Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] The downside of rapid takedown approaches

[Rod Rasmussen <rod.rasmussen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we're talking apples and oranges here.

My personal opinion is that the DMCA is a poorly constructed piece of  
legislation that a large number of uncaring companies have used as a  
bludgeon to go after everyone and anyone they can for alleged  
infringement - mainly their own customers.  The demise of the music  
industry as we've known it for decades has been due in large-part to  
relying on such ham-handed techniques rather than adjusting to new  
technology and working with ISPs and technology providers instead of  
against them.
In stark contrast here, we have the Internet security community that  
has not sought such legislation, has largely worked to partner with  
providers to solve problems, and is participating in creating policy  
and process that provides for quick mitigation of serious criminal  
activity while maintaining checks and balances against abuse of those  
systems.  Talk about night and day!
I take an opposite conclusion here - the work we've been doing in this  
group and in the general engagement between security and provider  
communities shows a much better way to approach this kind of complex  
issue.   We've engaged rather than standing off and lobbing grenades  
at each other via the approach the RIAA and others took by going  
straight to government for an overly burdensome regulatory response to  
their issues.  I would also use this as a cautionary example for what  
could happen if we don't continue working towards common solutions and  
insist that "my side is right" or "it's someone else's problem".   
Someone will go to a higher authority for relief and that leads to all  
sorts of collateral damage to all.  Have a look at legislation I and  
countless others in the security community have criticized in the past  
that would put such impositions on providers (while potentially giving  
security vendors an easy tool to misuse) and some of the bills  
introduced every session of Congress it seems - far more draconian  
than anything we've even discussed as even outlying ideas in our group  
here.
Instead of pausing, we need to press forward with collaborative  
efforts FASTER - before someone not engaged in the process gets  
something truly harmful to the Internet community through Congress or  
some other body.
That's my take away for what it's worth.  Hate to come away sounding  
confrontational, but my complete and utter disdain for the RIAA and  
their tactics of the past makes me pretty sensitive to comparisons  
tying their approach and ours!  Buy me a couple beers in Sydney and  
I'll let you know what I really think of the music industry though. :-)
Best regards,

Rod Rasmussen
President and CTO
Internet Identity
1 (253) 590-4088

On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:26 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> There was an interesting article in PC World that was noted on  
> Slashdot today:
> http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7
>
> It should give those who advocate rapid takedown procedures some
> pause, given that:
>
> "In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the
> takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and
> over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims."
>
> indicates a very high rate of gaming, using the DMCA system to create
> false abuse reports.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.leap.com/