Decius wrote:
] Acidus wrote:
] ] -Furthermore, the infrastructure itself causes me to violate
] ] the laws without even knowing it.
]
] It is my opinion that laws ought to apply to people and their
] behaviors, rather then technologies and their architectures.
] There are cases where technologies make new behaviors
] possible, and in those cases we need new legislation, but
] simple ideas such as the notion that a private conversation is
] private ought to apply without respect to the technological
] mechanism through which the conversation takes place.
]
] In almost all cases where it has been argued that old laws do
] not apply or that new laws must be created because of the
] technical architecture of a system, such arguements are almost
] always wrong and consistently employed dishonestly.

There is another way to attack the problem. Explicit licensing. If IM clients understood what terms text typed in a given discussion space or chat room were licensed under, then many of these problems would start to dissolve. Or at the very least, could be approached in a different way.

You gave the example of +i on an IRC channel indicating that its more private. I'm of the opinion that they type of social cues are what we need to foster the development of to attack these particular set of problems.

In certain venues, you know its acceptable to record, such as when a public official is speaking. In other venues, you know it is not acceptable to record, such as seeing a play on Broadway or a Rolling Stones concert. Other areas, are very grey, like open mic night at your local coffee house. The only way to attack the problem is through the creation of shared conventions.

The law should not address the architecture, but the architecture can address the problem in a way the law already allows. That would be the path of least resistance. In this case, recording consent law is different from place to place. IP law is the same, hence, that may be the best way to tread.

I think a way to distinguish if you are speaking with a "public" or "private" voice in regard to IM and chat rooms is a "good idea"(tm). I think it should follow the place, as opposed to the speaker.

RE: Chat, Copy, Paste, Prison