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 wrote:
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?
hi,
========================8<----------------------------
Dear Mr. Crowley ...
Software companies with dominant market positions are increasingly using the copyright of cultural works as a barrier to block other software developers.
...
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.
this monopoly aspect -- the using of copyright as a sword rather than a shield -- is similar to the monopoly aspect of software patents and i suspect can be countered similarly
Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam: "Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings is a Bad Idea"
on the second page of this pdf, there is a short list of *costs* to:
* consumers * competition and innovation * society
associated with extending the term of copyright for sound recordings
you may remember me putting on the floss-means-business site, in its preliminary stage, a list of floss benefits accruing to:
* purchasers * content owners * software developers * end-users * security * growth
it might be useful to turn this work on its head so to speak and make the list of corresponding costs in the event of copyright extension, eg. 'vendor lock-in' syndrome could be picked out of the benefits to purchasers section:
The most obvious beneficiary of the FLOSS model is the immediate purchaser of the software. Freedom to modify and distribute software, without pre-conditions, liberates organisational forward-planning and expenditure decisions.
The freedom to contract support and continuing development from multiple suppliers prevents the 'vendor lock-in' syndrome; this is where the original supplier leverages the customer's lack of options for vital upgrades and bugfixes to secure a continued income stream.
All software development is at the mercy of the developer's release schedules and internal priorities; smaller organisations find that they have little or no influence over the evolution of software developed by larger companies. FLOSS allows smaller organisations to develop their own extensions to suit their needs.
the rest is still on our /floss page if you want it -- is there a wiki -- i'd be on for helping out
all the best
-- adam
sheffield :: http://webarch.net/ reykjavík :: http://ecodis.net/
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
Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com writes:
I do find it hard to see how the extension of term has a direct effect on free software.
I think it's easier to see when we take it to the extremes: what would be better for free software: all music being free-as-in-freedom, or all music being under the control of DRM-loving companies?
The former, obviously. Copyright extension takes music out of the free-as-in-freedom pool, and hands it to the DRM-loving companies, so free software organisations should oppose copyright extension.
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. [...] Would there be an "ideal" term from a GPL perspective?
RMS wrote an interesting piece about this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code. [...]
So I proposed that the Pirate Party platform require proprietary software's source code to be put in escrow when the binaries are released. The escrowed source code would then be released in the public domain after 5 years.
Hi,
I think a focus on education could be one point of interest. With the current trend in OER this may be relevant.
I haven't had time to pick these apart but perhaps to start they are of some benefit
http://questioncopyright.org/teaching_music_under_copyright
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/files/copyrightandeducation.html#conclusi...
http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/APIG_DRM_Public_Inquiry
All from http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=audio+copyright+education
I would like to contribute to this. Perhaps an etherpad page could be useful, would piratepad suit or is there a better host?
Regards, Anthony.
On 11/04/11 14:02, Ciarán O'Riordan 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/
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...
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)
Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam: "Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings is a Bad Idea"
========================8<----------------------------