RE: Balance - (was RE: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD))

Edward [mailto:EdwardSnowden2387@outlook.com] wrote:
>

Edward, thank you for the Wikipedia link(s). I have also provided a number of Wikipedia links below, as it appears we are using a common source for our definitions, which, if nothing else, is a useful reference and distinction to be made.
 
> 
> MPAA doublespeak   | in your world
> =------------------------------------------
> property           | copyright

In the real world: 
Digital works of art, and more specifically in this discussion, mostly movie and television content (although I accept that the technology being discussed could be applied to any digital work). For example, we are not discussing "the (Christian) Bible" (which is not copyrighted), but rather the History Channels entertainment series "The Bible". http://www.history.com/shows/the-bible 

This is an important if not critical distinction. We are not talking about an "idea" here, but rather a digital creation that others have invested time, money and resources into and who now wish to capitalize on that investment legally.


> MPAA doublespeak   | in your world
> =------------------------------------------
> steal/theft        | copyright infringement

In the real world:
The unauthorized taking and use of materials without the consent or compensation of the creator of those materials. Colloquially this is often referred to as Piracy (a convention that has existed for over 400 years).

 "The practice of labeling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne in 1710, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

You know this, I know this, and anyone reading this knows this. Those who operate or use "The Pirate Bay" know this as well (ergo the name of that site).

 "Piracy is typically an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy 

For the sake of our debate, this definition is now being extended to the virtual space that is "the internet". You know this, I know this, and anyone reading this know this.

Throughout much of the modern world, Piracy is and has been considered a criminal act (a point "The Pirate Bay trial" reference you provided does confirm):

 "... the verdict was announced at 11:00 AM on Friday 17 April 2009: Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström were all found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million)" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial


I further submit that in this debate, Piracy is also an act of Anarchy.

 "Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral, or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

I accept that not all see Anarchy as a "bad thing", but if you believe in a free and open society, where the rules of democracy, the will of the majority, and the rule of law are fundamental building blocks, then it would appear that today, the majority of the world agrees with my opinion that Anarchy is not the way to affect change. If you wish to change copyright laws, then the vehicle for that is the political process and the rule of law - change the laws, which will have an impact on the technology. 

Attempting to restrict technology to change the laws is the wrong way about it, and frankly simply will not work.



> MPAA doublespeak   | in your world
> =------------------------------------------
> content protection | user restrictions

In the real world:
CONTENT restrictions. Users are free to accept those restrictions, or reject them; however I argue that if content is offered with certain restrictions, the choice is not whether to accept or reject those restrictions, but rather the content itself. 

You are free to read the Bible, to re-tell the story of the Bible, and in fact organizations such as the Gideons will happily give you a physical copy of the Bible for free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_International) 

However, if you wish to be entertained by the History Channel's television series "The Bible", then I submit that you accept "their" offer of entertainment under their conditions - willfully taking it without respecting and acknowledging those conditions is Piracy, and by most definitions of "wrong", that is wrong. It is legally wrong, and it is (I submit) morally wrong, and the majority who practice in this Piracy know deep down that it is wrong (but have found reasons to somehow justify it).


You and I can disagree over specific terminology here, but we all know what this larger discussion is about, and splitting semantic hairs does nothing to advance the debate.  

JF

Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 22:41:55 UTC