Re: [dvd-discuss] Illegal tactics funded by Anti-piracy advocates

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 7 May 2003 at 20:00, Glendon M. Gross wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 07 May 2003 20:00:06 -0700
From:           	"Glendon M. Gross" <gross@xinetd.ath.cx>
Organization:   	Xinetd Communications
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Illegal tactics funded by Anti-piracy 
advocates
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > 
> > On 6 May 2003 at 22:54, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
> > 
> [...]
> 
> > > 4) Another approach would be to interdication. Block access to the
> > > network while attempting to download music.
> > >
> > > The article talked a bit about the various legal ramifications. Noted
> > > that the Record Labels will not talk about any of it publicly. Record
> > > excutives are divided on rolling this stuff out. They are trying to find the
> > > right balance.
> > >
> > 
> > No balance....Question...in the digital age..will vigilantism force the abuse
> > of copyright defense  as punishment maybe stripping of copyright ownership and
> > putting them into thepublic domain is an appropriate punishment...punitive
> > damages must punish and stripping off copyright is very punitive
> 
> Nevertheless, this sounds like a good potential solution. If ownership
> of copyright
> conveys privileges, no doubt it also conveys responsibilities, n'est-ce
> pas?  Consequently, if copyright ownership causes a copyright holder to
> believe he can
> break the law, shouldn't he (eventually, and perhaps only after repeated
> offenses)
> lose his ownership of the copyright he is "defending" to the injured
> party?

Not to the offending party. They are entitled to compensatory damages only. 
Copyright is a monopoly conferred by the state. Punitive damages are to the 
state...as in revoking the copyright and putting works into the public 
domain...in the case of criminal negligence (OH....an infinged file is on you 
computer ...lock it up for 2 minutes...code blue...patient dead...airplane 
crashed...avionics software on same computer as one touch)


> 
> This would happen naturally, of course, if the punitive copyright holder
> causes material damage in excess of the value of the copyright itself
> (such as in the case where the
> judge finds the copyright holder guilty in a wrongful death suit, as in
> the other

In that case revoke the copyright! Punitive damages are punishment. In the case 
of copyright it is an abuse...but an abuse against the state that granted it. 
The state can revoke it.

> example given on this list.)  This is far fetched, I suppose, but
> nevertheless I like the idea that copyright ownership should carry with
> it the responsibility to use such ownership lawfully, and that willfully
> and arrogantly violating the laws should also carry with it some kind of
> implicit penalty that comes from wrongful use of the copyright.  
> 
> Thoughts, anyone?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Glendon Gross
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 19:30, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > So what's the gist?
> > > >
> > > > On 6 May 2003 at 17:08, Glendon M. Gross wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Date sent:          Tue, 06 May 2003 17:08:09 -0700
> > > > From:               "Glendon M. Gross" <gross@xinetd.ath.cx>
> > > > Organization:       Xinetd Communications
> > > > To:                 dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > Subject:            [dvd-discuss] Illegal tactics funded by Anti-piracy
> > > > advocates Send reply to:      dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >