[Linux-aus] Alternate models?
lucychili at internode.on.net
Mon Jun 26 09:13:03 UTC 2006
Are there good alternate models for sharing information which
are not based on DMCA and publisher right of way?
There must be models which do not make the packager and poster of the
content the primary rights holder in a world where packaging and posting
are the cheapest aspects of the process?
What does a non publisher led industry for distribution of electronic
media look like from a legal perspective?
Is it worth drafting a set of proposed laws which would support our
interests and those of creators and inventors?
As James's blog points out there is a vaccuum where drafting law
or even representing interest on our behalf is concerned.
Perhaps just saying no isn't enough if the politicians do not know how
to make a yes.?
Here's a link to Eben Moglen's motherlode
The Invisible Barbecue, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 945 (1997). PostScript
Seemed to be written for us ;)
The basic distinction usually made, ... is between "telephony" and
"broadcast." Switched communications between peers are conceived as
private, but everything else tends to be seen as the purview of
broadcast. This dichotomy expresses an unarticulated intention to cast
the information society in an industrial mold. We can all call Aunt
Sally, but only a few of us are "broadcasters," industrial producers of
signal, which all the rest of us merely consume.
This is a metaphor only. As a metaphor it captures some aspects of the
reality it describes. But one of the most important properties of the
new technology is to eliminate the previously high cost of reaching a
large audience. Any individual can reach through the use of network
media such as the World Wide Web an audience far larger than the owner
of several small television stations, and at no cost. The form of
communication achieved is no doubt different, and it is obvious that the
individual UseNet news post has not achieved parity with a television
advertisement for an athletic shoe. But the metaphor of the broadcaster
and the consumer conditions us to accept the maximum possible inequality
as a natural necessity: a few talk and the rest merely listen. Spectrum
need not be allocated around this conception; the historical
justifications for doing so are among the forms of reasoning vitiated by
the rise of complementary carriage technologies and the resulting death
of "scarcity rationales."
Naturally the broadcaster model is favored by those whose economic
interests it favors in turn. The broadcasters and the politicians have
each something to offer the other, and both parties eschew thoughtways
that would reduce the value of what they have to trade. That's how
barbecue guest lists are made. But scholarship has a duty to transcend
such self-serving limitations of discussion.
More information about the linux-aus