Thursday, January 10, 2008

Debating with Facts

Resolution #5: Show Leadership - Thursday, 10 January 2008


Professor De Beer does not make light statements in his work. He suggests politely, to quote his article to insert some script that results in the above.


Since he was polite, direct, simple and fair.


Now though I have a problem that may be in following the instructions.

1) His use of the old universal copyright symbol: Why?

2) It appears associated with a mere title, that cannot be copyright protected?

3) And by linking this way, through to his article, by putting this on the page I am writing, is he expressing a claim of ownership of a derivative work?. I.e is subsequent or consequent expression of an idea fixed "south" of his, also his claim?

4) Is it the link he is claiming protection of?

Well I draw a line.

Above too.

Above that line, is what Prof. De Beer asked for and got. Below the line are my ideas expressed somewhat originally but confessing to some taste or subtlety I wish descendant from the line of thought sparked partially by the excellent book written by Anne Wells Branscomb (what a lady so far ahead of the times! 1928-1997), Who Owns Information? (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1994).

Now, I won't quote from his article but just quote the title, and see what happens.

In thought space, I did not get sued. I still feel safe. At least for now.

I did read another of his works, in draft form, on the use of levies like the Private Copy Levy and its constitutionality and potential for use to solve some problems we face. References everywhere, perhaps exceeding his content is what I remember. Every word, backed up. Not necessarily to his whole line of thought in my humble opinion, but to his supportive arguments, he was faultless.

A person like me in a debate with a "killer" like him, would have to fight dirty and make up rhetoric that would be as crispy as a just picked MacIntosh Apple irrefutable as to fine taste.

At least that first bite.

So while I read his writings like a student, with skepticism, very often his points make it into the rare "what is" department v. the very common "what might be" department. He is on my digital law guru list but he would also be on my short list of people I would like to sit down with and just probe his thought space for the tenacious, pugnacious yet just spirit I sense. His has to be the stuff of youth and of truth, my highest value.

Read all of his 5 New Years Resolutions he suggests for the Government of Canada to take into consideration on copyright reform, to figure out where this worldwide respected Professor and teacher of digital music law is figuring where we have been, are, and where we ought to be heading. He makes an overall case, not yet in my "what is" department but rather close.

No comments: