[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy
Issues for Athens
cnd at knowprose.com
Tue Apr 4 19:08:02 BST 2006
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
>> 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
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.essential.org
Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
cnd at knowprose.com
Looking for contracts/work!
"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo
More information about the Plenary