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

[dvd-discuss] Law and the 'Net day II




(Forwarded from New Yorkers for Fair Use list,
fairuse@mrbrklyn.com.  From Dan Gillmor's blog. -- Seth)


Title: Law, Music and the Internet

Distribution of music over the Internet brings benefits --
"enormmous benefits" -- including cost savings, elimination
of over or underproduction, convenience, increased diversity
in mujsic and the spreading of a more democratic form of
music-making.

The downsides are the threat to revenues, of musicians and
the record companies.

Cycles of Innovation/resistance:

# DAT recorders/AHRA
# Encryption circumvention/DMCA
# Music Lockers/Litigation
# Webcasting/CARP
# Centralized file sharing/Litigation
# P2P/litigation
# CD burning/copy protected CDs

Copyright law until 1990s:

Objects of protection -- musical works -- are entitled to
protection in reproduction, derivative works, first
distribution and public performance. The owner can't stop
these things but some uses are contstrained without
permission, and compensation to the artist.

The other "object" that gets protected is the sound
recording. This gets complicated fast. The composer has
enjoyed many more rights than the musician.

But it's essential to understand that the exceptions to the
copyright law are just as important as the entitlements.

# Fair Use. It's not infringement. "Notoriously murky
doctrine," Fisher says. Factors include the purpose of
activity. If it's transformative use, good. Parody is very
good. Also, court should take into account propriety,
decency, of behavior.
# Nature of work. If the stuff being copied is fictional,
good for plaintiff. If factual, good for defendant. If
unpublished, bad for fair use defense (e.g. diaries).
# Amount and importance being used.
# Adverse impact on "potential market" for the work.
Definition is crucial.

Digression into "moral rights" -- I, the artist, manifest
myself in a novel. When that work is injured it is a
violation of me, which should be protected for reasons
having nothing to do with markets or other rights. Until
1990 no provision of this sort in the U.S., which grudgingly
agreed. Only a few U.S. cases where it's been applied.

Complicated chart of how network broadcasts make money.
Think advertising... Enter Sony's Betamax.

Studios get upset. What do they do?

"They could go after the members of the public doing
copyright violations. Clear violation." But not politic in
the U.S., so they go after Sony.

Studios asked for injunction for "contributory
infringement." Llitigation went on many years. By 5-4
decision, Supreme Court says: -- a manufacturer can be held
liable, but only if the device is not capabable of
significant non-infringing uses.
-- time-shifting copyrighted programs is fair use.

It's the foundation for modern cases.

Another limitation on entitlement for copyright holders is
"Compulsory Licenses" -- the ability to "cover" songs
without permission as long as you pay and don't alter melody
or character.

Now enter modern technology, namely Digital Audio Tapes. The
quality of recording didn't degrade on recording, as an
analog copy did. A legislative settlement, Audio Home
Recording Act, occurred:

# Serial copyright management system. No "grandchild"
copies.
# Tax and royalty system. Whenever a device is sold, a small
tax imposed, going to fund, analogous to ASCAP, BMI.
# Safe harbor for noncommercial copying. Idea was to
legitimate longstanding practice. Not sharply defined.

Safe harbor wording: "No action may be brought under this
title alleging infringement of copyright based on the
manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio
recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or
based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such as
device or medium for making digital musical recordings or
analog musical recordings."

Encryption initiatives. Owners sought to shield work with
encryption. DVD-CSS, SDMI, RealMedia, Ebook reader, etc.
"Each one of these systems has been threatened," Fisher
notes, listing the various cracks that have been done --
usually easily -- on these systems.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Many prohibitions, few
real exceptions. "Penalties very substantial."

Cases include "Music Lockers," such as MP3.com. If consumer
bought a recording, ought to be able to listen conveniently
in another format. MP3.com did two services, "Beam-it" and
"Instant Listening." Could play on home player or listen,
streamed. Or if you owned a CD you could inform MP3 by
placing into computer, and get it streamed from personal
locker.

Industry sued, and court ruled that non-permissive copying
to create the library of files violated law. Not excused by
fair use. Interestingly, "undermined" MP3 distribution for
industry. Note that defendant here is the company, not a
company. Sony was alleged contributory violator.

Webcasting:

Large number of companies go into business. Little
advertising, but amazing array of choices far beyond what
you could find on commercial radio. Existing radio stations
began to use technology to simulcast.

Record companies responded by pressing for entitlement,
namely CARP, or Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel. When
Congress did, it limited the public performance right. Only
digital audio transmission. Said radio stations (analog)
could continue with no restrictions. Complicated exceptions.

CARP led to royalty rates that look small at first glance.
In fact, produces absurdly high fees.

The stated goal of the industry was a rate structure that
would drive 2/3 of the webcasters out of business, enabling
the industry to buy the rest. Rates were cut in subsequent
proceeding, but not by enough to prevent same effective
result.

"There are ways this could be sensible," Fisher says. One is
to stimulate industry, keeping rate low at beginning.
"Voluntary action by record companies in their own long-term
interest could have made this sensible.

Two, the CARP panel could have structured rates
appropriately.

Neither worked out. "Record companies were explicit in their
wish to weed out the majority of webcasters."

Summing up: Since 1990 there have been a series of
innovations and resistance.

"The result is to sacrifice the potential advantage of the
new technology," Fisher says. "Our current situation is one
in which there are very high transaction costs in
transmission of music on the Internet."

Long list of problems:

# High transaction costs.
# Price high.
# No celestial jukebox
# Encryption and ephemeral downloads reduce flexibility,
wound fair use
# Continued concentration of industry
# Not very effective; P2P still working.

Julie Cohen

Recent Litigation, Reimerdes and Eldred

Now we're onto some of the core legal cases affecting this
field.

Julie Cohen is showing the provisions of the DMCA. There are
the various anti-circumvention portions. Section 1201
prohibits circumventing anti-access controls, manufacturing
or "trafficking" in technology that does the circumvention;
etc.

and what sh calls the "motley list" of exceptions, generated
when affected interest groups swarm Congress and request
whatever exceptions they determine "germane to their
interests."

"It didn't have a lot to do with independent congressional
judgement," she says.

Exceptions include law enforcement, nonprofit libaries
(exceptions to these, of course), reverse engineering (very
limited rights); "good faith" encryption research (not much
guidance what this means, for the most part -- and
effectively creates credential system for approved
researchers); disabling collection of personal information
(online browsing information, only if no notice and ability
to "opt out" -- worthless); security testing.

"Then there are vague and murky provisions on rights not
affected by DMCA," she says, noting fair use, free speech
and other things. There's no mandate, she says, about the
design of electronics gear (not for long if Hollywood gets
its way).

The cases:

All are about devices, not individuals. Makes sense. It's
all about stamping out technologies deemed to pose a threat.

# Universal v Reimerdes/Corley. This is the DVD decrypting
system the Norweigan teenager came up with. 2600 hacker
magazine posted and pointed to the software. Court issued
injunction. Injunction extended to ban linking, and upheld
by appeals court.
# Felten v RIAA. Computer science professor from Princeton
cracked SDMI at invitation of the industry. Then were warned
they'd be sued if they published, and paper was withdrawn.
RIAA then said it didn't mean to sue. Felten asks for
declaratory judgement challenging lawfulness of suit or
prosecution; court dismisses case.
# US v Elcom. Moscow-based company, first major criminal
case. Disabled crypto on Adobe eBook reader, allowing copy.
Programmer arrested in U.S. on a conference visit.
Programmer freed based on agreement to cooperate in
prosecution of his company. Court dismissed constitutional
challenge to prosecution.

Judicial interpretations are detailed and broad. "We can
learn something from these opinions" about what courts
think.

Threshold questions include:

-- What is a technological method that effectively controls
access. It doesn't mean hack-proof. Court says no
requirement that the technology satisfy some technical
standard of effectiveness. No threshold at all? Unclear.
-- Linking equals distribution if done knowingly. Question
is what is the purpose of the link. If purpose is to further
distribute, not OK.
-- Jurisdiction over Elcom is permissible. "It reaches to
Moscow if you make it available online."
-- No defense for "substantial noninfringing uses" -- and
innocent motivation is irrelevant.
-- There's no general Fair Use defense at all,
notwithstanding language of 1201(c). Court says this isn't
copyright infringement question; it's another part of DMCA.
-- Reverse engineering. Very limited standing for invoking
exceptions. Telling public what you find is a violation.
-- No first amendment exception. Code is speech. So what?
Decryption equals contagion, plague.
-- Can't claim overbroad based on fair uses other people
might make.
-- High threshold for chilling effects (Felten ruling).
Court says "I don't understand, you found another conference
willing to accept the paper. You haven't been chilled. Go
home."
-- Article I challenge not allowed. Courts say fair use not
eliminated. Some are difficult. You may not be able to
excerpt text directly but can copy by hand, point camera at
monitor, etc.

