Slashdot Mirror
New Content-Delivery Tech Should Be Presumed Illegal, Says Former Copyright Boss
TrueSatan writes "Reminiscent of buggy whip manufacturers taking legal action against auto makers, the former U.S. Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, has given an amicus brief in the Aereo case (PDF) stating that all new content-delivery technology should be presumed illegal unless and until it is approved by Congress. He adds that providers of new technology should be forced to apply to Congress to prove they don't upset existing business models."
Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorise or not authorise technology for its use.
You can't handle the truth.
I think the appropriate response is "He appears to have the mindset that the world can owe you a living."
Makes me think of Scribes guild destroying printing presses and making them illegal. Who needs better technology when the stuff we have right now is making us so much money?
\
The inherit short sightedness of a profit driven society is frightening to behold. Over the last dozen years so I understand why so many people believed in the communist society that the original USSR and other such countries had intended. Sadly those don't work nearly as well either.
I think we need to either move towards a socialistic society, or admit that we suck at self government and hurry up and invent AIs that can be our benevolent over lords. Assuming we can keep from programming human faults into them. Which is doubtful.
They sure as hell won't be getting a donation from me this year.
Wow, to preserve current business models all new thoughts should be reviewed..... yep, clearly representing the people,er, businesses on this one, innovative ideas need not apply, I try not to fan boi this much but imagine if iTunes online music sales had to clear congress first? I imagine those that lobby would have had a lot of fun with that one, clearing congress is a lot harder than convincing one label to sell online, this doesn't protect anyone other than those currently milking the masses..... Please, show this man the door, he has clearly lost his way.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Pray the judge understands that type of setup wouldn't chill online innovation, it would stop it completely with no hope ever.
You couldn't even start to create anything new, because you would be committing a crime by researching how to create an illegal thing. Like someone trying to research new methods to produce meth in their garage...
Dear lord, this guy is so completely off his rocker it's no wonder the US is as fucked up as it is.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
So if you have a new and potentially disruptive technology, you shouldn't be allowed to go into business because you'll hurt the existing providers?
Tough shit! That's something called "progress" and "innovation."
Suck it up, cupcake -- you're a dinosaur!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This jackass is wearing his ass for a hat. Such fuckwittery would have prevented deployment of the transistor. Except for a few niches, the transistor rendered the vacuum tube obsolete in about twenty years. It would have prevented deployment of the turbine engine because they rendered radial engines obsolete. If he were left in charge we would all be using SNA because Ethernet would not be permitted.
He argues that copyright protection holds regardless of the technological means used to engage in an action which constitutes infringement, which is true as far as it goes. He further argues that Aereo is committing infringement and claiming it's not because of mere technological details, and there he's on shakier ground.
But actually his argument fell apart a bit earlier than his discussion of Aereo, when he disputes the Cablevision decision:
I am sorry, Mr. Oman, but that is not a "minor technical feature". My giving instructions to a machine and my giving instructions to a human being are a very different thing. The human being can make a choice, he can say "Mr. Russotto, to make that copy would be an infringement of copyright and I will not do so". The machine is a machine, it does what it's told, and direct liability is rightly placed on the person who told it to do something.
Best I can tell, Aereo is claiming its retransmissions do not amount to public performance because each individual is getting his own transmission. That is, it's not one public performance but many private ones. This is indeed splitting hairs, but since when has the law been opposed to splitting hairs?
17 USC 101 is quite clear that it does not matter "whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times." However, it does matter whether there is one performance or many; if I set up a booth where one person can view a DVD, it's not a public performance if 100 people view the same DVD in sequence; it's 100 private performances. Similarly, if I have 100 such booths with 100 such (identical) DVDs and everyone watches them at once, it's still 100 private performances. However, if I rig up one DVD player to play one DVD to all those booths, it's a public performance.
How is copyright to be killed off? Give guys like this a megaphone.
What words could possibly be more damaging to copyright than this proposal to turn it into a blatant fascist tyranny? Plus, making everyone wonder if all supporters of copyright are just as stupid also hurts it. Such proposals do more to kill off copyright than any words Lessig, the EFF, or any other pro technology boffins could say. Go, Ralph, go!
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
It's not like this isn't what all the established media companies are thinking. They all want this. At least he has the (courage|stupidity|ego) to stand up and say "we're against anything new because it might stop us making money".
Plus, it makes it ridiculously easy to argue against his point. This is a man who just weakened his entire team's position, because he spoke, on the record and in an official capacity. We should make sure this guy never gets fired, because he's actually *helping* our side by being so blatantly wrong.
