Re: [dvd-discuss] Going on the offense.

[Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Kurt Hockenbury wrote:
> Things I'd like to see introduced:
> 
> A bill explicity supporting fair use, and outlining when it is
> appropriate.

This is a terrible idea.  Fair use is everything that isn't explicitly
forbidden.  Our freedoms MUST be defined in negative terms.

It's much more restrictive to say "These are the things you can do:" than
"These are the things that you can't do:".

The tenth amendment of the Constitution does a great job of this.  It says
"If we don't state that it isn't, it's a right of the people."

Defining "fair use" will only create loopholes and a narrow vision of
freedom.

> An "Information Preservation" act, legalizing the making of personal
> copies of any out-of-print material.

Copyright law shouldn't extend to unpublished work or work not currently
published.

"Out of print" shouldn't exist in the copyrighted world.

This can be solved several ways.  The most effective would be an
elimination of copyright, but I don't think that'd fly just yet.  One way
is the above mentioned loss of copyright when publication is
lacking.  Another would be reasonable copyright duration.

Does anyone know how we can gather statistics on how long a work takes to
become profitable?

I'd like to be able to say "60% of all films earn their money back in the
first year.  75% in the first five years.  Films that do not earn their
money back in the first five years are unlikely to earn their money back
at all as the cost of continued publication decreases the return on
investment."  Something like that.

That would be a VERY powerful argument to limit copyright to 5-10 years.

Right now, I'm thinking of 9 years with a 6 year extension for works that
have been constantly available for the past 9, but not turned profit.  And
I'd like to give the copyright office authority to deny extension for
works with significant public interest.

> A bill protecting the public's ability to make an archival of any "IP"
> they own or license, including the creation, purchase, and use of
> "circumvention devices".

This should be covered by fair use.  Striking down the DMCA returns this
right to the people.

> Laws requiring companies to give you a complete list of all data they
> have collected on you, and you being allowed to revise it (similar to
> credit reports, but for privacy information).

This is a good one.

> Surely there are a few sympathetic members of Congress we can get to
> introduce the legislation we want, instead of the legislation the MPAA
> & co want?

There are a few... but the majority are in the pockets of the media
companies... understand that media is how they get elected.

Pissing off your local broadcasters is no way to get favorable news
coverage in your district.

The right solution is to return the public interest requirements to the
broadcast airwaves and restrict commercial broadcasting.

Advertiser-supported media CANNOT serve the public interest except in
those rare circumstances where public interest coincides with major
sponsor's interest.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org