netjeff.com

Below is a "Talkback" response to a 13 June 2001 commentary by Patrick Houston of Anchordesk regarding the tensions between copyright owners and librarians.

---

Name: Stephen Wheeler
Email: wheeler_stephen@hotmail.com
Location: Basking Ridge NJ
Occupation: ConsultantPatrick,

Isn't it time to recognise that copyright is broken? Copyright is a social tool and, as you mentioned, is promoted as the best way to ensure that those who create, or apply original thought, can be rewarded.

Take a step back. Is that really true? Is copyright the best way to reward (and therefore encourage) people who attempt to make new contributions to society?

I read your personal take – the archetypal 'struggling artist/writer' is commonly used by everyone who gains from copyrights. Are all their motives as pure as yours?

For an excellent history of copyright link to: http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

As you will see, copyright is only three hundred years old – and the nature of copyright has changed dramatically in that time. A key moment in the history of copyright is this extract from 1909: In addressing new categories of materials available for copyright the Congress addressed the difficulty of balancing the public interest with proprietor's rights.

Read More …

I liked this essay by John Gilmore. When asked what's wrong with access control technology (aka copy protection) if consumers don't seem to mind, John's answers included:

What is wrong is when people who would like products that simply record bits, or audio, or video, without any copy protection, can't find any, because they have been driven off the market.

What is wrong is when companies who make copy-protecting products don't disclose the restrictions to the consumers.

What is wrong is when scientific researchers are unable to study the field or to publish their findings.

What is wrong is when competitors are unable to build competing devices or software, vying for the favor of the consumers in the free market. [Because of the threat of harassing lawsuits from corporate content owners]

What is wrong is when the controls that are enacted to protect the rights reserved under copyright are used for other purposes.

What is wrong is when social policy is created in back rooms, between movie/record company executives and computer company executives, not by open public discussion, by legislatures, and by courts.

What is wrong is when the balance between the rights of creators and the rights of freedom of speech and the press is lost.

What is wrong is that a tiny tail of "copyright protection" is wagging the dog of all communications among humans.

What is wrong is that we have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity [digital encoding on computers], but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity.

A full copy appears below:
Read More …

I love this site: http://www.dizzycity.com/

Why go to New York when you can visit it from your mouse?

The more things change, the more they stay the same. From the July 1901 issue of Scientific American:

The inexplicable conservatism and arrogance of the Turkish customs authorities was recently shown by the prohibition of the importation of typewriters into the country. The reason advanced by the authorities was that in the event of seditious writings executed by the typewriter being circulated, it would be impossible to obtain any clew by which the operator of the machine could be traced. A large consignment of 200 typewriters was lying in the custom house at the time the above law was passed, and will have to be returned.

Hmm, so the Turkish gov't bans typewriters because they might be used to do something illegal. Sound like anything the current US gov't is doing? (think DeCSS…)

I laughed at this .sig from a slashdot post by Mr. Flibble:

Come on, try to hack my 31337 firewall!