Home/red-rock-eater/Clinton administration electronic copyright proposals

Clinton administration electronic copyright proposalswriting

internet-cultureforwarded-content
8 min read · Edit on Pyrite

Source

Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1995/Clinton.administration.e.html

Content

This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.

Clinton administration electronic copyright proposals

``` [This is definitely an issue that everyone on the net should study and decide on for themselves -- the upcoming policy decisions will have enormous consequences for all citizens and particularly for scholars and net users.]

Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 21:10:12 -0500 From: rothman@clark.net (David H. Rothman) Subject: ABCs of the Green Paper, etc.

[...]

LIBRARY AND NET USERS, BEWARE-- COPYRIGHT PLAN WOULD HURT YOU For years librarians have dreamed of transmitting electronic books to Americans at home. Al Gore loves to talk about a little child in rural Tennesse dialing up the Library of Congress after school--no matter how rich or poor the parents are. Ironically, however, the Clinton Administration could thwart the Vice President's own wishes, or at least his claimed wishes. The problem is a sneaky, lawyerish document called the Green Paper, which is the closest thing yet to a copyright policy from the administration. Bruce Lehman is the main perp here. A former copyright lobbyist, he is now a bureaucrat at the Commerce Department and oversaw the creation of the Paper. Unfortunately for our libraries, the Paper would grant copyright-holders the right to control transmission of electronic books and other material. Yes, it sounds harmless. But in spirit this is a radical departure from the present, when libraries and booksellers can buy copyrighted paper books and circulate them as they see fit. Libraries will need copyrighted material online. Otherwise children of nonyups will be stuck with reading, say, the collected speeches of Bill Clinton. And CD-ROMs are no substitute for books via modem. The selection available would be pathetic compared to libraries online, and the costs of the libraries would be greater--bad news for local taxpayers. The same Green Paper would also get in the way of a common practice on the Net--sending electronic newspaper clips to small groups of friends while keeping copies on your hard drive. The Paper would explicitly ban this practice, which is akin to photocopying a few clips at the library. Right now lawyers disagree over the situation. But the Green Paper would come down clearly in favor of the copyright holders. One would hope that the Clinton administration would allow an official citizens advisory group to comment on these anti-library, anti-Net plans. In fact, an official group exists under the name of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council. It has some 30 members. But they include only one K-12 educator and only one librarian. Industry is far, far better represented. People from grassroots outfits like CBS and the Motion Picture Association of America are setting the tone for the Advisory Council. Not surprisingly then, in a recent action, the Council essentially gave the green light to the Green Paper. There was some dissent; a Council report said that "a few members expressed the view that the Green Paper's proposals tip the balance of interests between proprietors and the public interest so as to disfavor the latter." But the big boys clearly won. As a writer of nonfiction, I'm grouchy. The Green Paper would make it harder to research my books and is outside the tradition of copyright law, which is supposed to promote the spread of knowledge. Consider those electronic clips. If it's too much of a hassle to share them with friends without erasing the files from our hard disks, then authors lacking big money or Fortune 500 connections will suffer. So will citizens trying to discuss complex national issues. They'll be less able to match wits with Big Business, which can easily afford access to expensive databases. Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material to lists is wrong, but we mustn't confuse this with small-scale sharing with friends. Ironically, in the end, the Green Paper's proposals would not even protect my property rights adequately since its restrictions would be so cumbersome to enforce and would actually diminish respect for copyright. Writers should press for realistic copyright law that is easy to obey. The last thing we need is (c)yber-Prohibition. Americans love to share. So, please, Al, don't let Bill's buddies make criminals of schoolchildren or sic a Copyright Gestapo on the Net. Law and Order won't fare well. A better approach, at least in regard to e-text, would be a cost-justified national library with fair compensation for publishers and writers--and with ways for copyrighted material to show up on the servers of local libraries for mass distribution. Such an approach would reduce the financial incentive for piracy. And the costs would not have to be as big as many would think. Right now, for example, the royalties of book-writers in the U.S. are a fraction of the annual gross revenue of Hewlett Packard. Keep in mind that HP is just one company and is hardly first in the Fortune 500. The trouble isn't that HP is making too much money. It's that, even in a knowledge-driven economy, most writers are earning too little. Simply put, it's time for a three-part effort to divert resources from bureaucracy to knowledge and help readers and writers alike. We need: (1) A focused procurement program to drive down the cost of small, sharp-screened computers for libraries and schools that could be used for e-books, school networking, and other worthwhile