[DMCA-Activists] Re: [DMCA_Discuss] NY Fair Use at DMCA Exemptions Hearings, May 2, 2003

[Anatoly Volynets]

On Tue, 27 May 2003, Seth Johnson wrote:

>
> Transcript of Jay Sulzberger's opening testimony on behalf of New Yorkers
> for Fair Use at the Copyright Office's May 2, 2003 DMCA Anticircumvention
> Exemption Hearings (full text pasted below):
>
> > http://www.nyfairuse.org/cro.dmca
>
> Audio recording in OGG format:
>
> > http://www.nyfairuse.org/audio/cro.dmca/track4.ogg
>
> The Copyright Office has the transcripts for all the 2003 exemptions
> hearings in PDF format at:
>
> > http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/hearings/schedule.html
>
> Seth
>
> ----
>
> > http://www.nyfairuse.org/cro.dmca
>
> Opening Testimony of New Yorkers for Fair Use
>
> Copyright Office Hearings on
> DMCA Anticircumvention Exemptions
> May 2, 2003
>
>
> I'm Jay Sulzberger, and I'm here to represent New Yorkers for Fair Use.
>
...
> -- Oh, by the way, we're not copyright
> extremists.  I myself am a big supporter of the GPL, which is a somewhat
> strict copyright license, and I consider it actually one of the main
> foundations of the defense of free software.

'Copyright' is inappropriate term for GPL. A bad habit and
twisted circumstances link them to each other.
...
>
> I'm going to try to avoid discussing the other side of the bundle of rights
> that these people want to take away from us: the right to free publication,
> the right to free dissemination -- which are of course restricted by
> copyright, which I support strongly.  I don't think it right that I should
> be allowed to go down and steal a movie without paying for it and set up a
> movie house and charge admission for it.
>

I wouldn't argue this makes sense from some tactical point of
view, but hope it is clear that above statement completely
nullifies the whole testimony. Nobody can stop said "stealing"
without DRM. Face it. You have to choose between two. You will
be forced to, sooner or later. This is a history lesson.

Hence, I have big doubts about such tactics without strategy,
and strategy without principles. Principle in question here is
'copyright'. You defend it then you put weapons in hands of
'englobulators'.
...
>
> And I believe it is within your commission to turn and then say, "We've had
> it."  What are we going to do, have to have these hearings every six
> months?

Suppose we have those anticircumvention provisions of DMCA
repealed. Does anyone have the slightest doubt that
AAP/MPAA/RIAA/... will come up with another law, or strategy to
fight for their 'rights', for copyrights? They will bring in
growing statistics of 'pirated' goods, which will be true,
because it will be true without DRM, and what will we fight for
at that moment? They will finally and completely stop talking
about lost revenues and start press on pure principles and
principles only, on necessary fight against 'stealing', no
matter what, and what will we tell them at that moment? You
defend copyrights? Be ready to support them.

>
> And if I'm asked a specific question, I will be happy to try and connect by
> at most three half steps, any particular anticircumvention measure to truly
> horrible and very large scale things.
>

You will be able to do so with pure copyright. Just try or
simply go back in the history and search for examples.

>
> DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!
>

Consequently, copyright is theft.

> New Yorkers for Fair Use
> http://www.nyfairuse.org
>
> [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.
>

Anatoly

A discussion may always bring valuable fruits if interlocutors
assume responsibility for every single word they say. That is
they respect logic and each other, that is they are honest. I
derived 7 checkpoints to make sure I meet my responsibilities in
a discussion: 1. Always answer, and always answer to that exact
question or argument, which is stated by your opponent; 2. Do
not use fallacies, which actually means: never change premises
of your opponent; 3. Do not hang on every single word, but try
to keep up with the whole and ideas; 4. If disagree with a
language, argue this separately; 5. Try to be short;  6. If
cannot answer, state this openly; 7. If want to change the rule
set, state this openly.

http://www.total-knowledge.com