<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 12/21/2011 3:11 PM, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:E24E4846-F10C-4782-BA79-574E6AEFFA84@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div> </div>
<div> The parties are not seeking to "guaranteeing their profit"
by stopping the </div>
<div> clock of history. They are seeking effective enforcement
of existing laws </div>
<div> which make it illegal for US citizens to download
copyrighted material from</div>
<div> non-authorized sources.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
john, while i don't believe that the internet is or should be a
law-free zone, i worry that you are mischaracterizing the proponents
of SOPA. they are not pushing for new enforcement powers for
existing law, but rather new law. that new law anticipates that
internet-connected devices can be closed by default, like a tivo or
an iPhone, and where the device will not be generally configurable
or programmable unless it is first "jail broken". there is no other
way to enforce a mandated DNS filtering law. and in that sense, SOPA
is a turn-back-the-clock statute. to be sure, there would be less
theft and less fraud if the Internet were more like Minitel. but i
think there would also be less economic growth for the world if all
logic had to be licensed before it could create any internet traffic
flows.<br>
<br>
we could have fun and perhaps learn a lot by estimating the relative
potential losses and gains from a theoretical "less open" Internet
where circumvention of content protection law was somehow
nontrivial. but the issue is moot; we have the Internet we have, and
there is no possible way to enforce a turn-back-the-clock law.<br>
<br>
as you know i've long worked for a more accountable Internet, and
for a world where existing laws against fraud and theft can be
enforced even when the Internet is between a given criminal and that
day's victims. this leads me to support the OPEN Act...<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=5034df19-5b8e-4d45-9f1f-f2c0dd8f17d4">http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=5034df19-5b8e-4d45-9f1f-f2c0dd8f17d4</a><br>
<br>
...which urges a traditional follow-the-money approach to this
problem, using existing FTC methods.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E24E4846-F10C-4782-BA79-574E6AEFFA84@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div> Do you think that there is support in Congress (the
legislative body duly
</div>
<div> elected by the people) to decriminalize copying and
distribution of digital</div>
<div> content? Unless that's the case, their requests are
keeping with public</div>
<div> interest that's historically been expressed in copyright
law.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> As you are aware, I'm dead set against SOPA. I just want
to be very clear</div>
<div> that there is an intellectually honest argument for why
better mechanisms</div>
<div> for copyright enforcement over the Internet are needed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
there is no such support in congress. and i am not suggesting that
content and brand owners simply give up and let the Internet ruin
them. the OPEN Act (see above) is not a turn-back-the-clock proposal
and i think it meets the standard you're setting ("better mechanisms
for copyright enforcement over the Internet"). it does so by adding
new disincentives for the criminals themselves, without being in any
way preventive or proscriptive against end users nor burdensome on
ISP's-in-the-middle.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
</body>
</html>