Implications for future litigation:

# Reach of statute still unclear. What's effective
protection?. When is link actionable? What's a prohibited
technology (a research paper, code itself)? What
information-sharing is an exception in reverse-engineering
or research? Does DMCA apply to anything available globally?
# Limits on standing, selective prosecution. Industry
careful not to reach major constitutional issues, not suing
university professor while suing 2600. Meanwhile, judges
avoiding the issues.
# Zone of safety for researchers? Giving paper at conference
probably OK, but not clear who qualifies for that
protection. Foreign researchers fear arrest and prosecution.
# Profound hostility to open source. Information-sharing is
severely restricted. Credentialing function of statute.
# How to design test case now? Academic who wants to do more
than publish, or very prominent open source developer. Is
statute void for vagueness?

The implications for user freedoms and innovation:

-- Control of use. If tech providers have no latitude, users
who aren't tech-savvy are out of luck. No space shifting.
Access to expired subscriptions and back issue disappears.
Selling used e-book or DVD may go. Excerpting? Possible
exception -- if lots of public domain stuff was locked up.
-- Development of technologies and standards gets harder.
Open source more risky. Hard to develop things, prevents
innovation.

Great question: Is Patent Office barred from publishing
patents?

"A wonderful idea, and someone should do it," Cohen says.

Lessig is back on the podium, to talk about Eldred v
Ashcroft.

Lessig read Article I, Section 8. Congress has power to
"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited times to Authors exclusive Right to
their writings."

Disney retold Brothers Grimm stories in ways that seemed
happy and light. Disney could do this because the material
existed in an intellectual competitions -- because copyright
would be for limited times.

Commons: a lawyer-free zone.

"Limited times" -- when framers drafted term, it was 14
years, with renewal. Then a slow morphing of this term into
something radically different. In latter 20th Century, many
many extentions. Existing copyrights expanded to 95 years.

"No one can do to Disney as Disney did to the Brothers
Grimm."

Even though the whole of the Disney Corp. is constructed
from public domain, no one can do it again.

Berkman Center came across Eldred's site. Takes public
domain works and posts them in Web format, to make free for
people around the world. 1998 law forced him to take some
down.

Berkman Center said let's challenge statute. Suit filed
January 1999. Grounds:
# Retroactive extensions violate the Progress clause.
# Retroactive extensions and this prospective extension
violate free speech.
# Violation of public trust doctrine (unexplained).

What's happening? There's essentially no limit. A company in
Texas is restoring public-domain work from Mexico, and
cannot release work for 20 more years. "No sensible person
would rely on work passing into the public domain."

"It doesn't promote progress." Can you promote in reverse?
Can we get Gershwin to write anything more? "Gershwin's
given us as much as he will."

"It's not a quid pro quo." This, for that. You get monopoly
for producing a creative work. Bono Act creates this for
nothing.

Government says there is no limit as long as each time
extension is limited. Child takes piece of cake, again and
again. "Only an argument a lawyer can make. Takes three
years of law school before you can say that and not break
out laughing."

The unfunny point. Put it in perspective. The historical
enemy the framers were responding to in passing this
limitation. We've forgotten -- but it was at the core -- was
that the enemies were the publishers.

English publishers assumed they had unlimited copyright. Not
until late 1770s did Parliament even have ability to limit
term. Solution. Copyrights go to authors, and limited times.

Legislative Capture: Concentrated interests use power to get
continued monopolies. Idea was to restrict the power of
these monopolists. Making a fixed term, no reason for
monopolists to try to extend.

"We say government's reading of 'limited times' only makes
the problem worse." The owners continue to corrupt the
process, what the framers were trying to avoid.

Eldred's reading solves the problems. Whatever the term is
you get it, and that's it.

First Amendment argument: A puzzle today for lots of
lawyers.

"No law...abridging the freedom of speech." But copyright
law is a regulation of speech. Does that mean copyright
clause is unconstitutional? Some of state conventions,
considering original Bill of Rights, said we have to worry
about copyright clause, could be a threat to freedom of
speech. But Supreme Court resolved this tension -- no
conflict because copyright clause is an engine of free
expression, creates incentive.

We say retroactive extensions are not limits on speech that
produce speech. They are "restrictions producing nada."

