About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
What Does "Copyfight" Mean?
Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004
1. Cypherpunk on March 23, 2004 12:45 PM writes...
Well, contrary to her intentions, I would not talk about sodomy or gay marriage. Those may show off her liberal credentials nicely, but this is after all the copyright office, and these issues are no more relevant to that body than farm policy or Iraqi oil contracts.
In fact, if all she's going to do is to run through the litany of liberal causes, she might as well save her breath. Her speech will be so predictable that the listeners could write it themselves. They can have little printouts with the standard list of topics, and mark them off as she covers them. Broadcast flag, check. Analog hole, check. DMCA, check. And so on. Another wasted and predictable meeting.
My advice to her would be to try to find some topic, anything, where she has something surprising to say, some difference from the conventional wisdom, and to talk about that. Leave her audience saying, wow, that's not what I expected to hear. That's the only way she's going to make an impression.
Permalink to Comment2. Ernest Miller on March 23, 2004 12:55 PM writes...
Do you have some examples?
Permalink to Comment3. Cypherpunk on March 23, 2004 1:09 PM writes...
Well, it really depends on what is in her mind, which I can't know.
Among the list of topics at the end, there were some seeming contradictions, which is always a good sign. (Contradictions provide the potential for creative thinking.) She says "don't press for more laws", then in the next breath, "let Congress decide", then in the very next breath she complains, "Congress has not been technologically neutral". Somewhere in that simmering mixture of ideas she ought to be able to cook up an interesting perspective.
Permalink to Comment4. Susan Crawford on March 23, 2004 8:02 PM writes...
Thanks for the thoughts -- you're probably right that saying something predictable dooms whatever remarks I might make. So I'll find something contradictory and surprising to say. I was hoping that the Lawrence v. Texas story would at least make them feel uncomfortable, because many copyright office mavens are good liberals. But I certainly hear your concerns about that.
One of the 9th circuit judges hearing the Grokster argument asked a question that sounded to me like "do you really think there's a role for courts here" -- and I think that's a large question. Institutionally, neither the courts nor the agencies seem suited to making copyright rulings for the online world. My bet is that Congress will refrain from doing so, so I'd rather place secondary liability and tech mandates in front of them and hope for the best.
Permalink to Comment5. Ernest Miller on March 23, 2004 8:25 PM writes...
Are you really sure how liberal the copyright office mavens are? I've found many liberals who support Lawrence but are suddenly ill-at-ease when it comes to gay marriage, especially when courts impose it. Might be a topic to shy from about now.
I'll be thinking about this over the next week, but one of the things I would definitely bring up with them is videogames. Show them some machinima (Red vs. Blue), show them some mods, introduce them to this new videogame copyright world where players are participants in creation.
Talk to them about BitTorrent and RSS and the new distribution system I call "broadcatching."
Permalink to Comment