As one of the editors of The people vs. copyright, and one of the people commissioning contributions for the debate, I want to reply to Dean Kay's comments about the inappropriateness of the title of the debate.
It should be noted that I'm not speaking 'for' openDemocracy and I'm not on staff or paid in any way by them: I'm an independent journalist who has an editorial role. These comments should be read in that light.
In part 'The People vs Copyright' is a joke - it was a light-hearted throwaway comment at one of our editorial meetings that just stuck. It is also - and I hope this isn't too confusing - an attempt to encapsulate the current complex position where many net users see copyright law as a weapon that is being used against them [see Napster and the current RIAA action] instead of something which was created to limit the ability of publishers to restrict the uses made of published material.
The argument is that the copyright holders have abused the law and used technology to circumvent the law on copyright to such an extent that many think that the only sensible option is to remove copyright entirely.
We're not trying to 'inflame passions' or to be 'a vehicle for the denigration of copyright' but we will not ignore the reality that the 'creative' industries in the industrialised countries of the world have abused copyright law to the point that many people think it acts against the public good. I don't denigrate copyright but I have nothing but contempt for the RIAA and the MPAA and the ways they have undermined the law to their own ends. But as I say, this is my view and not that of openDemocracy.
I think that our debate has shown yet again just how little the two sides in this discussion understand each other, and in doing so has justified our chosen name. At the moment, and largely thanks to the effort of Jack Valenti and other people respected by Mr Kay, most of the people, most of the time, see copyright as a problem and not as a way to preserve their rights. I would like to think that the contributions made to our debate will help counter this erroneous impression and encourage people to use the full force of existing law against those who would use technical means, contract law and the oppressive Digital Millennium Copyright Act to take away the rights to fair use that were fought for over centuries by those who sought to preserve the intellectual commons.