In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious
<ACDC@xxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:13:41 -0500
<47868a8d$0$4642$ec3e2dad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ekai55-qrf.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> [Eh? If an ISP can monitor content, it can filter it.
>> It might require a fair amount of work to monitor it,
>> of course, especially on Usenet where copyrighted content
>> -- mostly salacious pictures, AFAIK -- is passed around
>> in the alt.binaries hierarchy, and most of the time
>> gets clobbered in the process. I've not looked in the
>> alt.binaries hierarchy because of limited bandwidth --
>> Teranews' free service only allows 60 MB of downloads per
>> day, which is more than enough for my limited text needs
>> but I'd have troubles if I wanted to get Usenet-transmitted
>> stuff -- but suspect that there's a fair amount of goofing
>> up in there, from the posting of raw content (which will
>> look like gibberish) to the mangling of sectioned posts.
>> The ISP could also monitor BitTorrent usage, which is on
>> a well-known port. Of course, there's the issue of how
>> an ISP can monitor traffic through an encryption tunnel.
>> SSH users, take note.]
>>
> Do you block the postings of Schestowitcz from your newsreader here? That
> would give you a lot of extra data allowance that you could devote to porno
> pix and solve both problems at once.
>
This from the "can't quite grasp the concept of bandwidth department":
[1] I could conceivably tell my newsreader to block all
of Roy's postings. It wouldn't do any good unless I can
block them without having to download them, especially
since I use Leafnode.
[2] I don't see the point of bothering. Roy's posters at
most comprise about half the bandwidth of this particular
newsgroup (I'd have to look, frankly); my total bandwidth
is at most 10 MB. I suspect it's actually a fair bit less.
[3] I take it you're OK with the concept of ISPs being
required to filter out copyrighted content, since you've
not explicitly commented thereon. Taken to its logical
extreme, that would mean no content distribution at all;
a more logical (and far more cumbersome) alternative would
simply require that all content be attached with some sort
of metadata. All devices, programs, and networks would
be required to honor this metadata, which might include
the following flags/capabilities:
- Right to render: the viewer, which would
probably be a web browser for the sake of argument,
has the right to download and execute/render the content
from this server, but would not have the right to save
it to local disk. For purposes of this right viewing
would include actual viewing (movies), audio generation
(songs), or rendering of text (books, web pages).
- Right to save: the viewer would be allowed to save it
to local disk/disc/tape/stick. Subsequent modification
would not be allowed unless other rights are granted.
The actual payload might be encrypted.
- Right to local transfer: the saved work would be transferrable
to another account. The user gives up all rights
to the work after the transfer. The transferee would
not retain the right to transfer. The account must be
in the same region code.
- Right to recursive local transfer: the saved work would be
transferrable to another account, and the transferee
retains the right to recursive local transfer. The account
must be in the same region code.
- Right to global transfer: the saved work can be transferred
to another region.
- Right to recursive global transfer: the saved work can be
recursively transferred to another region.
- Right to synthesize: an artist would apply for this
right, not for a specific work, but for a class of works.
For example, one would register as a moviemaker,
lyricist, songwriter, bookwriter, or web developer.
Once granted, the artist is expected to comply with all
aspects of copyright law, including metadata setup.
Failure to do so will result in this right's revocation.
- Requirement to identify: for non-public domain works,
indicates that the viewer must be required to view
the author's identification sigil -- which usually
looks like
(c) 1997 ThisAndThat Coporation
Portions of this work are copyright (c) 1987 ThereAndBackAgain
Corporation.
etc.
prior to executing the actual work.
Each of the subheaders I'll call a sigil ad-hoc; the
work consists of a number of these sigils, if it includes
other works. The primary sigil is the owner of the work.
For example, Microsoft owns FTP.EXE but the source code
was originally developed as part of Unix, probably Berkeley.
- Right to sell: this is a little different from transferring,
as the buyer becomes the primary sigil holder. The
right is otherwise similar to recursive global transference.
