/><BR/>I know we disagree about how we got in this mess and my feeling that peoples' acquiring things offered for sale without paying is at the root of a lot of it isn't accepted by everyone, but that's what I'm talking about here.<BR/><BR/>I do want to make sure that as a consumer I have some say - even if it's the Green Party's $1.75 you mentioned. <BR/><BR/>I don't know exactly how that will be worked out, but I don't want to leave it in the hands of governments or advertising companies. I'd like it to be as much between myself and the creator of what I acquire as possible, but for that to work there will have to be some way to assure us both that the transaction isn't circumvented by everyone else.<BR/><BR/>So, we're back to pirating, except I think there are some consumer rights that pirating also damages.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-83082337427257161482008-08-10T13:25:00.000-04:002008-08-10T13:25:00.000-04:00"Taking away the consumers' ability to influence t..."Taking away the consumers' ability to influence the production is an infringement on consumers' rights, I think. It doesn't make more/better product available to more people"<BR/><BR/>We're getting a little off the copyright debate here. By the way I think Russell is doing a great job. I agree with pretty much everything he is saying. Any contribution I'd make would just be to nod my head when he talks.<BR/><BR/>I think the premise in the above argument is wrong. Personally I watch very little television. What little I do watch is what I download from bit torrent sites (ya, I know theft and all that) The vast majority of which is stuff produced by the BBC. The Brits create a tonne of good shows, all with public money.<BR/><BR/>I think that sort of defeats the argument that taking choice away from consumers, results in poor quality products. The popularity of BBC shows around the world proves otherwise. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"So, Darryl reading his newspapers online and his .pdf's of Little Brother (for which there is still a traditional publisher as well) has really removed himself from the transaction"<BR/><BR/>This is wrong too. I've downloaded and read a few books now. The ones I like, a few times, I have turned around and bought hard copies to give to friends and family. I think that makes me and integral part of the transaction. Had I not downloaded and read them myself, I very likely would not have bought them either.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Maybe it will mean government granting agencies will have even more say over what art gets produced and I don't see that as a good thing for individual consumers."<BR/><BR/>While it is difficult to prevent people from downloading via BitTorrent, it is easy to track what is being downloaded and how much it is being downloaded. That would in turn make it easy for a subsidy system to be tied directly to the popularity of the author. This would mean that even those who do not in turn buy hard copies, would still be contributing to the author. Sort of like the same reason I vote Green every election. Every $1.75 helps you know!Infringerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027713772050821748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-9539491886763183352008-08-10T12:14:00.000-04:002008-08-10T12:14:00.000-04:00You know, someone as dug-in as you asking other pe...You know, someone as dug-in as you asking other people to be more open-minded is pretty funny at this point, but I guess you don't see it.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, as I actually care about where all this is going for everyone involved, I'm going to keep at it.<BR/><BR/>I've been involved in both the movie business and the publishing industry in this country and they have completely different business models. I now see how there may be some lessons.<BR/><BR/>The movie business isn't affected by individual purchase of tickets or DVD or TV ratings at all in this country. It's entirely funded in a top-down way by direct government grants, labour tax incentives (another form of grant) and government 'loans' that are never repaid.<BR/><BR/>The publishing industry also receives a variety of grants, of course, (directly to writers and to publishers) but which books are purchased by individuals (and libraries) is a still a huge factor in the business.<BR/><BR/>Taking away the consumers' ability to influence the production is an infringement on consumers' rights, I think. It doesn't make more/better product available to more people (I'm guessing you see very few Canadian movies, either in the theatre or on DVD or on TV - if you do, you are in a very, very tiny minority, even though over $120 million dollars are spent every year producing Canadian movies).<BR/><BR/>So, freely distributed product online may very well have the same effect. If all people do is download a file, their involvement in the transaction is unimportant - they become as pointless as the box office for Canadian movies.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it "frees" artists from the constraints of the marketplace, but it also frees artists from the consumers. This may have more effect than it does in functional writing, like software.<BR/><BR/>So, Darryl reading his newspapers online and his .pdf's of Little Brother (for which there is still a traditional publisher as well) has really removed himself from the transaction - except for ads. And please, let's not say a world run by advertising would be better.<BR/><BR/>(books are still one of the few products available without advertising and most consumers of books are pleased about that. The ad world would like to change that, of course, and making books freely available on ad-supported web-sites is certainly a way to do it. Consumers would lose one of the last places they can access art without ads, another consumer "right" gone.)<BR/><BR/>I guess you see my publisher(s) as a "collective" that I receive cheques from, but I also receive detailed royalty statements telling me exactly how many books were purchased in what locations - libraries, bookstores, online, etc.. If that information becomes unimportant then we'll start to see more and more cultural industries looking like the Canadian movie business.<BR/><BR/>One of my publishers is American and doesn't receive any grants, so how many people purchase the books is very important in their choice of what to publish (this is good and bad, of course, but there is some good). Even Canadian publishers respond very well to the market, that's why there are always Canadian books on Canadian bestseller lists, but Canadian movies never make it near the top box office spots in Canada.<BR/><BR/>Now, I know what you're going to say (I think). Maybe it'll all work out great, it'll free artists and make so much more art freely available to more people. The artists will simply create the work and make it available through these new distribution methods in which publishers aren't needed.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it will mean government granting agencies will have even more say over what art gets produced and I don't see that as a good thing for individual consumers. <BR/><BR/>So, I think for consumers to still have an important place in all this, there needs to be some control over the material - for consumers and creators. There is a difference between a consumer who is willing to part with a few bucks to support something and someone who isn't. Those consumers deserve some respect in this, too.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it's "pocketbook democracy," but the Montgomery bus boycott had more effect than most other protests. People do a huge amount of talking with their wallets - it would be a shame to lose that voice (or hand it all over to advertisers of other products).<BR/><BR/>I hope you have a good time in Old Montreal. I grew up in Montreal and worked in Old Montreal for years. I bet you're enjoying some great food....John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-64818829426788930952008-08-10T07:58:00.000-04:002008-08-10T07:58:00.000-04:00John M,I hate the word 'copyright'. The s...John M,<BR/><BR/>I hate the word 'copyright'. The synonym to the word 'copy' is 'manuscript', and while making mechanical copies is one of the activities it restricts, it is not about copying.<BR/><BR/>In the past books were produced, distributed, and read. You had no control over who was reading them, and they were available through these scary things called libraries which allowed people to read them for free.<BR/><BR/>When we make these books digital, every time you "read", "loan" or do anything else involves making digital copies.<BR/><BR/>The control we are talking about adding to digital copies (through controlling devices -- for basic reasons relating to science there is no way to exert this control through content alone) is a level of control that is FAR BEYOND what existed in the past. With digital we are not talking about having less control than in the past, but about special interests believing that they should now have more control.<BR/><BR/>And back to the psychology --- the tighter the control is exerted, the more citizens will rebel against it.<BR/><BR/>BTW: When I say learn "technical measures" I'm not talking about learning how to author software. I'm talking about learning the scientific/technical basis of what amounts to more than a third of C-61. Without a sound understanding of how these technologies work (and JohnD doesn't have such an understanding yet as his examples show), it is hard to have a reasonable discussion about Bill C-61.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Having audiences directly pay for access to something (monopoly rents) is an extremely narrow business model. Most of the money is elsewhere. Narrowing to only this business model is akin to giving up most creativity, something I'm certainly not willing to accept.<BR/><BR/>Google, for instance, is in the same business as television and radio. They are selling ears and eyeballs to advertisers. When creators finally decide they want to be paid for YouTube/etc (rather than the silliness of trying to stop it) and get their collectives talking with Google, it will be quite indirect -- just like radio -- where there are a number of intermediaries between the people paying (advertisers, not audiences) and the creators (who get cheques sent from collectives, not a "customer").<BR/><BR/><BR/>I see nothing wrong with this, and for many types of creators there is *FAR* more money in this than charging audiences directly.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Books are different than multimedia entertainment, but most creativity is different (Software is "special" in the same way that photography is "special", and neither should be removed from general copyright and given their own regime). One thing that can be said is that focusing only on monopoly rents (charging individual audiences for access), and treating everything else as "theft" will close the door to some of the most lucrative deals for you. And as your revenue takes a nosedive you can't legitimately blame "infringement" for what was your own bad business decision.<BR/><BR/>Off to the "breakfast" that is part of the B&B and then off to Old Montreal to check things out..Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-12781750887091671662008-08-10T07:39:00.000-04:002008-08-10T07:39:00.000-04:00JohnD,Your analogy about TMs being like a lock whi...JohnD,<BR/><BR/>Your analogy about TMs being like a lock which you have the key to is incorrect. What we are discussing is locks applied to devices by other than its owner, and where the owner does not get keys.<BR/><BR/>If when you returned from your trip you found that one of your neighbours changed the locks on your home and didn't allow you in without their permission and scrutiny, you would be quite upset. If these house thieves were proposing locks that made it illegal for you to remove these third party locks from your own property, you would be as upset as we are.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As bright as you think we are, we cannot change the laws of physics. I'm not a fiction writer, and am not going to write a Harry Potter book of TMs which can magically do things which the laws of physics don't allow. This is what you are talking about when discussing TMs that don't have the problems we discuss.<BR/><BR/>There are TMs that don't have these problems, but they don't and can't do what those calling for these laws think they want. And if you want me to do the "I have 4 things in my hand" presentation for you to help you understand the differences, I will do so.<BR/><BR/>By the way, we can write a paper that claims anything is true -- doesn't make it true. Yes, there are "new" business models, but if we looked at these models closely I would say that they are eithor not based on the controvercial TM's (back to the fact that some are good and some are bad), or that they were based on theft.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Charging you an entrance fee to enter your own home may seem like a lucrative business model, except when you look at the legitimacy (and hopefully illegality) of doing so.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-27877892806654779332008-08-09T21:38:00.000-04:002008-08-09T21:38:00.000-04:00"Of course, understanding why my problem is correc..."Of course, understanding why my problem is correct requires some basic understanding of how "technological measures" work."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, a few weeks ago we agreed that writing software is completely different from writing novels. There is no "non-technical" software application as there is for an old-fashioned paper book, so software writing hasn't had to make this change. It's different, we agree on that. (I think, unless you don't agree that novels are different?)<BR/><BR/>What I'm working with is a generations old tradition of having control over what I create. It's true, I don't see maintaining control over something I have created as any limitation on anyone else's rights or creativity - they are completely free to create their own, as I have. <BR/><BR/>We can debate the length of time that should pass before artwork falls into the public domain, but I don't think many people really want that to be immediately upon creation (sometimes I even create stuff and then I don't make it available to anyone, for a bunch of reasons - certainly I'm not limiting anyone's rights by maintaining that kind of control - every artist does it. I'm sure the world has been denied more art than actually exists this way). I read the Jefferson stuff and we can talk about it here, but for the moment I'd like to use the existing length of time till something becomes public domain as our guide for discussion.<BR/><BR/>"I believe that if you see this as a theft issue, you will close your mind to actual solutions to any problems."