Copyright Out of Whack

Marcia Keyser writes “
Article on Copyright in eContent by Walt Crawford. Among other things, provides a
hypothetical reworking of the Copyright Clause, “Members of the MPAA, RIAA, and AAP shall have the right to control technological change in order to enforce perpetual rights to creative works. Congress shall ensure that the corporate right to control over and payment for every use of those creations takes precedence over outmoded notions such as freedom of speech, fair use, and the first purchase doctrine.””

September 17, 2004 by Uncategorized 6

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. John says:
    September 17, 2004 at 5:27 pm

    Stuff thaqt matters
    I don’t think enough librarians care about the increasing copyright limitations. How can you read the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) and look at what’s happened and not feel a threat to our profession?

    We’re supposed to spread and preserve information, and these new rules stifle that cause. Technology used to be an enormous benefit to librarians’ charge, but with the new DRM craze the situation described in The Right to Read sounds less and less like fiction.

    Reply
  2. GregS* says:
    September 17, 2004 at 7:22 pm

    Re:Stuff that matters
    I don’t really get the visual from Harvard, you’d think there were fewer items in the public domain then there were a hundred years ago and that’s just not the case.

    I think your subject line hits the nail on the head. We’re supposed to spread and preserve information that matters. There is always going to be a push-pull debate on what’s new and how available it is but honestly, depending on what kind of library you are, the stuff that really matters is stuff that we already have and some of the new stuff I don’t believe matters at all.

    Reply
  3. Walt says:
    September 17, 2004 at 11:10 pm

    Re:Stuff that matters
    Which is responsive to the issue how? That anything that’s blocked by DRM probably wasn’t worth keeping anyway? That you’re the judge of what the next generation should have access to?

    “The stuff that really matters is stuff that we already have.” Right. Sure.

    Reply
  4. GregS* says:
    September 18, 2004 at 12:47 am

    Re:Stuff that matters
    “That you’re the judge of what the next generation should have access to?”

    We are already do to some degree.

    “”The stuff that really matters is stuff that we already have.” Right. Sure. ”

    Don’t be snotty. If we’re coming out with so much great stuff how come we still read Shakespeare?

    I don’t doubt your passionate about the issue Walt but have a little patients for the rest of us. I don’t believe I’m automatically entitled to someone else’s labor just because a certain period of time has passed and fair use is not infinite use. I do believe that a marketplace that wants to make money will not screw themselves in the process of screwing the consumer. I also believe that the moment people start crying about constitutional rights and the crash of civilization is the moment they lose any credibility (ie:Patriot Act).

    I’m living in a world where I am so crushed down with information, most of it free, that I’ve been actually trying to think of ways to shut it out while still enjoying ‘the best of’. The idea that I’m being deprived somehow is nonsense. If you want me or people like to take your side on the issue stop talking about constitutional rights and start talking about what you feel are effective alternative.

    Reply
  5. Walt says:
    September 18, 2004 at 1:03 am

    Re:Stuff that matters
    I’m sorry, but snotty is what that comment deserved. The fact that we still read past masters most certainly does not mean that the current and future generations don’t produce worthwhile literature!

    Nor have I ever–EVER–said that anyone’s automatically entitled to someone else’s labor. That’s such a ludicrous misreading of my position, or any other balanced-copyright position, that it also calls for a snotty response. I don’t happen to have one handy.

    I’ve written tens of thousands of words about effective paths and the problem with extreme courses on either side (either Big Media’s “you pay each time you look at something, forever” attitude or the “information should be free” strawman).

    I must have missed the posts or C&I essays where I predict the crash of civilization.

    Since you’re determined to caricature my positions, there’s not much point in continuing the discussion.

    Reply
  6. GregS* says:
    September 18, 2004 at 1:42 am

    Re:Stuff that matters
    You weren’t the only one posting comments. Did you look at the links John posted?

    “This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her–but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong–something that only pirates would do.” [The Right To Read]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LISNews Archives