Re: [dvd-discuss] The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Actually, there's another side of "One of the wonderful things about digital 
technology is that it is turning many average consumers into content creators 
.." and that is that increasingly the content providers are trying to protect 
their "intellectual property" and sending out C&D letters (see chillinghouse) 
and people are becoming aware of the issue more and more. No one is going to 
prosecute a 10 yr old for putting Barney on their personal website but their 
parents are another matter. They don't want the aggravation and/or legal fees 
and will resent having to deal with both. That's an issue that people 
understand. The public will put up with esoteric intellectual property cases as 
long as they are confined to a small number but as more of them are filed and 
they become nice copy for the newspapers...things may change...personally, I 
thought the "this bud's for you" case was a bit overdone. The courts should 
have thrown out Budwiser's claim of infringment and stated that the State had 
an interest in promoting peace over drunkenness.

As several have pointed out digital is different - not because of distribution 
or copying but that it allows people to become content creators....anybody want 
to take a crack at putting that in a letter to the judiciary? The more the 
better.

From:           	"Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights
Date sent:      	Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:01:11 -0500
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> A thoughtful post, but I'm not so sure we've lost the war ... I think the
> tide can be turned (or is turning).  One of the wonderful things about
> digital technology is that it is turning many average consumers into content
> creators ... as such, many of them will begin to reconsider what copyright
> law is all about.  The next generation, who've gotten "rip, mix, burn" down
> cold are questioning the whole system.  When you have major artists
> attacking the recording industry, there is the potential for a fundamental
> realignment of what is going on.
> 
> I am not advocating the death of copyright, but a logical restructuring of
> it.  Properly framed, I think this is a battle we can win.  I think we can
> make a logical, coherent argument that the fundamental right of copying
> should be done away with.  Take the bill of rights and look at it, getting
> rid of the exclusive right to make copies would do everything the bill does
> and more.  The bill of rights is nice, but what is its fundamental
> underlying logic?  Why should consumers have those rights?  Seems to me
> better to approach from the other end, using DRM as the means, and say, why
> should the government enforce certain elements of copyright.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez@fcci-group.com>
> To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:51 AM
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights
> 
> 
> > I think that we have already lost the war (life + 70?!).  Now we just
> trying to limit the tribute and occupation :-)
> >
> > Seriously, I think that we on this list may have become a little myopic
> regarding this subject.  We look into the future and see a bleak one with
> many rights we take for granted no longer existing. We look at the issue and
> see the precedents being set and potential areas of innovation being
> squelched.  However, it does not really affect the general public. Why
> should they miss what has not been or will not be invented or written
> because of the constraints?  As an example: how many people even knew that
> Mickey was about to become part of the public domain?   We now have two or
> three generations that have never experienced a public domain that actually
> has current material in it.  How can they miss what they have never had?
> >
> > Even my friends and colleagues think that I'm being a "Chicken Little"
> when I worry about the potential for censorship or loss of free speech or
> loss of fair use rights. Or when I worry about inventions that don't occur
> or cures that are not found because someone 'owns' the right to the gene
> that researchers need to examine. The erosion has been a gradual one over
> the last fifty years and the industry has done an excellent job of equating
> 'ownership' of intangible property with real property.  The public has
> swallowed the industry's propaganda that the content creator 'owns' the
> creation. They have equated it to owning a house or car, both items citizens
> in the US hold dear. The notion that the rights of 'ownership' to an
> intangible 'idea' are temporary rights granted by society instead of being a
> inherent property as they are with tangible goods is hard to get across. The
> public feels that if the creator wants to place restrictions on the
> creation, it's their property, so w!
> > hy shouldn't they?  When this attitude is added to the 'normal' apathy
> that the public has for things that don't immediately affect them, I don't
> think we have a chance of reversing the trend toward more restrictive IP. My
> hope is that we can at least slow it down and, just maybe, stop it.  And a
> rallying point around DRM may be our best hope. It directly affects 'Joe
> Public' setting at home on the couch with the remote in his hand trying to
> record his favorite TV show and not being able to do so.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ernest Miller [mailto:ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:50 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, but that would only be treating the symptom ... not the disease.
> > If we cede their premise, we will ultimately lose the war.  Why not use
> DRM
> > as a rallying point to cure the disease?
> >
>