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

[Taran Rampersad]

*sigh*

Litigation is the original mechanism of 'Digital Rights Management', and 
it's what got us here in the first place - designing licenses so we 
wouldn't have to litigate as much. Litigation costs money. I'm surprised 
how many people are stuck on one implementation of Digital Rights 
Management. If freedom is a right, which we should all agree, then what 
needs to be discussed is the balance of Digital Rights Management. This 
may all be semantic for some of you, but I believe that it is important 
if there is to be a firm basis for forming equitable laws and licenses 
that can apply around the world.

At the core is the definition of 'property'. Oddly, I find that most of 
this discussion dances around what others have defined as property 
instead of what we think property is. The core to the issue is who owns 
what and who doesn't own what. That transcends software, content, 
patenting life and all manner of issues. And then we have to consider 
how creators can make money.

I find it disturbing that so many people who are upset with the issue of 
who owns what don't want to dig into the meat of the problem itself. 
It's a systemic issue, and thinking that we can solve the world's 
problems by beating a software license to death seems... silly in a 
broader context to me. Software licenses should be about software, not 
the manner in which the software is used. Content licenses should be 
about content, and so on. And at the very core, at the center, we have 
to deal with the human issue because without the human issue none of 
this is relevant. I've heard that there are no 'digital rights' from 
someone, when they probably meant that there are no digital rights to 
digital works - which may or may not be true; it's uncharted territory 
(or what has been charted was charted on a flat map instead of a round 
globe - an interesting mathematical analog which could explain 
deviations along 'straight lines').

Nobody here has the monopoly on 'being right'. What we should be doing 
is 'finding right', and I'm not certain that we're taking the time to do 
this right. My concerns have been made public, and a few people 
understand what I've meant and have helped point out the weak points and 
strengths. That is what discussion is for.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
>> DRM could have valid implementations - for example, to assure that the
>> rights of Free Software are maintained. Rights are rights, but
>> licenses
>> vary - and so do implementations of objects.
>
> There already is a very efficient way to assure that the rights of
> Free Software are maintained. It is called "litigation", and it comes
> with a handy set of tools that will ensure that the debate will be
> reasonnably fair and democratic : due process of law, rules of
> evidence, etc.
>
> Replacing the democratic rules of litigation with automated computer
> programs is not only illusory with regards to its efficiency, it is
> also highly immoral and dangerous for democracy.
>
> Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> cersa-cnrs paris 2
> +33 (0)6 17 96 24 57
> http://soufron.typhon.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
>
>


-- 
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