Comments on: More Policymakers on Targeting Infringement http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/10/more-policymakers-on-targeting-infringement/ Copyright Information Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:02:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Do-it-yourself: There are more ways to the top than one http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/10/more-policymakers-on-targeting-infringement/#comment-44396 The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Do-it-yourself: There are more ways to the top than one Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:47:25 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=510#comment-44396 [...] More Policymakers on Targeting Infringement Good Artists and Promoters Doing Good » [...] [...] More Policymakers on Targeting Infringement Good Artists and Promoters Doing Good » [...]

]]> By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Obama, IP Enforcement and Net Neutrality http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/10/more-policymakers-on-targeting-infringement/#comment-44395 The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Obama, IP Enforcement and Net Neutrality Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:43:54 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=510#comment-44395 [...] in D.C., I can empathize.) Senator Franken is a major advocate of net neutrality regulations, as he made clear recently when speaking at the Future of Music Summit. But in that same speech he also said it’s essential that copyright be enforced, and noted [...] [...] in D.C., I can empathize.) Senator Franken is a major advocate of net neutrality regulations, as he made clear recently when speaking at the Future of Music Summit. But in that same speech he also said it’s essential that copyright be enforced, and noted [...]

]]> By: max davis http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/10/more-policymakers-on-targeting-infringement/#comment-36334 max davis Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:21:28 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=510#comment-36334 Hello Patrick, it was a pleasure to meet you at the Los Angeles CCC. Thanks for sharing valuable info with us. Mobile networks can help us right the wrong that was done to the integrity of the U.S. copyright system. That wrong was implemented by those that released the Internet for public use with little or -0- consideration for the impact upon our copyright system. Here is an open letter to the Library of Congress that was copied to the NTIA, FCC, the Executive Branch and other government entities that may help going forward. Dear Mr. Carson, Dr. Billington and Ms Campbell, Here and now we live in a self- publishing society thanks to the Internet and related technologies. The undermining of the U.S. copyright system by peer2peer file sharing abuse is an urgent matter that needs to be addressed now before it is too late. The good news is that there is a way to strengthen the integrity of the U.S. copyright system going forward if implemented promptly. We must act now. Please don’t place our request to be heard by persons of authority into the non-productive maze of passing the buck. These are urgent issues that we have spent years researching. We are very pleased to say we have a solution. Background The Internet was opened to public uses As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable. But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system. If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known! Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP. Basically, a statutory rate should have been established. Whereas, whenever copyrighted materials were downloaded, (this is a form of distribution and publication), via an ISP the rate would kick in to be deposited with a designated collective that represented the interests of ALL rights holders. It is my guess that The Library of Congress was not privy to the conversation. The Solution - Mobile Networks Mobile networks contain the Internet within As we move towards a mobile future it is important to know there is another opportunity to put measures in place before they become a problem to the U.S. copyright system. As I mentioned in my first correspondence to you, within 5 to 10 years we will more likely than not be able to send an entire movie from one mobile device directly to another mobile device, (peer2peer). A statutory rate will make that a productive event. What if there is nothing in place? We have a plan for implementation. Conclusion Regarding our petition for rulemaking before the CRB, we were already informed by Judge Sledge that there was not an existing statute that would enable the CRB to act upon our proposal. That is why we began and continue to solicit Congresspersons and Senators on the Judiciary Committees. We have also solicited the NTIA and Department of Commerce for help in the development of our work. Regarding further funding, we understand the Library of Congress may not have resources available for such a thing. However, your attentions and concerted actions will be much more valuable to our movement than direct funding. We are very hopeful that this correspondence causes actions on your part as it is our firm belief that this is the right time to move on this because there is no time to waste. With all due respect, as of now, The Library of Congress IS privy to the conversation. Best regards, /max davis/ Max Davis, Director DataRevenue.Org 22647 Ventura Blvd Woodland Hills, CA 91364 (818) 713-1510 Hello Patrick, it was a pleasure to meet you at the Los Angeles CCC. Thanks for sharing valuable info with us.
Mobile networks can help us right the wrong that was done to the integrity of the U.S. copyright system. That wrong was implemented by those that released the Internet for public use with little or -0- consideration for the impact upon our copyright system. Here is an open letter to the Library of Congress that was copied to the NTIA, FCC, the Executive Branch and other government entities that may help going forward.

