[ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers against censorship

[John Curran]

Vint - 

Their business models may indeed have to change...  However, we need to 
be very careful in dealing with the same requirements when presented by 
government as a proxy, since it not as clear that they will yield solely 
for our technical reasons, nor it is clear that they should in all cases.

For example, if you had a bill which specified SOPA-like measures entirely 
for the purposes of defeating child pornography, I might very well support
such a bill.  Yes, the measures would have technical issues, would be readily
subverted, the powers might be abused, etc...  but in the end, the need for
a very high deterrent to such crimes warrants all of the downsides (as a 
quick review of the adopted legislation in this area will demonstrate)

My particular system of principles doesn't put commercial disputes (party A 
is misusing party B's intellectual property) into the same category of offense,
but obviously there are others who feel just as pa$$ionately about copyright
crimes and thus assert SOPA is warranted despite the flaws.  Until we can 
provide them some other options, they'll continue implore government that 
the societal benefits of their heavy-handed approaches are equally valid.

/John

On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> John,
> 
> in point of fact, the business models may well have to change or at
> least, their implementation. Copying and distribution of digital
> content is so easy (and not just on the net) that one has to figure
> out different ways to render the copying and distribution unfruitful.
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:55 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe what is really necessary, is some movement to reduce the
>>> level of mistrust from both sides.
>>> 
>>> IMHO lack of dialog and engagement is a big issue, even if one tries
>>> to engage and participate in a cooperative manner, the stakes are so
>>> high and the money/profit driven engine is spinning so fast that it is
>>> almost impossible in some circumstances obtain positive and effective
>>> results.
>> 
>> Agreed.  For example, SOPA effectively asserts that "the government
>> has the right to prevent party A from communicating in advance with
>> any/every given party B if party A's communication is alleged to be
>> illegal."
>> 
>> Regardless of whether we're talking about the Internet, or the
>> telephone, or a public square, the above belief in contrary to
>> many peoples values (including my own), and it appears almost
>> impossible to reconcile with standing US policy of objecting to
>> another country's policy to prevent communications of the media
>> or the various activist citizens because it is illegal by the
>> laws of that country.
>> 
>> Principled discussion of the issue would be enormously helpful,
>> but that doesn't occur in Congress unless the administration
>> forces it to occur ("we can't effectively do our job in these
>> other areas if you undermine our principled position this way")
>> Alas, that is not occurring in this case, and so instead we must
>> fight an inherently repugnant idea solely via its various legal
>> and technical blemishes.
>> 
>> If someone wants to sit down and say "You have a right to not
>> have your content illegally reproduced all over the Internet so
>> let's brainstorm", you'll find there are many advocates of SOPA
>> who are willing to constructively engage.  Attempting to do the
>> same starting with the assertion that "Your business model is
>> fundamentally flawed and you must change" obviously may not work
>> as well. The voice of the Internet technical community is being
>> perceived as overwhelmingly in that latter camp.
>> 
>> /John
>> 
>