Kerryn McKay and I wrote an article for The Times, now up on Times LIVE explaining what digital tech means for copyright. We called it ‘Don’t stop the future’ because we are aware of a concerted effort to do exactly that, to use the language of “keeping up with technology” and “updating legislation” to do precisely the opposite; use the law to try to prop up pre-digital business models by introducing anti-circumvention provisions.
We set ourselves the task of explaining in a single short article, to an audience not familiar with either copyright nor the detail of digital technology what has changed, how and what that means for the future of creativity. We’d appreciate your comments on this blog on how well we succeeded.
Content-wise, your point is well-made. Self-interest aside (and even considering self-interest), legislatively attempting to invalidate innovation is generally indefensible. You might be interested in Milena Popova’s “Why Content is a Public Good”, which makes similar (and similarly interesting) points in a different way as well as L. Lessig’s “Free Culture”. For some additional background, you might be interested in Eben Moglen’s “Collaborative Innovation for Development: Enlarging the Global Commons”.
Structurally though, you didn’t quite come to the point until late in the article. That approach leaves the passing reader wondering why we’re discussing last century’s produce distribution methods in the Times’s science section. Drawing the parallel in the opening paragraph before actually making the point (following the hour-glass newspaper article style) might help in the future.
Overall, though, quite good and well done.