| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: russell_-at-_flora.ottawa.on.ca
Date: 13 Oct 1998 15:16:37 -0400
I realize that WIPO is U.S. based, but it's relevant in Canada and Ottawa
as we seem to emulate most of the U.S. mistakes.
I'm with Jay who believes that most copyright is an attack against the
author and in favor of large publishers, but we don't need to go there
again here ;-)
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.org/russell/work/>
FLORA COMMUNITY WEB: NEW INTERNET CONNECTION AND NEW LOOK
http://www.flora.org/russell/press-19981001.html
Ottawa: It's our turn! <http://www.flora.org/?byebyemike> Oct 17, 1998!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:31:00 -0400
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@UMCC.AIS.ORG>
Reply-To: Universal Access Canada <UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA>
To: UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA
Subject: Re: IP: WIPO bill passes (fwd)
I thought the other side of this legislation should be considered. The
follow is forwarded from the Red Rock Eater Mailing list. I would point
out that it has been my experience that copyright in general represents an
attack on the producer of a creative work because it is the means by which
a publisher or distributer gets the major share (like 85% or more) from
the sale of copies of the work.
---------------------------
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below.
You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions
for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html
or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 20:52:09 +0000
>From: Eric Eldred <eldred@mediaone.net>
To: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
Hi Phil,
An emergency alert.
The U.S. Congress on Wednesday, October 7, 1998,
passed the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act."
As of 10/11 it was waiting for the signature of
the President, who has already said he will sign it.
I have taken my web site down and urged everyone
to email president@whitehouse.gov to veto the act,
if they want a digital library on the Internet.
The important aspect of the Act is that it will
prevent from entering the public domain most works
first published after 1922. Thus those of us
volunteers such as in Project Gutenberg who scan
and post full texts of books will be denied access
to those works, and be unable to continue with
our work of presenting a free global public library.
The Act was passed without public debate, without
news coverage, under a suspension of the rules,
by voice votes, without even a quorum. You may
read all about it at http://thomas.loc.gov if you
search under S505.
In my opinion the significance of the Act is that
it transfers a huge amount of rights and monies
from the public to special private interests. If
there is anything such as American cultural
imperialism it only strengthens it by force of law.
One argument for the act is that it is required
in order to normalize free international trade that
countries have the same copyright terms. However,
the act will not implement that, since European
terms are after the death of the author, while
U.S. terms until recently were dated after first
publication. Secondly, there seems no reason why
European terms should not be shortened instead of
U.S. terms lengthened.
The Act will increase copyright terms by 20 years.
That means up to 95 years after first publication.
I can't think of a single author who lived that long.
Clearly, the act will benefit only distant heirs,
or, more likely, the large publishers who own most
of these copyrights. It would hardly encourage new
authors--can you think of anyone who would refuse
to publish a book because the term was only 70 years
after her death, instead of 90?
By the way, the act was named after the late
Representative Sonny Bono by request of his wife,
who was appointed in his stead. Rep. Mary Bono
stated that he and she wished copyright to last
forever, but that would be in violation of the
Constitution, she was told, so she would settle for
forever minus one day. Although Sonny Bono is not
particularly known for a great amount of intellectual
property, evidently his widow wishes to be enriched
even in the distant future by royalties from any
of his songs or works.
Nobody spoke up for the public and the consumer.
No one reminded the legislators that the American
people have a Constitutional right to all works
protected by copyright. Copyright is and ought
always to be a sacred contract between an author
and the public. When the fixed, limited term
expires, the rights revert to the public. Only
this way can the public use the ideas for the
free public discussion necessary for an informed
democratic republic such as ours.
I see this act as part of a larger movement
aimed squarely at the book as we know it and
the Internet as we have constructed it.
In the future, the e-book will be a software
product that will be protected not by copyright,
but by a shrinkwrap license and by hardware
locks. The "reader" will not be able to own
the book, but will only be licensed to consume
it as "pay-per-view". Scholars will find that
books that are not commercially successful will
just evaporate--libraries will not be able to
function in the way they have been accustomed
to.
To facilitate production of this type of book,
NIST (U.S. National Institute for Standards
and Technology) sponsored an "e-book" conference
this week in Maryland. At the conference the
large publisher Microsoft announced a proprietary
format for e-books, a combination of HTML and
XML islands that will withstand copying.
The World Wide Web will be turned into something
like "pay-per-view" television. Books will not
be available for free nor will purchased books
be able to be copied or resold. Consumers will
be allowed to consume products if they pay for
them, but non-profit producers or home self-
publishers will be crowded out of the e-markets.
We are being presented with some clear alternatives.
If we are going to do anything to use the Internet
to promote democracy and human rights and literacy
and intelligent discussion, then we need to fight
actively all attempts such as the bone-headed
Bono Act that restrict the power of the web. Our
government must not be allowed to listen only to
lobbyists for large publishers, and use its power
of criminal enforcement only in their behalf. If
the government wishes to aid the Internet, let it
keep its hands off.
Those of us who wish to promote a free global
public library must redouble our efforts. We will
need to beg rich people to buy up the rights to
copyrighted works and donate them for free posting
to the web. We will need to financially support
a competitive free space on the web that makes
works available. We will need to encourage all
means for small producers to publish from their
own web sites.
Please note that I am not opposed to a reasonable
copyright term. However, 95 years seems ridiculous.
And I am not opposed to selling books over the net.
Indeed, Internet technology can only facilitate
that, and aid protection by copyright alone--there
is no need for additional criminalization nor locks.
And I am not opposed to businesses making money.
I am opposed, however, to businesses crying for
special protection at the expense of the public.
Finally, it is quite true that many American workers
are employed in businesses that produce copyrighted
works. However, it remains to be explained why
if they are so successful they need this added
protection. In fact, the protection seems to be
granted only so as to enable U.S. firms owning
these copyrights to dominate companies in other
countries. Thus the end effect is to encourage
an American cultural imperialism of a capitalist
consumer society, at the expense of the public
places in a democratic global society.
I hope you will aid me in publicizing these remarks.
--
"Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press
mailto:EricEldred@usa.net http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|