From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262621AbTEBPHw (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 11:07:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262703AbTEBPHw (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 11:07:52 -0400 Received: from [65.244.37.61] ([65.244.37.61]:55888 "EHLO WSPNYCON1IPC.corp.root.ipc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262621AbTEBPHv (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 11:07:51 -0400 Message-ID: <170EBA504C3AD511A3FE00508BB89A9202085450@exnanycmbx4.ipc.com> From: "Downing, Thomas" To: Scott Robert Ladd , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: RE: Copyrights: An Author's Call to Arms Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:19:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----Original Message----- From: Scott Robert Ladd [mailto:coyote@coyotegulch.com] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 9:35 AM To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Copyrights: An Author's Call to Arms [snip] > A new model is required. And I believe the free software community > should lead the way -- but only if it works *WITH* authors, musicians, > coders, and writers to establish concepts for linking the creation of > material to compensation (i.e., survival). Society can not progress by > going backward (the corporate solution), nor by ignoring the needs of > creators (those who deny economic value for expressions of ideas.) I agree completely with all you have said. The problem is; how do you secure compensation to the authors/producers while at the same time still secure fair-use/first-point-of-sale issues to the consumer? Not a trivial thing to do given digital information. If a workable and 'good enough' solution is found, it might be just what is needed to torpedo many of the abuses of DRM/DMCA. By workable, I mean it is not so intrusive from the consumer's perspective that he is discouraged to use the content in that form. By good-enough, I am just putting a (what should be well known) stake in the ground: there is no complete or absolute protection from piracy. Good enough means that such piracy as still remains is 1.) of a small enough scale that it can be ignored (e.g. DVD piracy via DeCSS today); or 2.) only of a nature that it can be successfully addressed in another forum (e.g. DVD piracy as done by certain China based companies.) >In theory, "free software" is not bound by corporate cultures and >regressive thinking. *This* community, represented by Linux developers, >should be taking the reins and deciding which horse we ride and where it >takes us. > >I'm open to considered dialog. I am _very_ concerned with the direction of the judicial and legislative climate in the USA at this time. I do have some small experience in security issues and would be interested in such a project. I could write _much_ more on this topic - but I will wait to see where this conversation goes first before boring/annoying LKML folks more than I already have.