RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

The problem is that they _are_ paying attention
to the _reality_ of the situation, instead of
the "virtual" world.

For example, if I post a message to this mailing
list the _reality_ is that dozens, if not hundreds,
of copies will be created and sent hither and yon
to the machine hosting the e-mail for each and every
subscriber.  In addition, the web archive will recieve
a copy.

The _virtual_ situation -- and (I believe) the model 
by which most people would think of the list, based
on the way human thought operates -- is that I have
created a single copy to the "dvd-discuss" list.  It
may be viewed by anyone having access to this virtual 
place in cyberspace.  Physical (odd term to use when
it is really all electronic) copies are made as required
to fill in the map of the virtual object, but ... there
_are_ natural and expected limits to this virtual object.
It's natural domain so to speak.  When posting a message
to "dvd-discuss" I do _not_ expect a copy of this message
to show up in the New York Times Sunday Edition, because 
that is not part of the natural domain of the virtual
space I know as "dvd-discuss".  

Now whether you want to cast this back into the physical
copies realm and say that I have implicitly given permission
for all copies required to fulfill the normal distribution
of "dvd-discuss", I suppose you may.  But that is the road
that leads to the status of temporary copies in caches and 
how many emails can dance on the head of a pin.  I think that
with the virtual world, working in the "model space" makes
much more sense than working in the "physical space".  And
in the _model_ I have posted one copy for all on this list
to read.  If the NYT wants to publish this on paper, they
would have to ask permission.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 8:40 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
> 
> 
> True enough but consider the legal community lengthy debates 
> on temporary 
> copies of stuff in cache, servers, disks or whatever. It 
> ignores the basic 
> reality of the situation and asserts mythical legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 10/17/01 07:54 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
>  
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in 
> their own noose.
> 
> 
> > rip, it takes X minutes of computer time, Y minutes of my 
> time -- that's
> > a real historical cost basis.  If someone accidentally 
> leaves open the
> > file sharing port on Win9X (that is the default), or 
> mistakenly shares
> > (through honest user error) their MP3 folder and the RIAA hacks in a
> > deletes them, $5K should add up fast.
> 
> Yes, but, if having a public web site is giving permission 
> for users to
> access it, then having an open drive share with public write 
> permission
> seems to me to be giving permission for peeople to
> read/write/delete.  (even if it is due to user ignorence).   
> I can't call
> accessing an open share "hacking".
>  
>  -- noah silva 
> 
> 
> 
>