Home Page
06.27.2007 (previous | next)
Privacy and Security in Conflict

In a lawsuit filed by movie studios against a Net-based service that indexes BitTorrent downloads, the service has been ordered to log users' IP addresses as a part of discovery. EFF and CDT have filed an amicus brief objecting.

The concern with privacy in this case puzzles me. The principle seems to be that copyright is

somehow denigrated below other legal rights. Suppose the torrents in question involved photographs of someone taken and released without their consent (by someone peaking over the fence or into a window, say). Or trade secrets, or financial, medical, or other personal records. Whatever the material, a civil suit is brought. Should the plaintiff be stymied in his attempt to protect his own privacy or security because the torrent indexer failed to draft a reasonable privacy policy? Surely not. If not in those cases, why in the case of a copyright suit--which is yet another sort of security?

The indexer's privacy policy ought to have included a reservation for court orders. If it didn't, it was misleading. This ought not to be the studios problem.

And finally, this isn't a criminal case. Remedies in a civil suit are, well, civil. The uploaders and downloaders are not being subjected to torture or imprisonment; if pursued, they'll be out of pocket. Not a inappropriate penalty (although some of the amounts have gotten inflated, that is another problem). It is possible, now that the data are being collected, that the government will show an interest in prosecution as well. It might be appropriate for the court to stipulate that the data obtained in discovery is to be kept confidential unless there is a further court order. But this supposes that the privacy of infringers ought to trump the rights being infringed. Again, why? If copyright is indeed to be so far denigrated that it becomes unenforceable... why have it at all?

To put it another way, to say that one supports basic copyright, but then to oppose any practicable means of making it enforceable seems deeply conflicted to me.

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 11:29 AM | Enforcement & Remedies, Privacy and Security

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)









 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page