Print

Print


http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bits-debate-is-copy-protection-needed-or-futile/

the whole series if "debates" (exchanges, actually) is interesting. It's very obvious that US 
copyright laws need clarification. I think the music industry seems to be less "consumer friendly" 
about this than the line Rick Cotton takes, but neither is ceding any ground about fair use. People 
genuinely concerned about fair use and what ownership really means should make sure to educate the 
general public about these issues. I think if the majority of people truly understood the legal 
limits on what they can do with their DVD's and CD's, whether those limits are practical to enforce 
or not, they would demand the law be changed to something more consumer-friendly. This would also 
benefit copyright owners, by the way, whether they know it or not, because it would free up their 
agendas and resources to chase real criminals like pirate gangs overseas instead of suing and 
alienating their customers. Just to be clear -- I think a person SHOULD pay for a 
commercially-retailed entertainment product. I just think what format a person uses that product --  
as long as it's for their personal use and not for further distribution -- should be up to them. And 
I think, given the fragile nature of optical media, libraries should have a clear and defined right 
to buy and hold an original but circulate a copy. I wouldn't even object if there were technology to 
make that copy non-copyable by borrowers. The bottom line reason for my advocacy of this practice 
for libraries is so budget-strapped local libraries can maintain the largest possible collection of 
usable products (ie not be circulating a bunch of optical media that is worn out and doesn't play 
properly, as is the case too often).

-- Tom Fine