I am concerned that the NII Intellectual Property Rights Draft was developed without input from groups that will be affected. Please withdraw this draft document and form a commission to study this issue which has representatives from all major groups which are affected.
Dr. Gregory S. Lauer (g.lauer@ieee.org) Sudbury, MA
From the report presented by GNN, it appears the recommendations would actually cripple, rather than enhance the use of the internet. If these recommendations were actually to be implemented, the loss of usablility of the net would likely be great for both end users, and for would-be publishers. I vote for a review by patent lawyers representing the public as suggested by the GNN report.
Richard J. Bram MD, PhD (bram@stjude.org) Memphis, TN
I truly believe this would be an EXTREMELY bad thing for the US citizen were it to be enacted! There is already enough protection in the current copyright laws! If it is submitted I will protest to my representative in the House and to my senators!
Stephen F. Combs (CombsSF@Salem.GE.COM) Salem, VA
How can we proceed into the future of computing, when the very documents which push us forward are restricted by the very medium which has helped to create them? Thank you for realizing the foolishness of your actions.
W. Tate Cantrell (cantrell@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) New Orleans, LA
I am a programmer, a consultant and a teacher. I have been working with computers for over 10 years, and teaching computer-related topics for about 8 of those years in a variety of forums. It seems to me, from what I have learned about this report, that some mistakes have been made.
Limitations on "fair use" and "first sale" rights will severely curtail the availability of important resources. It seems ridiculous to me that I would not even have as much freedom to resell or redistribute electronic information as I would a book that I had purchased in a store. The Information Infrastructure is intended and expected to increase the flow of information, and the benefits from that are already clear to anyone who has used the Internet for any length of time.
Further, it seems laughable that anyone would believe that it would be possible to legislate away every tool which could be used to bypass copy protection. Microsoft supplies the program DEBUG with every one of the uncountable millions of copies of MS-DOS that have been sold or given away; Norton Utilities has been a best-selling program almost since the dawn of the PC. Both of these programs serve valid, useful purposes; both of them could also easily be -- and certainly at one time or another have been -- turned to the task of overriding somebody's copy protection. Public domain and "shareware" disk editors abound for all common platforms. Any disassembler -- another commercially available product with important valid uses -- could also be turned to the task; the list is endless.
This suggestion is impossible to implement -- aside from its questionable legal value. These items in particular suggest to me, a layman at best at copyright law, that somebody on this commission didn't do their homework. Whether or not they understood the effects of copyright law as it now stands, they certainly don't understand its application to Cyberspace.
I respectfully request that the Committee's report be thrown out and that somebody start again from scratch.
Thomas D. Barringer (tomb@progress.com) Malden, MA
Owners of copyrights must be given assurance that the Net will not become a web of missappropriation of their works. Without such assurance, the future of the Net as a powerful resource will be sadly compromised. But the recommendations of the Task Force seem draconian. The notion of fair use needs to be extended, not demolished. And calculated efforts to infringe on copyrights need to be punished, not people who make machines that might be used for such a purpose. I hope these early recommendations will be carefully thought through. And that the next set of recommendations will be more candidly presented.
Putnam Barber (pbarber@eskimo.com) Seattle, WA
As a writer and small publisher, I feel very strongly that this new copyright proposal is a very serious mistake that will harm my business, as well as harm the general public and the free flow of information. It will, in large measure, negate the potential of the current Internet, along with the future of the so-called "Information Superhighway."
Many consider Mosaic to be the "killer" application of the Internet, one that makes the net accessible to the average citizen. I do not see it this way--I see Mosaic as a tool that has opened a new world of opportunity for commerce, publishing and social communication. This opportunity is of similar magnitude to the one created by the Interstate Highway System or the development of commercial aviation.
If the government, through shortsightedness or ignorance, turns into law this copyright proposal, they will destroy this opportunity our country and economy now face. I say this as an author who has published many articles over the years, and whose last book won the prestigious Aviation/Space Writers Association's 1994 Award of Excellence for technical or training books. I also say this as a small publisher whose works are protected under the current copyright law.
F. E. Potts Tucson, AZ
This proposed bill will severely defeat the purpose of the Internet. I am really shocked that this Clinton Administration, which has strongly supported the Information Highway would even consider such fundamental amendments. Many people like myself use the Internet to gather useful information and occasionally help others in search of the same documents. We simply can't turn the current Internet into a purely commercial domain where one has to pay. I am sure Netizens around the world somewhat respect copyright laws. Governments must simply try not to hinder the flow of information.
Information is Knowledge. Knowledge is Power.
