[d@DCC] Forming a more formal "interest group".

[Neil Leyton]

Chris,

I think that's a pretty solid foundation on which to build our group. 
Meanwhile I've registered myself with Strategis and can proceed with the 
registration for the lobbying group as soon as we have a name... should 
I be the person to handle that (I don't have to be; may be easier for 
someone in Ottawa).

Everything you wrote I would second. Also, as I see us aligning 
ourselves pretty evenly with the "Balanced Copyright Coalition", we may 
want to find out more about them... a weird group: PIAC, CAIP, CAB, 
CATA, CCTA, Retail Council of canada, Bell Canada, TELUS, and Howard 
Knopf. Whodat?

N.


Chris Brand wrote:

>I wrote :
>2. A "purpose/mission statement", which I see as a list of stuff we agree
>is important.
>
>(bad form to reply to your own message, but I'm going to anyway :-))
>
>As it happens, I used a recent train journey to try to write just such a list.
>Here it is for your critique :
>
>1. We need the right to reverse engineer (this is the "anti-DMCA" aspect).
>2. We should be in control of the technological devices we purchase (I've
>been thinking about this one a lot recently, particularly regarding devices
>like cable modems which are routinely tampered with by the cable cos).
>3. We should be legally allowed to take apart and modify things we buy
>(freedom to tinker).
>4. Sharing information and collaboration are how most progress in both the
>sciences and arts takes place. It is vital that we are able to "stand on the
>shoulders of giants" and be the "second innovator".
>5. Tools are not good or evil. They can generally be used for either.
>6. "Intellectual property" is fundamentally unlike physical property.
>7. Audiences are not just "consumers".
>8. The public domain is a valuable common asset.
>9. Copyright law is a means to two ends - the ends being to make more creative
>works available to Canadians and to ensure that creators are fairly rewarded
>for their work. (I have to admit to being unsure whether the second aim *should*
>be there, although I'm sure that it is currently. It seems to me that there
>isn't any general "right to be paid for your work" - if I mow your lawn without
>you agreeing to pay me, I don't believe I have any right to force you, or
>anyone else, to pay me for my work).
>
>Making a broad unjustified leap and assuming that we all agree on the above
>list, now all we need to do is phrase it nicely and come up with a name
>that for the organisation that believes all the above. :-)
>
>Chris
>
>--
>For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
>links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca
>
>
>  
>


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