Discussion December 2002

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

47 participants
38 discussions

hehe, time's up, sorry!
by Rui Miguel Seabra 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

Deadline Passes for European Digital Copyright Law A deadline for adopting a new EU law on copyright protection has passed with just two member countries signing up, dealing a blow to media and software companies beset by unauthorized duplication of their works across the Internet. By Bernhard Warner at: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=581&e=4&cid=581&u=/nm/2002… The only sad news is that some countries (like Portugal *sigh*) are nearly completing their versions of the EUCD. Rui

3 3

VERY Nice Comment on the W3C Patent Policy
by Seth Johnson 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:22:10 -0500 From: David Kaufman <david(a)gigawatt.com> To: www-patentpolicy-comment(a)w3.org, wwwac(a)lists.wwwac.org Subject: [wwwac] Comments: the "field of use" restrictions in Section 3 Item 3 of the proposed W3C Patents Policy To: Patent Policy Working Group World Wide Web Consortium From: David Kaufman <david(a)power-data.com> Power Data Development 87 East 21st Street Bayonne, NJ 07002 Re: W3C Patents Policy, Section 3 Item 3 "field of use" restriction I'm writing to add my voice to those calling for the removal of the "field of use" restrictions in the current wording of the proposed W3C Patents Policy. As a web developer, I rely on *truly* free software each day for the operation of my business. I choose to use only Free Software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org), and not merely the more broad range of other "open source" software because, to remain competitive in this industry, I must be free to modify and redistribute software without legal restrictions, in order to deliver secure and reliable products and services to my customers. The freedom to modify and redistribute software should not be restricted to the so-called "web" or even "the Internet" as fields of endeavor, because the business use of the web and internet themselves are hardly relevant when not tightly bound to the context of a particular business, industry, field of study, or some other narrow area of human endeavor. Patents allowing so-called free software that is restricted to the internet would be more harmful than helpful to most of the single field to which it *is* limited, the web. Why? Well, how could internet software written for a bookstore not be construed as being used in *both* the internet, and the publishing industry? Therefore future W3C patented software and protocols that are freely modifiable and redistributable only to the "web" or internet industries would be neither freely modifiable nor redistributable when an online publisher, for instance, uses these to create an OS-specific GUI application, that is protocol-compatible with their web site, built using not-completely-free tools. A non-web application that allows their staff to edit books in their database would be merely a publishing industry application, or a database application, that the patent owner might decide to license restrictively for developers to be allowed to *let it* talk to the website using a W3C-patented storage system, communications protocol, file format, or even, Amazon taught us, any simple-but-patented idea! Such a situation would create a loophole for economical opportunism that no corporation could or would resist driving their delivery trucks through. Companies would soon be rushing to W3C patent applications, protocols and other software ideas (which should *never* be patented in the first place) (think: Amazon-One-Click) and use the W3C's reputation to market these products as "free and open" in order to lure developers and create a large installed base of users who were mistakenly led to believe that these tools were in fact Free (as in freedom) and that any company's developers, including their own, were free to use them to extend and enhance their use and enjoyment of the software, when in fact, those freedoms would be quite restrictable by the patent owners. The obvious second step is to then create proprietary industry-specific tools, GUI, OS/Specific user interfaces, or any other "non-web" tools for which these is No Freedom, for which only the patent owner may legally develop and sell solutions, and for which the users, the users' programmers and the entire "third-party" developer marketplace, must pay hefty licensing fees to compete, or possibly be simply forbidden from competing at all. The GPL prevents this unfortunate situation by placing no restrictions *whatsoever* on the modification and redistribution rights granted to everyone, except one sensible one: no one may circumvent freedom bestowed on the software by the GPL license by simply *redistributing* and placing a *more* restrictive license on the redistributed version. This sole limitation closes the legal loophole of control of ideas, and protects the rights of the developers, the users, by restricting only the rights of those who would seek to further restrict or control the complete freedom rights that the developer intends, and this is why the GPL is used and championed by so many developers such as myself. It keeps freedom free. Any lesser license is vulnerable to the completely legal theft, control and exploitation of ideas. I urge the W3C and the Patent Policy Working Group to consider this matter seriously, and take the position that is best for the users and developers of the large body of excellent and truly free software that has made the internet what it is today. Please do not create a W3C-sanctioned loophole that must by it's very existence be exploited by the natural profiteering tendencies of normal competitive corporations which *must* bow to competitive pressures to profit by trying to legally own, control, license and otherwise restrict the use of the high quality best-practices ideas, and industry standards and other intellectual property that the W3C develops. These should remain the property of the public, not of corporations, and only a Free Software Foundation approved license can ensure exactly that those property rights are ensured. Thank you in advance for your consideration to this matter. Sincerely, David Kaufman <david(a)power-data.com> --- www.Gigawatt.com / Power Data Development \ www.ClickSQL.com Hosting Scriptage Databasics www.Power-Data.com 87 East 21st Street, Bayonne, NJ 07002 (201) 436-0668

1 0

DEADLINE New Years: Drop the W3C's "Field of Use" Patent Policy Clause
by Seth Johnson 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

The deadline is TONIGHT, NEW YEAR's EVE, for public comments on the World Wide Web Consortium's final draft patent policy. Please read the message forwarded below and tell the W3C to take the "field of use" provision out of their patent policy draft. And spread the word, today. The W3C has produced a patent policy that allows for patent restrictions to be imposed on how the languages of the Internet may be used. A "field of use" clause enables protocols to be enacted which may employ patents to block freedoms naturally exercised by developers of information and communications technology. The rest of the new policy shows great responsiveness to the great public opposition that was expressed in October of last year when they began considering allowing the establishment of protocols on which private interests may hold patents, and stands as a profound testimony to the essential role that so many see that the W3C must play in supporting sound and just information infrastructure and policy. However, the "field of use" clause endangers the whole policy, enabling unreasonable restrictions to be imposed on the usage of standardized communications protocols. Please read the following and send a comment to the W3C Patent Policy Comments list stating that the future of the Internet depends on their taking a clear position against patent restrictions, and on their recognizing the integral role that Internet communications protocols play in the freedom on which innovation in information technology depends. Seth -------- Original Message -------- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:11:17 -0500 (EST) From: Jay Sulzberger <jays(a)panix.com> Tuesday 31 December 2002 Deadline for Comments on W3C Patents Policy In the past two years the Free Software Movement has moved W3C, the Official Standards Body of the World Wide Web, from a proposed patent policy, which would have, in future, denied us our present right to full and free use of free software to build the Web, to a policy intended to guarantee that free software may be used without fear of patent encumbrances. This move is an important victory for us. But the present proposed policy on patents has a bug that is worth fixing. The mechanism of the bug is non-obvious, except to people who have studied the GPL and certain other free software licenses. It is a bug that, if the proposal is made an official standard, would allow for patent encumbrances to be laid on certain free software in circumstances where today no encumbrance is allowed. Here is what the Free Software Foundation says on its front page about this bug: <blockquote from="http://www.fsf.org" what="first of the GNUs Flashes"> The W3C "Royalty-Free" patent policy proposal does not protect the rights of the Free Software community to full participation in the implementation and extension of web standards. Please read more on this issue and send a comment to the W3C. </blockquote> Part of the effort that moved the W3C to its present position was a furious outpouring of comments in opposition to the original proposal of the Englobulators: http://www.w3.org/2001/ppwg http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/thread… The fix needed right now is a small fix. But the W3C must again be reminded with what jealous vigor we guard our right to build our Web the way we have built it down to this day, using free software. The bug appears in Item 3 of Section 3, titled "W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements", of the present proposal: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20021114 This Item allows for a supposedly free grant to use a patent to be so restricted that a piece of Web infrastructure software might be encumbered if used for some non-Web use. Since the GPL does not allow such encumbrancing, GPL-ed Web software re-purposed for non-Web use could not be legally freely redistributed. Please read the Free Software Foundation's page on this bug: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html The text of the page is below. Here is the official Last Call for Comments: http://www.w3.org/2002/12/patent-policy-lastcall-info.html If you write a comment in your own words, for repair of the bug, it will help. <personal> I shall write in, and I shall argue against adoption of the buggy item. I shall also suggest an extension of the deadline for comments. </personal> Jay Sulzberger <secretary(a)lxny.org> Corresponding Secretary LXNY LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. http://www.lxny.org <blockquote from="http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html"> FSF's Position on Proposed W3 Consortium "Royalty-Free" Patent Policy 25 November 2002 (updated 4 December 2002) [image of a Philosophical Gnu] [ English ] Our Position The Free Software Foundation, represented by its General Counsel, Professor Eben Moglen of Columbia University Law School, participated in the W3 Consortium Patent Policy Working Group from November 2001 through the current Last Call draft. The Foundation regards the current Last Call draft, which proposes the adoption of a "royalty-free" or "RF" patent policy, as a significant step in the direction of protecting the World Wide Web from patent-encumbered standards. But the proposed policy is not an adequate final outcome from the Foundation's point of view. The proposed policy permits W3C members participating in W3 technical working groups to commit their patent claims "royalty-free" for use by implementers of the standard, but with "field of use" restrictions that would be incompatible with section 7 of the GNU General Public License. Such "field of use" restrictions, in other words, would prevent implementation of W3C standards as Free Software. Section 7 of the GNU GPL is intended to prevent the distribution of software which appears to be Free (because it is released under a copyright license guaranteeing the freedoms to use, copy, modify, and redistribute) but which cannot, in fact, be modified and redistributed because of patent license restrictions that limit the use of patent claims practiced by the software to a particular purpose. Though other Free Software licenses may not happen to contain provisions equivalent to GPL's Section 7, this does not imply that programs released under those licenses will be Free Software if the patent claims contributed "royalty-free" to the standard those programs implement are limited to a particular field of use. As an example, W3 members may contribute patent claims to a standard describing the behavior of web servers providing particular functionality. A Free Software program implementing that standard would be available for others to copy from, in order to add functionality to browsers, or non-interactive web clients. But if, as the present proposed policy permits, the patent-holder has licensed the practicing of its patent claims "royalty-free" only "in order to implement the standard", reuse of the relevant code in these latter environments would still raise possible patent infringement problems. For this reason, the proposed policy does not actually protect the rights of the Free Software community to full participation in the implementation and extension of web standards. The goal of our participation in the policy making process at W3C has not been achieved. The Foundation urges all those who care about the right of Free Software developers to implement all future web standards to send comments to the W3C urging that the policy be amended to prohibit the imposition of "field of use" restrictions on patent claims contributed to W3C standards. The address to which such comments should be emailed is <www-patentpolicy-comment(a)w3.org>. The deadline for receipt of comments is Tuesday 31 December 2002. Further Non-Legal Explanation of Position Many in the community have requested some additional explanation of FSF's objections to the policy. We have added them below. FSF's objections center around Section 3 of the W3C's proposed patent policy. Item 3 of that section says that the royalty-free license may "may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the Recommendation". That is a "field of use" restriction. The problem is the interaction of such a "field of use" restriction with Section 7 of GPL. Under Section 7, the "field of use" restriction is a "conditions are imposed on you [the distributor of GPL'ed software] that contradict the conditions of this License". The "conditions of this license" require, for example, that those receiving distributions of GPL'ed software have the right to run the program for any purpose (Section 0), the right to modify it for any purpose (Section 2), etc. Any of these "purposes" could easily practice the teachings of the patent beyond what the "field of use" restriction allows. Here's a detailed step-by-step example that shows how this problem could play out: 1. Programmer P downloads the Konqueror web browser, receiving it under terms of GPL. 2. P learns of a new web standard that requires exercising a technique for parsing URLs that is patented by Corporation C. C has licensed the patent under an RF, non-exclusive license, but with a "field of use" restriction that says the license can be used to "implement the standard". The standard, as it turns out, covers only what browsers must do with URLs, and says nothing about the server side or clients that aren't user browsers. 3. P implements this technique in Konqueror, and seeks to redistribute the modified version on his website so that other users can benefit from Konqueror now complying with the standard. If he does, he is bound by the GPL under copyright law, because he is redistributing a modified version. 4. However, he knows full well of a condition on that code that contradicts the GPL (violating Section 7) -- namely, he knows that C's patent license prohibits folks from taking his URL parsing code and putting it into, say, a search engine. Therefore, under GPL Section 7, he is prohibited from redistribution. 5. You might think that he can simply assign his copyright to the existing copyright holder of Konqueror let distribution happen from that source. They could distribute under GPL, but they would be granting a self-contradicting license. Nothing (to my knowledge, but IANAL) prohibits someone from distributing copyrighted works under licenses that make no sense and are self-contradictory. However, it is certainly true that those who receive distribution of the works are stuck and can't undertake further distribution or modification themselves. Thus, regardless of who makes the changes, the result either shuts down distribution or forces the original developer to abandon GPL. Both outcomes are very unfortunate. This is why we encourage you to write to comment on the Last Call Draft. _________________________________________________________________ Return to GNU's home page. Please send FSF & GNU inquiries & questions to info(a)fsf.org. There are also other ways to contact the FSF. Please send comments on these web pages to webmasters(a)gnu.org, send other questions to info(a)fsf.org. Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. Updated: $Date: 2002/12/04 14:50:44 $ $Author: bkuhn $ _________________________________________________________________ </blockquote>

1 0

Identifying Corrupt Media and Tools
by Seth Johnson 24 Dec '02

24 Dec '02

I got a request from a member of the C-FIT Community list, asking for information on identifying corrupt tools and media. The problem being how does one check whether a piece of hardware has DRM in it or in any way restricts one's freedoms -- preferably before buying it? Thought I'd start by asking if any of you have specific pointers or ideas. Seth Johnson

4 3

FYI: AGNULA Version 0.9 Beta available
by Georg C. F. Greve 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

**************************************************** ANNOUNCEMENT AGNULA: A GNU/Linux Audio distribution Beta 0.9 distribution available now. (IST-2001-34879) ***************************************************** The AGNULA project, supported by the European Commission under the Key Action IV.3.3 (Free Software towards the Critical Mass) has completed the second milestone of its roadmap: the realization of the first beta releases 0.9, DeMuDi (Debian based) and ReHMuDi (Red Hat based). These distributions are completely based on Free Software and dedicated to audio and multimedia. You may download and install them directely from the project website (http://www.agnula.org). Other announcements will be posted on relevant mailing lists. Address: AGNULA c/o Centro Tempo Reale, via Pisana 77 Firenze ITALY email: info(a)agnula.org -- Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org> Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org) GNU Business Network (http://mailman.gnubiz.org) Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)

1 0

Diderot vs. Condorcet: Information Technology and "Moral Rights"
by Seth Johnson 21 Dec '02