Thomas Savundra (cs932007@ariel.cs.yorku.ca) Toronto, Ontario
If your information is public, give it a uniform resource locator and made the document readable by everyone. If a given resource is semi-private, make it "blind" and distribute the URL address to only those chosen few -- and maybe only for a short period of time. If the resource is private, ask for a password ... and don't tell the whole world about its existence. It all seems quite simple to me! Everything is in flux.
Gerard Martin (martin@ucs.usl.edu) Lafayette, LA
In my opinion, the acceptance of the NII Copyright Report would harm the possibility to communicate ideas to other people: If I discuss some scientific work (e.g., via e-mail) with someone in the U.S., quoting from the work of others and thus violating the law, I believe that:
If this proposal becomes law, I would no longer be willing to discuss with American researchers some work in progress by anybody active in my field, because I would have to fear to face consequences, like no longer being admitted to vacation/visiting my relatives in the United States.
Michael Baentsch (baentsch@informatik.uni-kl.de) Kaiserslautern, Germany
This report is bad news, indeed. As seen in previous actions of the Clinton administration, the public is asked to give up a little more of its freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution. If this trend is allowed to continue unchecked, we will have very little freedom left. I think that the current working group should be disbanded and replaced by a group that more accurately reflects the interests of American citizens.
Travis C. Harrison (tch@hjg.com) Kennedale, TX
"Information and knowledge outweigh wealth and violence as the fundamental source of power." -- Alvin Toffler "Every member of a community has an inalienable right to be an interactive node in that community's digitally converged network." -- Richard O. Mason, Distinguished Professor at SMU The guiding principle should be -- in each of the social, political, and economic systems in which a citizen is a member -- that member should be able to both subscribe to and publish the information necessary to exercise his or her legitimate rights and duties. Access to the digital highway must be pervasive.
George North (gnorth@tmc.tulane.edu) Metairie, LA
This report is so clearly a land-grab by content industries that it should be thrown out and a new panel representing the public interest should be formed. The changes advocated by this report would render the Information Superhighway into an Info Toolway, where citizens would be nickled and dimed (and dollared!) to death at every turn. Policies consistent with current fair use and first sale and browsing rights must be instituted in the digital world.
Larry Walker (walkerl@med.ge.com) Madison, WI
Government's proper role is to enable commerce and to create a degree of fairness. While this includes the protection of property rights, it cannot be confused with the creation of barriers to commerce. New ideas and new technologies should not be discouraged by those who would hold to paradigms that have already been replaced. Let the future happen.
David Hopp, Ph.D. (hopp@acm.org) Durham, NC
The NII "Report" is obviously not a biased look at the state of copyright law, but is heavily biased to the side of publishers. To react to all the half-truths and misleading information in this "report" would be overwelming. The recommendation of the NII is to take away the public's rights to digital information, and I will contact my elected officials and let them know they can count against my support if they support these recommendations.
Valient Gough (val@vexcel.com) Boulder, CO
I endorse Professor Samuelson's observation that the rapid growth of the Internet suggests that copyright problems can be overcome without the need for drastic new interventions. In particular, I believe that existing limited distribution of copyright material by reputable Internet sites constitutes fair use and does not significantly harm the interests of copyright owners.
John Quiggin (jquiggin@coombs.anu.edu.au) ACT, Australia
One of the things that always surprises me about the United States of America is the contradiction of its claims to lead the free world and its international behaviour. Your policy advisors need to be reminded yet again that the world is a small place and growing tinier by the second. Advocates and legislators can no longer make stupid policy and expect that the consequences will not return to trouble them. The proposal to change copyright needs to be revisited -- and revisited in a global context. Its implications extend beyond the borders of the United States and are simply unworkable and unenforceable in the context of a global network such as the (misnamed) NII.
Rohan Grant (Rohan.Grant@pacit.tas.gov.au) Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Your proposals for changes to the copyright laws connected with electronic media are unnecessarily restrictive. They represent an expansion of coverage as compared to laws governing print media. Changes to copyright law are needed to cover the developments in electronic media. However, please give the public a chance to participate in the formulation of new regulations. Thank you.
Edwin Read (read@umis.upenn.edu) Philadelphia, PA
It seems almost daily these days that I get irritated by non-technical people trying to make rules, laws or even comments regarding technology without ever knowing what they are talking about. Too many assumptions are made by politicians, without knowing a thing about the technology that they are attempting to regulate, control or subvert. Why doesn't the government have a division or panel to handle technology that understands said technology?
David Kearns (david@gdol.com) Arlington, VA
The NII report would greatly restrict "fair use," which is required if researchers, scholars, students are "to promote progress of science and useful arts." Absolute copyright privileges for publishers is not in the interest of science, the public or our democracy. It is not even in the long-term interest of commercial publishers. Scholars, universities, etc. will simply bypass them and publish electronically themselves.
