Re: [DMCA-Activists] Re: [fsl-discuss] Re: IP: FCC INITIATES RULEMAKINGTO EXPLORE DIGITALCOPYRIGHT

[Seth Johnson]

Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> 
> > People who put out information products under content
> > control should be barred from exclusive rights coverage.
> > They are not meeting and upholding the principles according
> > to which they have been granted exclusive rights in the
> > first place.
> 
> Can you elaborate on what you mean here Seth? I'm not sure I understand.


See below, from the same message:

> > One interesting thing to remember is that in the most
> > important sense, content control isn't really publishing
> > -- since it's specifically trying to prevent gaining
> > access to the very *elements* of expressive works, whereas
> > the principle governing the exclusive rights clause of the
> > Constitution is to promote science and the useful arts.
> > That is, the whole point of it in the first place is to
> > encourage the spread of useful information and knowledge,
> > and exclusive rights don't cover the factual elements of
> > expressive works, because information in itself is
> > *intrinsically* free.


Standard stuff, just detailing ramifications.

Folks might find Malla Pollack of some note in this
connection.  See her work, "What is Congress Supposed to
Promote?"  It's yet to be published, but you can get it by
going to http://www.ssrn.com and searching for "malla
pollack".  I have converted it to text from the PDF, with
all citations, in case anybody's interested.

Seth

-- 

[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but
only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual
practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no
claim of exclusive rights.