[free-sklyarov] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd)

[Jei]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anatoly Volynets <anatoly at total-knowledge.com>
To: Jei <jei at cc.hut.fi>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:18:29 -0800
Subject: Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law
    (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 26 January 2002 04:02 pm, you wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:40:02 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Martin Keegan <mk270 at cam.ac.uk>
> Reply-To: ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> To: ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd)
>
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Graham Murray wrote:
> > > In effect, the UK's Copyright and Patents Act 1988 gives copyright
> > > holders more power than America's highly controversial Digital
> > > Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), because there are no exceptions, as
> > > Martin Keegan, of the UK-based Campaign for Digital Rights points out.
> >
> > Is anyone campaigning for the removal (or severe curtailing) from
> > copyright owners the "right" to control the use (in particular
> > restricting where and on what equipment entertainment may be enjoyed)
> > of authorised copies? Once a copy has been created, with the
>
> There's the UK Campaign for Digital Rights (http://uk.eurorights.org/),
> and other small groups, as well as, I believe, EBLIDA (librarians), who
> probably aren't small, but aren't focused on this particular issue.  UK
> CDR is more about being against the European Copyright Directive and
> defending the status quo on copyright (see the quote from me in the
> Register article at the beginning of this thread), rather than having a
> positive programme of its own.
>
> The problem is as follows: the traditional balance of copyright is being
> upset by the massively reduced cost of infringement, and the efforts of
> rightholders to increase the protection the State gives them. The former
> is being used to justify the latter, but the legislative scrutiny to which
> the latter is being submitted is insufficient to strike a new balance in
> which the public interest is best served.

I believe we should stop talk about "traditional balance of copyright", 
because it is injurious illusion. There have never been such a balance, and 
the problem is as follows: ALL copyright related laws mix up author and 
copyright holder.  It was not  apprehended by public so far, because have not 
created that much tension until Internet involvement.

Copyright holder in fact is the same as a publisher (in general terms), and 
is just a business entity, which tries to exploit author (it works even in 
those cases when author and publisher is the same person). Author, generally 
speaking, does not depend on businessman in order to create. Author is the 
only one,who needs protection. And the only danger he or she needs to be 
protected from is a publisher, which intents to still name.

One of the most powerful forces, which encourage creativity is an audience. 
This means that  ANY limitation on distribution of any idea, art work, 
invention, music, article, etc. causes damage to public.

Thus ANY copyright related law or action, which, generally speaking, 
implements some limitations on ideas' distribution, definitely harms public.

So called "copyright balance"  protects ONLY certain business models.

The question is, why any business model should be protected on expense of the 
public interest?

I can understand necessity to protect market, industry, science, culture, 
technology, etc. development. But this does not imply protection of certain 
business models. It seems to be obvious: if a business model contradicts 
market and, general society development then such model should not be 
protected. 

But we must talk not only about protection of society. We must think how to 
enforce its development. And one easy answer for this question does exist:
	Eliminate any possible limitation on circulation of ideas, works of art, 
music, inventions, etc.

Do you need examples, how this worked in the history of mankind?
Find them yourself! Do not pass by WWW, Internet, Linux, radio, telephone, 
automobile, book printing, ...wheel.

Do you need examples, how copyright law harmed author, slowed down industry, 
technology, culture development?
Do not ask me. Find them!

Forget about business models, which do not comply with FREE circulation of 
ideas. There are another models on the market and they work.

One can say, if we remove all copyright limitations, the material interest of 
an author will be compromised.  Let us think about this problem then. I can 
imagine some kind of special taxes for use of a new idea, special public 
funds to compensate author work... This must be elaborated.

I personally believe that there is no place for a compromise in these 
matters.  We must find such a mechanisms, which would serve to the best 
SOCIETY AND AUTHOR interest!

World Wide Web grew up on ground of complete freedom of circulation of ideas. 
I think it happened because WWW gave in set of tools for everyone to create 
and communicate. These capabilities, I believe, are the very fundamental for 
human being. There are millions of people, who act in this arena and are 
happy to do so.
On the other hand, when job was done by public, and powerful productive 
nature of WWW was uncovered, money hunters woke up and try to control it, 
using their business models.
That is how the great tension of our time develops. That is why so many 
people try to understand, what is going on, and how to protect...
But who must be protected?

