Slashdot Mirror
Royal Society Issues IP Charter
An anonymous reader writes "The Economist
and the Guardian
both have stories about the release of the
Adelphi Charter – an international blueprint for how
intellectual property should be made – by Britain's Royal
Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce.
The Economist says “The Adelphi group are a varied crew
ranging from Gilberto Gil, the Brazilian culture minister (and pop
star) to Sir John Sulston, a Nobel-winning scientist who helped
decode the human genome, and James Boyle, a law professor at Duke
University. They believe that the intellectual-property system is
starting to lean so far in favor of private enrichment that it no
longer serves the public interest.” The charter calls for
evidence-based policy, and a balance between rights protection and
the public domain. It also condemns business method and software
patents."
...top mice vote to bell cat.
"Top mice vote to bell cat" Yeah, yeah, more we can't win attitude.
Will current posters please instead offer suggestions for how to get the Government to pay attention instead of whining? Or at least, do both? How many millions of smart (don't prove me wrong) people read this? We're a force of Nature on the Internet, capable of manually DDoSing servers into a meltdown.
Let's turn that power to doing good -- statistically, at least one person here is bound to have a good idea.
The answer is obvious when you consider the Slashdot effect, that we can overload servers with traffic just by browsing to them. We should conduct a campaign of letter writings, followed by Slashdot attacks on government servers until our demands are acknowledged. The same thing can be organized at local levels for practically any political cause (and overloadable resource) through the net.
Our weapons for freedom can be our webbrowsers, because most of us are too untrained, too cowardly or too afraid of the very real jail sentence that awaits to pick up a gun and revolt.
and naturally they shall be completely ignored. if these policies were adopted you would see a swing back to how capitalism really should be. all about servicing the people and using demand for services to drive innovation and competition.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I think our lawmakers are bought and sold by big corporations, but perhaps, just perhaps, enough of them can be shamed into doing the right thing. And that's to remember that the goal of government is to serve the public interest, not the person with the most money.
Maybe it won't happen, but at least it's worth the try. Because I can promise you it will never happen if we don't *start* trying.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
I've always thought that it's mind-bogglingly moronic to have anything but this. Surely laws of any nature should be passed only if there's evidence that it is necessary for the public good? And seemingly no law that's been passed in association with copyrights since I've been alive has had this.
I asked this question in the AWOL Sid Meier interview, but I'll ask it again: which software company would find it infeasible to continue if software copyright terms were limited to fourteen years? Fourteen years ago, Atari and Amiga were mainstream systems. Fourteen years ago, the WWW was being invented. Fourteen years ago, Windows 3.1 didn't exist. Are there seriously people out there that argue Microsoft depends upon copyright protection for Windows 3.0 today?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Not speaking for the radical libertarians at all, but Ayn Rands' well reasoned view of patents and copyright (as detailed in "Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal" ), if implemented would NOT allow the patent of software, business methods or existing genetic material. Further her arguments provide solid support for the approach taken toward these issues by most slashdotters. Any Rand also predicted the problems that are now occurring in the intellectual property field due to non rational decisions made by patent offices.
True libertarianism would dictate that lowest cost producer triumph, since copyrights and patents are artificial government-sanctioned monopolies. The default state of things is that some farmer invents a better plow, and others copy it for their own use. Someone tells a story or sings a song, and others embellish and change it in the retelling. Only when you can prevent someone from making something, and thus have an artificially restricted market, does it matter whether or not company X is in danger of losing "billions of dollars" through "piracy". Look at China and India (although things are starting to shift) as examples where they can take almost any input and produce at very low cost, to the benefit of consumers. I'm not talking about dangerous or deceitful ripoffs, but very well constructed generic copies of drugs, and of CDs and DVDs licensed for sale in China to compete with ripoffs that are a fraction of prices here in the states (US$3.00).
Speaking as a writer and designer who theoretically benefits from copyright law (I say theoretically, because if ever I had to go to court over copyright, the court fees alone would bankrupt me), copyright and patents, although they are treated as tangible property, to be bought, sold, and lent against, should not be enshrined in common law AS tangible property. You can see this attitude at work when businesses and controlling individuals have an expectation that this "property" can generate profits indefinitely, without any sort of maintenance, upkeep, or recompense to the government and the people, for an artificially maintained monopoly and the tax-supported infrastrucuture built around it (like the FBI anti-piracy division.)
every slashdotter to make 1000 copies of the Adelphi Charter and deliver them to random letterboxes in his/her neighbourhood.
Hey, even international spies need IP...
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
No offense, but you have absolutely no clue in the world what in the hell you are talking about. Go do a Google search with "libertarian intellectual property". Now before you post anything else, read a few of the hits you get.
Oh... what is this? It turns out that libertarians actually fall somewhere between against IP laws or vaguely in favor of weakened IP laws. I know that +1 insightful karma tastes wonderful, as you did manage to throw in a bunch of libertarian buzz words combined with IP law and disparaging remarks, but you can do it without posting in complete ignorance.
The libertarian position in IP law is weak at best. They do NOT have a universal stance on the issue. Libertarians do NOT like the idea of a government enforced monopoly via IP laws. Only the utility of IP laws has led some libertarians to abandon the extreme position of no IP laws at all to favor something more limited. In other words, your average libertarian is more likely somewhere left of your average democrat on the issue. The most pro-IP law libertarians are moderates at best.
So, thanks for your ignorance. It really livened up my day. Hey, how about you make a post showing that libertarians are pro-war and how they love drug laws. I bet you can score another insightful post off that ignorant bullshit too.
But our power can be more usefully applied as a grassroots political force than by merely DDOSing all and sundry in an ineffective attempt to change policy. That tactic just gives the opposition a ready ad hominem attack with which to dismiss us, no matter how just our cause or how rational our arguments. As with SCO, every web site outage for the next six months suddenly becomes the work of lawless commie pirate hackers who want to selfishly stop people making music and... well, everyone looses interest, expect maybe to pass tough new laws further restricting free speech online.
Not that I'm saying that was your suggestion, but I'd hate for someone to misread it that way. I'm sure you understand.
Let's turn that power to doing good -- statistically, at least one person here is bound to have a good idea.
I think the good idea is the charter from TFA. This is a tremendously valuable contribution to the debate. For one thing, the Royal Society have considerable prestige. It's a lot harder to laugh them off than it is slashdot. The diversity of the authors helps in this regard as well.
For another the charter gives us a good talking point - something to campaign for. So you can contact your local lawmaker type and ask what he'd doing to bring about compliance with the Adelphi Charter. We can use it as a justification to ask whether the public good has been considered in respect to a specific IP ruling, and as further support for the abolition of software and business methods and software patents.
This doesn't give us any new techniques for getting the attention of government - but then we don't really need any - the old ones still work. What this gives us a lot of new, high quality ammo. My bright idea would be to suggest that we use it.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Gilberto Gil is a pretty interesting guy. A few days ago, the guardian had this pretty interesting article about him, which talks a bit about Brazil's stance on free software. What is going on in Brazil is pretty interesting, also in terms of patents on food. For example there was a huge outcry after a Japanese firm patented a modification of the delicious cupuaçu fruit. The term "biopiracy" is part of popular language over there.
Deconstruct the State
Who says there needs to be a balance at all? You have 2 extremes when it comes to intellectual 'property': a) none, read: no IP protection of any kind, and b) the kind that would give **AA bosses a wet dream. You think (what is best for society as a whole) is somewhere in between? Personally, I doubt it. I seriously doubt that the whole concept of intellectual 'property' has ANY net postive effect for society as a whole. I think it's more like DRM: good for some, but mostly a net negative, overhead, 'red tape'.
Now since around the same time that the concept of IP was introduced, there's been an explosion in literature, music, scientific advances etc. And proponents of IP protection like to say that's cause and result. I think that's bull, and pure coincidence. Anyone think the world would never have seen beautiful animated movies like those coming from the Disney studios, had there been 0 IP protection? Or that MP3 audio format would never have been developed?
