ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"

2002-05-01 03:10:20
On Wed, 1 May 2002, vint cerf wrote:

At 03:00 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, ggm(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net wrote:


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.

current copyright law says that from the moment of creation all rights
lie with the creator of the intellectual property. That is, you don't
have to register for the material to be copyrighted. You have to take
a conscious action under present law to make something public domain.
(You have to make a declaration that it is public domain). 

That may not be what you have in mind, of course, but it is the present
state of affairs in the US and other countries subscribing to the Berne
Convention on Copyright.


The initial Berne convention is enough. The worry is more regarding the 
extension made like by WIPO/OMPI. (like the Article 11) This type of 
extension generates DMCA, EUCD and all the horror used by the editor and 
not the author itself. 

For example, the GNU General Public License is using the classical 
copyright from the Berne convention. The use is smart and protect the four 
freedoms of Free Software concept. But now extension is a threat to these 
freedoms... (you know, equilibrium.)

I'm sure, the idea/intention behind the RFC ("...global legal 
framework..") is good but I'm worry of the use that could be done by 
"international" organisation like WIPO (funded by big companies) to use 
that to extend the arsenal of law to stop the natural extension of the 
cyberspace.  

So, on the pratical side, do you see that as an issue or not ? If yes, do 
you plan to make a new version ? and obsolete the other one.

Thanks a lot for your excellent work.

Cheers,

Alexandre Dulaunoy

http://www.ael.be/