20050627   

Michael considered fate at 15:40   |   Permalink   |   Post a Comment

As direct evidence of the general public's relatively uninformed position on computer technologies, I give you the latest Supreme Court ruling (PDF):

One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses.

While the Supreme Court acknowledged that The tension between the competing values of supporting creativity through copyright protection and promoting technological innovation by limiting infringement liability was a key factor in this case, the press has nevertheless reported this news poorly, basically making statements along the lines of:

The US Supreme Court has ruled the entertainment industry can sue developers of file sharing software.

Which makes the whole thing sound like a giant witch hunt - although the MPAA and RIAA would like to make it one, it's not. Read further and you'll get to the real truth:

In what was for many industry insiders a shock outcome, the unanimous ruling of the court held that file sharing services such as Grokster and StreamCast could be held liable if they intentionally encourage people to download copyright material illegally.

They say that industry insiders are shocked over the outcome and this is most likely because they've been holding on for dear life to the 1984 Supreme Court ruling in favour of video recorders stating that Sony could not be sued over consumers who used its video recorders to make illegal copies of movies. But this case, while similar, really focused around the conscious effort of a software developer to promote illegal use of it's software. This was not a case against the software itself. Truly, if a gun manufacturer sold a product with an advertising campaign geared towards killing your neighbours they might be held responsible for deaths caused by it's consumers. Or at least flaming-liberals would hope so. May-haps?

Thank God.

I'm a flaming-liberal with the rest of you when it comes to technological freedoms - more so because I fear how big the ball will get if it ever gets rolling at all - but let's not make this more than it is. Surely, a stepping stone, but not an out-and-out slashing of our civic liberties or freedom of speech.

Regardless, even technology-minded news outlets such as Salon have been making this out to be worse than it is by not clearly mentioning the issue of software companies intentionally fostering copyright infringement:

[the music and movie studios] argument is that the creators of those networks should be deemed responsible for what people do with them -- technically, that means they should be found guilty of "secondary liability" for the copyright infringement committed by file sharers.

However, if you need someone to point fingers at or hate on (From Reuters):

"Today's unanimous ruling is an historic victory for intellectual property in the digital age, and is good news for consumers, artists, innovation and lawful Internet businesses," said Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America.

I'd argue the opposite: the fact that we as a society continue to prop up out-dated ideas and policies regarding intellectual properties, trademarks, and copyrights is saddening at best and dangerously cynical at worst. This "historic victory" Glickman speaks of is exactly that: a victory for a historically dated mindset.