Comments on: Big Music cartel nails Sharman

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:16:04 +0000

A a new type of filter must be invented. The world has seen all type of filters, but none of them will work as a p2p filter, so we must start from scratch. My wife works in a filter manufacturing plant, my car has an oil filter and a friend smokes filtered cigarettes. All of this makes me en expert on filters, all of which is helpful, for here we are talking about the most complex filter ever devised. Its importance cannot be underestimated, since the filter can prevent anyone with a computer from being sued by RIAA, at a cost of trillions to the economy and a possible revolution of the people against government.

First lets define what a p2p filter must do. A p2p filter allows Public domain works 2 Pass. That is where the letters come from: Public domain 2 Pass.

Then we must define what is a public domain work. Anywhere a public domain work is any work not protected by copyright law. Non public domain works have one or many owners. So here we present our first idea. A P2P filter allows everything to pass except works that that have owners.

The next question we must ask, is how is the filter going to determine that a work is copyright protected. My filter expertise has led me to developed a secret method for p2p filtering. However, since business methods can now be patented and copyrightable if the ideas are embodied in software, I will not reveal my secret until I talk to my patent/copyright lawyer and have patented and copyrighted my idea.

Several filtering problem I have not solved . For example, my soon to be patented filter cannot cope with these situations, when:

-today is the 70th anniversary of the death of the author and the work goes into public domain. Unless this problem is solved we will get many false positives.

-the author is an animal. For example a monkey painter.

-the author is unknown. For example the photographer of my great grandfather’s photograph taken during a safari in South Africa in 1920 by a safari guide. Is the author dead? The laws of what country applies? If any rights exists, do they belong to the 40 heirs of the Safari photographer or the 40 descendants of my great grandfather?

-the composer of a music score is Chopin. Is the author dead over 70 years and the work is in the public domain or is the author the publisher who made a new annotated edition, with the useless annotations added as a trick so a to qualify for a new copyrights or to extend the life of copyrights?

-the author is a machine. For example, photos taken of a bank robbery by security cameras.

-the author owner is a native of the Amazon region who has no idea what a copyright is.

-the work was published under the old laws, with the authorization of the owners but without a copyright notice, thereby becoming automatically a public domain work. How is it determined that the author authorized the publication without the copyright notice.

- the owner of the work wishes that his/her work be freely shared by anyone.

- the author is from one of these radical countries where it is believed that authors have no rights of ownership. One of these countries is the U.S., where works by federal public employees automatically become public domain works.
-
Please, if anyone can figure out how to solve the above problems, please let me know. Help save civilization and arts as we know it.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:45:42 +0000

Sharman never did explain how it was that you could set up a business using other people’s content. Let the hundreds of legitimate businesses that supply mucis on-line get on with honest business.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:06:25 +0000

Let me understand the logic here. Because of a false presumption that software can be coded to know whether its use is infringing or not, Kazaa is being held liable for copyright infringement. This is no difference than if, under the false presumption that a gun or a car can be “coded” to know whether it is being used in the commission of a crime, that the manufacturer should be held liable if it is used for infringing purposes.

Are people, including the courts, really that uninformed bout the nature of computers to have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily? I know that “to err is human, to really fowl things up requires a computer” was a cute statement I read as a child, but it seems to apply to far too many courts. The “filters” that they are asking for can’t exist, and the whole concept of “copy control” is snake-oil being pushed on the market by technology monopolists that want to ensure that all digital communications are intermediated by their products.

http://KillBillC60.ca

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:56:28 +0000

I would love a couple of more of those two-worded responses .

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:01:40 +0000

Your first paragraph is incorrect. According to online summaries of the ruling. the judge did not find that Sharman infringed copyrights – he found that Sharman induced users to infringe copyrights.

It seems that Sharman made three critical errors that contributed to their vulnerability:
1. They earned money on Kazaa from bundled adware and advertising, making it worthwhile for lawyers to go after them.
2. They actively encouraged users to trade copyrighted files, at least before they smartened up and got more careful.
3. They located their home office in a jurisdiction (Australia) where the legal system is traditionally very friendly to established authority.