Positions Towards the Future of Copyright in the "Digital Age" With the development of new transmission, distribution and publishing technologies and the increasing digitalization of information copyright has become the subject of vigorous debate. Among the variety of attitudes towards the future of traditional copyright protection two main tendencies can be identified: Eliminate Copyright Anti-copyrightists believe that any intellectual property should be in the public domain and available for all to use. "Information wants to be free" and copyright restricts people's possibilities concerning the utilization of digital content. An enforced copyright will lead to a further digital divide as copyright creates unjust monopolies in the basic commodity of the "information age". Also the increased ease of copying effectively obviates copyright, which is a relict of the past and should be expunged. Enlarge Copyright Realizing the growing economic importance of intellectual property, especially the holders of copyright (in particular the big publishing, distribution and other core copyright industries) - and therefore recipients of the royalties - adhere to the idea of enlarging copyright. In their view the basic foundation of copyright - the response to the need to provide protection to authors so as to give them an incentive to invest the time and effort required to produce creative works - is also relevant in a digital environment.

TEXTBLOCK 1/2 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611725/100438659711

Disinformation and the Media Obviously, the existence of a totalitarian system is not the premise for disinformation. Democracies in a way praise disinformation. For example in the daily news: first the tragedies and catastrophes, afterwards the better stories, and finally the news end with something positive. This makes people satisfied and does not leave them with the feeling that everything is lost. The majority of politically uncomfortable news do not reach the light of the media at all. Propaganda seems to work even better in a democratic society, as the population is not as suspicious as in a totalitarian system. Democratic systems tend to use disinformation especially during the times of elections. They use it while fighting against the others. The media decide which role they want to play in all that. Already the selection of news can be disinformation. "This system of thought control is not centrally managed, although sometimes the government orchestrates a particular propaganda campaign." (Edward S. Herman, From Ingsoc and Newspeak to Amcap, Amerigood, and Marketspeak. An unpublished paper for the Conference on "1984: Orwell and Our Future" at the University of Chicago Law School, on Nov. 12th, 1999, p. 2) It is very common that political interests are criticized by the media. But as soon as the so-called national interest is in danger, it is most of all the government's strategy that molests them, but no longer the issue itself. Which U.S.-newspaper ever criticized the American participation in the Kosovo or the Gulf War with hard words? Wasn't it simply the way how propaganda was done that was criticized? But even this only got into the news after the war (and that in both cases). And if the population doesn't want a certain war then there is always the excuse that it has to be done that way to secure the national interests. Who - especially in patriot nations like the USA or Great Britain - would want or dare (from a moral perspective) to speak against this? "It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern." (Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, p. 48) The media are supposed to change information into public information. Out of this results that any lack of media-liberty means a lack of democracy as well. Still, the instruments and rituals of democracy are never questioned officially.

TEXTBLOCK 2/2 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611661/100438658128

Economic rights The economic rights (besides moral rights and in some cases also neighboring rights) granted to the owners of copyright usually include 1) copying or reproducing a work, 2) performing a work in public, 3) making a sound recording of a work, 4) making a motion picture of a work, 5) broadcasting a work, 6) translating a work and 7) adapting a work. Under certain national laws some of these rights are not exclusive rights of authorization but in specific cases, merely rights to remuneration.

INDEXCARD, 1/2

1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) The 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, which focused on taking steps to protect copyright "in the digital age" among other provisions 1) makes clear that computer programs are protected as literary works, 2) the contracting parties must protect databases that constitute intellectual creations, 3) affords authors with the new right of making their works "available to the public", 4) gives authors the exclusive right to authorize "any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means ... in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them." and 5) requires the contracting states to protect anti-copying technology and copyright management information that is embedded in any work covered by the treaty. The WCT is available on: http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/diplconf/distrib/94dc.htm http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/diplconf/dis...

INDEXCARD, 2/2