Re: <nettime> law and theft

[Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>]

Thanks for forwarding this peace to the list, but the freedom of states in
the wipo process is a phascinating topic, mostly because it is such a very
special mixture of rather open rules and faits accomplis, the many
copyprotected cds allready on the market. Most people like more to read
eff allerts etc, but to read the texts themselves (what I have to do now
for whatever reasons) is something completely different.

The key issue, seen from the text of the wipo treaties of 1996, is that
the DMCA doesnt know many exeptions. Privat copying doesnt exist
there. Instead of this, they asked the library of congress to produce such
a list, which is not very interesting outside of special interest groups.

The main argument for the strict DMCA regime is that copies of the digital
original are originals themselves. This is true, but no danger. It is a
danger just in theory. 

Never have I felt so much a cultural difference between the US and the
rest of the world as when I read something on more exeptions to the strict
DMCA regime. Some people complained about "pay per use" and got the
answer: "if you want to do it pay".

It is about *possession* of culture.

We can go from here to publishing houses etc. As I heard from a friend in
Berlin, there are no collected works of Robert L. Stevenson, for example.

H.

> > >Passing laws is not the same thing as making people obey them. The DCMA or
> 
> 
> This is the reason why there are "traditional exceptions" of copyright,
> see the WIPO treaties. Thats private copying. You find that in the EG

Well, and the Lessig says: peace, dont disobey the law...

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net