[d@DCC] Unintended consequences of being specific ;-)

[Hendrik]

Quoting from message: 05/05/23 06:03 +0900 sent by richard1:
[...]
>ps - without replying to it directly, I'm of the opinion that Matthew
>Skala's posting "What is "uploading" and did BMG v. Doe legalize it?" is
>one of the best reasoned pieces I've seen on this topic - thanks!

I second that...

... even though, when all has been said and done and written, we may end up
using different terminology than "upload". ;-)

The point i find most noteworthy is that, as a (surely intended)
consequence of Matthew's being specific i have gained more appreciation for
one of Russell's comments from a while back (can't recall the context)
which i interpreted (correctly, i hope) to mean that any regulating law
should not favour specific technologies, procedures, or processes
(ultimately an impossible mandate, but still something one needs to get as
close to as possible, certainly much, much closer to than what "the
industry" wants to see made into law).

Considering that most technical terms we use don't mean what they once
meant or what we think they mean (from "copying" to "computer" to "file"
and beyond), we need to use, when making laws, terminology that bypasses
technology issues altogether and that allows non-technical people and
techies alike to understand what is being talked about. For example, the
verb "to copy", if not explicitly qualified or defined differently in a
given context still applies to someone using a pencil and paper, to write
down, word for word, something they read in a text they have before them,
does it not? :-)

Regards: Hendrik

--