Can they prove that the CURRENT delivery models were approved by Congress? How many years are they liable for subverting the previous deliver models and business methods?
of course the guy is a fuckwit. this is besides the point
you cannot and would not be able to stay stupid things and represent the people if in fact you were actually representing the people. however, our democracy is becoming plutocracy: you can't get elected unless you get a lot of money, and you can't get a lot of money until you kiss the feet of the moneyed aristocracy
i like democracy. i like my country. i recognize that it won't be easy. but somehow, we the people must win back our own country from financial interests. i said: it won't be easy. you basically want the guys strung out on the heroin of wealthy donors to pass laws against wealthy donors. good luck to us, we'll need it
it is however, the most valid fight before us as a people and a nation, and something the left and the right can join in together and find common cause in. that is in spite of those on the left and the right who swallow the corporate propaganda that keeps us divided against each other at both of our losses
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A couple of students, backed with money from a Chinese bank, come up with a distribution mechanism that is so brilliant in its simplicity that it becomes a worldwide hit in everywhere except the US where Congress is so busy farting around trying to please their corporate sponsors that they get left several years behind.
Three years later In America, when congress realises that the rest of the world doesn't give a shit what they think and has progressed onto different and more profitable business model, everyone realises that Ralph Oman had been a complete and utter twat but by then it too late. Well done Ralph Oman, well done......
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Before you act shocked about this, exactly how is this different than any other products sold nowadays?
It's illegal to make and sell electronic hardware without approval from the FCC. It's illegal to make and sell most any food products without approval from a state-level health agency. It's illegal to make and sell any medical products without approval from the FDA. It's illegal to make and sell any motorized vehicles without approval from multiple safety bodies. So now, we can simply add "content delivery technology" to the list of things the government presumes is guilty of... whatever, until you prove it's not.
Isn't it great to live in a "free" country? Aren't you glad you're free?
Liberty in your lifetime
No, that's nonsense. If a system is unjust, then it is unjust. Some things are more important than money, and one of those things is freedom. Should we hold back automation so people can keep their jobs? Think of the numerous people in the past who lost their jobs thanks to technology; tough luck. Move on or die.
Just because it upsets a business model, does not make it bad for the economy or the citizens of the country. It makes it bad for those whose business models it upsets, but they also have the choice to change with the times or lose their money.
There are a few places where we desperately need some business models being upset, curtailed or destroyed for the benefit of the citzens: telecom carriers, cable carriers, IP holders in general and a few overgrown gorillas who have become oppressive. It's best that the government itself stays out of this as much as possible, or at least just acts as a facilitator (i.e. pork money thrown to enemies of these beasts).
An example of something that worked well: for a few years the government gave independent service providers cheap access to "the last mile" customers. Consumers got cheap, highly functioning, unlimited broadband, with excellent service and a selection of options that served our needs. For a few years our telecom system wasn't an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the government reversed itself, and those advantages have been slowly sucked away, or "unlimited" redefined to mean something that doesn't mean unlimited, virtually no competition and basically a selection of the same shitty service served the same way. I can't argue that what the government did isn't a little scary and vaguely communist, but it absolutely was positive change while it lasted.
If the same scenarios can be created without government involvement (i.e. a new, natural competitor that disrupts the status quo), we have the actual ideal of a capitalist economy that works. Unfortunately IP law being what it is, does not allow competition by definition. The purpose of the law makes sense, but the government needs to spend less time and energy policing it. Basically if you are a pirate, you could go to jail if the government chases you. But the government won't be funded to chase all but the worst offenders. The way to regulate this is market based pricing: as long as media companies can get away with charging us $20 for what costs $1 in China, we are overpolicing our IP. As long as region locks exists, we are overpolicing our IP.
I doubt he would get laughed out of court. Because not only would he argue article 1, he would argue 9th amendment as in it limits the copyright clause and the interstate commerce clause and that because the DMCA authorizes the library of congress to designate what technology can be circumvented but creates a situation where it cannot legally be circumvented by the lay person.
He would also have to argue that the WPPT and WTC WIPO treaties as ratified are unconstitutional too seeing how the DMCA is a product to comply with them. But if the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA is granted then the supremacy clause would also kick in because regardless the content of a treaty, it has to be made pursuant to and in line with the constitution.
Either way, those are some legitimate questions that would need to be answered if brought up. Laughing wouldn't really be on the table. On the other hand, he would have to show cause in order to get the case heard which is highly unlikely to happen without being in jeopardy of the punishment of the laws. It would cost lots of money.
It's the Equalization of Opportunity Act!!!