Home Page
11.24.2004
 Bytes & Bullets 
Larry Lessig has an oped in today's Washington Post entitled "Bytes and Bullets." Its import is that the proposed Induce Act is an effort to ban P2P technology, and that, were it to succeed, there would be no logical argument against banning guns. His reasoning is that P2P can be used for both infringing and non-infringing purposes, and guns can be used for both legal and illegal uses. So, if P2P is banned, ditto for guns.

The premise is faulty, though. No one -- repeat, NO ONE -- is arguing that P2P as a technology should be banned. The effort underway is to ban the infringement-dependent businesses that make use of this technology while avoiding action that would cripple new technologies. Granted, it is extremely difficult to craft language that draws the appropriate line between the technology itself and the uses made of it, which is why the interested parties have not yet reached agreement on language for the bill and it is dead for this year. But people can and must keep trying.

Lessig's argument boils down to the proposition that because guns have legitimate uses, we cannot outlaw armed robbery.

posted by James DeLong : 11/24/2004 09:32:13 AM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

 

IPcentral WebLog
Blog Main
Recent Posts
  Further Jonathan Zittrain Dialectic
The New Media Marches On
Politics & Markets
More on Patent Searches
Noninfringing Use Insurance
Desktop Searches
James Boyle on Database IP in Europe
Markets and Cooperation
The Internet and the Media
eBay
Archives by Month
  December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
Links
  PFF Blog
Atom.xml Site Feed
   
 
Home Page IPcentral Weblog - Intellectual Property and Copyright Commentary
Home Page
11.24.2004
 Bytes & Bullets 
Larry Lessig has an oped in today's Washington Post entitled "Bytes and Bullets." Its import is that the proposed Induce Act is an effort to ban P2P technology, and that, were it to succeed, there would be no logical argument against banning guns. His reasoning is that P2P can be used for both infringing and non-infringing purposes, and guns can be used for both legal and illegal uses. So, if P2P is banned, ditto for guns.

The premise is faulty, though. No one -- repeat, NO ONE -- is arguing that P2P as a technology should be banned. The effort underway is to ban the infringement-dependent businesses that make use of this technology while avoiding action that would cripple new technologies. Granted, it is extremely difficult to craft language that draws the appropriate line between the technology itself and the uses made of it, which is why the interested parties have not yet reached agreement on language for the bill and it is dead for this year. But people can and must keep trying.

Lessig's argument boils down to the proposition that because guns have legitimate uses, we cannot outlaw armed robbery.

posted by James DeLong : 11/24/2004 09:32:13 AM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

 

IPcentral WebLog
Blog Main
Recent Posts
  Further Jonathan Zittrain Dialectic
The New Media Marches On
Politics & Markets
More on Patent Searches
Noninfringing Use Insurance
Desktop Searches
James Boyle on Database IP in Europe
Markets and Cooperation
The Internet and the Media
eBay
Archives by Month
  December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
Links
  PFF Blog
Atom.xml Site Feed
   
 
Home Page