From: Chris Home (clarson52@comcast.net)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 15:47:12 GMT-3
You have brought to light what may be good solutions to potential problems.
I feel somewhat of a heel only poking at the problem without providing any
suggestions at solutions. It is not as productive. I am not as versed in the
whole issue. I am only aware as a consumer the frustration at what seems to
be going on around me. Especially the DCMA issue and well now the
congressmen you mentioned. Yikes!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 12:53 PM
Subject: Licensing, dangers to us all, enforcement, fairness
> 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