There is an article about optical switch technology on page 75 of the Janurary issue of WIRED.
Memx (http://www.memx.org) is on the cutting edge of the technology.
Even if this were possible, think of all the potential privacy and legal implications.
If such a system were in existance, the government would be able to monitor the location of anyone they desired at any time. Granted, the government would likely have to go through the normal legal procedures such as getting a warrant for such a "search," but this would be an extremely powerful new tool.
Also, while "proving" your location by such a system could be helpful in a circumstance where you are accused of being somewhere that you were not (your location is critical component of whether you are guilty of a crime, etc.), what happens if your location is faked and you want to challange the "proof" of your location? Where is the presumption of truth in the offer of proof?
Is there a presumption of truth when you assert the "proof" of your location, but when the "proof" is used against you, it is presumed untrue?
Instead of creating a means by which you can "prove" your location at a particular time, such a system as you propose would force the resolution of new legal issues of both a technical and procedural nature by a judge and/or jury that is likely not technically savy. And as I previously mentioned, do we really want to give the government yet another method by which to monitor our every move?
Not quite: take a look to the Constitution.
Copyright law in this country exists for the "promtion of the useful arts." Notice that the focus is on the benefit to society, not to the creator of the work.
As soon as the law ceases to benefit the public, then it is beyond the purpose envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
The copyright laws definately could be challenged on constitutional grounds, but it would be a brave attorney to actually forward such an argument (at this point), and an even braver judge to give creadance to such an argument with such a depth of case law based on existing copyright law.
For such a fundamental change to occure, I believe that it must start at the grass-roots level and work its way up through congressional proposal.
If you are interested in a particularly intriguing lecture/discussion on the Napster/My MP3.com cases and intellectual property law generally see: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/futureofip/
p>Both candidates stress the importance of making sure artists receive payment
for the music they write and perform. While this idea is currently popular, it
is counter to the Constitutional conception of the purpose of intellectual
property laws.
"The Congress shall have the power...TO PROMOTE THE USEFUL ARTS, by securing for limited Times to Authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Art 1, Sec. 8
Note that the purpose of the intellectual property laws is the promotion of
the useful arts--not the promotion of income for the creators of those useful
arts. The focus is on the benefit the useful arts will bestow on the public, NOT
the benefit that should be bestowed upon the artist.
I think most true artists (as opposed to "created" artists, i.e.
boy-bands) would agree that their motivation in creating music is not money.
Motivation flows naturally from the desire/need to express and create.
I am not advocating that artists should not be compensated for their work,
but that there needs to be a shift in considering music as a commodity to a
service and a subsequent modification in how artists are paid for their
expressive creations. We have lost sight of the purpose of the copyright laws,
over the past several years particularly, and new technology such as PtoP file
sharing is providing an opportunity to reassess the benefits that laws are
intended to promote. Are laws to promote the greatest benefit to the individual,
or promote the greatest benefit to everyone?
Slashdot Mirror
There is an article about optical switch technology on page 75 of the Janurary issue of WIRED. Memx (http://www.memx.org) is on the cutting edge of the technology.
Even if this were possible, think of all the potential privacy and legal implications.
If such a system were in existance, the government would be able to monitor the location of anyone they desired at any time. Granted, the government would likely have to go through the normal legal procedures such as getting a warrant for such a "search," but this would be an extremely powerful new tool.
Also, while "proving" your location by such a system could be helpful in a circumstance where you are accused of being somewhere that you were not (your location is critical component of whether you are guilty of a crime, etc.), what happens if your location is faked and you want to challange the "proof" of your location? Where is the presumption of truth in the offer of proof?
Is there a presumption of truth when you assert the "proof" of your location, but when the "proof" is used against you, it is presumed untrue?
Instead of creating a means by which you can "prove" your location at a particular time, such a system as you propose would force the resolution of new legal issues of both a technical and procedural nature by a judge and/or jury that is likely not technically savy. And as I previously mentioned, do we really want to give the government yet another method by which to monitor our every move?
Not quite: take a look to the Constitution. Copyright law in this country exists for the "promtion of the useful arts." Notice that the focus is on the benefit to society, not to the creator of the work. As soon as the law ceases to benefit the public, then it is beyond the purpose envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
The copyright laws definately could be challenged on constitutional grounds, but it would be a brave attorney to actually forward such an argument (at this point), and an even braver judge to give creadance to such an argument with such a depth of case law based on existing copyright law.
For such a fundamental change to occure, I believe that it must start at the grass-roots level and work its way up through congressional proposal.
If you are interested in a particularly intriguing lecture/discussion on the Napster/My MP3.com cases and intellectual property law generally see: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/futureofip/
"The Congress shall have the power...TO PROMOTE THE USEFUL ARTS, by securing for limited Times to Authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Art 1, Sec. 8
Note that the purpose of the intellectual property laws is the promotion of the useful arts--not the promotion of income for the creators of those useful arts. The focus is on the benefit the useful arts will bestow on the public, NOT the benefit that should be bestowed upon the artist.
I think most true artists (as opposed to "created" artists, i.e. boy-bands) would agree that their motivation in creating music is not money. Motivation flows naturally from the desire/need to express and create.
I am not advocating that artists should not be compensated for their work, but that there needs to be a shift in considering music as a commodity to a service and a subsequent modification in how artists are paid for their expressive creations. We have lost sight of the purpose of the copyright laws, over the past several years particularly, and new technology such as PtoP file sharing is providing an opportunity to reassess the benefits that laws are intended to promote. Are laws to promote the greatest benefit to the individual, or promote the greatest benefit to everyone?