[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] On "Taking the Copy Out of Copyright"



What is your coherent legal view of copyright?

microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> This is a multidimensional problem. THere are legal, political, economic, 
> moral, technical, societal issues here. All should be examined. All should be 
> balanced. An analysis of legal issues is useful and desirable. So it the 
> criticism of it from the other viewpoints. Look at how much time was spent 
> debating the original copyright in 1790. It is important to realize that there 
> are multiple aspects and that any one should not dominate over the others. 
> (e.g, what we have today is the monopolistic dominance over the others). ALso 
> that the balance will not be optimum for any one aspect..nor should it.
> 
> On 2 Jun 2002 at 0:17, Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> Date sent:      	Sun, 02 Jun 2002 00:17:39 -0400
> From:           	Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>
> Organization:   	Real Measures
> To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] On "Taking the Copy Out of Copyright"
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> 
>>While it has the appearance of courage for disavowing the
>>notion of copying, it is perfectly concordant with the
>>concept of restricting (fair?) information use to the
>>private domain.  This much is clear.  Emphasizing the fact
>>that it recognizes that "copyright" is a misnomer, doesn't
>>obviate the fact that the authors propose an alternative
>>that gives creators the same unprecedented right that the
>>WIPO treaty cooks up.  If people fail to see what these
>>authors are really endorsing, the difference in terminology
>>will largely be a quibble over semantics.  People have a
>>general misunderstanding of exclusive rights along these
>>lines anyway.
>>
>>There's no real way around it -- while the paper doesn't
>>mention "moral rights" at all, the regime being proposed is
>>perfectly concordant with the WIPO treaty, no matter what
>>opinions people may adduce regarding whether it's a "moral
>>right" or not.
>>
>>As I said, the article's shortsightedness is perfectly
>>typical as far as legal analysis goes, and it's a very good
>>example of why it's so important to undertake a broad
>>community-based initiative representing the *public's*
>>interests in acknowledging the intrinsic nature of
>>information and of technologies that facilitate its full
>>use.
>>
>>Seth Johnson
>>
>>Ernest Miller wrote:
>>
>>>Ouch.
>>>
>>>The brief paper mentioned here only deals with the issue of the right of
>>>reproduction and right of public distribution.  We do not address the
>>>issue of what works are protected or the scope of protection granted
>>>those works (i.e., "derivative works").  The paper basically says that
>>>your limited rights under copyright should not include the "right of
>>>reproduction" (i.e., "copying"), but only the right to control public
>>>distribution (not private distribution).
>>>
>>>Frankly, I don't see how this paper endorses the issue of "moral rights"
>>>for authors at all.  In the paper, it is argued that control of the
>>>right to "copy" is tantamount to the ability to control all use of a
>>>work.  Therefore, the paper argues, copying should not be a part of
>>>copyright.  The paper explicitly makes the case that consumers should be
>>>permitted to make whatever use of the work they want, absent public
>>>distribution.  This is far greater freedom than current law provides.
>>>Moreover, I don't see how this gives credence to any theory of "moral
>>>rights."
>>>
>>>Seth Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This otherwise very useful analysis nevertheless blankly
>>>>ignores the most important aspect of information technology
>>>>today: that the Internet is a collaborative public space for
>>>>participatory engagement.  It provides the capacities to use
>>>>and distribute information products with full flexibility to
>>>>all citizens, not just to publishers who supposedly may
>>>>somehow be demarcated from other people.  The analysis is in
>>>>fact a remarkably pure representation of the general
>>>>ignorance among "content" stakeholders, of the fact that as
>>>>citizens in a free society, we are all information producers
>>>>-- not consumers.
>>>>
>>>>The article basically proposes basing exclusive rights on
>>>>the concept of controlling public distribution, rather than
>>>>on copying.
>>>>
>>>>It appears to be an attempt to ally with some recent
>>>>initiatives that have been building a truly cognizant
>>>>analysis of the relationship between technology and
>>>>"exclusive rights" in a free society [represented most
>>>>notably recently at http://eldred.cc/news/#brief]. But it
>>>>tries to link the analysis of those concerned with
>>>>information freedom, with the terms of the recently ratified
>>>>WIPO Phonograms and Performances Treaty, which declares an
>>>>unprecedented "moral right" of creators to control public
>>>>uses of their works.
>>>>
>>>>This shortsighted perspective is perfectly ordinary from the
>>>>standpoint of legal analysis, but in the end it's a very
>>>>good example of why it's so important to undertake a broad
>>>>community-based initiative representing the public's
>>>>interests in confronting the intrinsic nature of information
>>>>and of technologies that facilitate its full use.
>>>>
>>>>Forwarded from DMCA Discussion list,
>>>>dmca_discuss@lists.microshaft.org
>>>>
>>>>Seth Johnson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-------- Original Message --------
>>>>Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 20:42:08 -0700
>>>>From: "Jon O." <jono@networkcommand.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/jf/MF.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Taking the Copy Out of Copyright
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>by Ernest Miller and Joan Feigenbaum*
>>>>
>>>>1 Information Society Project, Yale Law School,  PO Box
>>>>207286, New Haven, CT, USA 06520 {
>>>>ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu }
>>>>
>>>>2 Computer Science, Yale University, PO Box 208285, New
>>>>Haven, CT, USA 06520 { joan.feigenbaum@yale.edu }
>>>>
>>>>Abstract.
>>>>
>>>>Under current U.S. law and common understanding, the
>>>>fundamental right granted by copyright is the right of
>>>>reproduction -- of making copies. Indeed, the very word
>>>>.copyright. appears to signify that the right to control
>>>>copying must be a fundamental part of any system of
>>>>copyright. Nonetheless, we claim that this assumption is
>>>>incorrect. The advent of digital documents has illuminated
>>>>this issue: In the digital realm, copying is not a good
>>>>predictor of intent to infringe; moreover, copying of
>>>>digital works is necessary for normal use of those works. We
>>>>argue that the right to control copying should be eliminated
>>>>as an organizing principle of copyright law. In its place,
>>>>we propose as an organizing principle the right to control
>>>>public distribution of the copyrighted work.
>>>
>>-- 
>>
>>[CC] Counter-copyright:
>>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html
>>
> 
> 
>