One of the my best reads in 2000 was Lawrence Lessig's "Code and Other Laws
of Cyberspace".
For those interested in what's really at stake ...
-rene
----- Original Message -----
From: Ana Preston <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 6:03 PM
Subject: [P2P] on the legal front: a very interesting perspective
> BE afraid...p2p folk out there
>
> One of the main highlights from last week's O'Reilly P2P Conference was
> Larry Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford. He was the last keynote
> speaker; I must admit that I have never seen a room so full of both
> techies and business people get up and clap for so long after a
> speech! :-)
>
> I intend to send you more of the highlights of this conference, but I
> wanted to share my notes on this speech with you.
>
> You may also want to read the interview "Code + Law: Hollywood is
> Assaulting Some Basic Rights"
> (http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2001/01/30/lessig.html)
>
> The actual speech is also available (in real) at
> http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_catalog.html?item_id=1171
>
> Abstract (from OıReillyıs pages): Rather than weakening copyright, the
> Napster case has actually resulted in strengthening the intellectual
> property rights of Hollywood. A political fight is at hand, which will
> determine whether developers will be free to innovate or subject to the
> entertainment industry's permission.
>
> Notes and quotes:
>
> E2e was the value implemented at the onset of the Internet; p2p as a
> current value at both the logical and physical architecture levels is to
> decentralize and empower users.
>
> Apps. like Napster "are not weakening copyright protection, they are
> actually contributing to making it stronger."
>
> "The Napster case has further strengthened a century-long trend of
> extending the protection of intellectual property" far beyond what the
> framers of the US Constitution intended. The current scope or
> "copyright" (which started as a very straightforward and narrow notion in
> terms of limited monopoly) has expanded making almost everything arguably
> a copyright infringement.
>
> "The law was originally intended for only a small portion of copyright to
> be applied to cyberspace."
>
> The result is that the freedom to innovate is being chilled and "unless we
> take political action, your right to build it first will be removed"
>
> "It is the lobbying and litigational influence of the entertainment
> industry that are pushing regulation more aggressively on intellectual
> property issues. The Hollywood lawyers have noticed something about the
> Internet; it conflicts with something they value. That thing is control
> over music, films, and other forms of intellectual property."
>
> Be concerned (and perhaps even scared). Lessig warned the attendees
> (mainly technical and business people) that if they thought the Napster
> ruling was not going to affect them, they were wrong: "Many are telling
> yourself, that was about Napster, we are about p2p. Nothing about the 9th
> Circuit Court decision was about us." In his view, if Napster could be
> shut down for the "law violators" that used it, so could any other
> service.
>
> Shortly after the beginning of the Internet, it was decided not to
> legislate this space and instead, stand back, wait and see how things
> happen (before you sent in the lawyers). "The importance of innovation
> first and balance the legal aspects second." If not, if you clean the
> legal space now and then promote innovation, then on this principle,
> "everybody in this room is a law violator." "Build it first; encourage
> decentralized innovation first and then regulate"
>
> But, Lessig warns us, "Your right to innovate" has been questioned by the
> U.S. courts. And thus, we should be concerned. "Your right to
> innovate" has been put into question by the digital entertainment
> industry. "A political fight is at hand."
>
> After the speech, there was a panel where Lessig was joined by Tim
> OıReilly and John Perry Barlow, who pressed on how the increasing strength
> of intellectual property laws was the result of corruption between rich
> entertainment contributors and Congress.
>
> (for those of you who donıt know, Barlow is (was?) a Grateful Dead
> Lyricist and also a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation).
>
> Lassig replied that the problem was deeper. "The ordinary public is on
> Hollywoodıs side.. The public has to learn to understand how creativity
> depends on stuff being returned to the public."
>
> comments/reactions?
>
|
