[6charlong]

What books actually are is a storage medium for ideas, regardless whether they are made of paper or miniaturized in an eBook reader. The copyright is what DRM is all about. The ideas in a book belong to everyone: the copyright just applies to the way the ideas are expressed.

The US Constitution protects the author's expression in the belief that copyright protection is necessary to encourage the development of the arts and sciences. Americans have always believed, and it has proven true, that the foundations of democracy are mutual trust and the free exchange of ideas. But freedom of speech, press and religion assumes the freedom to hear. The dilemma is that copyrights confer control over the freedom to listen: every book I chose to buy is a book I chose not to buy. Does anyone think that a lack of money mean I chose not to listen?

This freedom of ideas has proven itself beneficial to business and industry as well as to governance and the arts and sciences. The freedoms of expression have proven beneficial if not absolutely necessary. So what's a fair (just) balance between the need to support the creation and dissemination of ideas with the need for free access?

In the case of books, the question could be answered by the publishing industry. Lacking that, governments are forced to arbitrate through the copyright and/or patent laws because the storehouse of the culture's ideas is too sensitive an issue to leave unresolved for long.

At this point I should point out that my background is in history and political science. To me, DRM is only one technology among many possible ways to control access to eBooks. To me, the critical issue is all about patents and copyrights. Should an operating system be patented or copyrighted? How long should protection continue? What is the public right to know if eBooks are not accessible to people through libraries? What are the rights of school children to access texts through digital technology? What is the responsibility of the school systems? the libraries? booksellers? etc. These are very complex issues not easily turned into "sound-bites."

Every country has its own means of governance, so this next part only applies to the US.

Right now there are about nine declared candidates for the Presidency. None of them is likely to win (e.g., if I buy a lottery ticket someone is going to win but not likely me). They know that. The reason they started the election process so early this time is that the country seems to be divided 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans.

Politicians are professional advocates. They try to find out the wishes and needs of the people they represent, and then advocate for the people without regard to their personal feelings. So the issues we see them presenting are ideas that affect the people. Each politician is given a different brief to present. They dangle the ideas out there in an effort to get people to think about the options so the pols can find out what the people want. After the first of the year both parties start fashioning a platform of issues the party will work to accomplish if they are given the resources to do so.

At present, Barack Obama has the IT brief. What he personally thinks, and how the parties will react to the issue of copyright, depends on the response of the people and the industries to what his brief proposes. What I'm trying to say is, that the response to any issue being presented by the candidates from either party at this time enters into what the next government does with regard to DRM.

It would be best for all concerned if the industries involved would settle this without government intervention, although some changes in the copyright laws is inevitable. The core problems with DRM and the writer's union strike, etc., may be resolved between the parties before January 2009, but if we want to have any input now is the time to do so.