[d@DCC] Idea exploration: hierarchy of creators' rights?

[Seth Johnson]

"Wallace J.McLean" wrote:
> 
> >  In some cases there are people loudly claiming that their right to swing
> >their cane *includes* smashing my nose.
> 
> The problem with the cane vs. nose metaphor is that people on both sides
> of a controversy will claim to be cane AND nose.
> 
> I would like to "swing my cane" by making new use of archival documents
> whose authors are long dead. There are some people who see that activity
> as striking their "nose".
> 
> Conversely, those same people see their cane-swinging as including having
> CR control over bits of paper of the same age as those other ancient bits
> of paper I'm interested in. In that case, I see their cane as striking MY
> nose.


Regulatory provisions regarding entry of original expression into the public
domain divert attention from the key, most important issue: the problem of
legislating away the intrinsic freedom of information as such, of the
fact/expression dichotomy.

Traditional copyright proscribes copying of original expression.  It doesn't
restrict copying of factual elements contained within expressive works.  It
also doesn't physically control or prevent duplication of original
expression; it just provides legal recourse.  If exclusive rights are
reinterpreted in such a manner that not only is the copying of original
expression legally proscribed, but authors may also control the ability to
parse their published information, then not only is the author striking my
nose, but the fundamental purpose of exclusive rights (essentially, to
provide the public with information) is decisively eliminated.

In addition, all the advantages of having a logic device on everybody's
desktop, of everybody's being able to freely code their machines, and of
having a "content" neutral transport underlying a global communications
network, are decisively eliminated.

This isn't a matter of differing opinions of various actors regarding what's
a cane and what's a nose.  It's a matter of eliminating the valid
foundations of exclusive rights in the interest of the wrong
"stakeholders."  When you look at the difference between what's actually
covered by copyright and what's not, the cane and the nose are both
abundantly clear.


Seth

-- 

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.

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca