No Cost Too Great for Copyright,
How timely. Soon after my post on confirmation bias in copyright came two examples of it in action.
就這麼剛好，在我貼完 confirmation bias in copyright（著作權裡被證實的不公）
First, the Coshocton Tribune reports that, a public service wifi system has been shut down because a single (unidentified) person is accused of illegally downloading a single movie over it. According to the report, the service had apparently been put in place five years ago and provided free wireless Internet access in the city block around the local courthouse.
首先，根據 Coshocton Tribune報導，一個公眾的wifi系統因為一個不知道是誰的人被指控下載一片盜版影片而整個被關掉。根據這篇報導，這個wifi服務是在五年被設立 在當地法院附近的街區上，並且提供免費的無線網路服務。
Further, Sony Pictures sent an infringement allegation to the ISP running the service, who on forwarded it to the county. The county decided to shut the service down as a result. The report does not disclose whether the county just took Sony’s word for it, or whether the infringement was proven with any degree of rigor. Second, CNet reports that a pub in the UK was ‘fined’ £8,000 (probably a settlement rather than a fine as the article refers to it as a civil action) because someone downloaded copyright material over the pub’s open WiFi network.
更進一步，sony影視寄了個侵權聲明到那個網路服務的ISP供應商，而ISP供應商則是把聲明上呈到郡政府。郡政府則因此決定把整個服務都給關掉。這份 報導並沒有說郡政府只是因為sony的話就照辦，或者這個侵權是什麼樣的程度和基準之下的侵害。第二，CNet reports報導英國一家pub被罰款8000英鎊（也許依照這份文章把這件事情當作民事訴訟來判 斷用賠償這字眼會比較好），就因為有個不知道是誰的人在網咖的無線網路裡下載了有著作權的素材。
The whole issue here is one of the climate of fear which the legislature (aided somewhat by the courts) have created around copyright and copyright infringement.
This climate of fear creates extreme risks for honest, law abiding citizens who find themselves in a copyright dispute. In theory, Sony ought to have had to prove: that copyright subsisted in the movie, that the copyright was held by Sony, that Sony had not granted an exclusive right over the copyright, that the movie was copied, that copying was an infringement.
What happens in practice is that people receive one of these notices and realize that because the legislature has vastly inflated the consequences of copyright infringement that they must err exceedingly on the side of caution. Presumably that happened in this case, with the county shutting down a wi-fi network which served up to 100 people a day during its peak times.
There is a ’solution’ – acquire a filtering solution for $3000 ish up front, and $1000 ish per year. These sorts of costs are prohibitive in the context of a small initiative like that in Coshocton. Moreover, they add nothing to the service – indeed, they put a drag on the service by requiring traffic to pass through the filter.
This lost innovation is an enormous cost to the community in order to protect a $20 movie. The provision of a free Internet wi-fi service is a valuable local innovation. It provided a substantial contribution to the administration of justice (police parked nearby and filed incident reports over it) and to commerce (with vendors using the network for processing payments during festival times).
這個不知所措的制度對於整個社群來說是非常大的代價，就為了保護一支二十元的片子。 免費無線網路的服務對當地來說是個極有價值的事物。免費網路提供了豐富的貢獻，像是貢獻正義（附近的警局即時透過網路檔案報告情況）或是貢獻商務（附近的 小販在節慶的時候透過網路來處理付款事物）
It is just the sort of local innovation by the aggregation and propagation of which our society advances. Once you start imposing such large costs on innovation, you cut its throat. You also destroy the benefits which flow from it. Outcomes such as these may well spell the death of open WiFi for example, yet no one mentions this category of cost when discussing taking further rights from citizens under the copyright law.
這個無線網路可以算是我們人類社會各種前進進步的集合體和繁衍。只要你開始強加一些規定或是負擔在這上面，你就等於是割了它的喉嚨了。而同時你也摧毀了這 個無線網路所帶來的各種益處。像這樣的結果也許可以很明顯的顯示出開放式無線網路即將面臨的死亡，不過大家在談論要讓公民在著作權下有更多的權利時，卻鮮 少有人提到這類層面的損失。
Of course, we should also ask whether this corresponds in any reasonable manner with our ordinary everyday lives. Imagine for example, if someone unidentified got off a bus outside some department store, went in, shoplifted and then left. The store, analogously to Sony here, could well send a letter to the bus company complaining about authorising the shoplifting.
They have, after all, clearly provided the means for the person to access the material which was taken. The bus company could easily put in place measures to prevent this sort of thing happening. They could easily prevent known shoplifters from riding on the bus, for example. What’s stopping the drivers from having a list of faces in the cabin? Or from having a face recognition system? Or requiring the use of electronic tickets which uniquely identify the passengers? Passengers could be required to wear clothing with few, small pockets. Sure, these things may be a little expensive, but we’re talking about stealing here – don’t you care about property rights?
他們，終究到底，很明顯的提供了那個順手牽羊的人去取得他所偷走得東西的動機。巴士公司可以輕易的設身處地著想來阻止這件事情啊。舉例來說，他們可以輕易 的阻止那個小偷去搭他們公司的巴士啊。到底是什麼樣的事情讓司機沒有辦法擁有車廂裡乘客每張面容的清單呢？或者是什麼樣的理由讓車裡沒有臉部辨識系統？或 者要求電子車票要有代表每個乘客的唯一識別碼呢？當然，我們也可以要求每個乘客都只能穿那種口袋又小又少衣服才能上車。當然，上面那些事情也許都太貴了 點，可是我們現在談得可是偷竊耶！你難道不在乎財產權嗎？
None of these things are impractical in the sense that a bus operator could implement them if they had to. The only question would be the cost, and the inconvenience that would be involved. In the real world we give credence to the costs which we impose on innocent third parties even when they are carriers of faciliators of law breakers.
Indeed, I don’t believe people would change their view even if the store had repeatedly been the subject of shoplifting by passengers of the bus company, or if the store had told the bus company about the shoplifting and/or the possibility of the shoplifting by its customers.
Despite the fact that connecting the bus operator with the shoplifting done by a passenger would be considered by many to be, well, frankly insane, courts have been particularly willing to engage in a form of cognitive dissonance and think it completely rational to make this connection as between ISPs and their customers.
Presumably courts are more willing to ping ISPs because they are perceived as having more capacity than a bus company to control the actions of their passengers, but this is an illusion. A bus company has much the same ability to control its passengers, as an ISP does its users. The difference however is that courts respect the rights of passengers, but don’t respect the rights of users.
The bus company’s passengers have a right not to be subject to a demeaning search by the bus company and courts are happy to respect that right. However, courts do not afford the same respect to passengers when the fire up their internet browser. They ought to.