From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 14:53:14 GMT-3
At 3:42 AM -0500 1/4/03, Chris Home wrote:
>By reading any further then this sentence you agree not to hold me to my
>promise of making this my last post on the subject. wink wink
>
>I am not trying to defend any individual or tryinng to knock IPExpert. I am
>sure there was good reason for kicking this person or at least would hope
>so. My real issue is with the practice of licensing, and IPExperts license
>is a perfect example of why.
> I know many people praise IPExpert material and I have seen their workbooks
>even though apparently I was not licensed to. I think it is great that we
>have companies that are producing lab study material. Yes I understand the
>conflict between the ability to make a profit and continue to enjoy these
>services or not having them due to piracy or what not. However, as a
>consumer I am also concerned with my time and MY pocketbook and where this
>has the potential to lead.
>
>>
>> I haven't seen the IPexpert contract, so I don't know who retains
>> ownership of the materials. That would be a critical issue, and
>> copyright has nothing to do with it -- right-to-use licensing is
>> contractual, not copyright law.
>
>That was exactly my point Howard. Copyright has nothing to do with it. It is
>contractual. Without any real means of tracking violators what purpose does
>it really serve. Why is a copyright preventing copying, reprinting and
>redistribution not sufficient anymore? What happens when most if not all
>media is delivered elctronically? Will it be a violation to loan a book to a
>friend? Like the police using cameras and delivering tickets by mail will I
>receive a notice of fine or a bill for royalties by mail for giving a book
>to a friend without knowing it was a violation of a EULA (because everything
>has a EULA now and I am tired of reading them?)
You bring up some superb points, that affect us all -- or may do so
-- in massive ways far beyond the courseware issues.
Let me first comment on EULA. There is a certain amount of
enforceablility at the large enterprise level, through the Software
Publishers Association audit. The courts have supported SPA
requesting audits at large organizations, and inspecting every
machine for unlicensed copies. SPA has at least been somewhat more
courteous about the issue than the entertainment industry, as their
first action, when they suspect widespread organizational piracy, is
to send a fairly pleasant letter saying "would you please check this
yourself, make any violations right (deleting software or paying
license fees), and we'll deal amicably?" If they don't get
satisfaction, they will indeed do an on-site audit. This is too
labor-intensive for them to do to individuals, although I believe
they have made their point with a couple of test cases.
Where insanity sets in, however, is from what I see coming from the
entertainment industry, which gets even nastier when we start seeing
joint ownership of ISPs and entertainment content providers. The key
piece of legislation in force is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
(DMCA), which has a section, from memory, that makes it illegal to
attempt to override any technological protection on intellectual
property. As it is, this has had some chilling effects on legitimate
research into copy protection, because researchers need to
reverse-engineer copy protection schemes to recognize their
vulnerabilities and recommend improvements.
The frightening thing, though, is that DMCA is not enough. Sen.
Fritz Hollings has generally been eager to introduce legislation
supporting the silliest, most intrusive Hollywood suggestions. The
worst I've seen so far is to demand that ALL integrated circuits
containing analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters,
regardless of intended application, constantly scan data streams for
copyrighted music, and, unless they have a license input, stop
operating.
Scenario: A convenience store is being held up by armed robbers. An
employee on break sees this and calls 911 over a cell phone.
Unfortunately, the front counter clerk has a perfectly legal radio
playing background music. The ADC in the cell phone detects this
music as well as the speech, and shuts down the distress call as well
as the "attempted music piracy".
If this happens, it's a very real threat to VoIP. I haven't even
touched the increases in size, cost, and power consumption of the
ICs, with the overhead of the copyright scanning.
>
>
>>
>> Personally, I might agree that use with a specific study partner
>> could be reasonable, especially if it were disclosed the way you
>> specify a secondary driver on a car rental. But I have neither seen
>> the specific license agreement in question, nor am I privy to Wayne's
>> business model. A license is a contract that can override copyright
>> provisions.
>>
>
>It appears that the license would prevent you from sharing it with a
>partner. https://www.ipexpert.net/shoppingcart/checkout/agreement.asp It
>does state that the material is not transferable and is useable only by the
>purchasor. THIS IS IMPORTANT!! Because......
I have much less problem with having a restriction on copying the
intellectual property than having people physically share it. Now,
this could be a problem with study partners cooperating
electronically.
What might be useful is for the study materials vendors and the users
to try to evolve a generally fair strategy that protects both sides.
It would have to focus on real economics.
For example, let's say ZZZbarefootcamp, a beach-based study materials
vendor, wants to limit excessive use. If they are rational people,
what they need to know is:
How many people will buy the material at the present cost with present
restrictions
How many people will buy the material at the present cost with specific
study partner agreements, that permit legitimate cooperating but sanction
piracy
How many people would buy material with strict sharing prohibitions,
if the price were lowered significantly.
To present a solution rather than a problem, perhaps the list might
be able to give feedback on this sort of thing, both from consumers
and vendors.
>
>It is not just IPExpert here. Think forward a little bit and think globally.
>When most media is delivered electronically doesn't the ability to license
>everything concern you? Will I have to disclose my family members who might
>log in and read the newspaper I am delivered and signed a EULA for?
One possibility, that might even be legislated, is that things
intended for residential use have the equivalent of a site license.
Admittedly, this can get messy. I'm in the process of setting up a
video VPN for a wedding this summer, where, for example, one
sister-in-law is due to give birth the same week.
> When my
>wifes user authenticity certificate was found to have accessed the Time
>magazine that was ordered, delivered and licensed to me electronically, will
>I receive a bill for a second subscription?
The law and its interpretations need to evolve here. In your example,
it would be particularly interesting if the subscription were made in
the name of the "Home Family."
>Am I going to have to enter
>into a contractual obligation for any items I might receive over the wire?
In some cases, yes, and not necessarily for bad reasons. I like to
be able to have pay-per-view rather than renting a video tape that I
invariably forget to return.
>T.V., newspaper, radio stations etc? I agree some form of protection is
>necessary, but licensing is complicated and there will come a time when this
>will be commonplace. There should be plenty of forethought, discussion,
>banter and maybe dissention before we say "this is o.k. in my book".
>Copyrighting can protect against reprinting, copying and distribution so
>what purpose does the license serve except to set business up to begin going
>down this road?
>
>
>
>>
>> I'm confused. Download for free? Certainly, the principles underlying
>> the labs can come free from Cisco, the RFCs, etc. The labs, so far
>> as I know, are not downloadable except to licensed users with a
>> specific update or service agreement. With minor variations, this is
>> true for all study guide vendors with which I am familiar.
>>
>
>By free I meant pirated and not to hard to find a free electronic copy.
>
>Anyway, just food for thought. I am not concerned with this individual, I am
>concerned about things like the digital protection act or whatever it is
>called now, the fact that the government ever even proposed a V-chip. Next
>it will be the media tracking chip and the "oops, we screwed the consumer
>chip" (oh well we all profit anyway because we are lawmakers and saw it
>coming. 2 bad for you but we got our palms greased good so...). Aren't there
>a ton of companies trying to forward standards that won't allow you to play
>music or DVD's if they do not contain some code or smart chip? Does that
>mean I will have to purchase a replacement disc due to a scratch because I
>can no longer make a backup copy of any of my media? Granted it is already
>being tried but currently consumer copy protections schemes fail or
>workarounds.
>
>Business is working hard to mature these schemes as well as electronic media
>delivery and tracking. What does that mean for the consumer? I do not think
>the majority of individuals look too far ahead in these matters while
>business is feverish in it's pursuit hence we now have licensing of printed
>material. We could wake up to find we got the short end of the stick because
>we were too busy sticking up for the rights of business and not thinking
>enough about what it meant as a whole.
>
>
>Maybe a little extreme for today but definitely probable scenarios if we
>don't keep a watchfull eye.
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 07:33:41 GMT-3