On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:59:03 +0100, michael.dillon@radianz.com wrote:

The industry needs one or more clueful persons willing to act as expert witnesses in these types of court cases. Because of Dave Farber's role in the early Internet, the legal community views him as an authority on the subject. At this point I think there are a lot of people whose knowledge is more current and more thorough and these people could help the courts make better decisions if they would step up and offer their services as expert witnesses or as advisors to the legal teams arguing these cases.

Michael Dillon

Ideally, someone with some cluefullness in international affairs could explain that the U.S., because of Hollywood and the record industry, is particular concerned about intellectual property. But other countries are concerned about other things. China wants to stop the spread of Democratic ideals. France wants to stop holocaust denial. Once the U.S. courts adopt the principle that you can attack anything you can reach to suppress the spread of content you don't like, where will it end? I'm not saying that I don't oppose piracy and wanton copyright violations. I'm just saying that sometimes in international affairs, you have to give something up to win something greater. You want to coax other countries into allowing you to trade in their countries, you have to give up some protective tarrifs. I'm afraid other countries won't see a difference between us using our courts to enforce our laws and them using their courts to enforce their laws. Here it's a matter of which is more important. Is real global freedom of political speech more important that the music industry? Does anybody need to think twice about that? DS