Dear Mr. Carson, Dr. Billington and Ms Campbell,

Here and now we live in a self- publishing society thanks to the Internet and related technologies. The undermining of the U.S. copyright system by peer2peer file sharing abuse is an urgent matter that needs to be addressed now before it is too late.

The good news is that there is a way to strengthen the integrity of the U.S. copyright system going forward if implemented promptly. We must act now. Please don’t place our request to be heard by persons of authority into the non-productive maze of passing the buck. These are urgent issues that we have spent years researching. We are very pleased to say we have a solution.

Background

The Internet was opened to public uses

As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.

But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.

If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!

Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.

Basically, a statutory rate should have been established. Whereas, whenever copyrighted materials were downloaded, (this is a form of distribution and publication), via an ISP the rate would kick in to be deposited with a designated collective that represented the interests of ALL rights holders.

It is my guess that The Library of Congress was not privy to the conversation.

The Solution – Mobile Networks

Mobile networks contain the Internet within

As we move towards a mobile future it is important to know there is another opportunity to put measures in place before they become a problem to the U.S. copyright system.

As I mentioned in my first correspondence to you, within 5 to 10 years we will more likely than not be able to send an entire movie from one mobile device directly to another mobile device, (peer2peer). A statutory rate will make that a productive event. What if there is nothing in place?

We have a plan for implementation.

Conclusion

Regarding our petition for rulemaking before the CRB, we were already informed by Judge Sledge that there was not an existing statute that would enable the CRB to act upon our proposal. That is why we began and continue to solicit Congresspersons and Senators on the Judiciary Committees. We have also solicited the NTIA and Department of Commerce for help in the development of our work.

Regarding further funding, we understand the Library of Congress may not have resources available for such a thing.

However, your attentions and concerted actions will be much more valuable to our movement than direct funding.

We are very hopeful that this correspondence causes actions on your part as it is our firm belief that this is the right time to move on this because there is no time to waste.

With all due respect, as of now, The Library of Congress IS privy to the conversation.

Best regards,
/max davis/

Max Davis, Director
DataRevenue.Org
22647 Ventura Blvd
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
(818) 713-1510

]]> By: John Gordon http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/10/more-policymakers-on-targeting-infringement/#comment-36329 John Gordon Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:06:39 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=510#comment-36329 Sorry Patrick, the trap is of your own making, and you can't escape with semantics. The DMCA prohibits distribution of technologies that have lawful uses. It is equivalent to outlawing the sale of crowbars because they can be used to commit burglary. In that context you support "a restriction on technology itself." In the context of Internet filtering you apparently oppose any restrictions on the types of technology that ISPs can deploy to go after file sharing (you don't specify but I assume this refers to filtering, deep packet inspection, and other surveillance infrastructure). This is inconsistent. As for me, I am a citizen who is deeply concerned about the market power held by a small number of cultural gatekeepers. I am not "offended by rightsholders enforcing their rights" but by media oligopolies who, instead of adapting to technological change, fund sites like this one for the purpose of influencing policymakers to protect their outdated business models. That's why I comment on your site. As for why I "show no inclination to ever agree" if you look back you will find that's not so. I agree with you that copyright law matters, and that we all have a stake in getting it right. I've never said otherwise. If you only want comments that make you feel warm and fuzzy, hey, it's your blog. Sorry Patrick, the trap is of your own making, and you can’t escape with semantics. The DMCA prohibits distribution of technologies that have lawful uses. It is equivalent to outlawing the sale of crowbars because they can be used to commit burglary. In that context you support “a restriction on technology itself.” In the context of Internet filtering you apparently oppose any restrictions on the types of technology that ISPs can deploy to go after file sharing (you don’t specify but I assume this refers to filtering, deep packet inspection, and other surveillance infrastructure). This is inconsistent.

