On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:59:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The industry needs one or more clueful persons willing to act as expert
>witnesses in these types of court cases. Because of Dave Farber's role in
>the early Internet, the legal community views him as an authority on the
>subject. At this point I think there are a lot of people whose knowledge
>is more current and more thorough and these people could help the courts
>make better decisions if they would step up and offer their services as
>expert witnesses or as advisors to the legal teams arguing these cases.
>
>Michael Dillon
Ideally, someone with some cluefullness in international affairs could
explain that the U.S., because of Hollywood and the record industry, is
particular concerned about intellectual property. But other countries are
concerned about other things. China wants to stop the spread of Democratic
ideals. France wants to stop holocaust denial. Once the U.S. courts adopt the
principle that you can attack anything you can reach to suppress the spread
of content you don't like, where will it end?
I'm not saying that I don't oppose piracy and wanton copyright violations.
I'm just saying that sometimes in international affairs, you have to give
something up to win something greater. You want to coax other countries into
allowing you to trade in their countries, you have to give up some protective
tarrifs. I'm afraid other countries won't see a difference between us using
our courts to enforce our laws and them using their courts to enforce their
laws.
Here it's a matter of which is more important. Is real global freedom of
political speech more important that the music industry? Does anybody need to
think twice about that?
DS
