Re: [dvd-discuss] Ramblings on DVDCCA appeal from M.Rolenz

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

mickey wrote:
> 
> <DA>
> Digital formats are superior to analog formats. If we can't safely release our works
> in digital format, then the lawmakers have failed to promote progress.
> </DA>

Ahem... the entire point of copyright is that it is never "safe" to
release a work.  The pirate has always had access to the same tools as
the publisher and anything that can been seen can be copied. Asking the
Congress to make a given format "safe" is ignoring the fundamental
definition of "publication" -- to make public.  If you want your
information "safe" -- don't publish it it all.  Perform it (only) and
frisk the patrons for recording devices.

> 
> The lawmakers are forced, in a sense, to make it 'safe' for digital formats to be
> released. They look to the availability of digital works on the internet, for example,
> as evidence of progress. The content industry is obviously reluctant to release in
> open digital formats, so, in their minds, the mandate to promote progress hasn't been
> met.

What the "content industry" has done is hoodwinked our gov't into
convert an "author's monopoly" into a "publishers monopoly".  Look at
music CD's -- the author get's $1 -- the publisher $10.  The ease of
digital copies threatens the mark-up publishers gain as intermediaries
between author and public.  Now that "publication" (as an act of
pressing or printing) no longer has large barriers to entry, this
industry wants protectionism -- economically disastrous for all but the
protected party. 

If we really wanted to "promote progress" we'd bust the "trust"
combining copyrights, exclusive production contracts, and publication
rights.  The antitrust pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme from
in the early days of the trust-busters and the copyright balance won't
be regained until the monopoly rents of the publishers (as publishers
not copyright holders) is elimated as a source of lobbying funds.

> I don't think that internet availability is a good measure of progress, but that seems
> to be the message.

clearly the congress has a responsibility to preserve copyright in the
internet age, but it cannot "promote progress" at the expense of the
balance of the copyright.  Certainly one could claim to prevent illegal
search and seizure by passing a law making all searches and seizures
legal -- but the Constitution must be served (and not as a meal to the
corporate interests). 

Michael has it spot on...

> Michael A Rolenz wrote:

digital is different because... 

> > Also digital enables the copyright holders to perform all sorts of
> > mischief they never were able to do before.

.002