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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted for ReviewbySCOTUS

I think the logic is this.  

(a) No creative community can thrive without a strong public domain
(b) a strong public domain requires inclusion of meaningful contemporary
(c) the long terms have locked up all contemporary content
(d) the internet is a creative community
(e) long terms are adversely affecting the development of the internet

The NII report warned that there could be no progress of digital media
and the internet without strong copyright controls -- and failed to
understand that there could be no progress of the internet without a
rich public domain.  CTEA (and those before it) and the DMCA abandon all
appearance of a balance of interests.  They work to protect the status
quo (extant publishing business) and quench all progress (the deployment
of new technology which could have leveraged a strong public domain).

Actually, I believe long terms and the dot-bomb of internet companies
are highly linked.  Where it not for long terms much compelling content
requiring broadband (and always on) connections would be in the public
domain.  In seeming contradiction, people will pay for access to free
content  (i.e. buy broadband) but will not pay the double-whammy of both
a broadband plus overpriced/usage restricted pay content**.  As many
pre-dot-bomb business depended on the greater deployment and increasing
eye-ball hours of the internet or on the rapid uptake of broadband --
the 33kpbs and holding internet undercut investor confidence and the
whole house of cards fell.  Now -- the long terms were in place before
the dot-bomb, and the fail business should have understood copyright as
a tremendous barrier to entry and reduction of the broadband value
proposition a priori -- duh!

** Compare this to modern theme parks.  When Disneyland was *it* you
paid to get it, you paid for ride tickets.  At the knee of the theme
park explosion Six Flag corp. decided to break from that model, forcing
Disney to follow suit.  What followed has been unprecedented growth in
that industry.  I believe that with the elimination of per-ride costs,
the average stay is longer (yielding higher concessions sales) and the
perceived value (and thus market price) of the admission ticket is

For the economists in the crowd, yes I *do* know that the lines for "key
attractions" are a tragedy-of-the-commons issue -- and customers now pay
for rides in terms of opportunity not monetary costs.  These market
inefficiencies are now being attacked with scheduling technologies. 
Bring your ID and schedule a 15 min window for your ride.  As parks will
need to limit scheduling more than one ride of a given type -- expect a
black market in ID's to obtain additional ride slots.  (and then an
escalation to park "passports" with photo ID's and eventually biometrics
-- I doubt highly a Gattaca style marketplace will develop to defeat

Roy Murphy wrote:
> 'Twas brillig when Jeremy Erwin scrobe:
> > What's with the headline: "Supreme Court to Intervene in Internet
> > Copyright Dispute"? Eldred may publish on the Internet, but the legal
> > questions have nothing to do with the internet.
> That's just a stupid AP spin to the story.  I guess Copyright Term Extensions
> just dosn't make for a sexy enough story.
> --
> Roy Murphy      \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses
> murphy@panix.com \  http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html