Re: [-empyre-] COPYRIGHT Demistified ( PART 2)

[geniwate <geniwate@ozemail.com.au>]

Hi

just wanted to make a general reaction to the thrust of Antoanetta's post -
it seems the law is incredibly complex, and was designed for non digital
media. It keeps getting adapted, incrementally, to apply to digital
contexts. those adaptations increasingly favour protecting copyright for
large media corporations and the richest nations. in another context,
educational institutions in Australia face the prospect of bankrupcy if
proposed copyright payment regimes were ever implemented and policed.

Copyright is not just meant to be about paying royalties, it's also about
protecting access to IP for consumers / users / readers etc. If artists try
to apply copyright law as it is being developed, we will
(a) not make much money
(b) spend all our time being lawyers / capitalists
(c) alienate potential audiences
(d) undermine the libertarian principles that many non-corporate Web users
are fond of
(e) limit the exchange of information that artists also benefit from

So while I thank Antoanetta for the information I think we need a different
way of recompense for being artists. in so many ways capitalism doesn't work
on the Web, and I'm personally not sure it should ...

If anyone's interested in the opinions of US lawyers, i've just read a book
by Stuart Biegel <Beyond our control?> MIT Press. He's pretty much on the
side of increasing regulation, and he's talking about the international,
WTO-type context. An alternative view is offered by Lawrence lessig, there's
a paper called 'the law of the horse: What cyberlaw might teach' available
online (sorry i've lost the url but google will find it). He's much more
libertarian and has worked on some pretty major cases, and for Alt-x.

best wishes, Jenny