Other argument includes "not severable" -- ??

Government said there's a First Amendment exception.
Ordinary 1st A review doesn't apply. District Court agreed,
without even an argument. Court of Appeals affirmed.

But Court of Appeals said "promote the Progress" has no
constraining effect on Congress at all, and that copyrights
are categorically immune from First Amendment scrutiny.

Excited dissent from Sentelle, most conservative judge on DC
Circuit. He said it's a violation because Congress exceeded
power -- there must be a limit somewhere. There's no limit,
therefore a wrong reading of the clause.

Rehearing requested. Appeals court said no. Two loud
dissents.

February 2002: Supreme Court took the case. Opening briefs
filed in May.

Amici briefs include "the most eclectic group of friends" --
Free Software Foundation, Eagle Forum, 17 economists (5
Nobel winners; Milton Friedman said he'd sign "only if the
word 'no-brainer' appeared in the brief); Brewster Kahle
(Internet Archive), Hal Roach Studios. Kahle: In 1930 there
were (more than) 10,000 books published. IN 2001 253 are
still in print. We can't track everyone down. What possible
justification is there? These are out of print.

Forget Mickey. "What about the 98 percent? The law stops us
for no good reason."

Hal Roach Studios, owns Laurel and Hardy. Strike this down
or a whole generation of American films will disappear. Cost
is just too high. Not only hard to find owners, but the
works are simply locked up and work will disappear.

Intel also filed brief, defending free software.

Supreme Court will hear in Fall 2002.

Q: Why so long for this suit to happen?

A: Before the Internet it was publisher doing things.
Commercial purposes. When extensions happening before no one
really affected cared. Now all sorts of uses that were
unregulated are regulated. Second, all sorts of uses now
enabled by the Internet. Can't use them.

Only when the Internet comes around does the need for the
public domain to be protected.

Q: Appropriate period of time?

A: I think publishers were onto something. O'Reilly books
only 14 years, e.g. Suggests 5 years, renewable 15 times.
Owners like to talk about their property. Where's their
property tax receipt?

Q: AOL Time Warner lawyer asks why not different terms for
different kinds of works.

A: Great idea.

Q: Isn't this just taking from the public domain?

A: You can't take from public and give it to private
interests? That's dead.

Q: If successful getting court to strike Bono Act down,
still stuck with 75 year term. Run into "taking" issues?

A: If you do the property tax, not a taking issue.

Q: Nesson asks if "limited" means anything. Need affirmative
statement of what it means, you're still falling short.

A: Don't have to do that in this case. Easy case is
retrospective extensions.

What now?

Benkler

Copyright law today is embedded in the destabilization of
the old system.

One vision is the Net as giant copying machine. Another is
Net as highly restrictive medium.

Vendors are setting the terms today. The public interest is
secondary. The vendors set terms by use of technology and
contracts, "an expansion of intellectual property."

Lots of cases, including FreeRepublic.com, a conservative
Web site that irritated newspapers by posting their stories.
Went to court.

Then there are the two Star Wars stories. One, a fan, ripped
the DVD of Episode I to remove an annoying character and
made a movie people thought was better. George Lucas "became
offended," and now it's hard to find a copy.

Think of the difference in the cultural environment -- a
"very different relationship between Hollywood and the
viewer."

Now StarBallz, a semi-porno cartoon send-up. Nesson: "What
was the point, precisely?" (You have to be there, I
guess...)

Property in intellectual property -- "It is wrong
economically and politically." Wrong to think of same as
property engrained in steel or wheat.

"Nonrivalry." No one has to sit and draw the cartoon again.
This is important because in standard economics, the
standard of efficiency is marginal cost for last person to
use. Marginal cost of information is zero (except
communication).

Basic economics of information:

# Information a public good.
# We work on shoulders of giants.
# Non market production is necessary in some cases.
# Little Mermaid: With Exclusive Rights in Information,
costs increase for all but benefits increase only for of
IP-business models. Concentration, commercialization,
homogenized.

Basic politics:

# Freedom -- political democracy (FreeRepublic), cultural
democracy (StarBallz), autonomy (Phantom Edit).
# Justice -- structuring access to material means of
information and cultural production. Opportunity to be a
maker, not just a taker. Global issues.

Where now?

-- Owners are claiming a "New exclusive right to use (of
information), enforced by technology, contract and criminal
law. -- Not a right to prevent copying, but a right to
control uses of info and culture.

