via Jeroen Swinkels - Colbert on copyright

This seems to demonstrate that it's very difficult to argue against the problems of copyright if you actually support copyright.

I don't think the following struggle has much of a future:

A) Profit driven, sociopathic corporations in support of draconian DMCA, etc.
vs
B) Supporters of kinder, gentler, more forgiving copyright legislation and fair use lobbyists

Whereas this is one that's a little clearer cut:

A) Profit driven, sociopathic corporations in support of draconian DMCA, etc.
vs
C) Militant copyright abolitionists demanding the restoration of all artists' right to freedom of expression

It seems to me that the latter confrontation is easier for the public to comprehend, than one involving the subtleties of fair use.

There may still be a widespread assumption by the public that Viacom owns its TV broadcasts, but a guest arguing that actually the public own the broadcasts, would make for a clearer demarcation - than whether parody should be tolerated.

Barlow to Colbert "So much of what you do is parody without meaning to be."

In other words, Colbert is engaging in "satire". The fact that the law makes a distinction for the purposes of copyright law is ridiculous.

See for example -

http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=886089000000000918

Crosbie -

I think that the stronger message here is that it is difficult to argue any complex issue on television - especially on hybrid comedy-political shows such as Colbert, Bill Maher, etc. Very entertaining stuff. But if you want enlightment, stick with blogs such as AgainstMonopoly. org. :-)

You can tell though, John Perry Barlow is buckling under the pressure of Colbert's goading to be more controversial, he even concedes to countenance the validity of certain controversial questions. The problem is "Well, why not?" isn't much of a take-away soundbite.

I bet he was frustrated that he couldn't come right out and say "No! The public own your broadcasts! Copyright only grants you a monopoly to their use among other incorporated broadcasters. It doesn't confer a property right to you, nor does it grant you the power to suppress the artistic freedom and self-publishing inclinations of artists among your audience. Goddamit!"

Or something like that...

:-)