[Fwd: Re: [Cybertalks] Fwd: COSC Dept. Colloquium - Monday, May 16, 2005, 4 PM]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Cybertalks] Fwd: COSC Dept. Colloquium - Monday, May 16, 2005, 4 PM
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:02:45 -0400
From: John S. Erickson <[email protected]>
To: cybertalks-vL2jiCkIC/kMlvnYnWx/[email protected]
References: <129089326-SfSQeb9z5CqVE7TuJYPOv8x8mCehhxk/@public.gmane.org> 
<00B1AA0D-90C3-4DDC-B45B-C9AE12F9A19E-bJGkzYaaMJvEkZP4S/[email protected]>

Sean forwarded:

>> COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPT. COLLOQUIUM
:
>> Wolfgang Coy
>> Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Institut fuer Informatik
>> Harris German-Dartmouth Distinguished Visiting Professor
>>
>> Is there something like digital property?
:
>> Should 'property' be replaced by 'access' in  the information age?  
>> How can we 'promote the progress of science  and useful arts' with 
>> digital technology?...

Seems like we haven't heard this sort of idealistic argument for at
least ten years, when papers from Ester Dyson, John Perry Barlow, Henry
Perritt, etc. were all the rage.

Having recently "celebrated" my tenth anniversary involved with digital
rights management (DRM) technologies, I can say that most of us involved
from the beginning had our interpretation of the basic law right, and
some of us had the core technologies right --- including predictions of
gloom and doom for most approaches, and the fundamental need for
lowest-level support. Some of us even had (IMHO) our /motivations/
right, trying to further the true purpose of copyright (as expressed
above). The biggest problem was that most of us seriously underestimated
the politics involved; we utterly fantasized the economics, and had
Netscape- class delusions that we could beat Microsoft with our puny
little technologies and business plans, even though we were sprinting
around the track years before Bill Gates even knew there was a track meet!

Here's the deal: most early DRM players expected an adoption model
similar to other internet technologies of the era: lots of
experimentation with different approaches, iteration, acquisition,
convergence, etc. But in fact, as early as 1995 the observant could see
that /nothing/ would happen without infrastructure- class adoption of
one or two approaches by Big Media; such adoption would be impeded or
chilled by standards and patent wars, a murky legal environment, and
generally "waiting for Microsoft." I personally was told by senior
publishing execs, as early as Fall 1995, that they thought our stuff was
cool but they wouldn't make any decisions until Microsoft "built it into
Windows." These were the few execs who actually /listened/ to us,
instead of chasing me out of their offices claiming they would never put
their stuff on the internet...This was years before Microsoft had
anything. /Every one/ of the major players on the content ownership
side, including MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, Harry Fox, all of the studios, etc.
saw detailed demos of functioning DRM technology before the end of 1995.
Not only did they choose not to adopt it, most chose not to even invest
in it.

So any discussion of using digital, networked technology to further the
core purpose of copyright, /promoting the progress of science  and
useful arts/,  must be conducted with a full dose of political and
economic /reality/.

John


_______________________________________________
Cybertalks mailing list
Cybertalks-vL2jiCkIC/kMlvnYnWx/[email protected]
http://ists.dartmouth.edu:6666/mailman/listinfo/cybertalks