We'll never know, since there's no way to find out what our world would be like if IP protections hadn't existed. But I do know one thing for sure: the overhead that IP protections cause, exist. No doubt about that. Drawing up licenses costs money, enforcing them costs money, fighting over them in court costs money, destroying 100,000 counterfeit CD's is waste (of energy and production capacity), reading EULA's takes people's time. Anyone ever tried to make an estimate how big a cost to society this all adds up to?
For me it's been clear for a while: I fundamentally don't like the concept of intellectual property (even for what I might produce myself), and simply try to ignore it as much as I can get away with. Like so many people do in practice. Oh and BTW: that doesn't mean none of my money goes to creative folks like musicians etc. It's just not IP laws that make me do that.Jesus, people continue to pirate receipes every day and the law does absolutely nothing about it. It only takes mediocre cooking skills to follow a receipe, which means people who would otherwise need to engage the services of professional chefs are capable of producing meals that are comparable to restaurant quality. No wonder chefs are so poor! If they had some legal protection they could continue to advance the culinary arts without giving up their livelihood. Stop home kitchens now! It's not like software is any more complex than a cooking receipe, and programmers get legal protection for their works.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The Royal Society* is an organisation that promotes UK science, The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce is different.
*Yes, they should call themselves The Royal Society of Britain or something else a bit more specific to prevent confusion like this.
I quit!
Every time I read something about IP law, whether copyrigt or patent or whatnot, I always see the same argument that if IP law were not present then the whole economy would collapse because all the content and idea producers would stop producing their wares due to lack of profitability.
Pure BS. I can guarantee that at this point in our society the abolition of IP law would do anything BUT destroy the economy of a nation or the world. Why can I guarantee this? Because the general public has become accustomed to being content consumers. When something comes along (say, digital music) that is significantly useful or good, people will consume regardless of the "legality" of it. Hence, the widespread piracy of music and the eventual development of legal download services.
People want their music, their movies, their medicines, and their meat. The incumbent monopolies keep saying that without DRM, broadcast flags, or patents, they would never produce the products that they do. I say that's just fine by me. Because even if the big companies halted all production in protest of the removal of IP laws, the public would still maintain its desire to consume, so at that point the market will be wide open for ANYONE to fulfill the neeed of the people and profit from it.
I'm not saying the IP laws SHOULD be abolished, just that they are seriously flawed and need some reform a 'la the article above. Also, the public's need for "stuff" is a powerful force (capable of toppling governments in the past), so it is only a matter of time before the current establishment of monopolistc laws fall as well. The sooner the change comes though, the better all will be.
An interesting article that argues for radical reform of copyright (do not let the words "intellectual property" spring from your mouth) can be found (in an unusual place I think) here. Maybe the tide is slackening and will begin to turn soon.
Where's their proof that the ideas they're putting forward are right.
Yes, I know, this is /. & we have a million examples of patents stifling innovation... but no legitimate analysis. Until there is a enough money behind the idea that copyright/patents are overbearing, no one is going to seriously try to prove it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Yes, I know, this is /. & we have a million examples of patents stifling innovation... but no legitimate analysis.
No such analysis is needed--that's the whole point of the Adelphi principles--the burden of proof isn't symmetric.
Patent proponents want society to give them something truly extraordinary: a 20 year monopoly on the exploitation of an idea. That demand requires justification by people who want that kind of monopoly. No counterargument is needed--if proponents can't provide a clear justification, patents should not exist.
> A Libertarian tends to believe that the companies which treat their employees
> fairly and those that aren't greedy will be the ones that succeed in a "real"
> free market. Buying congresscritters and lobbying for unconstitutional laws
> would not be an option for companies in that market.
This is nothing but wishful thinking of the worst kind. It boils down to "vote with your wallet", and that will never ever work. Relying on "vote with your wallet" effects is about as stupid as saying "everybody pays as much or little money for the sewage system as he sees appropriate" and then expecting that enough money to keep it serviced will show up because people do want a working sewage system.
