RE: [rights] Re: [rights-requirements] Comments on Requirements version 16

["Radbel, Dmitry" <dmitry.radbel@umusic.com>]

I did not imply (at least did not mean to) that the sole purpose of the copyright law is to protect the rights of copyright owners. There was a statement in Anne's e-mail about a "small group" who can benefit from restricting rights of a "large group" of consumers. I was trying to remind all - in the context of the balance of rights discussion - that copyright owners are pretty much by definiton a much smaller group than consumers but that does not make it right 9no pun intended) to ignore their rights. Perhaps we can agree that protecting the rights of content or IP owners is fairly fundamental to promoting arts and science and leave it at that.

I am not questioning your involvement. I am pointing out that we can't agree on the scope and policies of the TC which would allow us to produce a specification or standard of value. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of what RLTC should do, I am entitled to mine and it's pretty obvious by now that after many months we could not bridge some of our differences.

Since I stated my position three times by now, I'd like to take a break and go back to my "regular" job. Part of which is figuring out how to curb very significant violations of authors' rights which are occuring now. I hoped rights language from RLTC will be one of the pieces of this puzzle but I guess it was not meant to be.

Thanks,

DR

-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Doctorow [mailto:cory@eff.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:19 PM
To: Radbel, Dmitry
Cc: 'Gandee, Brad'; Anne.Anderson@Sun.com; RLTC;
rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org; Patrick. Gannon (E-mail);
'karl.best@oasis-open.org'; simon.nicholson@oasis-open.org
Subject: [rights] Re: [rights-requirements] Comments on Requirements
version 16


> I made the point of acknowledging expressed positions and pointing out 
> that there are some very different policies and opinions in these 
> areas (e.g., IP policy and copyright). I am sure you whole-heartedly 
> believe that your position is the right one, but to deny that 
> significant differences of opinions exist both within this group (and, 
> more importantly, outside of it) is not representative of the reality.

The basis of copyright is set out in the constitution, and it is to 
promote the useful arts and sciences. There is an enormous corpus of 
learned work in support of this.

IOW, the position that copyright exists to protect rightsholders 
interests -- and not to promote the useful arts and science -- is one 
that is factually incorrect.

> While I have my opinions - just like everybody else here - I was 
> careful to not label anybody else's as "outrageous".

I apologize. For "outrageous," please read "factually incorrect."

> You can pick on any specific words or expressions that I used or 
> assign implications that were not there, but my main point was that we 
> are not in agreement on the scope and policy, we are not making much 
> progress and continue to debate the same issues over and over again. 
> So I will repeat this point again: If after all these months we can't 
> agree on some basic framework - why are we continuing this  charade?

I'm involved because the group asked me to be, when it set out its 
charter, which said that it was going to build a standard that 
reflected the needs of the diverse interests in technology and 
copyright.

I'm involved because I believe that if systems like this are developed 
in such a way as to undermine the future development of fair use (by 
proscribing all uses not permitted and thus removing the power of the 
courts and congress ot adjust the scope of fair use to reflect new 
technological and social realities), that we will be allowing the law 
to be supplanted by adhesion contracts and unilateral "business rules."


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>