re:[ox-en] left gets nod from right on copyright
- From: Russell McOrmond <russell flora.ca>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:44:57 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 alan lokmail.com wrote:
Of course up until the 1976 act, copyrights had to be renewed after 28
years or else they entered the public domain, and few renewals took
place. Posner's position is not exactly critical, but perhaps even
worse, as it removes the stuff we need as critical cultural workers or
free software programmers, for example, from our reach forever. No
thanks.
I think the problem that FLOSS developers have in relation to other
software are as follows:
"patents" - royalty bearing patents cannot be implemented in FLOSS. You
can't afford it, you can't count your users, and you can't restrict
"fields of usage". Fighting software and business model patents needs
to be put as a top priority. If we can't abolish them, then we should
seek exceptions like exist in many countries for "educational usage"
such that royalty-free software does not have to pay patent royalty
fees. Not only would that give an incentive to people to develop
Free Software, but it would also allow us to better co-exist with
existing Software Manufacturing.
"copyright on interfaces". I believe that an implementation of an
interface is an 'expression of an idea', but the interface itself is a
'fact'. The fact/expression dichotomy needs to hilighted, and the
right to reverse engineer any interface and implement/document any
interface needs to be protected.
I don't care to see the source code of proprietary software - I just
believe it needs to be a protected right to interface with any
existing software (or file/communications formats), interface with any
hardware, and mimic any user interface.
The UE 1991 directive on computer software 'almost' gets this right.
I say 'almost' as the EU is also discussing "Legal protection for TPM"
which, when interpreted by the USSA, has meant copyright on
(encrypted) interfaces.
ownership of copyright on content must not be tied to control over tools:
The way I say this on my personal website is as follows:
http://www.flora.ca/russell/
---cut---
Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses,
VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen and
not a third party.
Corollary: The "content industries", such as the motion picture and
recording industries, are not legitimate stakeholders in the discussion of
what features should or should not exist in my personal computer or VCR,
any more than they are a legitimate stakeholder in the production of my
corrective eye-glasses. If a member of a content industry don't like the
technology that exists in a given market sector, be it consumer
electronics in the home or personal computers, they can simply not offer
their products/services into that market.
---cut---
While the length of copyright issue is an important issue generally with
copyright reform of non-software works, I believe it is not an important
issue for Free Software developers.
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
See http://weblog.flora.ca/ for announcements, activities, and opinions
ALERT! ISP Licensing! http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=273
MS Win/Office assault http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=294
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/