On 29/01/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rights in a limited time-frame and a limited territory to exploit > copyright material: for which wholesale and free copying via > BitTorrent without DRM is wholly unrealistic. "Wholly unrealistic" seems pretty nutty
I forwarded my reply to an old friend, Miles Metcalfe, the head of IT R&D at Ian Forrester's old haunt, Ravensbourne College of Design & Communication down in Chislehurts, Kent. He gave me a prompt and thoughtful reply, which I thought would be of interest to the list. Here it is, distributed with permission, naturally :-D ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Miles Metcalfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 29-Jan-2007 17:06 Hi Dave
"Wholly unrealistic" seems pretty nutty when http://www.uknova.com/ and friends are doing it anyway. Copyright as it stands has been broken by our new digital circumstances. I concede that most BBC content is being held to ransom by copyrights held by 3rd parties. But whatever isn't, should at least be made available along the lines Brian Butterworth has made out. As a British citizen and BBC-Tax payer, I personally find that it being made available to look at, but not touch and reuse, isn't enough - this material should be released under a "copyleft" license for me. As a human being, and having seen wonders like Wikipedia, I'd like it to be released under a copyleft license for worldwide use.
Okay. The rights-holder's fears are actually pretty legitimate here. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that people passively consume content happily that is made available to them for free. There is a whole lot less evidence to suggest that people make creative reuse of content when it's given to them for free. Provide some evidence, rather than appeals to humanity (and don't point to wikipedia - by far the majority of its users are consumers). The rights-holder is behaving in their own self-interest to maximise the return on consumption. You conflate several arguments: - Digital technology has made copyright meaningless, as copying is a _trivial_ and _natural_ exercise in the digital domain. - Citizenship confers on me extra rights regarding content produced by a "national institution". - Payment of a mandatory content tax confers on me extra rights also. - Irrespective of the preceding, the innovation I have seen compels me to favour the elimination of copyright. If you had the space, you'd've probably included "copyright is evil because it fundamentally limits my natural freedom to exchange information with my friends and associates. It is therefore a restriction on freedom of speech, and must not be tolerated in a just society" or some variation thereof :) I don't think these arguments sit that well together in an argument bomb, as they cover the gamut from visionary, ethical, moral, to social-contractual. Where is the countervailing interest to the self- interest of the rights-holder? Copyright, after all, was the former counterweight. Cheers Miles -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