<BR/><BR/>I'm not closing my mind to any possible "solutions" but I do want to make clear what the problem is so that we can work towards a real solution.<BR/><BR/>The problem isn't about being paid, it's about being paid by the consumer of the material. I know there are other models to pay artists, but I think individual consumers should have the final say as to which specific artwork they support (this is the biggest problem with government grants and any patron system - consumers have absolutely no say about which art gets financed. The result of this can be easily seen in Canadian movies). Half of this is my right as a creator of the work, but equally as important is the right of the consumer.<BR/><BR/>It's this relationship that has the potential to be lost and any "solution" to this problem has to take that relationship into account.<BR/><BR/>I can really only speak about publishing (and really there only about novels, I don't know much about non-fiction), but I would like to point out that for me and for most novelists, a publisher isn't simply a printer and a shipping company that can be replaced by new technology. Publishers do a lot more than that and both novelists and consumers of novels benefit.<BR/><BR/>I write crime novels so I know "tough on crime" doesn't work - or, I should say, only works if a huge amount of individual rights and freedoms are lost and we don't want that.<BR/><BR/>So, how do we maintain the relationship between the creators and the consumers (with the publisher value-add) without having someone else make the material available to a limitless number of strangers without asking anyone involved if they're okay with that?<BR/><BR/>Because, you know, that also takes away consumers' individual rights to decide which artwork they want to support.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-22924141303273250672008-08-09T17:59:00.000-04:002008-08-09T17:59:00.000-04:00John M,I'm in Montreal on my OLPC XO, so you will ...John M,<BR/><BR/>I'm in Montreal on my OLPC XO, so you will be spared my regular links to other sites.<BR/><BR/>I'm one of those people who think copyright infringement is not theft. If you google for "Jefferson Debate" you will find my article digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate<BR/><BR/>I believe that thinking that copyright infringement is "theft" is what devalues the creativity, and closes doors to ways to actually receive better rewards for that creativity.<BR/><BR/>I believe that if you see this as a theft issue, you will close your mind to actual solutions to any problems.<BR/><BR/>Problem: how to maximize the rewards to creators from their creativity.<BR/><BR/>Pretty much every solution I've seen that has started entirely from the perspective of stopping infringement has also reduced authorized uses as well. As a solution to 'maximize rewards", this fails the test as it reduces rewards.<BR/><BR/>If attitudes have shifted, we need to ask questions about why. If you think this is all about people wanting something for nothing, and believe that a "tough on crime" approach is your only option, I believe you have already lost. As I said above, every "solution" that starts from an enforcement mindset will reduce revenues.<BR/><BR/>I think people are looking at the "tough on crime" approach from some intermediaries and rejecting it as outrageous. JohnD has refused to look into how "technological measures" work, and has posted another article suggesting the BCCLA endorsement was incorrect likely based on his incorrect understanding of "technological measures". People who do understand how TMs work will have a hard time respecting the interesting of "Copyright holders" as a group (as if this was one group) when this group has demonstrated (through indifference, as I read all too often here, or malice, as I hear from some corporations) no respect for the rights of others.<BR/><BR/><BR/>To use your theft analogy to infringement of other rights, if you steal from me, it is very hard for me to feel sorry for you if someone steals from you.<BR/><BR/>JohnD wants to claim that his opponents fired the first shot, but I know that doesn't apply to me -- and I'm someone he has full access to to determine motivations. I only got involved in the copyright debate when it became clear that a group of copyright holders were trying to wipe out important human rights I feel are important, and are critical for my business.<BR/><BR/>Of course, understanding why my problem is correct requires some basic understanding of how "technological measures" work.<BR/><BR/>Chat later...Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-90609193255973145752008-08-09T12:04:00.000-04:002008-08-09T12:04:00.000-04:00Craig,All very interesting. I'm on my way out soon...Craig,<BR/><BR/>All very interesting. I'm on my way out soon to have a garden party, which is strangely more attractive to me right now than an ongoing debate about C-61. Martinis by the koi pond.