Nancy and list members,
In my view, Columbine was wrongly decided - it was correct in a legal culture that emphasises the value of property (be it real or intellectual). In such a society social utility is seen as manifesting exploitation of property rights. Therefore children are to be exploited for their informational value. Yet, any parent with any common sense is fully aware of the destructive impact of constant access to, and viewing of, hi-level violence. In my view the creators and disseminators of such violence when it is promoted to children should be at least responsible in some contributory way for the actions of their disturbed audience members.
If one holds the creator and disseminator (not the intermediary as in the ISP) of the content liable then the the end-to-end architecure and open nature of the Net is maintained.
While the executives that make and disseminate these products might enjoy an educative half hour reflection, payment of contributory damages to the plaintiffs would also provide a valuable aid. They could aslo explain the payouts to shareholders at the AGM.
For those who have not seen the case here is a brief summary with my interpetation:
Relatives of teachers and students massacred at Columbine sued producers of
highly violent computers games and Internet sites in negligence for
knowingly producing material that would result in an unreasonable risk of
harm due to copycat effects. In finding against the relatives, the court
upheld the commercial value of such content, asserting social utility is
high in "expressive and imaginative forms of entertainment even if they
contain violence". It further concluded "tort law gives no basis for
determining that violence would be considered the likely consequence of
exposure to video games or movies". New intervening acts of the student
murderers were the causation, not viewing violent content. The content
producers could not be found liable to ".all speakers, to anticipate and
prevent the idiosyncratic, violent reactions of unidentified, vulnerable
individuals to their creative works".
Linda Sanders et al v Acclaim Entertainment et al 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis
3997; Also see: Joe James v Meow Media Et Al 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5330
Regards
Graham
Converging law, information technology and education to foster an autonomous cyberspace
Graham Bassett BA, DipEd, MInfoTech, LLB (Hons)
PO Box 1565
Byron Bay NSW 2481
Australia
Tel. 0414986158
bassett[_at_]ozemail.com.au
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bassett/
> All of which brings to mind an editorial that Valenti wrote shortly after
the
> Columbine shootings where he suggested that media violence should not be
> considered to blame, rather society (and who is the major transmitter of
society
> values???). He suggested that elementary students should have a half hour
lesson
> every day addressing "what is right, and what is wrong."
>
> I have often pondered how much better off we would be as a society of some
> corporate executives would spend a mere 30 minutes a week pondering what
is right
> and what is wrong about the business decisions they are considering.
>
> Nancy
>
> Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
>
> Center for Advanced Technology in Education
> University of Oregon, College of Education
> E-mail: nwillard[_at_]oregon.uoregon.edu
> URL: http://netizen.uoregon.edu
>
> Responsible Netizen Institute
> URL:http://responsiblenetizen.org
>
>
>
> Richard Forno wrote:
>
> > The way the bill reads, ANY copyright holder can take action - big or
small.
> > I routinely copyright my e-mails and of course my articles -- so
technically
> > I could come after you if I suspect you had my copyrighted material on
your
> > system. Not that I would, but I could under Berman's Bill. :)
> >
> > Berman's POS bill was so broadly written that in a surprising move, the
day
> > it was introduced, MPAA's King Jack Valenti had to back away from his
> > typical fanatical antipiracy rhetoric, saying "we need to work with the
Hill
> > more" on the bill......to his credit, he realized how broad this bill is
and
> > that it went far beyond what Hollywood's lobbyists intended. Of course,
> > RIAA's Queen Hillary Rosen was all-too-quick to jump and praise Berman
while
> > signing the check for his monthly "we own you" payment.
> >
> > Hollywood's cartels want the Berman Bill to say it's okay for THEM to
hunt,
> > probe, disrupt, degrade, destroy P2P sites and infringing material, but
not
> > for ANY copyright holder to do so, which automatically makes Hollywood
just
> > as much a target as Joe Sixpack, College Students, and ISPs.
> >
> > If this distinction is made, it will set a new precedent for Hollywood's
> > entertainment cartels maintaining their monopoly status and influence
over
> > the creative industry (they're doing it with the Fritz Chip, Palladium,
and
> > TCPA anyway).
