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

[Seth Johnson]

Taran Rampersad wrote:
> 
> 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.


There are no rights related to digital things.

Copyright is not a contract between authors and the recipients of
their works.


> > 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.


Hardly anyone thinks that.  They mostly think that the "rights"
being "managed" are the author's.  Only the author doesn't
actually have the rights that "digital rights management" tries
to give them.

And you're avoiding the point.  People aren't stupid enough when
they read the phrase "digital rights management" to think they
have "digital rights" -- they mostly have incorrect notions of
the "rights" they have as authors; they don't think they have
"digital rights" because they think either statutory or other
kinds of "rights" in themselves apply in the first place -- they
think that "digital rights management" lets them "manage" their
"rights" in the "digital" domain; they don't jump to the
conclusion that they have something called "digital rights" just
as a matter of reading comprehension.

You're the first one I've found to try to argue for "digital
rights" per se on no other basis than the existence of this
neologism.


> 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?


There are no valid "digital rights."  Describe a "digital right"
-- in particular, describe how "digital rights" would work under
copyright.


> 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.


No.  Simply cease encouraging people to confuse these areas,
using terms that are explicitly designed to get people to confuse
these areas.


> 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.


I can use copyrighted works in ways that might be disadvantageous
to the author.  The author only has a few rights.  None of them
"digital rights."


> > So, go ahead: tell me what a "digital right" is, and try to make
> > it palatable, okay?
> >
> I tried.


No you didn't.  You haven't described a "digital right."


> I'll keep trying.


Please do.


> 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.


"Free software" has only had one ambiguity, under the English
vernacular, for the unacquainted.  "Open Source" started out
ambiguous in innumerable ways, and is not necessarily any more
ambiguous now than it was from the beginning.


Seth


> 
> --
> 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

-- 

RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.