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, when I leave my house, I will lock the door. Whether I leave my key in the lock or not, I'm pretty sure no-one has the right to turn it for the purpose of stopping the lock from doing what it is designed to do, which is keep my door closed to intruders. Perhaps an easier analogy would be that TPMs are doors --- closed doors with please don't trespass signs on them.<BR/><BR/>In other words, I reject your interpretation of my analogy. Furthermore, I find it funny that the standard copyfighter tactic is to ignore the basic principle when it is convenient to do so, and instead disagree with elements of the analogy.<BR/><BR/>So, a couple of things to keep the rest of you going while I'm sipping olive-laced iced vodka:<BR/><BR/>The gun law analogy was actually meant to suggest logic toward a law against lock breaking, not a law against infringing -- so if we've missed that point, we may have missed most of the others.<BR/><BR/>Two things about your own analogy involving stripping my book of DRM for your own purposes -- first, I disagree that you will have done nothing essentially wrong, if indeed we all start from the understanding that such stripping is illegal. You will, in fact, have broken the law, knowingly. There is no entitlement within civil society to break a law you disagree with, certainly not without accepting the consequences. Ask Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau. They have some thoughts on this subject. I generally find references to civil rights movements of the past to be kind of tiresome in this debate, but if people insist on seeing hacking as civil disobedience, then actual civil disobedience should be understood. <BR/><BR/>McF might point out, as do I, that ongoing <I>uncivil disobedience</I> with entitlement -- <I>it's okay because the record companies have been ripping us off for years</I> -- is the very reason we are now having this discussion.<BR/><BR/>That's my own nitpicking, but since it speaks to my basic principle argument, I allow myself the pleasure.<BR/><BR/>For me personally, as an author, I don't care if you strip the DRM from my work (my work contains no DRM that I'm aware of, by the way) and then do nothing else to it, but I'm glad the law has considered the possibility of someone doing more after breaking locks, because I believe that is the right principle to start from.<BR/><BR/>I don't mean to offend anyone's chosen geekiness, but I really couldn't care less about the details of encryption, and I'm pretty sure most traditional creators are the same. My understanding, from reading Cory Doctorow, is that there is some unbreakable encryption out there. My understanding from other readings is that no DRM will ever be unbreakable. I hope I've explained that I really don't care about the breakability of any of this -- just the principle that the breaking, except in some agreed upon instances, is bad.<BR/><BR/>All the questioning of RIAA stats smells painfully political to me. My sense is that piracy hurts a pirated industry in its bank account. I know that the pirated writing I deal with in my work for PWAC has an economic effect on PWAC members, because it is used yet not paid for. Would the pirates buy the writing if they couldn't pirate it? -- who knows, but they'd be at least forced to make that decision, creating a market with income potential. Argue about numbers and amounts all you want, the act in itself is harmful, and illegal, so wrong. <BR/><BR/>I agree with you Craig that we don't really know if protecting TPMs will have a measurable effect on infringing, but now we're back to my gun law analogy. It's the principle of the thing. We start watering down our core principles, and we are in trouble.<BR/><BR/>Now, my challenge for you and Russell. The fear, as I understand it, around TPMs in this bill is that, as worded, C-61 allows the presence of a lock to take away all the standard important exceptions. So, my software minions, invent a TPM that doesn't do that. Invent a lock that will protect digital works from infringement (not by its ultimate effectiveness, but by its mere presence combined with a law that says 'don't break it') but that will open or disappear as non-infringing behaviours interact with the work.<BR/><BR/>Sound complicated? Sound impossible? So does getting to Mars, but we're trying. Instead of watering down principles because a smart-lock <I>seems</I> impossible, try to keep the principle intact by diving into the work on smart locks.<BR/><BR/>Russell loves sending everyone away to do their homework. Here's a <A HREF="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885371&rec=1&srcabs=908998" REL="nofollow">paper out of the University of Cincinatti</A> discussing, I think, just such a smart lock system.<BR/><BR/>And here's a <A HREF="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=785945" REL="nofollow">paper out of Columbia Law</A> that also might be of interest. This is from the abstract:<BR/><BR/><I>The US experience to date indicates that legal protection for technological measures has helped foster new business models that make works available to the public at a variety of price points and enjoyment options, without engendering the "digital lockup" and other copyright owner abuses that many had feared. This is not to say that the US legislation and its judicial interpretation represent the most preferable means to making the internet a hospitable place for authors while continuing to enable lawful user conduct. But brooding forecasts and legitimate continuing concerns notwithstanding, the overall equilibrium so far appears to be a reasonable one.</I><BR/><BR/>So, martinis then.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-35248581926655858642008-08-09T10:59:00.000-04:002008-08-09T10:59:00.000-04:00Okay, Russell, I read all the posts you linked to ...Okay, Russell, I read all the posts you linked to (and a few more) and you make a lot of sense. I see the difference between locks on content and other locks, and, like most people, I don't WANT locks on any of it. I don't even want to have to lock my bike, but at least I understand I put that lock there myself. <BR/><BR/>I wish I had been involved in this issue when people first made the claim that acquiring things that were offered for sale without paying wasn't theft. How that attitude has persisted for so long among otherwise smart people does baffle me.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you're right, maybe very few people actually do that. Maybe Craig is right and the number of people doing it is going up all the time. Maybe Darryl is right and every teenager in the world does it. Maybe it doesn't have any effect on the actual sales numbers (those peope never would have bought the stuff anyway). All I know is that I've met far more people who do it than don't and they all know it's wrong and do it anyway.<BR/><BR/>And it still seems to be at the root of many of the problems here - whether it happens in great numbers or not, that's the fear creators have. Simple. People fear that an attitude shift has happened and that a whole generation looks at content as without value. Surely many educated, smart people have made this claim. I don't know if they have been deliberately sidetracking this discussion or not, tieing it up in semantics about "distribution" and "downloading," "copying," "value" and "theft," claiming not to understand what seems so clear. It doesn't matter if something cost a hundred bucks to produce or a hundreth of a cent - value accrues in the acquiring - buyers set the value (not sellers) by agreeing to buy or not buy or offering a lower price (way back when I bought my house we actually offered less than the asking price and our offer was accepted). This really is day one economics class stuff.<BR/><BR/>So, book writers fear that as soon as their work is put in digital format it will be given away - as that guy said, you can no more make a file uncopyable than you can make water not wet. I believe he's right.<BR/><BR/>In truth, this won't be an issue for very many writers. Most of us can't give away our books if we try. But we dream. Books are quite a different animal from music, but artists tend to be artists and have a lot of the same experiences when it comes to the marketplace (we get ripped off from every side and we fear it).<BR/><BR/>And really, I don't mind at all if someone wants to make a copy of my book and give it to his/her friend. They could as easily make the trip to the library. I don't want any restrictions on any e-books or audiobooks of mine. It's this giving it to a limitless number of strangers I don't like. It's very different than giving it to your friend. I guess people are desperate to feel like they have lots of friends.<BR/><BR/>Also, the idea that all this acquiring of my work will make me more famous and therefore more valuable only works if you value fame the way Paris Hilton does - not all of us do. If I wanted to write articles and essays and make money from public appearances then fame would make a difference, I guess, but I don't want to be a shill.<BR/><BR/>But you're right, this is a mess of so many issues that shouldn't be mixed together. What would help a lot of, I think, is if there were some clear guidelines about the acquiring of content (shared, downloaded, bought, however it's acquired) and people stopped with this nonsense that it's not theft and doesn't devalue the original.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-79151530515950980982008-08-08T20:06:00.000-04:002008-08-08T20:06:00.000-04:00JohnD said: So, back to basic principles, this bil...JohnD said: So, back to basic principles, this bill says "in Canada we don't kick down doors,"<BR/><BR/>This is not what the bill says. That may be what people without a technology background think it says, and it may even be what people without a technology background who were involved in authoring it intended to say, but that is not what it actually says.<BR/><BR/>I need to call it a weekend at this point. Always interesting to chat.