From: rothman@clark.net (David H. Rothman)
Subject: Medieval Copyright Policy from Al and Bill Will Harm Net
Date: 10 Oct 1994 14:14:14 GMT
........................................................................


The Clinton gang hasn't quite restricted the use of copyrighted library
books to monks in monasteries, but it's coming close--based on an
article in today's Washington Post. Bruce A. Lehman, chair of the NII
working group overseeing copyright revision, is now saying exactly what
I'd long feared--that you may have to go to the public library in the
future to read copyrighted electronic library books. Forget about
downloading them legally from the Net if this mindset prevails in
government and publishing.

For an obvious reason (copyright law) I won't quote the entire Post
article on electronic libraries. But here is part of what the Oct. 10
Post says: "...because of the ease of digital reproduction, Lehman does
not foresee that digital libraries will put copyrighted works within
easy reach online, the way they do books on a library shelf. Copyrighted
digital materials are likely to be available only to
subscribers--libraries, for example-- who pay royalty fees, he said.

"People who want the material might have to go to their local library
and use a computer there that would not allow them to copy or
redistribute the work, Lehman said."

That is not my paraphrase of Lehman, folks. It's directly from the
Washington Post.

Given the fact that library books usable at home are an integral part of
American democracy, I urge Netizens to speak up loud and clear and
protest Lehman's malarkey. And journalists reading this post should urge
their papers to editorialize against him. The White House is attacking
your future readers. Children who can't conveniently enjoy the books
they want are less likely to learn to appreciate reading of all
kinds--including newspaper reading. Quite naively, I'd once thought that
literacy might be at least a minor goal of our TVcentric NII. Only after
many months--and presumably howls from the offended--did the NII
Advisory Council gain its first newspaper editor.

The Administration has already thumbed its nose at journalists in other
ways. If Lehman's policy prevails, a reporter won't be able to share an
electronic clip with a friend without being a copyright violator. Same
applies to civilians, of course, including little schoolchildren who
pass e-clips on to classmate. Sorry, Johnny. Al and Bill don't want you
to share. 

The White House duo should be ashamed of themselves. Al loves to tell
how his little neighbor-girl in Tennessee will be able to dial up
e-books from the Library of Congress. What books? The collected speeches
of Al Gore?

Of course I shouldn't be surprised. I was an official witness at the NII
copyright hearings of November 1993, and looking back, I'm more
convinced than ever that Lehman ran a kangaroo court. He has an agenda
to push. Whose? His proposals would actually *hurt* electronic
publishing. I wonder if the Clinton people aren't carrying water for a
particular company or group of companies with a vested interest in a
particular technology. Could that technology be paper books? Or some
pay-per-read scheme? I don't know. Without doubt, however, Clinton
copyright policy is irrational and Net-hostile. If this keeps up, I'd
urge my fellow Democrats, especiallly those in high-tech, to sit out
'96. Silicon Valley helped make Clinton-Gore. It can break them too. I
deeply regret that Bill and Al know the difference between a silicon
chip and a potato chip--just one more opportunity to shaft the innocent
citizenry. You can bet that Al's people have been overseeing Bruce.

I doubt that the Hill will let the White House win out entirely. But
even watered down, the Lehman copyright policy would be bad news to
people on the Net. If the current White House plans are carried out,
Netizens just might engage in massive and conspicuous defiance of
copyright laws that ignore the laws of human behavior. Remember that
no-no against electronic clips? Imagine thousands of Netizens sending
copies of copyrighted articles to their friends and announcing their
sins to the world? Such actions would actually be on behalf of property
rights. The Clinton-Gore-Lehman vision would undermine respect not only
for copyright laws but other kinds. This would not just be a return to
the Middle Ages--it would be Prohibition gone high-tech.

For more details on the bozos in D.C., please check out GNN at the
following Web address: http://gnn.com/meta/imedia/index.html. GNN quotes
two legal experts who rip Lehman apart and accuse him of misrepresenting
copyright law. What's more, GNN says he is a former lobbyist for
copyright industries. So much for our populists from Arkansas and
Tennessee. At the same time they're claiming to work to alleviate the
health-care crisis, they're letting Washington insiders create an
information crisis.

After you've read of the Administration's plans, you might share your
feelings with the bozos by writing: nii-ip@uspto.gov. Normally I do not
counsel flames against public officials. But Bill, Al, and Bruce royally
deserve them here. It's the only language they understand in this case.
Lehman was oblivious to the many alternatives that librarians,
educators, 

and I (the only full-time writer at the copyright hearing in November)
offered to their cluelessness. For good measure, you might also complain
to your local Congress member and Senators. This is an arcane matter, so
I won't get my hopes up, but if enough people speak out, I predict that
Lehman will honor us with a lie that the Washington Post misquoted him.

-David H. Rothman
rothman@clark.net