21 Dec '02

> http://skipper.gseis.ucla.edu/students/dwalker/html/projects/documents/IS-2… Heirs of the Enlightenment: Copyright During the French Revolution and Information Revolution In Historical Perspective By David Walker December 17, 2000 Introduction During the Enlightenment, two conflicting viewpoints on the nature of authorship, creativity, and copyright emerged. One view, proposed by the French thinker Denis Diderot, advanced the notion that literary works are unique creations of the individual mind, and thus should be protected as the most sacred form of property. The other view, advanced by the Marquis de Condorcet, saw literary works as the expression of ideas that already exist in nature, and thus belong to all and should be made available to all for the common good. Both viewpoints had a profound influence on the changing legal status of intellectual property during the French Revolution. Even more, this paper will argue that these two conflicting viewpoints, both of which were firmly grounded in Enlightenment thought, still continue to have an influence into the present, and the tension between the two continues to be played out in the arena of copyright in the United States in the year 2000. The paper will examine both time periods, taking as its analytical framework a model in which the preexisting state of copyright changed to a new form of copyright due to a crisis in publishing. During the French Revolution, political upheaval changed copyright in France from a Diderot-like model to a Condorcet-like model. Recent trends in copyright law in the United States, however, seem to suggest that the crisis of the Information Revolution will produce the exact opposite result. Epistemological Tension: Diderot and Condorcet To begin, let us turn briefly to the authors, outlining their respective positions. In 1763, Denis Diderot (1713-1784), the most prominent of the French Encyclopedists, was hired by the the Paris Book Guild to write a treatise defending their claim that literary works were a form of property. In that work, Diderot argued that ideas sprang directly from the individual mind, and thus were a unique creation in and of themselves. Indeed, they were, in his words, âthe very substance of a manâ and âthe most precious part of himself.â There was no comparison between the work of the mind and physical objects, such as a field, a tree, or a vine, which nature had given to all freely, and could be cultivated only through labor and a social claim to the land. Ideas were subjective, individual, and uniquely constituted, and thus were the most inviolable form of property.1 For Diderot, copyright should be recognized as a perpetual property right, bestowed upon an author and inherited by his or her offspring. In the event that an author's lineage could not be determined, this indefinite monopoly should fall to the holder of the copyright (or more specifically its eighteenth century French equivalent, the âliterary privilegeâ), following the theory of the âright of first use.â Building on Diderot's argument, the Paris Book Guild could argue that its claim to the literary rights of a number of works gave them sole copyright as a form of property.2 In sharp contrast to the position of Diderot was another French Enlightenment position on intellectual property, set forth by one of the nation's most prominent mathematician, philosopher, and political thinkers, the Marquis de Condorcet (1743 - 1794). In a pamphlet entitled Fragments sur la LibertÃ© de la Presse, Condorcet argued that ideas did not spring directly from the mind, but originated in nature, and were thus open to all. Like Locke, who argued that ideas emerged from the combination of sensations, Condorcet saw literary works as the expression of ideas that already existed. The form of a work might be unique, but the ideas were objective and particular, and could not be claimed as the property of anyone. Unlike land, which could only be settled by an individual or a family, and passed down by lineage to offspring, ideas could be discovered, used, and cultivated by an infinite number of people at the same time. For Condorcet, individuals could not claim any special right or privilege to ideas. In fact, his ideal world would contain no authors at all. Instead, people would manipulate and disseminate ideas freely for the common good and the benefit of all. Books would be replaced by periodicals, which would be supported by subscriptions to a specific field of knowledge rather than purchased for a specific author. Copyright would not exist, since no individual or institution could claim to have a monopoly on an idea. 3 These two opposite, conflicting viewpoints have never found their full expression in any time or place. Nevertheless, the epistemological tension and conflict between the two played itself out, perhaps unwittingly, during the French Revolution, and serves as a convenient framework for analyzing the events of 1789 and beyond. Let us then turn to the situation in France at the end of the eighteenth century. French Revolution Under the Old Regime, copyright in the modern sense did not exist. Instead, the Crown bestowed the right to publish on various authors, printers, and book guilds under a âroyal privilege.â The Administration of the Book Trade, a division of the Office of the Keeper of the Seals, dispensed and registered these literary privileges in cooperation with various pre- and post-publication censors. The Administration could grant several different types of privileges with a wide array of legal sanctions accompanying the publication of a work. These included everything from tolerance of an illegal work (i.e., a work that had not passed the censors) up to and including a privilÃ¨ge d'auteur, which âgave the author of a work and his or her heirs an exclusive monopoly on the publication in perpetuity.