<BR/><BR/>It would be helpful for you to look at the "I have 4 things in my hand" handouts/etc as it would help you greatly in understanding C-61 to have a basic literacy in what "technological measures" actually are. It is not enough to wait until committee to do that presentation, given those without the required technical background will be asking for things at committee that are harmful to their own interests.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-32650005857211942202008-08-08T18:20:00.000-04:002008-08-08T18:20:00.000-04:00Incidentally John:"I don't discount the possibilit...Incidentally John:<BR/><BR/>"I don't discount the possibility, but so far at least the US has not said, look there's just way too many gun murders, so we might as well just decriminalize murder."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure to what you are referring. Did someone advocate legalization of copyright infringement? A bit of a straw man, isn't it?Craig Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14185734999688120073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-55588025368449519862008-08-08T17:31:00.000-04:002008-08-08T17:31:00.000-04:00quoth John, "So, we have Craig saying piracy is in...quoth John, "So, we have Craig saying piracy is increasing "monotonically" -- side note: I don't mind being sent to the dictionary, but even after my visit I have no idea what you mean by this; something more than just "a whole lot" yes? -- and Russell saying there are no reliable statistics to show ill effects of piracy."<BR/><BR/>When one speaks about a data set changing monotonically, it <A HREF="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amonotonic&meta=" REL="nofollow">means</A> that the graph is always moving in one direction (up OR down, not both) with possible flat patches. In other words, there hasn't been a period of time since the passing of the DMCA where we have seen a noticeable drop in illegal downloading as one might expect if the law were enforcible. I wasn't drawing any conclusions about the ammount of change, just the direction. This is based on the same statistics the RIAA, IFPI, BSA, MPAA, YO-MAAMAA, etc are using to justify legal protection for locks. I agree with Russell that these studies are spurious (particularly with respect to the implications for retail revenue) and am merely pointing out that they make the opposite case than purported. I'm having trouble finding it now, but I read one blogger who noted that when previously locked music gets re-released in the clear (not for free but no DRM on it), there is no corresponding increase in downloading that one might expect if the locks were an impediment to piracy in any way. I'll grant that there are likely many other factors not being considered there. I'll also admit that I didn't scrutinize their source data at the time. It's just food for thought. Salt to taste.<BR/><BR/>I'm just going to gnitpick a little here and clarify a technical point. John later said, "Other than encryption, there is no unbreakable lock. How am I doing?". <BR/><BR/>Digital locks are encryption. The proprietor encrypts the book/movie/song/whatever prior to shipping such that you need a numerical key to decrypt it. In order for the end user to then view the media they purchased, they have to have that key (hidden somewhere on whatever device they use to view the media). Since the key is literally in their hands, unscrupulous people can then unwrap the locked media and redistribute it if they want. That's not right and it's not legal but it is easy. <BR/><BR/>Getting back to your house analogy, it's like leaving the key in the lock. No protection. <BR/><BR/>End picking of gnits.<BR/><BR/>Now, the basic principle you are discussing is "we don't break locks" and you use a house analogy to illustrate it. The problem with analogical arguments is that they are only models of the real problem and must necessarily involve some distortion or over-simplification. If I walked up to your house, kicked the door in and could somehow prove that I didn't enter or take anything, the crime I should be charged with is "willful destruction of property" and I should have to pay restitution. If you left the door open and I wandered in, had a look around and left without taking anything, the crime I should be charged with is "unlawful entry". One can combine those and add various levels of theft offenses as appropriate depending on what was actually done. <BR/><BR/>Getting back to digital locks, if I pay for a DRM-wrapped copy of your book, take the lock off of it and do nothing further, by your house analogy that should be equivalent to "willful destruction of property" since you argue that breaking a digital lock is the same as breaking a physical one. I argue that it isn't because I'm not mutilating your property and there is no loss of livelihood to you by that action alone. I'm altering my purchased copy of the book for my own purposes. Perhaps I do so against your wishes but this might even be necessary if the TPM chosen isn't supported by my chosen operating system, for example. Yes, that fair use case could one day be covered by exceptions built into the law and yes, I can check the compatibility of locked media and choose not to buy it but that's not the point. I think you should revise your basic principle from "we don't break locks" to "we don't steal" because it's the theft (or rather lack of creator-remuneration for unauthorized copies) you (and I) really have a problem with. Copying copyrighted works is already illegal in Canada and has been since the advent of the printing press, as far as I'm aware. I acknowledge that piracy is a big problem but I see no evidence to indicate that legal protection for digital locks is an effective remedy and I think the burden of proof lies on proponents of TPMs.