Quote:
Originally Posted by Bremen Cole
The very fact they have created this "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator" position says a lot. The position will have to be justified and will be compelled to do something to protect the big media conglomerates.
|
I think this cynical (while justified) view of the position and title are just that, cynical. The very fact that the following was included
in the request lent me a bit of optimism:
Quote:
14.Suggest specific methods to limit or prevent use of the Internet to sell and/or otherwise distribute or disseminate infringing products (physical goods or digital content).
15.Provide information on the various types of entities that are involved, directly or indirectly, in the distribution or dissemination of infringing products and a brief description of their various roles and responsibilities.
|
I will not post my response in its entirety here but it focused on these 2 points noting that stores selling DRM/ToS/EULA mandated device-locked content are indirectly causing infringement as folks violate the anti-circumvention clause in their quest for interoperability. By attempting to reduce the plethora of IP that virtually mandates infringement by its legitimate users you could cut out a huge (if seldom prosecuted) swath of the infringing population (noting someone else recently suggested they add a huge new group to said population:
open source software users).
It's my hope that the IPEC (a.k.a. Copyright Czar) can consider the current legal definition of what constitutes infringement as opposed to simply enforcing the outdated legal definitions. Think of it as the IPEC's version of "signing statements."