Re: [wg-c] TM protection and Number of gTLDs must be separate issues

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Onno Hovers wrote:

> Yes, there are precedents in the area of audio/video copyrights.
> There are Orwellian laws today taxing recording media and
> requiring copy protection in audio/video recording devices.

I agree with your assessment of these laws as "Orwellian." I think
the Digital Audio Recording (AHRA) legislation is a fine example of
what will happen to the root of the Internet if we let the TM/IP
tail wag the dog.

However, I must add that even that horrendous law did not presume to
tell us *how many* firms would be permitted to enter the market for
DAR equipment manufacture. Nor did it set any fixed limit on the
number of machines that can exist.

The law simply dictates that certain forms of copyright protection
must be built into the hardware. It does not say that only two or
three firms in the world can build the hardware in order to make it
easier to enforce the requirements. Anyone who complies with the
regulations can build and sell the machines. Nor does the law
attempt to certify every electronics manufacturer in the world to
make sure--in advance of any breach--that they comply.

Can you imagine the outcry if some Kent Cripin-like person had
advocated allowing only two companies in the world to manufacture
DARs for two years in order to "slowly evolve and test" the
feasibility of the controls? Aside from the monopoly considerations,
who would the lucky two be? American firms? Japanese? European?
Makes for a really nasty political battle doesn't it?

Of course, I guess the arbitrariness and unfairness of such
decisions aren't very bothersome if you think you're "wired" into
the ICANN Board and will be one of the lucky ones.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/