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested to see some.Craig Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14185734999688120073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-80594025618592857182008-08-08T14:38:00.000-04:002008-08-08T14:38:00.000-04:00"I forget, do we agree that file sharing and downl..."I forget, do we agree that file sharing and downloading of copyrighted material is a problem?"<BR/><BR/>Sure, in exactly the same way that the British government use to see pirate radio as a problem; that the tv networks used to see cable television as a problem; that the movie studio's saw the VCR as a problem; that the music composers saw prerecorded music as a problem, and finally, in turn, how the record labels use to see radio as a problem.<BR/><BR/>Now ask me what the solution is and I expect that you and I will have highly divergent answers.<BR/><BR/>Yes, you are correct. I am unhappy with "the manufacturers' rights under current copyright" In the last 200 years copyright has expanded from a term of 28 years to life +50, +70 +90, and the definition of derived work has become ever more broad. In the context of some works (such as software) these limits are laughable in there short shrift of the public domain.<BR/><BR/>However I think that is a separate debate. Given whatever rights of reproduction and distributions the copyright holders have, they should not be able to step beyond those bounds and essentially make their own copyright laws simply by sticking a digital lock on it.<BR/><BR/>Term and breadth of copyright is a separate issue from TPM. Only TPM is the focus of section 41.2 of Bill C-61, which John and I were commenting on.Infringerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027713772050821748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-69685387897232157472008-08-08T14:14:00.000-04:002008-08-08T14:14:00.000-04:00"Not true. I only want you to have to sign a contr..."Not true. I only want you to have to sign a contract for limitation that the manufacturer want to puts on it that go beyond copyright law."<BR/><BR/>Oh, well then...<BR/><BR/>I forget, do we agree that file sharing and downloading of copyrighted material is a problem?<BR/><BR/>Because it seems to me you've been pretty unhappy with the manufacturers' rights under current copyright (never mind proposed changes to those rights). But if you agree that those rights should be respected, and there should be consequences if they're not, well then, we could have saved a lot of time on these discussions.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-40784335231433889422008-08-08T13:33:00.000-04:002008-08-08T13:33:00.000-04:00"Darryl wants me to sign a contract when I buy a C..."Darryl wants me to sign a contract when I buy a CD saying what I will and will not do with it. This because a lot of people are clever enough to realize they can make it available to a limitless number of strangers and even justify this to themselves as not wrong in any way - any implied social contract between the buyer and creator of that CD is long gone."<BR/><BR/>Not true. I only want you to have to sign a contract for limitation that the manufacturer want to puts on it that go beyond copyright law.Infringerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027713772050821748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-12547962586858369382008-08-08T13:08:00.000-04:002008-08-08T13:08:00.000-04:00"In the US, when you buy a handgun you do so under..."In the US, when you buy a handgun you do so under an implied social contract..."<BR/><BR/>In many ways, this is the crux of the whole thing - there are no longer any implied social contracts, everything needs to be laid out in law.<BR/><BR/>Darryl wants me to sign a contract when I buy a CD saying what I will and will not do with it. This because a lot of people are clever enough to realize they can make it available to a limitless number of strangers and even justify this to themselves as not wrong in any way - any implied social contract between the buyer and creator of that CD is long gone.<BR/><BR/>Though Russell says this happens so rarely there's no need at all. <BR/><BR/>So, it's going to be tough to get this done.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.com