uses. They could sell for as little as calculators eventually, so that, in the end, most would be privately owned. It'll happen anyway. But the right program could dramatically speed up this process by giving Silicon Valley the right carrot. Such a program could take place along with an effort to make computers a true part of our nation's schools, which right now have a 15-1 ratio between students and computers. (2) A well-stocked national database with books, educational software and back articles of newspapers and magazines. Let's play up literacy. The materials not included in the database could be distributed through other means and be avialable via hypertext links. Many librarians, in many locations and with many tastes, could make acquisitions for this national digital library. (3) Use of the same tablet-style machines to drive down the cost of government and commercial transactions, including, yes, home shopping. In a $6-trillion economy we squander tens of billions a year--in time and money--in needless paperwork. Even if just a small fraction of us used electronic forms, we could cost-justify the national library. The library would help justify the forms, and vice versa. These alternatives to the Green Paper are in a chapter that the American Society for Information Science and M.I.T. Press will publish this year in an information science collection. The "TeleRead" essay was inspired partly by a practice in private industry--encouraging customer to computerize to reduce paperwork and lower costs. Federal Express furnishes computers to some customers shipping an average of as few as three packages a day. Other companies, too, encourage customers and suppliers to computerize. Citizen-taxpayers, of course, are the true customers and suppliers of Uncle. The potential here is gigantic. None other than William F. Buckley Jr. endorsed this concept of a cost-justified national library--in a column in May 1993. Libraries don't just spread literacy and preserve our national heritage; they also mean better workers. So, stereotypes notwithstanding, many business-friendly conservatives like Buckley will be pro-library and pro-knowledge and in favor of TeleRead if the cost-justification is there. But the Green Paper's tack appears to be the opposite. It would harm libraries and rely more on nasty legal threats than on the efficiencies of the new technology to help writers and publishers. Net activists should complain immediately to their congress members, and call for a better alternative in terms that the new people on the Hill can understand. The usual altruistic arguments won't hurt; but it will help to mention the dollars-and-cents benefits. People might also want to contact not only local members of Congress but also the offices of: --Rep. Newt Gingrich(R) of Georgia--Speaker of the House. Let him know that strong public libraries will be pro-child, pro-family, especially in an era when Ozzie and Harriet must both work and lack the time to chauffeur kids to the library. If children can watch free programs on TV, shouldn't they be able to dial up copyrighted library books from home? That means killing off the Green Paper. According to press reports, Rep. Gingrich says he wants us to be a true Knowledge Society; and, far better than the Green Paper, TeleRead would promote exactly that--by diverting resources from paperwork to knowledge. Remind Speaker Gingrich that the cost of government isn't just in taxes; it's also in the huge paperwork burden that small and large business face from local, state and federal bureaucrats. TeleRead would reduce this burden by promoting the use of smart, easy-to-use electronic forms and low-cost hardware. Remind him of the efficiencies that customer computerization has meant for FedEx. Let the Speaker know that Wm. Buckley sent his column out under the headline "The TeleRead in Your Future." Newt Gingrich can make WFB's wish come true. TeleRead isn't liberal or conservative, just pro-library and anti-waste. He also needs to know that given the current mood of the voters, TeleRead could start in a very small way and grow only as cost-justification took place. Just talk of a TeleRead-style approach would encourage the production of book-, Net- and forms-friendly computers. TeleRead would be like the Net, a multi-vendor approach fueled by Washington's blessing. Jaw-boning would be as important as procurement. We need talk of specifics, however, not just fuzzy, Gore-style rhetoric about schoolchildren dialing up the Library of Congress. --Rep. Thomas Bliley(R) of Virginia--Chair of the House Commerce Committee. These same economy arugments used with Rep. Gingrich might be of interest to Rep. Bliley, who has campaigned against government waste. ---Sen. Bob Dole(R) of Kansas--Senate majority leader. Let him know that the Green Paper would especially harm rural people and rural libraries. Rural children can live tens of miles from the nearest library; should we penalize them just to protect Bruce Lehman's buddies? The rural angle might also work with Larry Pressler (below). --Sen. Larry Pressler(R) of South Dakota--Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. According to the Benton Foundation, he wants good access to information services in rural areas. Perhaps he'll show similar concern for libraries. The main switchboard for the House and Senate is 202-224-3121. You won't be able to get through to the congress members, probably, but do ask to speak to the appropriate staffers in personal offices or on committees. --David Rothman rothman@clark.net

[May be reproduced electronically without permission.]

Note: For background on the Green Paper, see: http://gnn.com/meta/imedia/features/copyright/ ```

This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.