[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top PolicyIssues forAthens

[Taran Rampersad]

Seth Johnson wrote:
> Right.  I oppose someone using exclusive rights in a manner that
> attacks anybody else's fundamental rights.
>
> Let's start from brass tacks -- or at least, what appears to be
> such for you:
>
> What on god's green earth do you mean by "digital rights?"
>   
I think of it as blue, but let's continue.
> I have never, ever heard of such a thing, and the concept frankly
> freaks me out, if I understand it right.
>   
Rights which are related to digital things. The creator's rights and the 
user's rights. The problem is that they are imbalanced right now, I 
think that we can all agree. Yet we cannot deny that the creator has 
rights, and we cannot deny that the user has rights. There is a contract 
between the creator or user, with the exception of public domain (which 
is that thing dwindling off in the distance, a little past Sonny 
Bono...). It used to be physical handshakes, now it's electronic 
handshakes.
> Now, this is one of the things I knew were being packed into the
> phrase "digital rights management" -- it could be parsed as
> either "rights management" that is "digital" or as "management"
> of "digital rights."
>   
Exactly. It was phrased that way to make it nice, friendly and something 
people wouldn't complain too much about because they think - they 
believe - that the present implementation defends the user's rights. 
Perception is a powerful thing. The phrase is not broken out by either 
side - the people who are for or against. What really are the Digital 
Rights of people? Of creators? Of users?

What is a digital signature? That's much easier, and sheds some light on 
things. Signature is not confusing to people. 'Rights' is because not 
only does the average person stutter when questioned what their rights 
are, they also tend to think of rights as centered around themselves.

When I think of digital rights, I think of my rights in a digital world.
> You represent the first empirical instance I have encountered of
> someone who actually expressed a belief in such a thing.
>   
Sad, I think. I haven't either.
> Let me note:  The concept of "digital rights" exists NOWHERE
> except in this idiotic phrase that you seem to think needs to be
> coddled and respected.
>   
LOL. I didn't say it had to be coddled, respected or even watered. But 
it certainly needs to be understood, and the reason that I've brought it 
up is because I believe that people do have rights, we are having 
discussions on the digital world, and also because like any other thing 
it could be used sensibly or not. So instead of attacking this from a 
technical center, let's toss in human rights to the mix. Not just 
copyright and patent and software. Rights. The right to be treated 
equally. The right to be allowed to use what you have as you wish, as 
long as it doesn't adversely affect others. So on, so forth.
> So, go ahead: tell me what a "digital right" is, and try to make
> it palatable, okay?
>   
I tried. I'll keep trying. At the end of the day, we use 'free' for Free 
Software even though the word has been and continues to be abused by 
marketers ('free of what? Lice?'). but we're willing to toss a phrase on 
the bonfire because it's ambiguous. Meanwhile, 'Open Source' has become 
about as ambiguous.


-- 
Taran Rampersad
Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
cnd at knowprose.com

Looking for contracts/work!
http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786

New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran

Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo