erif; font-size: 12pt;">
=0Awell sort of rule 10 needs revising o=
r more specifically it need be
broken into subclauses or multiple rules.=

As it stands its too wide open for interpretation.
it need to lay ou=
t some rules about under what cases would be
considered a violation of s=
omeones intellectual property what actions
can be taken and some limits =
on how it can be monitored.


This all stems back to how the copyr=
ight act was purposefully
misinterpreted and abused by the layers on bot=
h sides of the Napster
case. put quite simply calling it sharing with fr=
iends when what users
were really doing was republishing screwed us all.=

That said Napster and other music sharing sites and applications liker>it actually did increase the profits of the record companies however
f=
rom a business perspective the recording and movie industry found it
dis=
turbing because if they hadn't done something about it there were
clause=
s in the copyright act that did
allow for them to become public
domain if others were republishing and =
it could be proven that they
were aware but hadn't taken action for a ce=
rtain number of years.
The real problem with how they handled it was tha=
t they were purposely
setting up the Napster case as a justification for=
future lobbying for
things like the digital millennium copyright act an=
d SOAP. The truth
of the matter is they could have taken a lighter hand =
with the Napster
case and kept the the new revenue stream intact but the=
y over reacted
because they were listening to internal annalist who were=
coming up
with industry dooms day scenarios.

The funny thing is =
they inadvertently caused a backlash that fulfilled
their prophecies. mo=
re and more recording artists who write original
music are self publishi=
ng instead of signing away their rights to
recording companies for initi=
al funding and promotion simply because
they don't need it as
much. The recording companies that do get most
of this new talent to si=
gn contract are smaller ones that are looking
at things like youtube vie=
wing statistics and offering the artist
significantly better contract be=
cause they know that the artist
already have an audience. The real heart=
of the issue is that the
recording companies and the radio industry hav=
e been controlling what
people hear and telling them to like essentially=
what the big
recording companies tell them to for along time. in the ne=
w internet
era that control has been lost and their business model is to=
tied to
it to change easily. This will start hitting the movie industry=
very
soon, although television companies already get it and are planing=
for
it. Televisions model is different the don't really dictate to the<=
br>viewer instead they use statistics to figure out what gets the most
p=
eople consistently watching (which oddly doesn't always mean
they
like it). What television is primarily selling is eye balls (yea i=

know that term sounds creepy but that's the term they use) looking atr>commercials so they are focusing on things like how do we take
advanta=
ge of the internet to capture more eye balls on the commercials
so they =
are starting to think along the lines of who cares about DRM
we never ha=
d it before and it causes problems so let focuse on how to
embed the com=
mercials in a way that's difficult as possible to remove.
Then allowing =
other more experienced companies to deal with thing like
premium commerc=
ial free digital distribution as a secondary market.


by the way =
the actual site is here
http://keepthewebopen.com/digital-bill-of-rights=




On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Safir <o=3D"mailto:mrbrklyn-at-panix.com" href=3D"mailto:mrbrklyn-at-panix.com">mrbrklyn=
-at-panix.com> wrote:
> OK they are finally beginning to come
around
>
> http://www.geekosystem.com/digital-bill-of-rights/<=
br>>
>