Copyright also misses many of the other issues, in particular the
more human elements.

<p>
Various dichotomies and
classifications, such as that of print versus broadcast media, etc.,
will not survive in a transmedia world where information can fluidly
flow across these different media, and where even the very definition
of terms like "broadcast" and "public performance" are becoming harder
and harder to fix.  For example, is a WWW page a broadcast, a publication,
or a performance?

<p>
digital age: issue is not discretization (whether ones and zeros or,
binary, trinary, or other representations such as residue arithmetic,
or continuous voltages, neural networks, or the like...
being digital is not the issue, it's more about "being connected",
and the human element of what that means.  To humans, the difference
as to whether something is analog or digital, or whether something is
encoded as zeros and ones (binary), or encoded as zeros, ones, and
twos (trinary), or as infinitely many states (infinary) such
as continuously varying time intervals between pulses (e.g. as in an
artifical global electronic neural network, linking the entire globe with
analog circuits), 

<p>
define more broadly "covernment" (computers, corporatized, etc., gov't)
In the computational age...

<p>
subjectrights:
<ul><li>Humanistic Rights: there must be provided to subjects as a whole,
        the possibility that one or more of said subjects
        who is skilled in the art of _____ can readily verify
        that _____.  This ensures accountability (e.g. that
        covernment is held accountable for its action).
        This is called "subject verifiability".
        Examples:
        <ul><li>emergency exit unlocked by fire alarm:
                verifiability must be provided to all subjects
                so that any one of them, who is skilled in the
                art, can randomly spot check...
            <li>voting anonymity (T-card).
        </ul>
    <li>Humanistic Property Rights:
        There must be provided protection of subjects rather than as
        objects, in which humans are treated as objects of
        commerce.  e.g. homeless invests whole life in...
        photographer invests 1/1000 sec. in... biopiracy; models v. photographer
        Rationale: In the computational age it is easier and easier to:
        <ul><li>collect data (e.g. intelligent autofocus, autoexposure,
                and autocomposition cameras, e.g. surveillance camera
                system with AI, automatically photographs: who's the
                photographer?
            <li>assemble, relate, and cross reference the collected data,
                e.g. voting information could be automatically assembled
                if care not taken, and if subject verifiability not provided.
        </ul>
</ul>
We cannot separate these two, on single creations.
For example, the creation of a vote raises both the issue of
subject verifiability (of anonymity) and subject ownership (of the
informatic link between the vote cast, and the subject identity).
Both these rights overlap on certain subject matter, so ...
requires both 

<p>
Increased draconian protection of copyright may
create much worse violation of subjectright, for example,
payment of royalty every time a work is read, "date expiry",
etc. ("big brother inside", computer owners not control own computers).

<p>
personhood ... aaaaa

<p>
first monday: in particular, "intellectual
     property." Given the sorry state of that field - which is dominated
     by massive corporate efforts to extend proprietary claims
     indefinitely, to severely penalize infractions against those
     claims, and to weaken "consumer" protection by transforming
     commodities purchases into revocable and heavily qualified
     use-licenses - it's fair to ask whether it's wise to conform such
     an allegedly important system as DNS to that morass.

<p>
Andrew Christie,
a Panelist with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva,
advocates in "Reconceptualising Copyright in the Digital Era",
copyright reform instead of dismissal or replacement:
having a smaller number of broader catagories,
rather than making another catagory for online media.
Christie proposes narrowing copyright to two
broad catagories: performance and fixation.
The notion of "fixation" arises, for example,
in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976,
(making copyright applicable from the moment of creation, rather
than the moment of publication).
This Act accounted for new media of data storage and retrieval,
extending copyright to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible
medium of expression, now known or later developed" (Title 17, 102). 

<p>
However, this dichotomy between performance and fixation
still presents problems, e.g.
issues such as the publication of students' lecture notes on
the Internet.  It is often argued that a lecture is a performance.
However, it may also be argued that a lecture is a fixation:
Mathieu Deflem claims there should be copyright protection of lectures
because content at least partially "fixed":
<blockquote>
     "[L]ectures in educational settings, especially those conducted by
     qualified instructors at accredited institutes of higher learning,
     are never oral expressions as such but are always prepared and
     delivered in a very specific form with various accompanying
     materials, such as written notes from which teachers lecture
     orally, images and sound recordings that accompany the lecture,
     maps and lesson plans, and textbooks and other scholarly writings
     on which lectures are based".
</blockquote>
Mathieu Deflem 1999: "Teaching Laws: The Legal Protection of Education and
Its Relevance for Online Notes Companies",
2000 Feb. 8, http://www.sla.purdue.edu/people/soc/mdeflem/zteachlaw.htm

<p>
Moreover, the very definition of "fixation":
<blockquote>
  work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted,
  is "fixed" for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being
  made simultaneously with its transmission"
  (Title 17, 102)
</blockquote>
may be called into question.  For example, what if the material
being transmitted is buffered on a local hard drive before broadcast,
and what about caches?  Since there is a hierarchy of caches ranging
from SRAM, to DRAM, to hard drives, to the Internet itself, it is
very difficult, in modern computer architecture, to define exactly
what is meant by "fixation".

<p>
While federal copyright law protects "fixed" works,
"[u]nfixed works... are left to whatever protection state law may accord"
Melville and Perlman (1998), p. 364.

<p>
This obesession with the differentiation between fixed and unfixed works
will likely need to disappear.

<p>
Barlow, "The Economy of Ideas: Selling Wine Without Bottles", Wired, March 1994.
<p>
copyleft...

<p>
<h3>Privacy:</h3>
Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis (1890), describe privacy as rights,
irrespective of whether fixed (published) or unfixed, providing
for "each individual the right of determining, ordinarily, to
what extent his thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to
others... The existence of this right does not depend upon the particular
method of expression" (pp. 198-199).