â4 Lucrative publication privileges for literary classics, religious texts, and seventeenth century Enlightenment works gradually accumulated in the hands of powerful publishers located in major cities, in particular the Paris Book Guild. Located in the nation's capital, and thus uniquely situated for royal patronage and close scrutiny by the Crown, Parisian publication houses, which were owned by a few wealthy families, began to enact a monopoly on printing. They alone had the right to control the publication of the best works of the past, as well as limit the publication of future works. These publishing houses were supported by the Crown, which limited the number of presses in France, and the police, who uncovered and destroyed illegal copies of books and unsanctioned presses. Prior to the Revolution, then, the concept of authorship in France essentially followed the model of Diderot. An author and his or her heirs could maintain what amounted to a form of copyright on a work indefinitely, reflecting the belief that a literary work was the author's uniquely created property. The result, however, was the consolidation of publication rights, not in the hands of authors, but in the hands of powerful publishers. This system also stifled the sharing of ideas, both of older works, which did not receive wide circulation due to limited press runs, and of newer works, since the guilds proved to be inflexible in the face of new literary movements and ideas.5 This system of literary privileges came to a crashing halt in 1789 when the French Revolution set in motion a course of events that would fundamentally change the political landscape of France, including the dissolution of the monarchy and the royal privileges that sprang forth from its divine absolutism. The Deceleration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, issued on August 26, 1789, declared that âthe free communication of thought is one of the most precious rights of man. All citizens can, therefore, speak, write, and print freely.â6 In freeing the presses, it appears that the National Assembly intended to break the monopolistic hold of the book guilds, allowing the great literary works of the Enlightenment to be printed and circulated freely, as well as allowing new works to be published without censorship. The result, however, was far different. Having essentially dissolved all copyright, pirating of new and older works became widespread. Although slanderous and libelous pamphlets circulated widely, the publication of books came to a virtual halt as both authors and publishers found that rampant pirating made the publishing of books economically unfeasible. Rather than foster creativity, the freedom of the presses stifled creativity. This crisis in publishing fostered by the political upheavals of the French Revolution naturally required a resolution. In 1793, the National Assembly passed legislation to restore copyright to authors. Unlike the privilÃ¨ge d'auteur of the Old Regime that had invested publishing privileges in the hands of authors and publishers indefinitely, however, the Declaration of the Rights of Genius allowed the author, his or her heirs, and any who had acquired the manuscript by contract to have publication rights only for the author's lifetime plus ten years. At that point, the work would pass to the public domain. Although the decision drew upon the rhetoric of Diterot and the sanctity of the author's creative work, the Declaration substantially incorporated the concepts and even the words of Condorcet, striking a somewhat uneasy balance between the two.7 Authors would be granted a temporary monopoly on the publication of their work as an incentive to foster new ideas, while the limitations on that monopoly allowed democratic access to the nation's cultural and scientific inheritance. Progress, it was decided, would depend on the free and equal access to enlightenment. Authors and publishers would now have the ability to enforce their unique privilege, no longer based on royal decree, but for the good of the people.8 Information Revolution Having set out the intellectual positions of Diderot and Condorcet, and seen how the French Revolution precipitated the change from the initial state of publishing in France before the Revolution (Diderot) to the state of publishing after the Revolution (Condorcet), let us now take this analytical framework and apply it to the Information Revolution of the last few decades in the United States. As this paper hopes to make clear, the tension between these two ideas continues to play itself out in the present, but here the process moves in the opposite direction than was evident during the French Revolution. Similar in many respects to the state of copyright in France following the Revolution and before the creation of the droit moral, and echoing the British copyright tradition first codified in the Statute of Anne, American copyright laws, grounded in the Constitution, were designed to give authors a limited monopoly on the reproduction of their works in order to foster the development of scientific and cultural ideas. Following much of the thinking of Condorcet, the Constitution attempted to strike a delicate balance between users and creators, aimed toward the public good.9 The crisis that changed American copyright during the Information Revolution was not political upheaval, as was the case during the French Revolution, but rather the emergence of reproductive technology, first in the form of the photocopier, and later audio and video recording devices, such as the tape deck and the VCR, and finally the personal computer, the development of the Internet, and peer-to-peer file transfer software such as Napster. This development in technology, as much as the dissolution of copyright during the French Revolution, created a crisis, or at least the perception of a crisis, in the publishing industry, here defined not simply as book publishers, but also film and record companies. Many have raised the question of whether these technologies in fact create a crisis in the publishing industry. Let us take Napster as an illuminating example. Social commentators such as John Perry Barlow have pointed to the fact that the proliferation of freely available music may actually produce a greater demand for commercial music.10 In support of this claim, he and others point to the increase in record sales over the last few years despite the development of online music transfer software. They also point to earlier misguided crusades to ban technology, such as the film industries failed attempt to stop the production of VCRs in the early 1980s. Film executives feared that the new technology, pioneered by Sony, would essentially wipeout the movie market, since consumers could easily record movies for themselves. The result, however, was not a decrease in the number of moviegoers, but actually an increase in movie attendance, and the beginning of a whole new market of rental tapes. Similar fears over photocopy machines and audio tapes also did not bring forth the rampant pirating envisioned by book publishers and record companies. There are, however, some weaknesses in these arguments. First of all, we must approach these analogies with some skepticism. The reproductive technologies of the past, such as the VCR and the audiotape, could never reproduce a video or audio recording in exact detail. Each new dubbed cassette is, by the very nature of the magnetic tape on which it is recorded, a generation removed from the original. In digital media, however, exact reproduction is possible. Rather than magnetic impulses, digital text and recordings, whether they are e-books, songs, or full-length motion pictures, are simply an array of ones and zeros. They can be reproduced in exact detail without loosing any quality. Thus the ability to reproduce digital text and recordings is fundamentally different from reproduction in the past. Secondly, simply because the VCR and the audio tape did not lead to substantial revenue loses for the film and recording industries is no guarantee that that trend will continue into the digital age. Few have argued that the ability to share and reproduce software programs, for example, has encouraged people to go out and buy those same software programs in the same way that recording of concerts leads to more record sales for performers. In support of this, consider that a recent survey by the San Francisco Chronicle showed that 78% of people who downloaded music from the Internet saw nothing wrong with the activity, and that only 21% said they bought most of the music they downloaded.11 So too, one must keep in mind that the recent availability of CD burners and MP3 players have only now begun to make pirating of music viable. Keeping the music on your hard drive is one thing. Making it available for play back on one's stereo or on a Walkman is something else altogether. It is simply premature to assess the impact of Napster on record sales based on current figures. Whether the crisis of these technologies is merely an imagination of the record and film industries, or whether it is perhaps more real, as this paper suggests, the mere existence of this technology has regardless begun to have an effect on copyright in the United States over the last three decades. What has been the result? It appears that, in an attempt to defend their âintellectual property,â the music and film industries have lobbied Congress to pass more restrictive copyright laws, beginning with the lengthening of copyright from twenty-eight years from the time of publication, to life plus fifty years for an individual in 1976, to life plus seventy years for an individual in 1998. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act and recent lawsuits against Napster have also begun to clamp down on the proliferation of pirating. It is not a radical suggestion, then, that these laws are attempting to produce a more Diderot-like system, where the author might have perpetual copyright on his or her work, backed by legislation that limits technology and severely punishes offenders. In fact, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, as originally authored by the rock star's widow, called for copyright on works to extend in perpetuity.12 Modification of the bill, of course, lowered the limit. But this trend may very well continue into the future, until copyright in the United States does last indefinitely long. It is also not a radical suggestion to point out that, like in pre-Revolutionary France, this model of copyright has resulted in the consolidation of publication rights, not in the hands of authors, but in the hands of powerful publishers. Conclusion In summary, this paper has developed a basic model of analyzing these two periods of time, outlining in broad strokes the changes in copyright that occurred during the French Revolution and during the Information Revolution in the United States. In the former, political upheaval changed copyright in France from a Diderot-like model to a Condorcet-like model, granting authors limited copyright aimed toward fostering creativity for the common good. In the United States, the emergence of lucrative film and recording copyrights, coupled with the emergence of potentially damaging reproductive technology, have brought about changes in copyright from the original Condorcet-like model to a Diderot-like model, where record and film corporation have lobbied for greater protection and lengthier copyrights. As mentioned above, at no time in history have these two conflicting theories found their fullest expression. However, taken as trends rather than firm positions, the evidence of the past and of the present seem to bear out the thesis of this paper tolerably well. What of the future? It seems that, unless firmly opposed by those who are sympathetic with the theories of Condorcet and the intentions of the Constitution, the trend toward more restrictive copyrights and the view of ideas as the most inviolable form of property, as expressed by Diderot 250 years ago, will continue indefinitely into the future.