Robert Williams (rwilliam@hsclib.hsc.sunysb.edu) East Setauket, NY
I am against the current proposed revisions to copyright law covering "digital publishing." I think problems should be addressed as they actually appear. Making browsing of works before purchase illegal or removing or reducing fair use provisions are very bad ideas. For a country worried about the education and skills of its workforce and its competitiveness in a global economy, trying to restrict the useful flow of information electronically is absolutely the wrong idea.
Michael A. Grady (m-grady@uiuc.edu) Urbana, IL
Again, this is another example of the Clinton Administration trying to fix something that is not broken. There is ample protection for software publishers under existing copyright statute. We publish software. Although we don't want our software stolen, It would be even worse for us in the long run if our established customers could not "loan out" our software to their friends for evaluation for fear of copyright infringement. We prefer the exposure coupled with the possible risk -- and we prefer to run all aspects of our business with the least amount of government intervention, laws, and TAXES.
Jeffrey G. Micono (jgmicon) Albuquerque, NM
The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, part of the NII maze, has thumbed its nose at:
Certainly his conduct is worthy of journalistic investigation, judging from the biased nature of the preliminary NII draft on intellectual property. I testified as an official witness at the November 1993 hearing of the NII working group on intellectual property rights--apparently the only full-time writer out of maybe 30 witnesses. Looking back now, I must say that Lehman's proceedings at times had the air of a kangaroo court. I was not asked one official question about my NII-related proposal--endorsed by William F. Buckley, Jr.--a formal version of which will be included in an information science collection from the American Society for Information Science and MIT Press. While time was short at the hearing, no one followed up by phone or letter.
The treatment of me contrasted starkly with the treatment of witnesses whose opinions coincided with those in the "Green Paper" report. The real star of the day was Stephen Metalitz, a lawyer with the Information Industries Association, which might as well have been holding a convention that day. Yes, Lehman let me testify. But after reading the report, I now understand that people like me were there for decorative purposes only.
Others might agree. GNN quotes Jessica Litman, professor of law at Wayne State University in Detroit, as saying that the draft report "appears to be an advocacy document: It at times misrepresents the state of current law, and gives voice to only one side of complicated policy debates. In some cases, the Report identifies a particular alternative as more desirable because it gives copyright owners rights subject to fewer exceptions."
I myself wonder if the Clinton Administration isn't paving the way for pay-per-view schemes--which would gouge the public for the time spent reading material and prevent copies from being kept on the public's disks. If nothing else, the press needs to ask Al Gore how he can reconcile the policy draft with his much-ballyhooed vision of a little girl in Tennessee dialing up the Library of Congress to read electronic books at home. I'm afraid that if the Lehman mindset prevailed, her intellectual curiosity would imperil her family's solvency. I am sending a copy of this post to Bruce Lehman's agency [The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] and invite him to comment on the GNN description of him as an ex-lobbyist for the copyright interests. Normally I might think, "Oh, heck, maybe he can shift gears to watch out for the public." But the tenor of the Lehman report does raise fox-and-chicken-coop questions.
I wonder if the copyright draft wasn't written expressly to help certain individuals or corporations with specific plans for pay-per-view reading. I'd love for the Patent Office to make public all earlier, pre-release versions of the report. I've heard it was delayed. Originally did government employees without any special agenda write a fairer series of recommendations? How much did Lehman personally participate in the draft? What was his precise role?
Considering the bizarre nature of the recommendations, is it possible that the Clinton Administration might want to remove the Patent Office or at least Lehman from text-related copyright matters and let the Library of Congress take over? I'd be the first to say that our copyright system needs a top-to-bottom overhaul with sufficient protection for copyright holders. But the Clinton-Gore people mustn't ignore the basic human urge to share. If the Lehman abomination becomes law, we just might see National Copywrong Day--during which Netizens could mail each other copyrighted articles and publicly announce their sins to mock Washington. Such an action would actually further property rights. Just how safe will our articles and e-books be if Washington confuses the trivial and the important? Rather than protecting us, clueless copyright law will lessen respect for intellectual property.
David Rothman (rothman@clark.net)
As both a consumer and producer of copyrighted works, I feel that current copyright law gives ample protection and appropriate permission in the use of copyrighted works. The NII committee report seeks to enact law which will reduce the desire and competitiveness to produce new works by any but the largest of publishing companies. As exemplified by the status quo of publishing on the Internetwork today, digital publishing is a quickly growing field not in need of protections beyond those already guaranteed in law. I welcome clarifications of current law for use over electronic networks, and in a form understandable to the general public, but this report fails on both accounts. I strongly oppose the recommendations in the report.
Kevin Smathers (fletcher@netcom.com) Milpitas, CA