> >
> > Unfortunately, this also means if this change is made, Congress is
> > essentially telling the "little publishers, artists, and indie groups"
that
> > their intellectual property interests are not important to America, only
> > those of the "major" RIAA/MPAA-endorsed entertainment firms.
> >
> > The situation is - and they are - Scary. Sad. Pathetic. Greedy.
Igornant.
> >
> > Rick
> > Infowarrior.org
> >
> > Add'l reading on the topic:
> >
> > Hollywood's Private War For Social Control
> > http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-10.html
> >
> > Operation ENDURING VALENTI
> > http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-03.html
> >
> > National Security and Individual Freedoms:
> > How the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) Threatens Both
> > http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2001-05.html
> >
> > > From: David Dailey <david.dailey[_at_]sru.edu>
> > > Reply-To: cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
> > > Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:01:11 -0400
> > > To: Multiple recipients of list <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org>
> > > Subject: "Hollywood hacking bill"
> > >
> > > Perhaps there has been some discussion of this since the last archives
were
> > > created at "CNI-COPYRIGHT Forum Archives," so I apologize in advance
for
> > > insulting any dead horses, visible or not. I am curious about the
recent
> > > legislation introduced to the US House by representative Berman
apparently
> > > entitled "LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR PROTECTION OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS
ON
> > > PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS" and visible at
http://www.house.gov/berman/p2p.pdf.
> > >
> > > Question 1: Is anyone aware of the current status of this proposed
> > > legislation?
> > >
> > > It authorizes copyright holders to access any machine of any
"file-trader"
> > > using "peer-to-peer networks" to interfer with unauthorized copies,
and,
> > > barring a few exceptions, protects the copyright holder from liability
> > > arising for such intrusion. My naive reading (IANAL) of the
definitions of
> > > the above-quoted terms in the legislation leads me to think this would
> > > include all computers on any network including the Internet whether
they
> > > are serving files or not.
> > >
> > > The copyright holder has to tell the Justice Department what methods
it may
> > > use in these disruptions (I don't gather that the Justice department
has to
> > > approve or publicly disclose the methods), and provides some recourse
to
> > > the end-user should her computer be wrongfully caused more than $250
damage
> > > by the intruder.
> > >
> > > The bill has had some discussion on the 'Net, as a search for the
query
> > > ("berman bill" copyright) on Google reveals. Some there have labeled
it the
> > > "Hollywood hacking bill." Others might view it as a "declaration of
hacking
> > > war" between various segments of the networked community.
> > >
> > > Question 2: Does it work both ways? A non-infringing end-user of
networks,
> > > "A", happens, incidentally, to be a copyright holder (quelle
surprise!!). A
> > > believes that another copyright holder "B" may have (while performing
an
> > > invasion of A's computer, as sanctioned by the house bill) made
> > > unauthorized copies or derivative works of her files or filenames (the
> > > aggregate collection of which would, it seems, qualify as a protected
> > > expression). Is she not then authorized to invade B's computers to
snoop
> > > and thence interfere with any potentially infringing files or
processes
> > > that B has collected or spawned?
> > >
> > > It seems relatively straightforward, then that "C", an infringer, will
> > > simply take any material M that he has wrongfully copied from B, and
merge
> > > into it, through a wee bit of encryption, a copy of some material, N,
he
> > > owns that is worth more than $250, thus creating a file P=e(M+N). B
> > > suspects that an unauthorized work belonging to B is on C's computer.
B's
> > > little eavesdropper (costing only $200 from Virile Viral Enterprises),
is
> > > delivered surreptitiously through a
Department-of-Justice-approved-virus,
> > > but has just enough horsepower to detect that P probably contains
traces of
> > > M. Therefore, B copies P to B's computer, decodes it into M+N, and
then
> > > returns to C's computer and destroys P. C detects the intrusion and
knowing
> > > of B's unauthorized copy of copyrighted N, enters B's computers and
> > > disrupts those machines and destroys the eavesdropper. C then
litigates
> > > against B for the damages to N.
> > >
> > > The legislation sounds like great fun for someone! Poor Hollywood.
> > >
> > > David Dailey see
> > >
> >
http://www.sru.edu/depts/cisba/compsci/dailey/copyright/dailey_on_copyright.
ht>> > >
> > m
> > > Associate Professor copyright musings: humor and
dread
> > > Slippery Rock University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:46 GMT