Karsten on Free Software

Foreign Policy has an interview with Larry Lessig about the rift between the EU and the US about a possible restructuring of the Internet. An interesting point is Lessig’s mention of how there was an attempt to censor him at one of the WSIS preparatory conferences. He was told he could not talk about intellectual monopoly rights, because that was a topic for WIPO.

LL: I question whether the [summit] is considering all the issues it needs to be. I was a speaker at one of the preparatory committees and, before my speech, I was asked about what I was going to talk about. I said I was going to talk about the need for balanced intellectual property rules in order to produce the best information society [possible]. The chairman of my session said I was not allowed to talk about intellectual property. She said that’s a problem for the World Intellectual Property Organization. It was ridiculous. It revealed a way in which the deal was struck to establish the World Summit on the Information Society, which was as long as you don’t touch intellectual property you can talk about whatever you want. The insane thing about that position is that there’s no way to strike the right balance unless you consider intellectual property. [For example,] database rights are going to fundamentally affect the future of the information society. The question remains whether the [summit] will be allowed to develop any coherent policy position about the proper balance for intellectual property. My skepticism suggests that they won’t. This issue will be negotiated off the table by those who want to keep control over that policy.

And in Tunis you probably can’t mention hunger, because it is an issue for the World Food Programme, and neither about education, this being the domain of the UNESCO.

via netzpolitik.org – thanks, Markus!

As the final of the World summit on the Information Society’s second phase is about to take off in Tunis, there are a lot of bloggers keeping track of the events. Some of them have channeled their stuff into a WSIS blog planet. This should be a good place to keep a rough overview of what’s happening there.

The Financial Times some days ago carried a fine article by James Boyle. On the 15th anniversary of the posting of the first web page by Tim Berners-Lee, he muses about how the web only became what it is today because it was free. And about how unlikely it was that this happened – and ever more unlikely that something similar will happen today.

For most of us, the web is reached by general ­purpose computers that use open protocols – standards and languages that are owned by no one – to communicate with a network (there is no central point from which all data comes) whose mechanisms for transferring data are also open. Imagine a network with the opposite design. Imagine that your terminal came hardwired from the manufacturer with a particular set of programs and functions. No experimenting with new technologies developed by third parties – instant messaging, Google Earth, flash animations . . . Imagine also that the network was closed and flowed from a central source. More like pay-television than web. No one can decide on a whim to create a new site. The New York Times might secure a foothold on such a network. Your blog, or Wikipedia, or Jib Jab need not apply. Imagine that the software and protocols were proprietary. You could not design a new service to run on this system, because you do not know what the system is and, anyway, it might be illegal. Imagine something with all the excitement and creativity of a train timetable.

The Washington Post has a story on the proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty.

If television broadcasters and webcasters have their way in international treaty talks, they would gain new, 50-year rights to virtually any video they beam out, even if no one owns the rights to the content. So, for example, say ABC or Yahoo offers a broadcast or webcast of a movie no longer under copyright protection, historical footage of a news event or a live feed of a breaking story — no one could make a copy of that program and rebroadcast it to others.

Err… so material that is in the public domain would return into private hands through the simple act of broadcasting? This would quickly drain the underbrush of creations and ideas that are available to everyone and let our culture function.

The article nicely outlines a few basic positions, making clear the corporate broadcaster’s hipocrisy:

Broadcasters and webcasters insist that the balance of fair use and public domain works will not be upset by the treaty. Even if the treaty passes and the United States signs it, Congress then must pass implementing rules, and the broadcasters and webcasters say they have no desire to change U.S. laws.

The whole point of the treaty is to change the law in the US – and everywhere else. Otherwise, what value would there be for the broadcasters in seeking the treaty?

Though the questions at issue are dramatic, the story points out another aspect, which has enabled the treaty’s proponents to fly under most people’s radar so far:

The minutiae and complexity of rights and treaties in those matters are enough to cure a small nation of insomnia.

And once they have us all asleep, they’ll try to push it through. Set your alarm clocks. You can stay alert to the issue, eg. via the Access to Knowledge website.

thanks, Jamie and Thiru!

Natali Helberger has published a paper (.pdf, 140 kB) on Digital Restrictions Management (which she calls “Digital Rights Management”) for the Council of Europe. She points out a number of issues which make DRM problematic, such as invasion of privacy, infringement of consumer’s rights and accessibility.

