[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens

[Taran Rampersad]

Peter Eckersley wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 01:15:21AM -0400, Taran Rampersad wrote:
>  
>   
>> If you say that creators have no rights over what they create, I suppose 
>> that could be seen as trolling. Is that your contention?
>>     
>
> I can't deny that they have legal rights.  
>
> I do deny that that the exclusive right of reproduction (or the de facto
> exclusive right of access) is a moral right, a natural right, a human right,
> etc.  It's a legalised monopoly, and in digital environments it's dubious
> policy.
>
>   
I agree with you in the context of what is being implemented under the 
name 'DRM'; there's no simple panacea. I'm the person who doesn't 
understand why I can buy firewood and nail it together in the form of a 
house I would be charged with arson. As long as nobody else is hurt, and 
nobody else's property is damaged, I should be able to do what I wish.

Not everything falls into neat piles when it comes to creating things. 
Morally speaking, I make my work as free as possible. Personally, I know 
I will never use means of infringing people's rights so that I get what 
I 'think I'm owed'; I'll leave that to the BSA, RIAA and MPAA. But I'm 
also leery of all of this talk about how someone can assure that they 
make a living - not rip people off. We're moving from a period where the 
publishing industries (paper, media) had control over things to a time 
where creators have more of a direct relationship with the users of 
data. And they do have to eat. It's only now being tested.

Like so many things, the people who tend to take polar opinions already 
have their bread buttered, and the people who don't are the ones who 
want butter . The answer certainly isn't 'DRM' as the corporations have 
them. What advocates of the implementation of 'DRM' say is not 
completely wrong, in that people do need to be compensated. If society 
is honest and inherently good, that shouldn't be an issue. The draconian 
measures that irk me aren't something a starving poet or artist would 
dream up. Creating for the joy of creation is fine, but if a child of 
yours said that they wanted to be a musician, wouldn't you be concerned 
about how the child would make a living? Or would you hope it was an 
April Fool's joke?

I don't know. What I do know is that nobody has really addressed all 
manner of creators being compensated because 'all manner' isn't defined 
yet, and will never be defined because people are always innovating. 
Then, too, there's what society is willing to support. And then, there's 
the issue of public domain which has been slowed in growth... if 
anything, I think that's a bigger threat than any form of copy 
protection (because that's what DRM in it's present implementation 
really is, or is evolved from).

Society needs poets, musicians, and other forms of creators. What we 
have to find are models which allow them - not the middle men - to 
continue to survive. Before I pull out the carpet, I'd like to know that 
there is a floor that works for creators around the world.

-- 
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