Slashdot Mirror

The thing is, they won't be prosecuting anyone for breaking an ex post facto law. Since they extended the term before the original term ran out, the copyrighted works will always be covered by current law. That's not the reason this is so disgusting. The reason is that it doesn't follow the intentions of copyright, which are:

"To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

If the works are already created, then extending their copyright term cannot provide anymore incentive to create them. The authors created the works under the copyright laws at the time, which obviously provided sufficient incentive. To extend the copyright term on them does not serve any useful purpose to the public, and therefore should not have been done. Additionally, Congress provided no evidence or justification for extending the copyright term. Why was it needed? Do they have evidence that the current laws weren't providing enough incentive? The US has long been the leading creator of copyrighted works. I think Congress would have had a very difficult time justifying their law with the intent of copyright as written in the Constitution. So they just decided to claim that it was done in order to harmonize US copyright law with the international community. This doesn't fly either. They aren't allowed to do whatever they want just because other countries are doing it. I'd love to see the justifications for ANY of the copyright extensions that have become law.

If anyone is interested, here's a couple links:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/

http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/ eldredvreno/

I knew Google was a good engine, but I haven't been this impressed by a search engine in a long time.

There's more stuff about me on Google than there is on AV or Yahoo. Combined. There's even the infamous post to CSS-WG which got me in trouble with my employer, a number of my essays and papers, a campus newspaper interview from the best year of my life, and even an attendance roster from a meeting I don't remember going to.

This suggests that Google knows more about me than I do!

The annoying thing is the amount of noise, from people with the same or similar names (I. Keith Tyler, Tyler Keith, etc.), and the names of cities in Texas.

Anyway, I'm impressed, and no, I don't mind this stuff about me being readily available (except maybe the CSS-WG letter). I like it. "Look at me, everybody! I'm on Google!"

(Well, at least it's more impressive than an ODP link.)

Incidentally, we're still proceeding with the "Openlaw" experiment -- discussing legal arguments for the defense in a public forum in full view of the opposing side. At least one of the MPAA witnesses has said he used the Openlaw site as a starting point for his search for DeCSS information online. Yet I think the mix of participants -- and thus the range of insights and analyses we've gotten -- is far broader than a more traditional set of calls to experts might have produced. Thanks to everyone who's been involved!

Join the discussion at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/

Incidentally, we're still proceeding with the "Openlaw" experiment -- discussing legal arguments for the defense in a public forum in full view of the opposing side. At least one of the MPAA witnesses has said he used the Openlaw site as a starting point for his search for DeCSS information online. Yet I think the mix of participants -- and thus the range of insights and analyses we've gotten -- is far broader than a more traditional set of calls to experts might have produced. Thanks to everyone who's been involved!

Join the discussion at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/

Incidentally, we're still proceeding with the "Openlaw" experiment -- discussing legal arguments for the defense in a public forum in full view of the opposing side. At least one of the MPAA witnesses has said he used the Openlaw site as a starting point for his search for DeCSS information online. Yet I think the mix of participants -- and thus the range of insights and analyses we've gotten -- is far broader than a more traditional set of calls to experts might have produced. Thanks to everyone who's been involved!

Join the discussion at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/

Incidentally, we're still proceeding with the "Openlaw" experiment -- discussing legal arguments for the defense in a public forum in full view of the opposing side. At least one of the MPAA witnesses has said he used the Openlaw site as a starting point for his search for DeCSS information online. Yet I think the mix of participants -- and thus the range of insights and analyses we've gotten -- is far broader than a more traditional set of calls to experts might have produced. Thanks to everyone who's been involved!

Join the discussion at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/

Under cross-examination by Marty Garbus, Shamos the phony expert, admitted he could not have conducted his test for MPAA without the skill and help of real expert, Eric Burns [a student at CMU]. As a result Burns is now to become a witness to tell what he actually did to get the DivX, get it decoded synchronized and playable. Shamos looked swell while being examined by Proskauer and got blown away by Garbus. Even the judge took a few whacks, and approved Frank Stevenson and Eric Burns as witnesses over Proskauer's objections. ... An attempt is to be made to bring him over to the angel side.

Schumann's affidavit and testimony that DeCSS was created to be a tool of piracy was severely undermined on cross-examination by EFF's defense team when asked about a report he submitted to the MPAA concluding that members of the Livid mailing list (where DeCSS was published) were attempting to build a Linux DVD player.

"Do you know of any DVD that has been sold anywhere in the world that has been decrypted with DeCSS?" asked Martin Garbus.

"Not with absolute certainty, no," Schumann replied.

He also said that he didn't know of anyone who distributed a DVD online that had been decrypted with DeCSS.

As Garbus kept pressing, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan seemed to become irritated.

Judge Kaplan, that's who. Here's his written statement denying the motion.

It seems that Kaplan has decided that antitrust is not an issue in the trial. Of course he would think this, since his firm was professionally responsible for preventing it from becoming an issue.

But what I really like is this link of a harvard.edu/Law School website. For of those of you who are curious, the title of the page is, "Where can you find DeCSS?" I guess they have a bunch a ppl running around saying, IAAL...

But what I really like is this link of a harvard.edu/Law School website. For of those of you who are curious, the title of the page is, "Where can you find DeCSS?" I guess they have a bunch a ppl running around saying, IAAL...

But what I really like is this link of a harvard.edu/Law School website. For of those of you who are curious, the title of the page is, "Where can you find DeCSS?" I guess they have a bunch a ppl running around saying, IAAL...

• My own OpenFlick.Org site
• The Open Content site
• The Copyright Commons effort.
• The Internet Public Media Project
  

• My own OpenFlick.Org site
• The Open Content site
• The Copyright Commons effort.
• The Internet Public Media Project
  

-I meant to say "post-hearing replies"

-Take a close look at the comments submitted. I encourage everyone to even just skim them, if they have the time. There were a total of 28.

-9 were clearly against any exemptions to the anti-circumvention provision, all submitted by big media (one co-signed by ASCAP, Association of American University Presses [ironically in direct opposition with the comments of the Association of American Universities, The American Council on Education, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges], the BSA, The McGraw-Hill Companies, the MPAA, and the RIAA.

-One has an informative illustration of the flawed nature of CSS and how it inhibits non-infringing use of copyrighted materials.

-Most of the arguments against exemption lean on the fact that nobody "adequately" testified to current hinderance of fair use... totally ignoring the arguments of CSS and misdirecting the purpose of the rulemaking (to prevent hinderance).

-I didn't notice a single comment by a self-proclaimed artist. You know, the people that copyright is supposed to protect? Sure, there were a few clearinghouses that represent the copyright interests of artists--but that's a bit disconnected from what the artist actually wants. After all, these clearinghouses have their own financial stake in the DMCA, separate from the interests of the artists they represent. Of course, let's not forget that we are all protected by copyright, self-proclaimed artist or not. Yet the overwhelming majority of us copyright holders are for exemptions to 1201(a)! Why is that?

-On to the trial: The final depositions are wrapping up. The judge has consolidated the motion to expand the preliminary injunction, as well as the motion to vacate the PI, with the trial itself. He moved the trial date up because of the first amendment implications of banning the distribution of DeCSS on a 1201(a) case, rather than on a pure copyright basis, among various other reasons.

-The DVD-discuss list is preparing an amicus brief... hopefully it will address basic flaws in the MPAAs pursuit of the lawsuit over circumvention, my favorite being that circumvention does not exist under 1201 if the copyright owner's authorization scheme to access the material is not well defined. There are many more, so review the archive, take note in particular of the proposed outlines for the brief, and see exactly why the MPAA will lose before it actually happens. The list is generally the best place to catch wind of current developments, as most filings and transcripts don't make it to wide distribution and those that do might just make it to 2600 and cryptome.

-Don't forget to donate to the EFF (I haven't sent my check either, yet), because they're footing the bill for this.

The copyright office has posted the post-reply hearings regarding the DMCA circumvention rulemaking. Have you hugged your Librarian of Congress recently? I hope so, because his office is going to decide the fate of publication and fair use as we know it... Unless Orrin Hatch gets entirely fed up with the RIAA and fixes the DMCA singlehandedly.

Also, 2600, the EFF, the MPAA, and the Harvard Open Law discussion list prepare for the trial over the publication of DeCSS, in which a preliminary injunction that constitutes a prior restraint on the defendant's speech will be decided simultaneously with the merits of the trial on July 17th.