1 0

Mandrake and the commercial license
by Jan Wildeboer 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Can Mandrake really do this? http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mnf/license According to my source http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-17.12.02-000/ they say that owners of the commercial license are not bound by the GNU/GPL anymore. They can change the sources and are not forced to make the sources available. How is this possible with GNU/Linux? Jan Wildeboer

12 24

Re: The Journey (Resan)
by Will Martin 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Marcus, > What we want to do is a CD (or other medium) that doesn't > only contain free software but also information about the free > software movement. All the way from its birth to the present. By > doing this we hope to place each program in a wider perspective and > describe not only what it is but also why it was written and maybe > why it looks/works like it does. We at the OpenCD did include some literature about open source/free software -- "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" for one, and "Free as in Freedom", along with several other essays. What you're proposing sounds rather more ambitious; sort of a biography-of-a-program, its beginnings, growth, and continuing development. I think it sounds interesting. > We hope to make this available so it can be deployed both on the > OpenCD and Knoppix. We intend to make the first version in Swedish. > After that we hope to have an English version if it is wanted. So > Swedish contributors are wanted. Well, speaking for the OpenCD, I think we could probably find space for such a thing, provided it wasn't too big, and fits in okay. And yes, we would want it in English. :-) Incidentally, we'd love to have a Swedish translation of the OpenCD -- we are working on the second edition right now, and it will have a new installer that's easier to localize. Could we get in touch with you in a couple of months once it's getting closer to the planned release date in March? > - Do you think this is this a good idea? Yes. > - Do you want it? Yes, if it's not too big and fits in with the OpenCD theme okay; I couldn't presume to speak for Knoppix. May I suggest focussing on a program that would be available in both the OpenCD and Knoppix? AbiWord, maybe. > - Does this already exist? Well, Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is pretty close to what you are proposing; it discusses the evolution of fetchmail. You can read it (in Swedish) at this url: http://home.swipnet.se/swi/KatB-se.html > - Does my English make sense? > - If not, I'm sorry, did my best! Your English is fine. Much better than some. (One fellow who contacted me via email didn't speak any English at all; he used babelfish.altavista.com to translate from Spanish.) Will Martin Project Lead -- The OpenCD Project

5 4

Public Library of Science / License
by Laurent Guerby 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

