Related link: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/%7Epam/papers/xml2002.ppt
For those of us frustrated by the Supreme Court’s disdain for the public domain, today is a pretty sad day. That doesn’t mean that it has to be the end, however. Pam Samuelson gave a keynote (PowerPoint slides) last month at XML 2002 that suggests other approaches to moderating the “property” in “intellectual property”.
Samuelson started by examining the historical circumstances around copyright, the classic problem that “Copyright legislation most directly affects a small group of highly organized, well-financed firms”, and the general trend toward the “best laws $$$ can buy”, largely the same problems addressed by the Eldred case.
Then her project did something different. The Samuelson Clinic joined the OASIS Rights Language Technical Committee. Instead of leaving these projects to vendors, who are generally expected to pursue their own interests rather than a public interest, the Samuelson Clinic (and the Society of Biblical Literature) joined the project, broadening the nature of the “rights” being described.
In the initial proposal, the “rights” were much more on the order of “permissions” - it’s always tough to argue against metaphors based on rights, even when it’s not clear whose rights they were. Samuelson pointed out a whole range of questions about first sale and fair use that still have to be addressed, as well as possible patent issues on the whole scheme.
Samuelson explored how “Digital Rights Management” and its claim to only be licensing content rather than selling it marks a drastic change in the publishing universe, giving the owners of intellectual property far more control over its use than was ever previously the case. Building those assumptions into a generic rights language may lock the public interest out as effectively as a Supreme Court decision - and in a potentially widely-distributed way that’s much harder to overturn.
(If you haven’t read her other presentations, there’s lots to learn.)
At present, and despite the best efforts of people like Pam Samuelson and Lawrence Lessig, the interests of “intellectual property owners” seem to be triumphant. They control the material, they control the dollars, and with terms like “Digital Rights Management” they control the terms of the discussion. It seems like the the discussion, technical and otherwise, might be the right place for interested members of the public to start fighting back. Call it what it is - “Digital Restriction Management” - and work to ensure that such mechanisms don’t erode the existing rights of the public.
Know of other technical projects that may be endangering the public domain?