Of course, people actually downloading the whole human genome probable wouldn't worry about this, but couldn't they use a better compression format than .zip? I bet using bzip2 or rar would shave a couple of hundred MBs off of that 753MB file. Also, the differences in compression techniques would be interesting to see on a large group of files mainly consisting of G, A, C, and T. -- demiurge You find a file that appears important and obliterate it from memory!!! Score one for the downtrodden hacker!

• G -- 00
• A -- 01
• T -- 10
• C -- 11

This would only work for the .fa files, but .fa files can contain "N"s also. If you just want to browse the Genome, look through the pieces directory. .

That is making the assumption that the telescope is constructed on the ground, put inside a rocket, then sent into orbit. Why could a telescope not be constructed in orbit much like the International Space Station? If it is a problem with constructing a giant lens in situ, why not use a ssytem of smaller mirrors rather than one giant lens, as has been done with some terrestrial telescopes such as the MMT?

Hooptie

Umm, the MPAA has tried to enjoin 2600 from linking to sites that contain DeCSS. Judge Kaplan will rule on this pretty soon I suspect. (A matter of weeks).

Openlaw filed an amicus brief on the MPAA's motion to enjoin hyperlinks. Some of the issues are common, some won't have the DMCA's draconian features to help them.

If the MPAA loses their motion, the RIAA will almost certainly lose theirs. The contributory claim is weak, and the direct copyright claim is frivioulous.

In Ticketmaster v Tickets.com the Federal District Court wrote:
"Further, hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is involved. "

The judge also rejected Ticketmasters claims that merely visiting internal pages of a website can constitute creation of a contract.

• The Harvard Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Journal of Online Law,
  The Virginia Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Berkeley Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Stanford Technology Law Review, and
  The Berkman Center for Internet & Technology

-Alex

• The Harvard Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Journal of Online Law,
  The Virginia Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Berkeley Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Stanford Technology Law Review, and
  The Berkman Center for Internet & Technology

-Alex

If you follow the IAU Circulars on comets, for example, you'll see that an awful lot of reports are from .25m telescopes and binoculars.

It's also important to remember the SL-9 lesson: Comets do hit planets. If another one hits earth, it'll get ugly.

tc>

What I do not understand is how the copyright extension is not a "taking" (in the sense of the Constitution's prohibitions on the govt-sponsored taking of property without due compensation)...

It is. This was Lessig's own brilliant suggestion in the original complaint in Eldred v Reno. See the online briefs (some in PDF format only, sorry, I don't agree with Warnock and Lessig on that point!) at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno.

Great minds think alike. Send Lessig a black eye-patch!

We are discussing U.S. copyright term here.

Works published with a copyright notice between 1923 and 1963 are in the public domain unless the copyright owner filed a renewal form with the copyright office at the correct time.

Probably only some 20% of works published between 1923 and 1963 were renewed--the rest have fallen into the public domain. Determining whether or not a work was renewed requires checking the Catalog of Copyright Entries from the Registrar of Copyrights in the Library of Congress--see, for books, online lists at the On-Line Books page at UPenn. You can determine registrations and renewals after 1977 online at telnet:locis.loc.gov.

Works that did expire were retroactively given their copyright back

Although jms is correct in the case of this film, it is also true that many works that had entered the U.S. public domain were placed back under copyright by means of the Uruguay Round of GATT, if the work was first published outside the U.S. more than a year before U.S. publication, and other complicated terms such as failure to renew when the author was not a U.S. citizen or resident.

Determining copyright status is not easy now. The Nolo Press book on Copyright by Stephen Fishman is excellent, and there are online resources at the web site mentioned above.

The general point, though is very good--copyright term is too long now. Larry Lessig is my lawyer in the suit Eldred v Reno to overturn the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. You can learn more and you can help us at http://eon.law.harvard.edu.

That was a district court decision in Eldred v. Reno. It is scheduled for hearings in from of the circuit court of appeals in July. There is more information on the OpenLaw site.

The brief (in pdf) is here.

NASA hasn't made any really useful space missions in a long time,

That's not true, they've had a few excellent science missions, but that's basic research, so obviously nobody's interested. E.g. Chandra.

Can't you use <a href="http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/cs s/test/results">some usable links</a> like this one ?
It would be better.

I hope we get a better understanding of why the Appeals Court took the case even before the District Judge had issued an opinion about the stay.

But I wonder if Microsoft's haste and hyped claims of damages might not have the unintended effect of persuading the Supreme Court to take the case first. (I noted with amusement the angry comment in Microsoft's appeal brief that, prior to Judge Jackson's finding of fact, Microsoft enjoyed the largest capitalization of any firm--in other words, placing all the blame for the NASDAQ collapse on Judge Jackson's attempt to apply the law to technology economics--and not Microsoft's bad management.)

As one (in the case Eldred v Reno, to overturn the copyright extension act) who is now facing the exact same Circuit Court of Appeals, I ought to state that I do not believe they are biased, nor that one can predict which way they will rule by their political persuasion. However, I hope that the justices will examine the unprecedented 39-page appeals document with some care. For example, I hope they do not agree with Microsoft's characterization of Larry Lessig's friend of the court brief on the tying issue. (After all, Lessig is my lawyer too.) There they completely distort the brief and are trying to use psychology instead of logical legal arguments. Microsoft's usual practice is to keep trying with the hope that version 3 or 4 of the product will finally be okay. I hope nobody buys that here!

Discuss in OpenLaw

Which is exactly what AOL/timewarner want you to believe. Lawrence Lessig has a bunch to say about exactly this misconception. It's really worrying that people will stick to such dogma while the corporations take advantage of their blindness to further entrench themselves.

I'd like to see a place where those people who are "in the know" could review the case materials (they're all faithfully posted to cryptome) and try to correct the technical errors in their strategy, re-explain the things that are causing confusion, etc.

It's called the OpenLaw/DVD forum. They've already written an amicus curae brief on hyperlinks and reverse engineering. They are providing technical critiques of the MPAA filings. This is why it was important that the depositions not be sealed so that this group could discuss their technical merit.

Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

There, the links were to an alleged "circumvention" tool, not directly to allegedly copyright-infringing materials. We argued against finding of contributory violation of the DMCA in part because of how far removed the linkers were from any potential copyright infringement.

Here, I would still argue that the link is protected speech and merely a location indicator that the individual broswer can choose whether or not to follow, but it's a closer case.

Considering that OpenLaw is composed of both lawyers and programmers, its not surprising that some of the more "childish" tactics have been shot down. The DeCSS case could well be critical in determining the legality of "anti-circumvention" laws, and so it important that the hacker community doesn't "blow it." On the other hand,OpenLaw forum has tried to defend the world wide linking campaign. As for the faux DeCSS program-- you might be interested in reading some of the forum's archives

Honorable Lewis Kaplan
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312

Dear Judge Kaplan:

I would like to add my voice in opposition to the plaintiff's Notice Of Motion For Protective Order of May 30, 2000.

I am a signatory to the amicus curiae brief of openlaw participants in Universal v. Reimerdes Any contribution made by myself, or others not present in the courtroom, would be hindered by the lack of a free and open flow of information. This is a case where networked participation through use of the Internet is not a buzzword or cliche, but a reality. The brief above proves that. Choking off information about the proceedings then has the effect of impairing potential further amicus curiae briefs. Have the plaintiffs shown any evidence at all that would justify such drastic consequences? Please deny their motion.

Sincerely,

Seth Finkelstein
Senior Software Engineer
OpenLaw/OpenDVD participant

BULLSHIT!

Sorry, I'm not often moved to profanity in a public context, but I simply can't find another word that properly describes this... HORSECRAP! (there, there's another)

In an email published here the Apogee mouthpiece claimed:

Now suppose Duke Nukem Forever finally gets released, and I put a reivew up on my website. The review has a "Duke Nukem Forever" logo

First off, this would be illegal, unless you had prior permission. You cannot use trademarks without the owners permission. That's why we want to give fan sites permission, otherwise they cannot legally use own logos/trademarks and such. Review sites won't be dealing with us, only fan sites.

Which (must controll language) turns out not to be the case. There are lots of situations in which use of a trademark without permission is perfectly permissible. The most obvious is 'fair denominative trademark use', which says that you're allowed to call Duke Nukem Duke Nukem wherever you want -- even if you're calling him a chump.

Geez, don't these people remember the 'Barbie World' fiasco? How about Orbison v 2 live crew? Heck, all you have to do is look at McSpotlight to see how far this reaches

They might also do well to examine the extent of the 'parody' allowance. This one's not as clear as the nominative case, but it allows just about anything when it's upheld. If they really think they can close these first ammendment gaps in the trademark law by appealing to a UCITA license, I'm sure every civil liberties lawyer in the nation stands ready to disabuse them of this notion.

Actually, maybe it's time we make this point so clear they can't overlook it. I've got their site in my cache, the GIMP on my disk, and a restless urge to parody. Come on, some of you must run ISP's. Who's got a free meg and some courage?

-- csh

Not true. The concept of the telephone was already directly implied by the telegraph - that is, the problem is to transmit messages from one place to the next. To do so with sound is a clear improvement over doing so with Morse Code. There were 30 or 40 years (depending on who you believe) between the invention of the Telegraph and the invention of the Telephone, a more than ample gap. In fact, Bell's 1876 patent described the telephone as the "talking telegraph".

Even if we take a different standard, Bell came up with the concept of the telephone two years before he had a working model, so getting from the need to the reality involved significant amounts of research.

The concept of transmitting voice at a distance had already been used previously, with the "speaking telegraph", having been invented in 1848. While this wasn't an electrical device, the comparison with the electrical telegraph was already present in the name, and it clearly implied the need to transmit voice over a distance. These devices were still used on ocean vessels well into the 20th century!

In 1861, Reis created a device that transmitted voice over a distance via an electrical wire. The name of the device - "das Telefon". In 1868, Dolbear was already working on the telephone concept.

The Microphone was invented 50 years before the telephone by Wheatstone, who was heavily into the concept of electrical transmission of sound.

Gray began work on trying to devise a workable telephone in 1872 - two years before Bell came up with his idea.

So all in all, there was plenty of demonstrated need long before Bell succeeded in making a working telephone.

In any case, you may want to rethink the telephone as a good example of the benefits of the patent system. In as much as it was a device that transmitted sounds via electrical current, there was more than ample prior art! The patentable part of the invention was not in the concept, but in the specific implementation, and if the patent system had worked the way it should have, Gray and Edison would probably have won due to being better funded, having invented an equivalent device and having filed their patent application a mere 2 hours later!

A good chronology can be found at http://www.das.ha rvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/pages/comm_chron1.html

Unless it's a prank, he can't spell worth a damn and also manages to get his home phone number on the net.

According to an order Kaplan signed today, the parties and interested members of the press will be in court on June 6 to argue this one.

Openlaw will have as much detail as we can get.

As with the $150,000 burger flipper post, you are again, sadly misinformed.

This case may not seem to have any significance to you, however, this case could set a precedence in the future for cyberlaw. Although the recent cases have remained a "civil" matter, future cases could be criminal matters and all precedents are vital.

Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that in 10 years this case will have little significance, but if you were one of the defendants, I am sure this case would be quite significant. (That is, if your ass was at stake!)

Code is free speech, ok. I'm glad about that.

Personally, I like the "they didn't provide it" defense. My bias. Your welcome... but I don't know if that will fly either.

FAIR USE is Very Important!

For more information on the case, if you are interested

Berkman

-m

Quoting Garbus: Right now the MPAA has got an order from the court which makes it possible to stop the posting of the DeCSS. The MPAA has now made a motion to expand the injunction to include linking. What I'd like to know is, if links themselves are prohibited, can simply posting the text of the URL itself be prohibited as well? If we get to this extreme, I think we've gone way over the first amendment line.


The Openlaw DVD Forum is going to submit an amicus brief making exactly this point. We're currently at the 4th draft and are trying to finish up by this weekend.

Garbus and his associate Edward Hernstadt have been very supportive of our attempts to apply open source methods to crafting legal arguments. Both have even posted to our mailing list. Anyone who wishes to get involved should check it out. There is also a very good resources page there.

Garbus: The other thing this case is about, which is very interesting to me, is that it's kind of going to be an Internet legal trial in the sense that some of the people on the Internet and some people who deal with the Internet are very interested in this particular trial -- and every document, witness's word, judge's ruling, and lawyer's call will be on the Internet within a day.

In the next few days, we'll be filing an amicus brief arguing against the MPAA's proposed injunction on hyperlinking.

Join the fight!

Garbus: The other thing this case is about, which is very interesting to me, is that it's kind of going to be an Internet legal trial in the sense that some of the people on the Internet and some people who deal with the Internet are very interested in this particular trial -- and every document, witness's word, judge's ruling, and lawyer's call will be on the Internet within a day.

In the next few days, we'll be filing an amicus brief arguing against the MPAA's proposed injunction on hyperlinking.

Join the fight!

Garbus: The other thing this case is about, which is very interesting to me, is that it's kind of going to be an Internet legal trial in the sense that some of the people on the Internet and some people who deal with the Internet are very interested in this particular trial -- and every document, witness's word, judge's ruling, and lawyer's call will be on the Internet within a day.

In the next few days, we'll be filing an amicus brief arguing against the MPAA's proposed injunction on hyperlinking.

Join the fight!

Lots and lots of papers in the same vein as the above article, but much more in-depth.

the Court could limit the potential for anticompetitive use of the browser monopoly by ordering that the Applications Company disclose the source code of the Internet Explorer product and license the use of that code (and the code of any successor products) on a full, "open source" basis.

The Openlaw Microsoft Case page has more of the filings.

the Court could limit the potential for anticompetitive use of the browser monopoly by ordering that the Applications Company disclose the source code of the Internet Explorer product and license the use of that code (and the code of any successor products) on a full, "open source" basis.

The Openlaw Microsoft Case page has more of the filings.

the Court could limit the potential for anticompetitive use of the browser monopoly by ordering that the Applications Company disclose the source code of the Internet Explorer product and license the use of that code (and the code of any successor products) on a full, "open source" basis.

The Openlaw Microsoft Case page has more of the filings.

After that, my goal is to return to and spend seven years in a monestary in the outskirts of Kathmandu studying the Dharma, emulating the Bodhisattva, finally attaining a degree in Compa rative Religion from Harvard, followed by enlightenment, metaphysical realization and entering Nirvana to host a global video conferance with the late Alan Watts, the Dali Lhama and Timothy Leary.

Has anyone read this speech by Lawrence Lessig of Harvard law school? He has an interesting take on the problem. Well worth a look.

not exactly.

The Copyright Term Extension Act added 20 years to the term of copyrights existing as of 1998. Many copyrights of works first published after 1922 fell into the public domain earlier because they were not renewed in a timely fashion according to the law. But it is true that since 1999 works will not fall into the public domain, for another 19 years, and maybe forever, if Rep. Mary Bono and Jack Valenti get their way--"forever minus one day," to be compatible with the Constitution's "limited term".

You may learn more about our case against the Copyright Term Extension Act at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ . Add your comments to the OpenLaw forum.

First, anyone concerned about the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 should help with our lawsuit to overturn it--see http://eon.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ and please join the OpenLaw discussion linked from there or just get up to date on the online briefs.

Unfortunately, even if Bono is overturned, no computer games will enter the public domain for many years, companies who own copyrights will have few incentives to make them free, and so-called "piracy" will remain the only option for most of those who wish to enjoy and learn from these old programs.

So, secondly, please help me somehow with an Intellectual Property Conservancy, even if Bono is not overturned. The idea is to set up a non-profit, independent, tax-deductible, educational and publishing corporation. This Conservancy could accept donations of online publishing rights, copyrights, patents, and so on. After the work goes out of print or is not worth retaining except defensively, then the copyright owner could get a tax deduction for donating rights so the work could become freely available.

The idea is that the public would benefit from this "progress of science and the useful arts" and so ought to PAY the creators or copyright owners, instead of TAKING without payment their products. In past years, copyright owners had to register and renew copyrights, but today many works are out-of-print and it is impractical to reprint them except online.

I happen to agree with RMS that software patents are bad and copyrights of proprietary software ought never to have been allowed. But I think with this Conservancy idea we could LEVERAGE current copyright law to enhance freedom for all of us.

Then a Games Museum could come about, along with donated old computers and machines and software, so that all of us could not only enjoy ourselves, but also learn from the wizards of yesterday, and make future games and other products even better.

The Conservancy idea is very practical. Not only has at least one company donated patents to the FSF, but recently another company was able to get tax deductions for such a gift. Proctor and Gamble donated some of its "too many" patents to Western Michigan University, which can do better packaging research and develop better products based on these patents. All of us might win thereby!