[A2k] Global copyright watch list reveals US hypocrisy and how out-of-date legislation is damaging consumer interests

[Janet Hawtin]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams
<jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jeremy and all,

> Americans interests in this instance should come first but in a fair
> way with our Trading partners around the world.

It seems fraught to me to have an issue like copyright played horse traded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_trading

It has become clear through the previous discussions that the DMCA,
especially in regards to DRM/TPM, runs at odds to civil rights and
accessibility. Incongruent law is generated because the trade process
sidesteps or bulldozes public interests.

Since the printing press copyright has been used as a means to find a
balance between the social function of information, our peace with our
possessions, and the business of making and distributing ideas. We now
use methods of publishing and distribution which do match the printing
press' single point of investment model. We could do with rethinking
the social/business balance around ways to multiple points of
contribution and where publishing is trivial, and creation is living
and participatory. A single pont of value with a distributed social
cost is no longer a good value mapping for the ways that we can
express information now.

A trade negotiation is not a suitable context for negotiating that
kind of civil infrastructure.
The public interest is not effectively represented in the mechanics of
trades processes.
It leads to the kind of gaming and hypocrisy which Consumers
International have pointed out.

Repeal of DMCA would be a useful first step.
The crucial aspects of the social functions of information need to be
able to flow in the interests of world health, ecology, community.
Our means for valuing innovation should not effect obstacles to world
health, our means for innovating with agriculture should not cause
risk to ecologies or encourage the development of nonviable species
for commercial interest. As a species we need to look at our methods
for valuing to see if they are responsible to our biodiverse context,
as a community of people we need to value in ways which do not cause
inhumanity.

A tragedy of the commons is a choice, it is a prisoner's dilemma kind of choice.
There is no tragedy in contexts where the participants choose to act
for the common good.
If our systems for generating law are engineered through trade
processes the underlying precepts are grounded in individual
advantage. If they are developed in piecemeal increments with global
agreements we get a uniform obfuscated law because
the process is only practical in small pieces at a global scale. The
result is that copyright is not a comprehensible model of valuing
for public use. If a child cannot confidently wield the fabric of
their cultural context because it is damn near impossible to figure
out what is legal and what is not then the method for valuing is
costing society both in the right to participate for new generations,
and in their ability to see legal frameworks as viable and reasonable
systems. ie It erodes lawfulness to have incomprehensible law which
results in more people choosing for their own interests rather than
any common good.

DMCA is a problem.  DRM/TPM technologies are not a workable solution
to a social question.
If we did not have the Statute of Anne heritage, and we were looking
at our current means of production/distribution and social function
with information what kinds of models for valuing could we make? How
would we ensure that they always kept strong ecological and humanist
values and also helped value to accrue to effort and investment?

Janet