I hope, it will eventually  become clear for majority that the problem is 
not, how to protect revenues of some nearsighted corporations. The only 
problem is the very idea of intellectual property.  This is a monster, which 
causes more and more troubles and will cause more and more... 

That is why  for me all talks about possible positive side effects of THE 
COMPLETELY WRONG IDEA of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY sound like talks about 
positive side effects of murder.

> Personally, I believe that the Internet constitutes a qualitatively new
> environment, and that a new set of compromises will have to be reached,
> which may include the legal protection for technological protection
> measures (TPMs).
>
> It seems to me, though I know little of this area, being more of a UNIX
> sysadmin type than a security specialist, that TPMs cannot in principle
> perfectly protect information goods, but that they can significantly
> increase the cost of certain acts to the point where they are an
> economically feasible way of protecting `content'. If the law is to
> protect such measures, it ought to do it in a way calculated to maximise
> the benefit to the public; too much or too little legal protection to
> information works themselves hurts the public (either too few people will
> *make* new works, or too few people can *use* them), and the same applies
> to legal protection for TPMs.

This hurts. Freedom cannot slow down "making of new works".  I will be very 
surprised to meet a single person who will not write a book, or article, or 
music, or will stop to think about new engineering idea because of  lack 
copyright protection.  An author, normally, is afraid of just one thing: 
stealing of the name. There is nothing to do here with a publisher fear, 
because this one is about money. The illusion that copyright  encourages 
creativity is the actual problem. Copyright works against creativity, because 
gives tools in hands of publisher to control author.

> There are four major limits on copyright: duration of term, scope of works
> which may be covered, fair use/dealing, exhaustion/first sale. The
> contours of the law in these areas can in some cases only be determined by
> the courts; there's no programmatic way (I assert) that the creator of a
> TPM to be used by a rightholder (or even to be used by a pirate) can
> express the whole of copyright law to ensure that the TPM operates the way
> that copyright law would; we should expect a competent and rational
> TPM-creator to create a TPM system which furthered his interests, which
> could be maximising his profits at the expense of the public through
> circumventing copyright law, or the prevention of the detection and
> punishment of piracy, or an attempt at reproducing the balance in
> copyright law.
>

This hurts.  There is no such-like problems: how technical and law 
protection should cooperate. All attempts to state and solve those problems 
cause the ONE REAL PROBLEM: limitation of freedom of communication and 
creativity.
The other side of this medal is enforcement of business models, which 
exploited limitations of freedom. Why should we think about this? I do not 
congratulate us for such-like "science". I would prefer to talk about real 
problems.

> The law should not, as it seems to do in the UK, protect the intentions of
> TPM creators, whether or not those intentions are conformant with public
> policy (on copyright and competition and such-like). It should limit its
> protection to such TPM systems as are conformant with public policy.
> The EUCD and DMCA attempt to do this, but they don't go nearly far enough,
> and the danger is that rightholders will act in reliance on their extra
> protection and complain when the public tries to get the extra protection
> taken away.
>

This hurts.  "Rightholders" complain that public attempts to protect very 
basic right and need of human being, and scientists think how to slightly 
limit those complaints.  May I state this one more and last time? Those 
twisted complaints are normal developments of the idea of intellectual 
property.  People have right to protect their property. The problem is that 
there is no such a thing in cultural fields: property. Finish.

> Anyone who's got time to help me research this stuff please contact me; I
> work three days a week as it is to allow me time to read up on copyright
> law and related topics, and a helping hand would be most welcome.
>
> Mk
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------
> http://www.anti-dmca.org
> ------------------------
>
> DMCA_discuss mailing list
> DMCA_discuss at lists.microshaft.org
> http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjxTqdEACgkQUUfze/28Q+4A6wCfRuYhttD9siXLArVJqIRI/woI
1NUAn2SlWghA9yB/akj9mxc/eu2RFJ8a
=r0ef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----