As for me, I am a citizen who is deeply concerned about the market power held by a small number of cultural gatekeepers. I am not “offended by rightsholders enforcing their rights” but by media oligopolies who, instead of adapting to technological change, fund sites like this one for the purpose of influencing policymakers to protect their outdated business models. That’s why I comment on your site.

As for why I “show no inclination to ever agree” if you look back you will find that’s not so. I agree with you that copyright law matters, and that we all have a stake in getting it right. I’ve never said otherwise. If you only want comments that make you feel warm and fuzzy, hey, it’s your blog.

]]> By: Patrick Ross http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/10/more-policymakers-on-targeting-infringement/#comment-35491 Patrick Ross Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:22:44 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=510#comment-35491 Seriously, John, if you're going to set a rhetorical trap, make sure there's actually bait in it. The restrictions there are also behavioral; you can't USE lockpicking technologies and you can't DISTRIBUTE them. There are restrictions that could be put on technologies in dealing with infringement, for example you could say that a copyright owner can't send a bot into a potential infringer's computer to blow it up. That precludes the use of that technology in that circumstance. John, I've lost track of how many questions you've set me up with since this blog's launch. My bio is on this site, I am quite open in sharing my point of view, yet I know nothing of who you are, if that is your actual name, what you do, or why you personally are so offended by rightsholders enforcing their rights and show no inclination to ever agree or support even a fraction of what we write, even when we try to find middle ground. On behalf of the readers of this blog, I invite you to post below who you are and why your one-man comment crusade against our point of view is being waged. Forgive me if there's a delay in posting your response, I'm about to start two weeks of business travel and my online access will be spotty. Seriously, John, if you’re going to set a rhetorical trap, make sure there’s actually bait in it. The restrictions there are also behavioral; you can’t USE lockpicking technologies and you can’t DISTRIBUTE them. There are restrictions that could be put on technologies in dealing with infringement, for example you could say that a copyright owner can’t send a bot into a potential infringer’s computer to blow it up. That precludes the use of that technology in that circumstance.

John, I’ve lost track of how many questions you’ve set me up with since this blog’s launch. My bio is on this site, I am quite open in sharing my point of view, yet I know nothing of who you are, if that is your actual name, what you do, or why you personally are so offended by rightsholders enforcing their rights and show no inclination to ever agree or support even a fraction of what we write, even when we try to find middle ground. On behalf of the readers of this blog, I invite you to post below who you are and why your one-man comment crusade against our point of view is being waged.

Forgive me if there’s a delay in posting your response, I’m about to start two weeks of business travel and my online access will be spotty.

]]> By: John Gordon http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/10/more-policymakers-on-targeting-infringement/#comment-35482 John Gordon Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:21:04 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=510#comment-35482 "f we proactively place restrictions on technology itself — rather than behavior regarding the use of technology — those future technologies won’t exist, because there’s no incentive to develop technologies that can’t be used." This is exactly why Section 1201 of the DMCA is such a disaster, because it places severe restrictions on multi-purpose technologies regardless of how they are used. How do you justify your support for regulating so-called "circumvention devices" while arguing for a hands-off approach to technologies to filter, track, and censor the Internet? Shouldn't we target behavior rather than tools in both cases? “f we proactively place restrictions on technology itself — rather than behavior regarding the use of technology — those future technologies won’t exist, because there’s no incentive to develop technologies that can’t be used.”

This is exactly why Section 1201 of the DMCA is such a disaster, because it places severe restrictions on multi-purpose technologies regardless of how they are used. How do you justify your support for regulating so-called “circumvention devices” while arguing for a hands-off approach to technologies to filter, track, and censor the Internet? Shouldn’t we target behavior rather than tools in both cases?

]]>