Re: [dvd-discuss] The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights

["Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

A thoughtful post, but I'm not so sure we've lost the war ... I think the
tide can be turned (or is turning).  One of the wonderful things about
digital technology is that it is turning many average consumers into content
creators ... as such, many of them will begin to reconsider what copyright
law is all about.  The next generation, who've gotten "rip, mix, burn" down
cold are questioning the whole system.  When you have major artists
attacking the recording industry, there is the potential for a fundamental
realignment of what is going on.

I am not advocating the death of copyright, but a logical restructuring of
it.  Properly framed, I think this is a battle we can win.  I think we can
make a logical, coherent argument that the fundamental right of copying
should be done away with.  Take the bill of rights and look at it, getting
rid of the exclusive right to make copies would do everything the bill does
and more.  The bill of rights is nice, but what is its fundamental
underlying logic?  Why should consumers have those rights?  Seems to me
better to approach from the other end, using DRM as the means, and say, why
should the government enforce certain elements of copyright.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez@fcci-group.com>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights


> I think that we have already lost the war (life + 70?!).  Now we just
trying to limit the tribute and occupation :-)
>
> Seriously, I think that we on this list may have become a little myopic
regarding this subject.  We look into the future and see a bleak one with
many rights we take for granted no longer existing. We look at the issue and
see the precedents being set and potential areas of innovation being
squelched.  However, it does not really affect the general public. Why
should they miss what has not been or will not be invented or written
because of the constraints?  As an example: how many people even knew that
Mickey was about to become part of the public domain?   We now have two or
three generations that have never experienced a public domain that actually
has current material in it.  How can they miss what they have never had?
>
> Even my friends and colleagues think that I'm being a "Chicken Little"
when I worry about the potential for censorship or loss of free speech or
loss of fair use rights. Or when I worry about inventions that don't occur
or cures that are not found because someone 'owns' the right to the gene
that researchers need to examine. The erosion has been a gradual one over
the last fifty years and the industry has done an excellent job of equating
'ownership' of intangible property with real property.  The public has
swallowed the industry's propaganda that the content creator 'owns' the
creation. They have equated it to owning a house or car, both items citizens
in the US hold dear. The notion that the rights of 'ownership' to an
intangible 'idea' are temporary rights granted by society instead of being a
inherent property as they are with tangible goods is hard to get across. The
public feels that if the creator wants to place restrictions on the
creation, it's their property, so w!
> hy shouldn't they?  When this attitude is added to the 'normal' apathy
that the public has for things that don't immediately affect them, I don't
think we have a chance of reversing the trend toward more restrictive IP. My
hope is that we can at least slow it down and, just maybe, stop it.  And a
rallying point around DRM may be our best hope. It directly affects 'Joe
Public' setting at home on the couch with the remote in his hand trying to
record his favorite TV show and not being able to do so.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernest Miller [mailto:ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights
>
>
> Perhaps, but that would only be treating the symptom ... not the disease.
> If we cede their premise, we will ultimately lose the war.  Why not use
DRM
> as a rallying point to cure the disease?
>