[10303] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Convergence again
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher F Miller)
Thu Feb 17 20:52:11 1994
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 05:22:04 -0500
From: Christopher F Miller <headwall@max.tiac.net>
To: com-priv@psi.com
CONVERGENCE AGAIN: COPYRIGHTS, BENDER, and VORHEES <grin>!
Let's try that again, you missed the good stuff:
>> Anyway, if this list (usually) is about commercialization and
>> privatization of net, it is about copyright. The owners of the
>> information on the net will determine who accesses their information
>> and ultimately the structure of the net. Just as they do now.
>> IMHO, a network setup by universities, NSF, and r&d departments
>> will give way to a network owned by copyright holders.
Peter B wrote:
>As far as I can see there is nothing
>inherent in the arrival of a commerce model for
>information (and thus a commercial Internet) that would
>force the existing free information sources off the net.
I hadn't really meant that free sources would be pushed off the net, though
reduced access to them may be a logical consequence. We all know that sources
of all sorts are increasing, chief among them *.com. (I'm building a mixed
free/commercial source myself.)
The point was nothing fantastic, just that the network will evolve to
accomodate those who pay for it and those who make it pay for the owners.
What is the network, really, other than "owned information" (copyright
in various forms) and access to it?
Today (15feb94) I found on another list:
> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 10:42:11 -0800
> From: "Glenn S. Tenney" <tenney@NETCOM.COM>
> Subject: Re: Federal Register and copywrites
>
> At 9:34 AM 2/14/94 -0800, Kurt Hanselmann, wrote: (on COMMUNET LISTSERV)
> >I have really messed up. I sent out the Federal Register notice yesterda
> >before thinking about the copywrite of the electronic version. There is
> >so much of it laying around here, that I tend to consider it a public
> >document. However, the electronic version is not. It is prepared
> >for electrionic viewing by Counterpoint publishing and is available
> >through the Internet Company by a licensing agreement.
>
> What? Do you mean that Counterpoint is claiming a copyright on the
> Federal Register?
>
> Lier parallel to West Publishing. At least the stuff I have from them is
all copyright.
I'm not so sure that there isn't something inherent in the commercial model
of the internet that won't reduce general _access_ to information sources. See
how commercial broadcasting keeps some programming off the air. Why wouldn't
a typical on-line provider, say Murdoch's Delphi, restrict access to some sites
when it can earn pay-for-view off others? (BTW: There is no hint they do
anything at all like that now; I have no experience with other services.)
If that provider were also a carrier, why would it allow you to get to its
competitors?
I do suspect that many general sources may not be easily available
under a defacto NTIA model merging providers and carriers because of
the copyright issues. If info you want is free somewhere but they can
provide it pay-for-view, why would they let you get it free? Suppose
TvTelco sets up a pay-for-view document mirror for the Fed Register.
That's analagous to Bender case isn't it? (Yes, I did write this before
the above note came through about Counterpoint.) They could charge for the
added value of "mirrPO.
>So, lets not assume it can only get worse. In some ways,
>it can only get better...
True, but our taxes (and our still unborn children's) paid to build that
data as well as for good chunks of this network.
Chris
!epsilon
Chris Miller headwall@max.tiac.net
MaineStreet 207 657 4963 voice
208 Portland Road, Grder how many
of your genes are patent pending. Consider WRGraces patent on "improved
cotton" (retroactive): covering not only their improvements but _ANY_
improvements. Granted by Patent Office because no one opposed. It would
have cost several million to oppose it, so what happened? Grace's
competitors went out and patented "improved corn", "improved brocc", etc....
What difference? Anyone planting the seeds is in violation. That makes a
big difference to the farmers, and it makes a big difference to developing
countries feeding themselves from the "green revolution". I bet aid
grants will now include big patent payments to agribusiness. There's
your world-wide protection of intellectual property rights again. A great
sucking sound if It the fall
Comdex computer show in Las Vegas created such a fuss that Lehman
re-opened the case.
Despite the odds, Lehman may be correct. His staff has
unearthed several examples of prior art, including a best-selling
computer book, that could kill the Compton's NewMedia patent
before it hatches any eggs for its owners. The Tribune Co., one
of the owners, had been squawking that it deserved royalties from
competitors on such multimedia products as CD-ROM encyclopedias.
Royalties would range from 1 to 3 percent and could apply to
companies like Microsoft, whicd have to buy before entrance.
No company wants to pay an entrance fee to a competitor,
putting itself immediately at a cost disadvantage. But critics
say that the patent is old hat and that the subject matter was
covered thoroughly in Danny Goodman's book, "The Complete
Hypercard Handbook," published in 1987, two years before
Compton's New Media.
On October 26, 1989, Encyclopedia Britannica filed a patent
application on behalf of its multimedia subsidiary to cover the
underlying technology of the encyclopedia. The invention went far
beyond what was then available in the CD-ROM world, the
application stated. There was no other product that could search
so easily and flexibly for graphics, text, and video clips in so
many different ways.
------
