DMCA and Man/Machine interfaces

[Joseph Paul]

A legal/sociological concern for SF games-

So what happens when, in a humanitarian scope, we succeed in repairing someone's memory with devices that can store images of what he sees and replay them for him or can translate memory to a different and transmissible medium?

Does he automatically violate copyright protection laws?

Did UT hit on any of these snags? THS?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

A legal/sociological concern for SF games-

So what happens when, in a humanitarian scope, we succeed in repairing someone's memory with devices that can store images of what he sees and replay them for him or can translate memory to a different and transmissible medium?

Does he automatically violate copyright protection laws?

Did UT hit on any of these snags? THS?

Unless he distributes them, I'd go with a solid 'no' here.

[Joseph Paul]

OK. Why is distribution the trigger for you?

Other opinions any one?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

OK. Why is distribution the trigger for you?

Other opinions any one?

Because copyright is primarily about not being able to give a copy of something to someone else, not about having a copy of it for yourself. Further, it's already legal to make backup copies of things you own. Finally, it's the simplest answer, and anything else would be just plain silly.

[Refplace]

Well it could be a violation of privacy, unauthorized search, and probably other things.
As for copyright that depends what it was used for. distributing or making your own personal copy or just the copy to heal the patient.

[Joseph Paul]

Refplace - If the patient sees a movie it stays as a pristine copy of the event. Yes, it would have any interruptions that he experienced. Going to get popcorn, people blocking his view etc.

If he sees the Mona Lisa he has a copy in his head that he can see again and again as if he were there.

If it was an audiological problem he could hear the songs he listened to over and over.

If he can transmit that imagery then he has the ability to distribute copies but in some cases I am thinking that copyright holders would want to prevent making copies of materials that are in the public venue such as songs played over the radio or art in public places. They want to sell copies and each person that is capable of this sort of sensory logging cuts into that.

Lets assume for the sake of exploring the ramifications of the tech that it can transmit digital quality copies of what the patient sees/hears. Is he enjoined from doing so? Would a person with a camera be enjoined from sharing the pics they snapped of art work at the Louvre (assuming that it was not forbidden for reasons of protecting the art from flash).

I think a case could be made for rights holders to try to oppose even non-transmitting types of memory augmentation once every one on Wall Street has it. They cannot show their work since digital replay by anyone seeing it obviates most any need to purchase a copy of the work. Perhaps gallery shows get door fees?

[Refplace]

OK so your not talking about copying memories like for a personal backup in case of sever injury or transfer to a new clone.
Then its the same as distributing photos IMHO.
The theater does not allow recording devices so this would be a violation there.
For museums it would depend. for public works like sending out your memory of visiting Mount Rushmore then no problem.
This is all if the memory holder is the one distributing.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Refplace

OK so your not talking about copying memories like for a personal backup in case of sever injury or transfer to a new clone.
Then its the same as distributing photos IMHO.
The theater does not allow recording devices so this would be a violation there.
For museums it would depend. for public works like sending out your memory of visiting Mount Rushmore then no problem.
This is all if the memory holder is the one distributing.

The Americans with Disabilities act (and similar things in other countries) would probably allow such 'recording devices' into movie theaters and such, if the person had a medical condition that prevented or seriously impaired their memory (Simon from the Vorkosigan series after he lost his memory implant would be a good example).

Further, the 'recording devices' we're talking about are built into the person. They can't be seen or detected except through invasive procedures. No movie theater will force people to go through that kind of thing.

Copyright holders will adapt when people have 100% perfect memories, but it won't become illegal for people to have those memories, nor will there be elaborate schemes to prevent people from making use of those memories. That's all just silly.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Langy

Because copyright is primarily about not being able to give a copy of something to someone else, not about having a copy of it for yourself. Further, it's already legal to make backup copies of things you own. Finally, it's the simplest answer, and anything else would be just plain silly.

But copyright is about people making illegal copies of material they did not pay to own. Paying to watch a movie does not equal paying to own a copy that they can reference again and again.

[Joseph Paul]

Langy - any idea how you see a society adapting to 100% memories? Or further to 100% shared memories? Do copyright holders have a diminished incentive to create under either paradigm (100% memory and 100% memory with transmission)? If not why not? How do they continue to profit from their endeavors?

One of the non-copyright problems with transmissible memory becomes the ability to actually examine what the witness saw during a crime or checking the alibi of the accused.