Hi, it might be interesting to support <http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/> And to have a look to their license for articles <http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/license.htm> I included the license at the end of this email, note that they have an email <license(a)publiclibraryofscience.org> for comments about the license. -- Laurent Guerby <guerby(a)acm.org> << PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE OPEN ACCESS LICENSE VERSION 1.0b DECEMBER 1, 2002 Please direct comments to license(a)publiclibraryofscience.org This document is in the Public Domain, and may be reproduced and redistributed for any purpose. I. PREAMBLE The purpose of this Public Library of Science Open Access License (referred to here as "the License") is to encourage, and to facilitate, the free and unfettered distribution of scientific and medical research around the globe. Permanent, archival records of that research should belong to the public, and should be freely available to all. To that end, the License is meant to ensure that the information contained in any work to which the License applies will be effectively placed into, and will remain in, the public domain. Works to which the License applies may be reproduced, distributed, and used for any purpose without restriction, subject only to the condition that any reproduction or redistribution of copies of the work must itself be subject to this License. [See "Terms and Conditions," below] II. HOW TO USE THIS LICENSE At a minimum, any author(s) wishing to distribute their work(s) under the terms of this License must include the following notice ("the Notice") in all copies of the work under their control: Copyright [Insert Year] [Insert Name/Contact Information of Author(s) or Designated Copyright Holder]. This work, originally published as "[Insert citation]," is distributed under the terms of the Public Library of Science Open Access License version 1.0b, a copy of which [is attached] [can be found at http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org]. In addition, authors are encouraged to supply archival information (e.g., "This work is permanently archived at [insert URL]") within this notice as well. For example: Copyright 2002, John Q. Public. This work, originally published as "Public JQ, A solution to the problem of global warming, Public Library of Science Biology 1(1):1-10" is distributed under the terms of the Public Library of Science Open Access License version 1.0b, a copy of which can be found at http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org. This work is archived at PubMed Central (http://www.pubmedcentral.gov). III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS This License applies to any work ("the Work") to which a notice is affixed stating that it is released under the terms of the Public Library of Science Open Access License ("the Notice"). Permission is hereby irrevocably granted to any third party to reproduce, distribute, transmit, or otherwise make the Work available in any medium, provided that all copies of the Work, or any significant portion thereof: * (a) include the Notice or its substantial equivalent; * (b) are themselves distributed under this License; and * (c) clearly indicate any substantive changes to the Work. The aggregation of the Work with other works which are not based on the Work - such as but not limited to inclusion in a publication, database, broadcast, compilation, or other media - does not bring the other works in the scope of the License, nor does such aggregation void the terms of the License for the Work. >>

3 3

The Journey (Resan)
by Marcus Rejås 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

Hello! We at the Swedish Linux association[1] have a advocacy group that promotes free software, not just Linux as the name of our association might indicate, but free software in general, in Sweden. We really like the OpenCD[2] and the Knoppix[3] GNU/Linux distribution. We think they are great help when promoting free software. They both make it really easy for new users to try free software at ease in their own homes on their own computers without the hassle many feels about installing a new operating system on their computer. We came up with the idea to take this further and to take advantage of the moment with the user to promote free software in a wider perspective. We came up with what we call "the journey" (yes the name might change). What we want to do is a CD (or other medium) that doesn't only contain free software but also information about the free software movement. All the way from its birth to the present. By doing this we hope to place each program in a wider perspective and describe not only what it is but also why it was written and maybe why it looks/works like it does. Everything within the path of the journey. We hope that this makes the CD (or what it will be) more then a CD with free software. Something that makes a bigger impression. Of course there will be only free software on the CD with source code. Of course there will also be an explanation why the code is there. The goal is to in a simple and interesting way present the free software movement and provide the user with ready to run free software. Software that they hopefully will enjoy not only because its free and does the job but also because they know why its there and some about the philosophy and the efforts behind it. We hope to make this available so it can be deployed both on the OpenCD and Knoppix. We intend to make the first version in Swedish. After that we hope to have an English version if it is wanted. So Swedish contributors are wanted. I really would like some comments on this and I have a bunch of questions. - Do you think this is this a good idea? - Do you want it? - Does this already exist? - Does my English make sense? - If not, I'm sorry, did my best! Best regards, /Marcus Rejås [1] http://www.se.linux.org [2] http://www.theopencd.org [3] http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/

4 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion December 2002