Digital rights under fire
By Lisa M. Bowman
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
January 23, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
newsmakers Robin Gross thinks international copyright laws are out of step
with the people. So much so that the former Electronic Frontier Foundation
attorney is launching a new watchdog group called IP Justice.
Her goal is to "promote balance in global intellectual property law." Gross
says she wants to make sure people won't become targets of legal action for
doing things like making personal copies of CDs, DVDs and e-books they've
purchased.
Gross, who's officially unveiling the project in the next couple of weeks,
envisions uniting programmers and online activists across the globe to make
sure consumers get a fair shake in the copyright debate. She talked with
CNET News.com about how digital technology is changing copyright law, why
technologists and consumers should be concerned, and why she thinks the
United States is one of the most "restrictive regimes" in this area.
Q: Why did you found IP Justice?
A: I felt like there was a real need to connect the like-minded groups all
over the world who are battling against the expansion of copyrights and are
concerned about protecting freedom of expression.
How will IP Justice differ from other online activist groups?
We'll differ in that our focus will be on international IP law. I think our
focus will also be a little bit different because we're going to be
principle-based. One of the frustrations that so many people have expressed
to me is that the laws are just being bought and paid for by Hollywood in
the intellectual property space, and they're so out of step with the
public's principles about what's fair and what's just.
I really don't think that lawmakers have been given a fair hearing about
what the public's rights are and what the public's concerns are.
What will some of those principles be?
One is the idea that we should have the right to control our own individual
experience of creative works. When we're in the privacy of our own homes,
and we're using DVDs or CDs that we own on the computers that we own, that
Hollywood doesn't have a right to tell us how we can use that media. It's
our property and our rights as global citizens to receive and express and
impart information without the interference of the copyright holders.
How about another one?
We have the right to make personal private copies of lawfully acquired
works. So if I buy a CD, I should have an affirmative right to make a
personal-use copy of that without breaking any laws by attempting to make a
copy. Unfortunately, the United States has a very dismal track record right
now for protection of freedom in this area. It's truly ironic that the
United States has such an international reputation as being the leader in
freedom of speech, but when it comes to intellectual property, it's
actually one of the most restrictive regimes in terms of what people can do
with their intellectual property.
Practically, how do you see this list of principles promoting this balance
that you seek?
The idea is to get groups and individuals from all over the world to sign
onto to these principles, to endorse these principles, and we can sort of
hold the lawmakers in check in that we can say these are our principles and
you can compare them to the laws and see that there's a difference. Laws
are going to have to change in some cases, and that's really the ultimate
goal of releasing these principles--to get the lawmakers to understand the
will of the public when it comes to intellectual property issues.
And you don't think they do right now?
I really don't think that lawmakers have been given a fair hearing about
what the public's rights are and what the public's concerns are. They've
got a very close connection with the Hollywood lobbyists, and their
position seems to very closely reflect the views of the Hollywood
executives. So I think they need to be reminded of the public and what they
expect of lawmakers when it comes to protecting their civil rights and
their civil liberties.
What about intellectual property holders such as the movie studios, the
record labels and the software makers--don't they have a right to exert
more control over their digital works when it's so easy to duplicate and
transmit them to vast amounts of people?
You've only pointed out one half of the way that digital technology changes
the picture. Sure, it makes it easier for people to copy and share works,
but digital technology also makes it easier for copyright holders to
restrict what people can do with their works. So it's not fair to say that
this technology is...very harmful to these industries because it's actually
providing them with more power than they've ever had before to control what
people can do with their works. That point is often overlooked--that
they're controlling it to the point that they're taking away from the
public side of the copyright bargain.
So while it's not fair for consumers to copy and distribute copyright works
in a fashion that doesn't compensate the creators, it's also not fair for
the creators to use digital technology to take away the rights of the
public. For example, making sure these works fall into the public domain at
some point, or making sure that consumers are able to exercise their
fair-use rights. It's simply not fair for the copyright holders to take all
of the rights and have none of the responsibilities associated with
copyright law.
My biggest fear is that there's so much momentum in terms of legislation
and building technological restrictions that we'll be too late to stop the
tide.
How do you see the tension between copyright owners and technologists
playing out? Can be it be resolved through the legislatures, courts or the
marketplace?
It's really a mixture of all of the above. I think countries that are
trying to pass laws very similar to the United States' Digital Millennium
Copyright Act have met a lot of resistance from civil rights groups and
programming groups, so there is some resistance at that level. In other
cases as the laws get passed, the best way to challenge it might be through
a court challenge. I expect we'll see some of those in Europe in the coming
years as the EU copyright directive takes effect and Europeans lose their
right to be able to make personal copies or reverse-engineer, or that sort
of thing.
The marketplace will also be one factor that will have a tremendous impact
on what ultimately happens here. The technology companies want to be able
to build devices that consumers want to use, which include lots of consumer
friendly features, things like copying music. There's a real incentive for
technology companies to build those kind of devices, but there's also a lot
of pressure from the copyright holders to restrict those kind of devices.
Are there any countries that have views about intellectual properties that
you like, and alternatively, which countries have the "worst" IP laws in
your view?
I'll start with who has the worst IP laws, because that's actually the
easiest. It's the United States. When it comes to the traditional balance
we've had between copyright and freedom of expression, it's been completely
done away with in the last couple of years. It's been replaced by a regime
where the content industry has total control over what people can do with
their e-books, CDs, DVDs and that sort of thing. With the passage of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act and subsequent enforcement, the United
States has some of the most restrictive views on what people can do with
their works.
Anyone doing a good job?
I don't know that I can say anyone is doing a good job, but there are a lot
of countries that are trying to put forth some resistance to this
maximalist IP agenda that Hollywood is imposing on the rest of the world. I
think there are groups in Germany and France that are working hard to stop
similar laws that are being pushed there, but it's too early in the game to
see what's effective and what's not.
What's your biggest fear?
That we're too late. My biggest fear is that there's so much momentum in
terms of legislation and building technological restrictions that we'll be
too late to stop the tide from heading in that direction of total control
over what people can do with their intellectual property. Hollywood has
been working at this for many, many years and has very strong coalitions
and connections to lawmakers in different countries, so it's well ahead of
the game in terms of being organized and having an agenda to push.
http://news.com.com/2008-1082-981663.html?tag=fd_nc_1
