The rise of copyright trolls

Posted May 3, 2017 11:46 UTC (Wed) by armijn (subscriber, #3653)
In reply to: The rise of copyright trolls by aggelos
Parent article: The rise of copyright trolls

Wow. That is incredibly low and simply not true.

The rise of copyright trolls

Posted May 3, 2017 11:58 UTC (Wed) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link] (8 responses)

How is acknowledging or mentioning a conflict of interest "low"?

Regarding the non-true part, does Tjaldur's page not advertise:

We are one of the leading experts in analysing binaries for software governance and GPL license compliance. We use a combination of manual scanning and automated scanning.

among other, compliance-related services? Could you explain how such a company does not have an interest in there being a high perceived threat of (a) non-compliance with the GPL for trivial, non-obvious reasons for which you'd need expert help and (b) significant monetary damages as a result of that?

The rise of copyright trolls

Posted May 3, 2017 12:01 UTC (Wed) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link] (7 responses)

Actually, there would not even be a conflict of interest. Simply arguing in one's own interest. Again, how is mentioning that 'low'?

The rise of copyright trolls

Posted May 3, 2017 12:28 UTC (Wed) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link] (6 responses)

Yes, I do help companies to come into compliance (not denying that), but you are totally wrong about the FUD part. Your assumptions about my intentions are completely off the mark and therefore low.

The rise of copyright trolls

Posted May 3, 2017 13:20 UTC (Wed) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link] (5 responses)

Your intentions are unknowable and immaterial to my point, nor did I ever discuss them. My comment was to the LWN editors, to suggest that they explicitly mention facts relevant to what they are reporting on. And no, that cannot be brushed aside by "mere coverage".

The FUD part is open for everyone to judge.

The rise of copyright trolls

Posted May 5, 2017 2:41 UTC (Fri) by Paf (subscriber, #91811) [Link] (4 responses)

Yes, it is open to all to judge.

And given the strong advocacy of finding a way to deal with McHardy that would NOT put more money in the pockets of the lawyers, I think it's very clear this is not FUD. It's careful concern, backed up by independent sources. These are far from the only people complaining about the nature of the McHardy suits, for example, and the article is a report from a conference talk... Where no one in attendance (most of whom, I think it's safe to say, are better placed to judge than we readers) felt it necessary to question the premise of good intent, based on what they saw.

So, bravo, good luck, and thank you for trying to deal with this.

The rise of copyright trolls

Posted May 5, 2017 8:55 UTC (Fri) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, it is open to all to judge

Actually, the fact that the existence of FUD around GPL compliance is to the presenters' interest (which was my point here) is not really open to interpretation. Reasonable people could disagree on whether any (or which) statements of the presenters go out of their way to exaggerate the risks involved by speculation on unidentified and unknowable laws and regulations. I think the case is well made for both sides of that particular argument.

More and better guidance for GPL compliance is a laudable goal. The goal does not set the means beyond analysis and interpretation though.

The rise of unreasonable paranoia

Posted May 5, 2017 17:22 UTC (Fri) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link] (2 responses)

> Actually, the fact that the existence of FUD around GPL compliance is to the presenters' interest (which was my point here) is not really open to interpretation.

You have to be careful with that sort of reasoning growing tinfoil-hatted conspiracy legs and running away with you, pardon the mixed metaphor. After impugning legal people, why not impugn the motives of, say, the medical profession, who obviously have an interest in keeping us sick, because otherwise, you know, they're going to have less work, &c, &c.

It all comes back to whose integrity you trust, and whose you don't.

My strong impression is that Armijn et al are actively trying to clean up the FUD, not make it worse. What then? Would it really be better to have armchair lawyers from the peanut gallery, or principled people who do this stuff for a day job and know what they're talking about?

The rise of unreasonable paranoia

Posted May 7, 2017 20:49 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

After impugning legal people, why not impugn the motives of, say, the medical profession, who obviously have an interest in keeping us sick, because otherwise, you know, they're going to have less work, &c, &c.

Of course, the problem with assuming that this doesn't happen is that sometimes it does. Obviously the medical profession has no interest in keeping us sick because they have more work than they can possibly deal with -- adding more sick people isn't helpful -- but they do have an interest, in for-profit systems, in maximizing the amount they charge for their work, charging wildly different fees for the same work depending on your bargaining power, doing unnecessary work, etc (all of which is utterly rife in the US right now). Similarly, the police obviously do not profit from crime because even today there is more of it than they can identify, and in the past crime levels were much higher, so obviously this was even more true back then. So the police have never had an interest in the maximization of crime, even though the more crime there is, the more necessary the police appear.

Unfortunately, then reality bites: the institution of the police was created because of massive scandals around the privately-funded thief-taker system that preceded it, in which not only were some of them (e.g. Stephen MacDaniel) framing innocents as criminals to get rewards (which has recurred in South America and Nigeria in the last half-decade alone), but some were maximizing crime and indeed endeavouring to monopolize it: the classic example was Jonathan Wild. You don't get this to such a degree with doctors because doctors can't extract life from sick people the way criminals can extract goods and money from the people they rob, extort, etc. Doctors' employers can only extract money, in for-profit systems.

(Similarly, lawyers' interest is often in the maximization of the length of cases, since many charge by the hour, while their client's interest is presumably in winning the case and also in not having to pay the lawyers more than they have to. There are certain notable firms in the UK with this modus operandi which any reader of Private Eye would be able to name in an instant.)

Conflicts of interest are everywhere. They sprout like mushrooms when you stop looking for them.

The rise of unreasonable paranoia

Posted May 8, 2017 9:05 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

why not impugn the motives of, say, the medical profession, who obviously have an interest in keeping us sick, because otherwise, you know, they're going to have less work, &c, &c.

You say that as if it is ridiculous, but this is actually true. There is indeed evidence that a medical profession that works in an environment where there is a profit motive will have a bias towards more expensive interventions.

People are prone to bias. Even the best of people. They may not even be aware of it themselves. The way these biases work is that professionals can convince themselves they are doing the right thing as part of it. You need to openly acknowledge interests that might bias things (as is best practice in the medical world, e.g.) to have a hope of countering it. And generally be systematic about counter-balancing self-interest-bias - cause humans _are_ very prone to it.