Best when fresh or golden when older?

[Masters, Gary E]

If anyone saves this, they may remember when I wrote that the information to
protect was the "fresh" variety.  At that time I thought that the model for
a new copyright would be much like that for movies.  A film comes out with
great interest and has a run at the theaters where it makes the most money
per person.  Then it goes to (not necessarily in this order) pay-per-view,
cable, video tape / DVD, and then eventually to broadcast and (we assume)
home recording.  At each step it is less expensive for a person to see it
and the quality (no giant screen, less resolution, etc.) may be worse.
However, the digital copying may make that a bit dated and it is first run
films that are showing up in digital files.  It has to be fresh.  And with
some good encryption, the newest can probably be protected for a while.
(Remember in Groundhog Day where they say "He is probably ok.  (explosion)
Well, perhaps not.")  

But another vision is that of the Washington Post and other newspapers.
They give the news away on the day it is published.  One can get free
subscriptions to many papers and some are just free to anyone.  But if you
want something from a year ago, you have to buy it.  That takes indexing and
a database and is expensive.   The old is gold, to them.  

Even at the Computers in Libraries vendor area there were sharp eyed people
looking at badges on the way in.  

When I was working with counter intelligence, the goal was to limit what one
had to protect.  If everything that has copyright can not be protected, what
should be protected?  And how?  Perhaps that is where our discussion should
go. What should copyright accomplish in an age of easy anonymous digital
file sharing? A significant contribution could come from our collective
thoughts.  

Well, perhaps not.  

But it is worth a try.

Gary


Gary E. Masters
Librarian (Systems)
CDRH - FDA
(301) 827-6893