Hi Ciarán
Despite being vigorously opposed to the extension of copyright for all sorts of cultural, social and political reasons, I do find it hard to see how the extension of term has a direct effect on free software. (I think the indirect effect of reinforcing a particular narrative of maximalist copyright is harmful to all of us as human beings). And one of the harmful effects of treating recorded music, books and computer programs the same is to abstract away from what these rights actually achieve in their different spheres. Of course we see this much more plainly with patents where regimes which are seen to be most suitable for the pharma industry are applied to the computer industry.
Regarding copyright it might be useful to look at it from the GPL perspective. The GPL makes constructive use of copyright to construct new bundlings of rights and obligations for users, follow on innovators etc. Its interesting to ponder what (if any) impact an extension of term has on this arrangement. Would there be an "ideal" term from a GPL perspective? What are the scenarios of GPL code finding itself into the public domain on the expiration of term, given that the 50/70/100 year old code would likely have more recent development added to it which would also be GPL? I suspect that what the GPL effectively does is render the amount of time of the term fairly irrelevant.
Looking at proprietary software, for example the copyright on the likes of windoze XP, then one could think that a world where the copyright expired after 5 years would be markedly different. While there is still hardware to be had to run the 5 year old software then this could be relevant for example in many African countries. But once we start talking in ballparks of 70 years, the length of the term is simply not relevant, regardless of whether we talk free or non-free.
of course taking a more de-industrialized view of computer programs and seeing them more as cultural artefacts rather than products which execute on machines might change the way you look at these things. My own view is that the copyright term is far too long to the extent that extending or keeping it the same is much of a muchness. If we were proposing a considerably shortened copyright term of say 5 years then that would have a considerable impact on the use of software in the world but that is perhaps just being fanciful.
Cheers Bob
On 11 April 2011 14:02, Ciarán O'Riordan ciaran@member.fsf.org wrote:
There's a proposal for an EU directive to lengthen copyright for certain works. We sent an IFSO mail today (text below) to the only Irish MEP on the European Parliament's legal affairs committee (JURI), Brian Crowley (FF).
Our mail was brief because it's such short notice, but when we have to write another letter later on in the process, what software freedom arguments should we use, and what documents back up those arguments?
Arguments are easy to find, but *free software* arguments, in a form for a non-programmer, are tougher - but it's what we need.
Any ideas?
The dossier for the proposed directive is here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5667672
========================8<---------------------------- Dear Mr. Crowley,
Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) opposes the extension of copyright which may be put to a vote in JURI today or tomorrow, and we ask that you do the same. Further, we ask for your support in requesting a new first reading for this proposed directive.
Software companies with dominant market positions are increasingly using the copyright of cultural works as a barrier to block other software developers. Due to Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), music lovers can be required to use the software of a small group of "approved" large software companies, or be blocked from listening to DRM'd music.
A few large companies are protected from competition, and the majority of software developers are locked out - including all the "small artists" of the software field.
For people who object to DRM, or who don't find any acceptable software among the "approved" group, there is still public domain works. Extending copyright impoverishes the public domain and our cultural heritage.
Below is a selection of links to independent studies highlighting the harms of copyright extension.
Yours sincerely, Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54 Irish Free Software Organisation http://ifso.ie/
1. 8 Universities and policy centres issued this 2-page statement about how the proposal would harm Europe's culture and economy: http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Press%20Release%20Copyright%20Extension.pd...
2. UK government's "Gower's review", which concluded that:
"The European Commission should retain the length of protection on sound recordings and performers’ rights at 50 years." (page "56" - which is the 60th page of the PDF document)
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf
3. Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam: "Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings is a Bad Idea"
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf ========================8<----------------------------
-- Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54, http://ciaran.compsoc.com
Please help build the software patents wiki: http://en.swpat.org
http://www.EndSoftwarePatents.org
Donate: http://endsoftwarepatents.org/donate List: http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert _______________________________________________ fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie