Were you present at last year’s debate between Larry Lessig and James DeLong?

http://cubanlinks.org/blog/post/2004/03/25/Debate–Lessig-v.-DeLong.html

I’m just curious which side of the fence you (and the Center for Digital Media Freedom) might come down on some of those topics. Or perhaps there’s plenty of middle ground to be had.

There are some comments/questions that I might raise.

1) Indecency — It seems to me that there is a balance between our desire for lack of government Censorship and for not being deluged with indecent material. — My initial thought is to have the V-Chip and rating system be used as a “Safe Harbor” protocol so that if the Government documents clear standards for the various ratings the content producers can label their shows according to these standards and if the labels are appropriate, then they are protected against fines… We Users can then use the V-Chip to protect against inappropriate material. Note: A producer could choose to not label their show, e.g. Label it as effectively XXX and it would be OK as the consumer could filter such shows out.

2) Open Access — I know that you tend to be against open “commercial” access requirements, and that your first book will go into more details. On the other hand, as an end consumer, I am presented with a limited set of choices which cost lots to switch and bundle lots of choices in one choice of vender, DSL… or Cable TV… — I have less problem with the concept of open commercial access, unless the Free enterprise vendors are not able/willing to offer services and still prevent the local government from offering such services, but I would like to suggest that open “content” access is important and perhaps need the government to require. For example, I find that if I want to get FreeSpeech TV, I can only get it on one TV vender, I’d like to be sure that the other vendors carry that channel at an increased cost, as required, regardless of the “propaganda” spin of the material. e.g. I don’t mind the vender charging reasonable rates but want to have them permit as much as reasonable open content and connection access.

3) Open Use — I don’t know if you want to get into the copyright area, but it seems to me that this is also an area where there is a key balance between commercial profit and user restriction. Some people who discuss copyright don’t feel that the current copyright owners have the right to profit from their ownership with current business models. I am not arguing this, but it seems to me that the restrictions required to get the last cent of profit are extreme enough so that the society is hurt as compared as a somewhat more permissive set of practices that may cost the owners a few percentage profit points. The areas that I would like to question are:

• Orphan content — e.g. can we develop procedures for allowing the use of material that is currently un-owned or low profit?

• Purpose neutral — Though a copyright owner may profit from their ownership, I question if it is reasonable that they, as opposed to most other owners, should be able to control the use of their property.

• Technical access — A copyright owner may have the right to require that a device specifically designed for permanent copying should be controlled, e.g. by the Broadcast Flag…, but I question how we can balance the protection of the owner with the development of new technologies. As written, the Broadcast Flag may prevent any further development of TV tuner cards that are attached to general purpose PCs.

1) Indecency — It seems to me that there is a balance between our desire for lack of government Censorship and for not being deluged with indecent material. — My initial thought is to have the V-Chip and rating system be used as a “Safe Harbor” protocol so that if the Government documents clear standards for the various ratings the content producers can label their shows according to these standards and if the labels are appropriate, then they are protected against fines… We Users can then use the V-Chip to protect against inappropriate material. Note: A producer could choose to not label their show, e.g. Label it as effectively XXX and it would be OK as the consumer could filter such shows out.

2) Open Access — I know that you tend to be against open “commercial” access requirements, and that your first book will go into more details. On the other hand, as an end consumer, I am presented with a limited set of choices which cost lots to switch and bundle lots of choices in one choice of vender, DSL… or Cable TV… — I have less problem with the concept of open commercial access, unless the Free enterprise vendors are not able/willing to offer services and still prevent the local government from offering such services, but I would like to suggest that open “content” access is important and perhaps need the government to require. For example, I find that if I want to get FreeSpeech TV, I can only get it on one TV vender, I’d like to be sure that the other vendors carry that channel at an increased cost, as required, regardless of the “propaganda” spin of the material. e.g. I don’t mind the vender charging reasonable rates but want to have them permit as much as reasonable open content and connection access.

3) Open Use — I don’t know if you want to get into the copyright area, but it seems to me that this is also an area where there is a key balance between commercial profit and user restriction. Some people who discuss copyright don’t feel that the current copyright owners have the right to profit from their ownership with current business models. I am not arguing this, but it seems to me that the restrictions required to get the last cent of profit are extreme enough so that the society is hurt as compared as a somewhat more permissive set of practices that may cost the owners a few percentage profit points. The areas that I would like to question are:

<ul>
<li> Orphan content — e.g. can we develop procedures for allowing the use of material that is currently un-owned or low profit?
</li></ul>

<li> Purpose neutral — Though a copyright owner may profit from their ownership, I question if it is reasonable that they, as opposed to most other owners, should be able to control the use of their property.
</li>

<li> Technical access — A copyright owner may have the right to require that a device specifically designed for permanent copying should be controlled, e.g. by the Broadcast Flag…, but I question how we can balance the protection of the owner with the development of new technologies. As written, the Broadcast Flag may prevent any further development of TV tuner cards that are attached to general purpose PCs.
</li>