Slashdot Mirror
EFF Chairman Interviewed
mpawlo writes "I have just published an interview with Mr Brad Templeton, chairman of the board of the EFF, over at Greplaw. Mr Templeton presents, among other things, his view on spam and freedom of speech among. If that's not enough, there is also a rather unique tongue-in-cheek interview with Professor Lessig."
I donated about a $100 per year to EFF foundation before, but I will stop the practice this year. I am not sure what the goal of the foundation and how it helps the simple folk anymore.
A friend of mine lived in Germany and was harassed by the local hand of IFPI, which I guess would correspond to RIAA over here. All I wanted from EFF was a simple consultation on what should be done. Specifically since the German IFPI wanted a $300 fine not to take the matter to the court.
Two e-mails to EFF from their contact page and dead silence, as if you're e-mailing a black hole. If I had not donated $300 to EFF in years before but just gave the money to my friend to pay the fine, I'd be better off.
even though USENET has stagnated and not added much new since the 80s, it's still the best way to read an online conversation. None of the web message boards come even close to the speed and ease of use.
USENET has not stagnated. Not much has been added since the 80s because nothing more was needed. Even with all this p2p nonsense, USENET continues in its near-perfect simplicity and utility. If you're one of these puckered-rectum FAQ Nazis, USENET is chaos. If you're willing to do due diligence of your own filtering and scanning, USENET consistently delivers great text info and binaries.
This struck me as reasonable. Either I trust the government to keep my stuff safe, or I try to keep it safe myself. It's when I try to keep it safe myself, yet task the government with going after anyone I say is using my stuff, that things get sticky... I could use the government to try to stop competition.
I agree as well, although the 10 years might be a little steep for software. Patents should probably be thrown into the mix as well, with a graduated expiration based on the area of knowledge. Business Process patents would be very short - 3 years. Software patents would run about 7, perhaps. Things like pharmacueticals, with tremendous R&D costs, would still get protection for about 20 years.
The other issue with copyright I'd like to see addressed is "continuous use". My idea is that certain types of copyrighted work would continue to be protected provided that it was in continual use. For instance, since Disney continues to use the Mickey Mouse character on an ongoing basis, Mickey Mouse works continue to be covered by copyright. Ian Flemming's James Bond character also would be covered since every few years a new movie is released. Once a work is "abandoned" - not used for perhaps 5 years, however, a clock starts ticking for a copyright expiration in, say, 15 years rather than 75.
Taking a traditional Locke property view of copyrights: As long as a farmer is continuing to till his soil every season, there is no reson to take the farm away from him. Once he abandons his farm, perhaps because he can't till it profitably, others should have a chance to give it a try.
Software patents of seven years (or shorter) duration would not be a good idea. Given the incredibly low standard most patent offices (in America and Europe) apply, a company can simply apply for twice as many patents to cover the fact that they last half as long. If you are currently infringing 4000 (trivial) software patents held by Lucent, then with a seven year duration you'd probably be infringing about 2000. They can still shake you down for money.
It would be interesting to see an economic study assessing the likely impart of different patent lifetimes. However as far as I am aware no economic study has shown a case for software patents, with any lifetime.
On 'continuous use' - all this would do is create jobs for a few extra lawyers whose job it would be to 'release' new works using a character every few years (perhaps a badly drawn comic strip? anything at all in fact) to stay within the letter of the law.
Your farming analogy doesn't fit because you are not 'taking away the farm' when copyright expires. A work that is in the public domain can be used by all, and one person's use of it does not exclude another's. Whereas land and most physical goods are exclusionary.
I'm quite happy that Disney should be able to continue using the Mickey Mouse character in new works. What's not so good is that the law prevents anyone else from doing so (even though Disney itself has often benefited from characters and stories in the public domain).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
There's something very ironic about Brad Templeton, who once proposed the banning of alt.binaries.pictures.* on copyright grounds, being the head of the EFF, when the greatest threat to "electronic freedom" is copyright.
Brad Templeton in 1993:
Copyright is not the threat to freedom. Indeed, copyright will be one of the utterly necessary tools to secure it, though it may not resemble its current form much. Copyright abuse is a threat to freedom, and the inability of the current system to correctly use copyright is a threat to freedom, but the answer is not to give up all copyright; that's tantamount to just giving up, because with no protection from the corporations, we lose, immediately.
It is seriously morally wrong, always, for the economic or political benefit of one individual or group over one's peers, to prevent, regulate, or stifle the copying of information, expressions, and ideas by telling and enforcing the lie that those things which can be freely distributed, can not be.
You have an obligation to your brothers and sisters of this world to foster physical well being and to encourage and see to their intellectual and moral advancement, especially to do these things even when were you to negelect your obligations you could horde these common goods for yourself to raise yourself above your peers.
Put off the chains of your capitalist masters!
Workers of the world unite!