- Right to track: the user of a work is required to transmit
a self-identifier to the authors identified in the sigil.
This right is granted on a per-sigil basis.
- Right to copy: the saved work would be copyable
to another account. The user retains all rights to the
source copy; the destination copy would lose the right
to copy.
- Right to redistribute: the user could take that local
copy and upload it to another account.
- Right to view internals: the user could view the
"source code". For media this might include a decryption
step; for binary executables one might be allowed to see
the source code thereof, and the builder of the binary
would be required to include the source code therein.
This right can be irrevocably stripped by simply removing
the source code from the work.
- Right to modify: the saved file could be modified.
Any such modifications would be tracked as the user's,
not the original author.
- Right to include: the saved file can be added into
another copyrighted work.
- Right to enfold: other artist's works could be included
in this work. For movies, one might call this enfolding
"product placement"; e.g., Reese's Pieces in E.T.
However, that's not quite electronic enfolding media
unless the product is itself electronic; the best example
I can think of here is Dan Quayle's response to Murphy
Brown, included in Murphy Brown's TV show, or Coca-cola
in Bladerunner. (The white-on-red logo is prominently
splashed across a large display screen within the movie.)
- Right to grant: gives the user the right to grant
a subset of these rights to other users, if the user
redistributes the work. Requires Redistribute and
possibly Modify.
- Right to ask: the user may ask the owner for additional
rights. Granting of these rights would probably require
remuneration, though that's not a requirement here,
just a suggestion. Requires Identify.
- Right to remove: gives the user the right to remove
a subset of the above to other users, after the user
redistributes the work. Once removed a right can
be reinstated, though the reinstater is expected to
delay the process sufficiently to avoid overloading
his right tracking system(s) - a form of DDoS attack.
- Right to revoke: gives the user the right to revoke
a subset of the above rights to other users, after the
original user redistributes the work. Once revoked a
right cannot be regranted.
- Right to restrict: gives the user the right to restrict
a subset of the above to other users, prior to
redistribution. A right cannot be restricted, then
granted later.
- Right to profit: the user of a work can redistribute the
work and profit thereby. Otherwise, all profits go
to the primary sigil holder. If the work was originally
public domain, no profits are allowed.
- Right to advertise: the user/redistributor of a work is
allowed to insert special promotional items into the
work. The promotional items would be heavily sandboxed.
An example of this right would be certain racing game
software with viewable billboards, or websites with
adverts. This is not considered a modification as such.
Of course the adverts are copyrighted works as well.
- Right to reference: a website is allowed to link to
the work. This is vaguely similar to enfolding except
that the work referenced may change without notice.
- Right to iconify: a website is allowed to link to a work,
with an icon provided for that purpose by the works' owner.
For example, one might link to http://www.disney.com/
using a variant of the famous "Mickey Mouse" logo, iconified
for that explicit purpose. The logo will of course
either have to be copied and have the right to redistribute,
or be referenceable.
Note that "users" can include persons and corporations.
In the case of corporations, a person leaving the
corporation results in removal of rights granted through
the corporation. The user can of course ask for these
rights to be reinstated, either through his new corporation,
or in his own name, with appropriate payment.
Other extensions might be required for all his; for
example, public domain works now in the US would be
required to be registered to an owner or to his estate.
For example, all rights to the works of William Shakespeare
would be granted to his estate, during initial enactment.
It is possible the right to sell or profit would be
revoked during that process -- or not.
And remember, citizen, DRM is for your own protection.
In retrospect I probably should have been clearer
between distinguishing between the owner of a work, a
redistributor, a user, and an editor/modifier of a work.
However, you presumably get the idea; clearly this
is not charted territory (and I'm not sure it's even
implementable) but a lot of people would be very happy
with such a complicated rights-granting system -- if it
makes them money.
And of course a number of people would not. I'd guess
that Richard Stallman and Bruce Schneier would be among
them, for example (I can't speak for them of course).
I'm not sure I'd be that happy with this system either,
even though I'm proposing it...
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