[i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
Brilliant. You have hit the nail squarely on the head. It would require TRM devices (Trusted Receipe Monitors, i.e. odor detectors) in every room of every house to ensure patent holders are properly compensated--even for microwave dinners. One can almost see it now, when the FLIAA (Food Liscensing Investigating Association Agency) lawyer-goon says, "Sorry, Senator Lardbottom, your daughter copied a chili dog without a liscence. That'll cost you $30,000.00."
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Anyone who wants to understand false "property rights" only has to open up a history book and read about the 1850's. Just as the slave plantation system had to die for society to enter the industrial revolution, the copyright content controll systems need to die in order for society to enter the information age. And as other technologies make it easier to repliacte discoveries, patents will eventually need to die too.
Yes, slavery. They called it a property right, they screamed there was no incentive without it, they said it was responsible for great wealth and prosperity of American business and commerce. And it was all bunk, even though it was geniuses that were saying it.
Well the same is true with copyrights and patents. Anyone with an IQ over 20 can easially see that they are not anything like any other kind of incentive or free market property right. And most people with an IQ over 80 can see that inspite of the theory, that is is far more the exception that copyrights or patents help the small time creator than it is the rule.
In fact copyrights and patents are not only bunk, they are often pure evil. Like how copyrights have ripped apart american culture and replaced it with hollywood and ruined the persuit of knowledge in student text book industry, or like how thousands of patnets are sat on and not used for anything but to lock out competitors. Or how disputes and lawsuits in the world court involving AIDS patents arguably caused over a million people to be dead from AIDS in Africa who wouldn't have been otherwise. And now, for copyrights, they pratically want to shut down the internet and microregulate every technology chip maker in the US. Well I say F**k em, on the internet copyrights are dead and they don't even deserve the token support they are getting.
Copyright presently applies to works regardless of whether they were published or not.
However, we can deal with the situation at hand fairly easily, so long as we're considering reforms.
Require publication and deposit as copyright formalities (as has traditionally been the case). Expand the scope of publication to include all sorts of public release, including performance. Expand the requirements for deposit to include such supplementary information as the Copyright Office believes is reasonably necessary to ensure that the work is useful to the public when it enters the public domain. In the case of software, this would require that you deposit copies of well-commented source code in order to get a copyright even on just the binaries. That the source is disclosed doesn't mean that people can copy it at will. It's still copyrighted. But people can learn from it, and we can rely on it being around when the software enters the public domain.
Finally, reduce the term of copyright for software to something reasonable. I think that 5 years ought to be enough.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
In the meantime, there has been remarkable progress on most of those fronts. The two individuals who deserve most of the credit on the campaigning and lobbying side are Rufus Pollock and Gavin Hill of the FFII UK. Gavin is the "someone" who contacted me last year. In fact, that contact resulted from a slashdot discussion. And in parallel to the political stuff, we've now seen some really good rulings by Judge Prescott of the High Court of England and Wales who has already invalidated a few software patents.
Someone said in this thread that people should make suggestions for how to make political decision-makers more aware. Here's a suggestion:
Vote Against Software Patents / Vote For Your Right To Program
We're doing this online campaign and we've already had a very good start. This is about the most important political award series in the EU, and if our camp once again demonstrates its Internet campaigning power (we're trying hard!), then this will make politicians, press and the public more aware of the software patent issue.
This is indeed one very good solution - to allow contribution to come only from individuals, and for those over a certain cost to be publicly disclosed. This is called the 'Open-funding system'. In contrast, the 'Closed-funding system' is one where any body or entity may make any donation to the government for their own desires and no information beyond the two parties may ever know. So in an open-funding system, for a company to make a lobbying contribution they would need to do it via an individual, and this would be more transparent and accountable, and it would be visible to shareholders and the public through publicly accessible accounts. The only problem is the transition to a more open system would be lobbied against by the large corporations out there.
This idea came to me: We should stick a copy of the Adelphi Charter, along with essays and papers supporting those positions, in archives with music, software, movies, and other media, name the archives for the media (of course), and put the archives on peer to peer networks and torrent trackers where they'll be downloaded. As people download and redistribute our media (everyone loves stolen music), they'll find political notices bundled with it.