She also highly commends the Access to Knowledge (A2K) initiative:

What is particularly noteworthy about the A2K initiative is its acknowledgement that DRM is not only a matter for copyright law, but also for competition law and consumer protection. It has recognised the need to protect individual consumer and more general interests as well as values in both the individual and general public interest. The A2K draft Treaty could serve as an initial starting point.

The European Digital Rights Initiative has released its latest bi-weekly newsletter. Contents are:

1. European Parliament: no retention of internet data 2. Article 29 WP rejects data retention once more 3. Big Brother Awards presented in 4 countries 4. French minister: copyright above privacy 5. Citizens’ Summit on the Information Society 6. Greek court will rule on CCTV 7. European Data Protection Supervisor newsletter 8. Petition update: over 55.500 signatures 9. Support EDRI!

Forbes magazine is running rather strange series of articles on how honest businesses (such as SCO suffer at the hands of bloggers, who initiate smear campaigns against them.

The worrying part is not that the articles make it seem as if weblogs were invented for the sole purpose of bashing reputable corporations. If that is the author’s understanding, so be it.

Much more offensive is the suggestion to use copyright to deprive critical minds of their right to free speech:

ATTACK THE HOST. Find some copyrighted text that a blogger has lifted from your Web site and threaten to sue his Internet service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That may prompt the ISP to shut him down. Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn’t liable but may skip the hassle and cut off the blogger’s access anyway. Also:Subpoena the host company, demanding the blogger’s name or Internet address.

The only thing standing between this guy and his pals and an opinion monopoly are the “fair use” clauses that copyright offers – but for how much longer? I know that the tactic described there is not new, but this snippet of text illustrates in abundant frankness how copyright increasingly becomes a tool for those with pockets deep enough to spring for a large legal department.

If you listen to rightsholding industry lobbyists long enough, Digital Restrictions Management starts to look like the only way to ensure healthy profits for an entertainment industry that is otherwise starved for profit-generating ideas.

Last week, the EFF criticised the EU commissions’ Networked Audiovisual Systems and Home Platforms (NAVSHP) group for assuming

that digital rights management (DRM) is the only way to foster development of the home audiovisual market.

So far, DRM has failed to reduce unauthorized copying or enrich content authors and performers, and instead has curtailed competition and sacrificed user-rights for the benefit of entertainment giants. A fresh inquiry could examine why otherwise law-abiding citizens have resorted to finding unrestricted material on peer-to-peer networks and look at technological systems that might encourage new artistic works and new business models.

They have a point there.

The Economist last week published a survey on patents and technology. While the tone of the thing is not great, and the Free Software part is downright disastrous, the survey is instructive for what it leaves out.

While rooting for the “market for ideas” that the system of copyrights and patents creates, the author describes at great length the views of big business representatives. But there is no mention of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which account for the bulk of economic activity in most countries. After asking their opinion about the system, the result might have been quite a different one.

But there is an upside, too, as the lead article reflects at length the destructive side of the patent game:

But when talking to executives in the technology firms themselves, the language you hear most often is that of “the arms race” and “mutually assured destruction”. Companies amass patents as much to defend themselves against attacks by their competitors as to protect their inventions. Many technology companies have recently championed reform of the patent system to deal with spuriously awarded patents, licensing extortion and massive lawsuits. “There is a broad recognition in the US that the patent system, if not reformed, will…begin to impede American competitiveness around the world,” says Bruce Sewell, general counsel of Intel, the world’s biggest chipmaker.

The author, Kenneth Cukier (ex-Red Herring), comes to the conclusion that these are “adjustment problems” which, once overcome, will cease to exist in efficient markets for copyrights and patents. This is where he is wrong: The problems are not temporary, but rather built into the system.

On October 13, the Adelphi Charter was launched. Drafted by an international commission of artists, scientists, lawyers, politicians, economists, academics and business experts, it calls for putting Access to Knowledge first:

The expansion in the laws breadth, scope and term over the last 30 years has resulted in an intellectual property regime which is radically out of line with modern technological, economic and social trends. This threatens the chain of creativity and innovation on which we and future generations depend.

The Charter is administered by an office based at the Royal Society of Arts in London. Media coverage is to be had, among many other places, here:

The Economist
James Boyle in The Guardian
Gilberto Gil in The Guardian (well, here, to be precise)