At this stage they will get what they want, whether I (we) support
it or not I guess. They would not have faced opposition from groups
traditionally leaning towards enlarging the scope of IP if they
would have gone the route alluded to by Dan and by a few of us here,
over the years. They would not have gotten active support from those
groups, sure, but they [RC] would not have needed needed that
support as the groups traditionally leaning on keeping the bounds of
IP in the bounds of IP (us, and I would have like to think, ALAC as
well ...) would not have objected to it.
But they wanted to add some anti-competitive protection to their
game I guess. Doing that generated opposition from us, and garnered
support from other groups. And when today we reach a rough consensus
that is not unanimous, we can say that RC won a nice victory. I'm
not an overly moral kind of guy, I can appreciate the beauty of
victory on its own and I'm not gonna lament more then I already did
on the fact they could have been the good guy that we like to think
they are. I value strategic action a lot, and theirs was successful
in the end.
However, the public interest served here is diminished by the
undermining of the bottom-up model, as well as by the over-reach of
the mechanism.
Nicolas
On 03/07/2014 1:10 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">