The use of criminal law is key. "It's a bad idea to sue your
fans." Smarter to get the government to do it.

Ideas:

# Compulsory licensing. Reduces control, permits competition
downstream. But cost is key -- CARP.
# Device use taxes, such as on video cassettes, CDs,
burners, etc.
# General tax and reward schemes.

Zittrain

Graphic, showing less constraint on one side, more on other.
In middle is "plausible behavior."

In the 1400s, it was hard to move stuff, including words.

Add printing plates, and range of plausible behavior grew.

By 1900, grows further. Plausible goes much further.
"Promiscuous." Boundary is porous and teenagers don't
respect boundaries -- the "fundamental axiom".

Quotes John Perry Barlow: Says IP law can't be patched,
physical laws don't work well.

Clash -- IP industry not ready to throw in the towel.

Legal changes sought to deal with these changes. "No
Electronic Theft Act" -- criminalizes even when you copy for
fun. Used to be civil, but you couldn't go to jail.

Fact it's in background means you can have private parties
start to assert rights. NetPD.com, assembly line finding
people who are infringing. "The power of a certified letter
should not be underestimated."

Don Henley sued Air Force man for using his own name on
site, Don-Henley.com -- alleged infringement. "We understand
Don Henley may be your own personal name." Tough.

Chilling Effects Clearinghouse designed to show how
pervasive this is getting.

Hilarious but scary example of Harvard case where student
transmitted copyrighted material to the copyright holder,
using Gnutella.

In 2002 there are some legal tools to beat back the legal
boundary. But there are other tools besides the law.

What about norms? Best evidence is an RIAA site presenting
"good answers" about copyright. Velvet glove around iron
fist.

British IP owners want to change the language. Finding an
alternative way of referring to intellectual property.
"Rewarding creativity." I-Rights? Schoolchildren put
copyright symbol on coursework.

Eldred bringing to a head a cultural battle. None of us
really remembers anything coming into the public domain that
had been proprietary. Equating intellectual property with
regular property -- singing around campfire, eg -- idea can
only have grip because of such long terms.

What about code?

Code can push limits all the way toward more constraint.
Hard fear to understand because of free-for-all. Global
warming in snowstorm?

Change the architecture of the network.

Takes longer to upload than download. Asymmetry, may make it
harder if part of P2P network.

# Change the nodes. Stephen King e-book. Immediately hacked.
But for most of us we had to read it the way the software
wanted us to read it.

Change the software.

Bill Gates' "Trustworthy Computing". Computers "that can be
trustyworthy against the people who are using them." How to
making computing not just more stable and secure so that
people vending stuff can assure specific uses.

# Trusted Computing Platform Alliance -- Intel, Microsoft,
IBM et al. Coming up with standards -- want to be able to
know if I'm producing protected work and tagging it in a
certain way, any computer will follow the rules.

# PressPlay music.
# Windows Media. Lot of energy going into this are hooks for
DRM. A few obscure hacks so far.

It used to be in copyright law the elected representatives
set forth what was allowed. Public means of settling issue.
New claim is that system got junked. If people can use code
to lock things up tight, doesn't mean public has any rights.

Now the law is moving toward saying what technology does.
Hollings Bills.

Restrictive systems will be mandated by government, or
written by industry.

Rep. Berman, Democrat from Disney (DG's description, not
Zittrain's), advocates copyright owners' safe haven from
spoofing or otherwise screwing with users' computers.

Another example. DirecTV sent new code to dishes that
unauthorized dishes and just before Super Bowl destroyed
hacker cards. First 8 bytes written to read "GAME OVER" --

Where will it go?

Have we awakened sleeping giant that is playing to win? Do
we care who makes the boundaries? Is this a government
question as referee in the arms race? Or see who wins? (Of
course even if teenagers win, we don't get the benefits.)
Middle 85 to 90 percent of people won't bother.

Brain-damaging computer not popular for computer makers. But
TiVo box is the future. Doesn't feel like a brain-damaged
box.

Sealed box. Just an appliance.

Once enough devices do enough to leave out marginal uses,
that's what you want. Specialized tools to do cool things.
Will you still be blogging? I don't know.

Can the open coexist with the closed? A lot of what Berman
says is "horses that have left the barn" -- stuff already
out there.

Shows picture of Jon Postel, Steve Crocker, Vint Cerf. Can a
network like this be allowed? Everyone hates something about
it. "Once we've managed to put uses consumer expect under
lock and key?"

P.J. McNealy

DRM, Standards and Hollings

When it comes to tech companies understanding consumer
needs, they're being a little aggressive, says P.J. McNealy
of the Gartner Group.

Tension is building. "This industry is moving very slowly on
the legal services front."

They want to tell you what you can do with their content and
how much you should pay.

Tech companies say you can do all these things, and we'll
enable you to do it. Defining what it possible.

Customers have needs, wants, willingness to pay. People do
want digital content but found little compelling.

"There is no middle ground now." Hollywood done good job
getting position known on Capitol Hill, tech industry a bad
job.

Media demands protection for content. Two worlds: What's out
there and what we have moving forward.

Too late for what's out there.

DVD warnings. Count the warnings. "This is a review copy."

Call 800 number (confidential); 8-menu decision tree. They
drag you through such a long process they can trace you.

No standardization for DRM.

Microsoft Palladium (locks down PCs) good for enterprise but
consumers are going to hate it.

Teenagers don't believe file sharing violates copyright,
says poll. But no clue if they buy more or fewer CDs and
DVDs as a result. Possible sharing is promotion?

Almost no downloads from pay sites. "There's no interest and
they don't see anything compelling." But lots of downloads
from file-sharing sites. No compelling legal alternatives.

Good news: Piracy shows demand.

Bad news: As long as file sharing flourishes, business faces
off against free.

Future news: Compelling, reasonably priced services.

It will be hacked. People want it to be portable. Can't be
done easily. Winners will make it easy for consumer.

Content holders hold the keys. They don't have to sell music
as downloads. If movie studios don't want to sell over the
Net, they don't have to.

Tech companies need to get content companies involved up
front. Content companies have a solution -- Hollings.

Shows long list of alphabet soup standards. One thing about
Hollings, he's put word "Draconian" back into the language.
Until some middle ground we're not going anywhere.

"Billions will be lost in misguided efforts to seek 'perfect
protection.'"

Nesson

Charles Nesson asks: "The future of the Internet, and the
future of America. Are the two related? Is the future of
America related to the future of the Earth?"

Are we all in danger?

Challenge: Strategy. Future for our children. Culture. Code.

Should we convene a big meeting? A Constitutional Convention
of the Net?

The question is personal -- honest, direct and open. In an
environment where we are increasingly connected, not just
wires, the lesson must be "have fewer secrets. It's secrets
that kill you." The lesson of Enron, church, WorldCom.

If insecurity is there by nature, with logical prevailing
saying that small entities can do great, targeted damage --
then be concerned.

If brand is everything, that identity is focus -- you go to
what you know, what is identity of America?

Monty Python "blackmail" sketch on screen (copyright
violation?). Host of TV show demands money from people being
blackmailed. Stop the Film -- stops when payment received,
money rises each second.

Socrates in Cyberspace: "Berkman Center Radio" --

Nesson brings Chris Lydon to the stage. Nesson posits:
America needs to see itself as it is seen. And radio is the
way to go.

Lydon: On both sides of content control, in a sense, due to
personal experience when his show was sold to NPR. Likes
information being free, though.

Nesson: We stood for freedom when I grew up. We were loved
around the world. What happened? What is our brand now?

Lydon: Ronald Reagan crystalized what we stand for. We are a
cowboy country deep down. Shakespeare is England's public
domain in a sense. American culture, recoined as Shakespeare
-- liberty, unexclusive, not owned. Shared treasury and
endless variation.

Nesson then called me and several others up to the front for
some further discussion, which I hope someone else is
relating online. I'm done for the day, at least on this
stuff, because I have my regular column to write for
tomorrow. See you all then.


On 2002.07.03 11:58 Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:13:02 +0200
> From: Chris Kaminski <chris@setmajer.com>
> To: wwwac@lists.wwwac.org
> Subject: [wwwac]! Law and the 'Net day II
> 
> Perhaps the best, most in-depth stuff on copyright and IP I've
> seen. Really a must-read.
> 
> Dan Gillmor's notes:
> 
> > http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillmor/ejournal/3586324.htm



Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.nylxs.com/radio - Free Software Radio Show and
Archives
http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free
Software
http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or
stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/dr.mp3 - Imagine my surprise
when I saw you...
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New
Downtown Brooklyn....

1-718-382-5752



To stop the messages from coming see
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/appl/fairuse/gone.html
____________________________
New Yorkers for Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....