Re: [dvd-discuss] Digital Rights Management GedankenExpe

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

John...what a incredible argument! ...here's a couple of comments 
and support

1. As Lessig pointed out there were less than 200 works still in print
form the 10000 published in 1923(?..last year of copyright
protection.) Those works are still providing income...steady income
that the publishers, the authors estates or whomever still want. 
Why should society have to deal with the problems of 
administering 9800 copyrights for the sake of 200? (Trick question)

2. Consider this. Most people have a limited source of income and 
so have to make choices about expenditures (I can remember 
Donald Trump having to economize to $450,000/mo from $550,000 
some years ago but let us consider that example of extreme belt 
tightening as a statistical anomoly.). So people have so much 
money to spend and they have to choose between pre 1974 works 
and more modern ones. Interestingly enough in 1986(?) a new 
media was introduced-the CD. People spent lots of money 
upgrading their collection of music from LPs for CDs. Now here's 
the point. IF they didn't have to do that because of a huge public 
domain, they could have spent more money on the Newer stuff 
which does have some claim to being able to promote
progress. Economically, an enlarged public domain promotes sales 
of newer works. Rather than extending copyright terms into the next
century, the content media providers should be lobbying to reduce
them!

 > > > Ron Gustavson wrote: > > > The public generally supports
copyright as we have known it--even > > the longer 95 year variant.
But they need to know that this > > tradition is, as Judge Kaplan 
told
us, effectively repealed by DMCA. > > So, is DMCA is the first 
step in
an attempt to seize total control > > of the raw material of speech?
[the domino theory] > > It's time to show the public (the artists and
the technology industry) > what long copyrights are costing us as
individuals, industries and > society.  > > I've finally understood
the reason for long copyrights.  It's not so > that content companies
can profit from older works (they can't, > meaningfully -- c.f. Eldred
et. al.). It is because the absence of a > viable, contemporary,
public domain of works in the modern media would > constitute a
"substitute good" for their current products.  How can > you sell a
Britney Spears CD for $18.00's if every recording prior to > 1974 is
available either freely on the web, or for the cost of > production
and distribution of a CD?  Clearly the competition from > free music
of the recent past would reduce what the market will bear > for new
music.  What we have instead is a complete monopoly over all > modern
media by a small (and decreasing numerically) coallescing and >
coherent cadre of corporations and conglomerates.  This fundamentally
> is the fear of the "content" industry -- their loss of absolute >
monopoly over modern media.  Their goal -- the prevention of the >
competition of a viable public domain.  > > This monopoly hurts the
public and the artists. The monopoly rents are > coming right out of
the public's pocket. Furhter, the retail channel > control it implies
effectively gives these companies monopsony (single > buy) power over
the authors and artists -- reducing their negotiating > position. 
Thus the longer copyright terms actually harm the artists > as it puts
them at a power disadvantage to the publishers. > > Finally is the
harm to the technology industry.  Compared to > technology and telecom
-- entertainment is peanuts.  As the "killer > app" of the WWW is free
access to information, the monopoly over > broadband demanding media
content means that demand for broadband is > (as Lessig recently
wrote) at the mercy of the big media companies. > If all film, tv,
video, music (we'll call this broadband content) > prior to 1974 were
in the public domain -- this would not be so.  The > free broadband
content would create demand for broadband access.  Few > are willing
to pay an extra (effective) $20/mo to get broadband today > -- but if
all pre 1978 content were free on the web the demand would > be great.
 > > Think of the investment in technology and infrastructure that
would > imply!  It would make the dot com run up look like a mild bull
market. > Beyond that is the secondary effects on the PC and
information > applicance, and consumer electronics markets.  A viable
free pile of > content (such as would exist with 28 year copyrights)
would provide > the "file footage" for a new "desktop video" market,
further driving > the consumers needs to follow Moore's law "best if
use by T+18mos" > upgrade path through .10mic, multi GHz and beyond
(3x DivX ripping > implies a 60GHz processor ;-) ) > > It's time we
show the long copyright for the bum deal it is for all of > us.  The
money is coming out of our pockets, paying lobbyists to take > away
our rights, putting artist at a disadvantage to the publishers, > and
slowing technological progress -- all for the benefit of a few >
wealthy and influential business trying to protect obsolete business >
models. > > That is all. > > .002 > 


------- End of forwarded message -------