> On Wed, 01 May 2002 15:00:53 +1000, ggm@apnic.net said: > > a very important thing. For instance, it could assert that the assumed > > state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to > > assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio. > > Unfortunately, international copyright law has long assumed that things are > created with copyright, and do not lapse into the public domain until > certain conditions are met. And in fact, *reasonable* enforceable > restrictions are a Good Thing. > > /Valdis It was wrong of me to add a patently partisan comment, and of course I have to respect the reality (awful though it is) of the current international copyright domain. But it is worth remembering that some things which exist as written information probably shouldn't be copyright, and that many things which flow as written information over the Internet are going to go on flowing, copyright law or not. I would have hoped a document talking about content rights could have mentioned the social value of deliberately placing things into the public domain, and the likelihood that much material apparently covered by copyright has stong(er?) claims to being PD than not. It might also have been worth making some observations about how *long* things make sense to be copyright. Isn't there an aspect to the Internet which is tending to reduce that period, when law is tending to increase it? But, I think there are serious points here. Firstly, there is not unanimous agreement about the current international copyright regime, and it would be wrong to make a tight binding in an IETF document which suggested the IETF, or the Internet reflected convergeance here. (which doesn't exist elsewhere. it would be a wrong assertion) Secondly, there are many other regimes of international agreement which might want to 'leverage' this kind of engagement from the IETF. International child protection for instance, or the banking and finance legislations which are harmonizing around grey/black economies, or more plausibly law enforcement where we have already seen the IETF stand up and assert limits to what can be expected from the Internet. To return to being partisan: I don't have much bag with a vague assertion that some kind of copyright is a good thing, or reasonable enforcable restrictons could be entertained but I do have problems with how that translates into concrete outcomes either in protocols, or in edge or core or any other devices. For instance, I cannot see how any of the historical (and continuing) use of general-purpose computers as network infrastructure could be entertained if there was a sense that 'copyright bits' had to be hardware enforced. Which winds up echoing the experiences with content controls in the W3C: a volountarist tagging regime for data doesn't deliver what law enforcement or any other process seeking to constrain content wants. So I just don't see how people entertaining IRTF work in this region expect to get outcomes which don't have architectural impact, or other downside effects. I do not see content owners of any size accepting a vague comment. And I am asking myself why it makes sense to entertain *any* kind of comment when it winds up inviting finer and finer refinement of ideas which are demonstrably not going to deliver what is useful. I think this whole content/copyright thing is going to be very 'entertaining' over the next 10-20 years. Its pretty clear that it will wind up being part of the general strategic process nation-states use against each other, as the GATT process has become (and always was?) and that what is being touted as a harmonized worldwide regime won't last. Its not in France's interests to agree to Disyneyfication of french culture, its not in China's interests to stop making DVD players which are region free, and its not in consumers interests to use an Internet which is a one-way pay-per-view content pipe. Sooner or later the tensions between content and delivery make it all come unstuck. Time-Warner AOL? cheers -George -- George Michaelson | APNIC Email: ggm@apnic.net | PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064 Phone: +61 7 3858 3100 | Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 | http://www.apnic.net