[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dmca-discuss
Subject:    Re: [DMCA_Discuss] New Thread
From:       Andy Green <andy () warmcat ! com>
Date:       2003-06-19 6:19:14
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 18 June 2003 21:15, Robert F. Bodi wrote:

> Don't forget, however, that there are certain statutory fair use
> rights that allow libraries, and other archivits, to archive items
> even if covered by copyright. Hence, there is the ability, even
> under the current scheme, to assure that public databases contains
> ALL works.  Thus, I am less concerned with historical preservation
> than I am about access to published works still under copyright,
> but no longer being marketed.

I take your point, but we had a related discussion before the list 
stalled, about certain kinds DRM rendering archived copies useless.  
In addition the archived content is not available for duplication and 
reuse until the copyright period is over of course, and the moment 
this is being extended by 20 years at 20 year intervals.

> > are themselves nonprofit in an Open Source type way cannot use
> > things under these circumstances, they would say it was not
> > 'free'.  So from that angle such a stricture is not much better
> > that leaving it in copyright.
>
> Well, open source RELIES on copyright to enforce its terms, so that
> is a bad example.  My concern is that sometimes, things don't get
> popular at first publication, but may become popular at a later
> time.  The original author should get something for his work, even
> if it takes a later effort by another party to make it a success.

I agree with your point about OSS using copyright, but that was not my 
point here.  I meant that if you intend to use an OSS license like 
the GPL, you have to be sure that the ingredients you are using are 
not encumbered somehow, since you will not be charging and will allow 
zero-cost copying.  So the idea that succeeding in making a work 
"popular" again should reintroduce copy charges for somehow 
"partially public domain" works destroys the possibility to use those 
works in the GPL-type environment.  As a user and integrator of GPL 
stuff, the great thing is that you know its zero cost and can be 
built upon with the blessing of its creator, even huge endavours like 
Linux and the GNU compilers.  (The quid pro quo for this largesse is 
that your result must be available under the same terms, ensuring 
continuing rich resources).

> Nobody argues that there aren't negatives to IP monopolies.  There
> is a tradeoff.  The public pays more in trade for more beneficial
> research. Patent laws force a public disclosure of information,
> increasing the public pool of knowledge, whereas copyright protects
> specific expressions, but releases new ideas into the public
> domain.  The overall result, I believe, is beneficial to society.

Well, its not unreasonable to try to summarize the huge industry in 
this way.  As more and more powers are wielded in defense of this 
"property" though, and more and more junk ideas come under the 
protection, and its used to prop up more and more artificially high 
pricing, I agree less and less with your conclusion.

For example this last few weeks I talked to a couple of parents of 
friends of my children, they are using Kazaa and Bittorrent, and 
downloaded movies on VCDs.  These are "Joe Sixpack" the "contagion" 
(or corrective invisible hand) has spread to.  If everything was 
tickety-boo in the balance of rights for users and content vendors 
these kinds of things would not be happening, since until now Joe 
Sixpack prefers to buy shiny things in stores, and is out of his 
element doing these complicated things to get his content.  In fact 
if the balance was good, the DMCA itself would not be needed, since 
the little unauthorized copying there was would be like credit card 
fraud to the banks, a cost of doing business.

> > Its a dramatic juxtaposition to compare the above situation to a
> > company looking to use OSS "IP", its a COMPLETELY different
> > world. And surprisingly in OSS "grunt work" that you might think
> > nobody would choose to do does get done.
>
> But again, OSS requires coypyright for enforcing its terms. 
> Otherwise, one could not force improvements into the public domain.
>  In trade for use, one must release the improvements.  Without
> copyright, one could never enforce such a result, because all OSS
> would be public domain.

Well again I agree, its obvious from looking at the text of the GPL, 
but this observation isn't addressing my point, which is that the OSS 
model stands apart from the "IP" model, in the sense that the 
justifications for property laws for concepts say its the only way to 
get things innovated and done -- well, it isn't.  Linux is sitting 
there looking reproachfully at people who claim this.

> > reduction.  Yet reducing the copyright period is compatible with
> > Robert's previous suggestions for a way forward that may make
> > headway.  Maybe copyright period reduction is a banner everyone
> > could rally around.
>
> Clearly, the MPAA/RIAA go too far, and need to be knocked down a
> notch.  But after all, they do represent their constituencies. 
> Congress must hear the other side, though, and make the
> compromises.

I fear that sleek types like Rosen and the now-being-groomed heir to 
the throne Bono are well integrated into the flow of power, and 
equally important a sort of "implicit graft and implicit threat"... 
vote with us and we'll see you right contributionwise, job on a 
board-wise.... vote against us and our related media companies will 
starve you of publicity.  Maybe it needs some elected heads on sticks 
before their undue influence is made too dangerous to suckle from.

- -Andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+8VXijKeDCxMJCTIRAtwTAJ9c7luz+idrRvnJSdwUT4ofkPerAACgjVoC
9XYYMDcjKJB2f0JjAqarffw=
=I8VE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________


------------------------
http://www.anti-dmca.org
------------------------

DMCA_Discuss mailing list
DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org
http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]