Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: Seth Johnson <>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:39:46 -0400

Thomas Lord wrote:
> Anti-net-neutrality is currently promoted as some way to control
> costs relative to utilization.  Since the network already has
> bandwidth-tools built in, this makes little sense.  Should
> Anti-net-neutrality make progress, just you wait and see: the
> next step is DRM built into the net.

That's already underway.  The WIPO broadcaster's treaty kills net
neutrality and mandates an "exclusive right to fixate" for
broadcasters (a right to fixate their broadcasts of others'
works) -- this phrasing is highly tailored to establishing
end-to-end content control that reaches all the way across the
net, through your devices to your analog I/O interfaces.


NYFU recently pulled together a meeting with the US Delegation to
WIPO on the xcasting treaty:


And we sent the following letter to Congress on it:




RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use

[CC] Counter-copyright:

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.