Is Copyright + Technology Dangerous to Personal Freedom?

Add a Comment

Comment by Patrick Sullivan on July 10, 2009 at 7:28pm

Join us now and ...

Oh, OK, since it's you who's asking

Comment by Mike Seidle on July 10, 2009 at 6:50pm

Just don't post the Free Software Song, Patrick. Please.

Comment by Patrick Sullivan on July 10, 2009 at 5:53pm

Copyright law attempts to define information as property.

Yes, it does- which is supposed to protect the interests of content creators, some of whom would like to paid for the use of their creation. As a privacy issue, though, we'd focus on personal information as property, and to whom it belongs. Is my (information) privacy an intellectual property issue? If so, what can I do about entities that collect and use the information I generate through my actions without my permission or without compensation? Is my information-based identity my intellectual property? My name is apparently pretty common- I've had to explain one more than one occasion that I'm not the hardware store guy, and I'm not the radio guy. I've though about trademarking my name and licensing its use ;-)

I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. But bringing it up muddles the relationship between privacy and copyright law. And I think the issue of using information technologies to track down file sharing copyright violators is no different an issue that any law enforcement request for information to support an investigation- we could just as easily be talking about subpoenas of grocery store loyalty card purchases to see how many boxes of sandwich baggies a suspected dope dealer has bought, or utilities usage records for properties of suspected growers, or phone records, etc. There was a notable case in the mid-nineties involving ISP's coughing up user identities in response to a discovery order filed by the church of scientology in a copyright infringement and trade secrets case, and subsequent seizure and search of the suspect's hard drives. One of the apostate members was posting big pieces of L Ron's sacred writings on his website (the inner circle stuff you're supposed to pay the big bucks to see). The trial judge had basically two questions: "do you own the rights to the material" and "did you have the owner's rights to publish it?" The answer in both cases was no, and the ruling was pretty swift. The judge side-stepped the trade secrets issue (why would a church need to protect its "sacred" writings with trade secret law? Well, for one thing, they're gnostics...). In most of the discussions of this case, though, the key issue was whether anyone could own content, especially once it was on the web; privacy wasn't as salient an issue, largely because the procedural protections were observed.

It's insane to think that simply assembling and moving information in any way can be covered by law

But that's the way it is. In European Economic Area countries, APEC countries, Hong Kong and other places outside the US, data controllers are prohibited from transferring personal data to sites in other countries that do not have an adequate data protection regime. The US, by the way is one of those rogues, although we do have options: verifiable model contracts provisions stipulating adequate privacy and security controls, binding corporate rules (internal codes used across multinationals with many business units or affiliated organizations sharing data) and the Dept of Commerce Safe Harbor Framework (verifiable self-regulation based on criteria for adequate data protection). Again, viewing the protection of personal data as a fundamental human right (and a key protection against government abuse of private sector data) is what drives that restriction. Regulated data in the US is also subject to laws and industry standards governing transfer (encryption in transit requirements, restrictions on third-party use, security requirements for third party recipients, disclosure of data loss -including the tapes that "fall off the truck," etc). These laws aren't intellectual property protections, but assumed to be means of preventing harm from loss or misuse of regulated information.

That said, yeah, copyright law has problems- it tends to protect the distributors more than the creators of content, among other things. I'll have to go dig up the old Richard Stallman stuff and read it again ;-)

Comment by Robby Slaughter on July 10, 2009 at 5:00pm

Is copyright law, as it exists threatening individual freedom to the benefit of Government and Corporations?

Certainly. Copyright law attempts to define information as property. When I cut and paste your question into my reply, I interacted with a component of copyright law called "fair use." It's insane to think that simply assembling and moving information in any way can be covered by law.

Was copyright intended to be used as it is?

Actually, yes. Copyright was created to protected content creators and content distributors and ensure they had an exclusive right over their works. We're still doing the same thing today.

Do governments have too much power to regulate communication?

Governments should have no authority to regulate communication over private networks. They probably shouldn't regulate communication over public networks, except to ensure an equitable use of limited resources.

Comment by Patrick Sullivan on July 10, 2009 at 9:35am

I agree- the issue isn't really intellectual property law (which isn't to say there isn't some major reform due there). It is the capabilities of the technologies and the purposes to which they're put. We do live in a surveillance society in which privacy rights are eroded, and not just be government. There is plenty of data collection by private sector entities (and plenty of government use of that data when things like the 1974 Privacy Act get in the way). Because of this sort of thing, a key driver behind European privacy law is the recognition that much of the surveillance data on citizens came from private sector sources (hence data privacy is a human right in the EU and elsewhere; here, beyond government intrusion, it's a tort issue with a few exceptions in specific industry sectors- financial services, healthcare, video rental records (thank you Robert Bork), etc).

One problem we have here is that private sector entities continue to collect personal information because they can- not necessarily because they have a defined business need for the data. And then they're often not very good at protecting it.

I could go on, but have a deadline. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is a great source of information on these issues- www.epic.org. So is the Center for Democracy and Technology, www.cdt.org, and let's not forget the Electronic Freedom Foundation, www.eff.org

Comment by John R.(Dick) Troll on July 9, 2009 at 12:16am

Mike:
You ask several questions in your post.

1. Do copyright laws threaten our personal freedom?

Not really. Copyright law may constrain ECONOMIC choices but, copyright law has little to say about our personal liberty. BTW there is plenty of support in the US for either abolishing or modifying copyright law.

The much ballyhooed Jammie Thomas case is overblown . She chose to make herself a test case and an unsympathetic jury came back with a ridiculous veridict. I am no fan of the RIAA but they have no interest in enforcing an award of this size against her. The RIAA is in the buggy whip business. They file thousands of law suits and yet file sharing grows and grows.

2. Should we be concerned when repressive measures are taken by government officials in China or Iran?

Of course we should. But it is important to remember that, in many ways, the Internet,as an expression of technology, is the ultimate threat to any repressive regime. Government officials try to squelch acess to information but the whole world listens in on Twitter, camera phones. Facebook and Iranian blogsites hosted in NYC. Unlike days of old when the state media could control the dissemination of information now repressive regimes must contend with the ingenuity of citizens who will not allow lies to smother the truth.
What saddens me is when Google, anxious to do business in China, cooperates with the governmen and cripples its search engine. It is hard but not impossible to find out about Tibet if you are an average Chinese citizen.

3. Should we also be worried about Big Brother gathering information to spy on us.

Yes we should. But this worry is not connected to copyright law or access to the Internet. And I would argue that the greatest threat arises in more advanced societies. For example, an ATT technician in San Franciso reported that the National Security Administration set up shop to monitor EVERY telephone call going into and out of SF. Oh sure they were supposedly using filtering devices. But who knows what goes on when zealous people do things in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY.
Or how about the list that the airlines use to check on terrorist suspects. LIke Senator Ted Kennedy. A list that we can joke about because it is so inaccuarate. Unless you happen to have a common Iranian name. Then its not so funny. Never mind that you were born in Detroit.
People often complain about 'the media". And many of the complaints are valid. But I have always believed that, with or without technology, one of America's great strengths is that it is hard to hide unpleasant or embarrasing facts in America. I hope this tradition continues.