Subject: Re: Copyright, The Internet & Low Cost Universal Commercial Info Services. From: dowjone!rexb (Rex Ballard) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 22:59:35 EST

Sender: jvncnet!marketplace.com!owner-online-news
Content-Length: 8140
X-Lines: 162
Status: RO

> Gentlemen,
> 
> I am trying to articulate a problem.  If you're interested, please help, 
> or pass it on to someone who may be.

You articulate an opportunity.  This is not a serious problem.  I have been
addressing it at varous levels for about 5 years now.

> While I have become, in the last year, an extreme anti-OSI bigot (due to
> my perceptions of OSI process, substance, impact and funding), I'm
> beginning to conclude that all is not well with the alternative open
> networking camp and the Global Internet.

OSI is too much like trying to make sure that the "railroad" gets to the
"right" doorsteps.  It is ironic that most OSI services (CLNP, X.25) are
 interfaced through TCP/IP gateways.  Part of this is the entry fee.  The
  $50,000 entry fee for manuals and royalties tends to put a damper on
  most shoestring developers.

> The problem raised in the
> attached message from the online-news email list raises serious questions
> about the suitability of *EXISTING* (and massively deployed)  SMTP-, NNTP-, 
> FTP-, and HTTP-based systems as a basis for vast commercial services, 
> universally available, at low cost. 

What you point out is exactly WHY the internet is growing at 20%/month!
It is the availability of easily accessible links at relatively low cost
that makes these services desirable in the first place.  I don't need
a $200,000 Kenworth Tractor/Trailer to get on Interstate 95 either.  If
I could just get my sidewalk widened enought to fit a car into it (local
SLIP lines to POP for < $2/hour), I could really get around.  Notice
the UUCP return address :-).

> Unless and until there is a universally adopted user ID system, a
> directory system, and an email system which unequivocally identifies
> senders/receivers/posters/responders/storers/retrievers of email, 
> Articles, documents, files and messages there will be a strong need for net 
> policing, or there will be a dearth of viable commercial services.

You underestimate the value of encryption and third party services.
Simply using passwords that change every 30 seconds instead of those
that change every 30 days is a simple form of security.

Unobtrusive management such as accession number registration in E-Mail
hosts can be used of filter some of this.
 
> (Yes, I know of, and am a subscriber to Clarinet. Clarinet does not 
> contradict my point, I fear, for the reasons detailed in the attached 
> message.)

The days of paying for single copies are giving way to the new "Bulk
Purchase Plans".  Typically, there so much information and so little time
to sift through it, that most publishers are just sending gigabytes
for a flat fee.

Having a "flat fee account", and providing a verifiable real-time key
password can make it possible for secondary providers to recieve a portion
of the "flat fee".  Instead of setting up accounts with each provider and
each customer, common "Banks" can take subscriber information such as
internet address and user-id, check the encrypted passwords, and allow
the user to log-on.

The user just has a local key generator sitting up on a window of his
machine, generating passwords based on a password he received over the
phone.  When he wants to log in, he can give the password showing on the
screen at that moment.  The server sends the code to his "Bank".  The Banks
confirm a valid authentication and allows access.
 
> Without one, there cannot (as near as I can tell) be a fast and vast
> growth to information services accessible through the net. Or, can there
> be? How? 

We have encryption schemes that even the Militaries of Three former superpowers
couldn't crack.  Appropriate use of these schemes makes it possible to
conduct a variety of secure transactions over public links.  We only need
to have a cash register at the exit (like a store), not an armored door
(Like a SAC Base or Prison).
 
> Is this issue compelling enough to bring together all network providers
> (services, systems, network equipment, hardware, software, countries) to
> come to agreement on these and related open networking issues? If so how
> must it be framed or understood to create a push for a universally
> acceptable system? 

Are you kidding?  We can have 20 or 30 encryption schemes.  What we need
to do is identify commercial providers.  These are the "insurance
companies", Lein Holders, and Gas Stations of the information superhighway.
Only a small fraction of the roads in this country have toll booths.

> Incidently, if there is consensus on the above needs and requirements, it
> is hard for me to imagine that there is a role for Clipper/Skipjack, or
> anything other that PK crypto as the cryptographic basis for the agreed on
> infrastructure. Or, am I wrong about that too?

Yes you are wrong about that too :-).  Clipper is a last ditch effort to
make your electronic transactions available to the FBI, DEA, and let's
not forget the IRS :-).  Of course, the Treasury Department would never
give their half of the "Key" to the IRS would they? :-).  Never mind that
every check, credit card, and EFT is monitored by the IRS, Treasury, and
the SEC.  If you want to make them crazy, use cash.

> Regards,
 
> Lee
> <> Lee D. Rothstein | LDR@VeriTech.com | 603-424-2900 | Fax: 603-424-8549 <>

> > My point about the copyright of the NYT's Britannia story isn't to cast
> > doubts at whoever posted it, but rather to make the point that without
> > protection of intellectural property, there wouldn't *be* any Encyclopedia
> > -- or, for that matter, any New York Times. The whole structure of
> > writing, publishing, creating in the western world rests on the 
> > assumption that we can protect and will compensate for creative
> > intellectual work. I don't think protection is a trival issue.
> 
> 	That was my point as well, and I apologize for obscuring the issue
> by raising the question of how to verify the poster's identity..

One interesting note.  The poster's internet address pays a substantial
royalty for the New York Times on a "Flat-Fee" basis.

> 	What we (by which I mean generally any for-profit producer of
> information content) need rather desperately is a new paradigm for
> "copyright," "reprint fees," "royalties" and the like. Given what we're
> locked into right now, we have to try to get all the bang from our buck on
> the first "printing" rather than counting on residual rights -- there
> simply isn't a practical way to control reproduction.

It is important to remember that information, whether it be a stock quote,
or a technical manual on car-repair, is actually a service.  People are
willing to pay for service.  Sun Microsystems created a company by providing
superior service of products that were often available as General Public
License products (TCP/IP, X11, ...) while IBM almost collapsed as a result
of basing it's economic future on the royalties of a monopoly product
(MVS, SNA,...).

Motif is based on Athena, but people are willing to pay for the superior
presentation, support, tutorials, and publications which support Motif.

> 	Unfortunately, this approach really works only for wire services,
> since the value of their product tends to diminish over time anyway. But
> it's not a practical suggestion for anyone whose product has intrinsic
> archival value -- like, e.g., the Brittanica or the New York Times.. 

In an age where technology and information flows at the rate of over 20
gigbytes/day, there is very little, including Brittanica, that can't
benefit from constant upgrade and superior service.  Several companies
are putting out monthly updates to their encyclopedia on CD-ROM.

Encryption, registration, and transparent audit trails are a good way
to manage the flow of the royalties.  The household that used to spend
$20/month on magazines and newspapers, and $30/month on cable will probably
pay $60/month or more for access to the "electronic library".  And won't
get upset of their mail server happens to send copies of the ISBN and
accession numbers to some royalty "clearing house".
 
> 	Gordy

	Rex Ballard
	Dow Jones & Co. Inc.

The preceding represent personal opinions, not facts or policies.


From jvncnet!opup.org!jdlail Mon Feb 28 10:20:44 1994