Message 00730 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT00729 Message: 3/3 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

re:[ox-en] left gets nod from right on copyright




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/


Thread: oxenT00729 Message: 3/3 L1 [In index]
Message 00730 [Homepage] [Navigation]