Posts Tagged ‘copyright’

So much to say, so little time…

Wednesday, April 5th, 2006

It has certainly been a while since I’ve posted here, since I’ve been incredibly busy. The next person who tells me how easy students have it is going to regret it.

Anyhow, there’s been loads I’ve wanted to post about over the last few months that I haven’t got around to doing, so here’s one of those really long posts where I blog about many seemingly random and unrelated things. If you really want to read it all, I’d suggest you grab a coffee (preferably a cappuccino) and a comfortable seat :-)

Way back in Februrary, the day before I flew out to FOSDEM in fact, I went to see Goldie Lookin Chain at the Manchester Academy. They were great as expected, the beer was warm as expected and the atmosphere in the venue was unpleasant as expected. That night of passive smoking (of various substances) no doubt contributed to the rather nasty cold I woke up with the next morning and which stayed with me all through FOSDEM, completely ruining it for me. It’ll certainly be much better once the smoking ban comes in. Oh and while I’m on the topic, Mr. Blair (or should I say Brown): can we have a ban on smoking in non-enclosed public places next please?

There was an article at the BBC way back in February entitled Copyright sings to a different tune which is essentially editorial making the case for not allowing the record companies to have our copyright terms extended. I’ve blogged about this before, but the message is still the same: the public domain used to be a very valuable resource, from which creators could take work which was no longer of commercial value and make something new out of it. Nowadays copyright terms are so long that little is entering it, meaning everything is protected by an aggressive copyright police. Big business must not be allowed to dictate our copyright policy like they do so easily in the US.

Also in February the US Patent Office granted a ridiculously broad and obviously-invalid-to-any-sane-person patent covering things like Flash (not that I care about Flash, since it’s proprietary) and the technology frequently touted as being the next big thing on the web, AJAX. The fact that such a patent could be granted in the face of clear and obvious prior art is beyond words. This is why we must fight to make sure we don’t get this kind of nonsense in Europe.

At the beginning of March was the barely-touched-on-by-the-media national strike of university lecturers. I was out and about on the day and took a few photos. They were striking over pay, since they were promised more and didn’t get it (whereas management did get it). Such strikes are a pain, but if that’s the only way lecturers can get the powers-that-be to pay attention then so be it. The strike isn’t however the end of it and they’re also refusing to mark coursework, publish marks for already marked coursework or invigilate exams until they agree a pay deal. What this means to me, since I graduate this year, is that I may not know my final grade for some months which will make it very difficult to get a job. It’s about time this whole mess was sorted out and lecturers were given the pay to which they are entitled.

During the past six months or so I’ve been trying to get a graduate job, so far with no success. It seems that graduate employers aren’t actually interested in graduates at all: they just want decent staff they can get away with paying very little. Basically if you don’t have a significant amount of work experience (which many graduates won’t have – I certainly don’t) you can’t get a graduate job, which kind of defeats the whole point of graduate jobs in my opinion. What is also very worrying, especially given the state of corporate IT in this country, is the fact that many employers are recruiting for technical jobs without assessing the technical ability of candidates at all – they seem to think soft-skills are more important and that they can teach technical skills, even to non-technical people….. somebody should break it to them that the real world doesn’t quite work like that. I’ll resist the temptation to rant about this too much, but I can’t resist the temptation to shamelessly ask that anyone reading this who knows of a Linux/networking/web dev/FPGA engineer job going gets in touch.

I’ve been following the Sun UltraSPARC T1 developments for a while now, so I should mention that Sun have finally made their processor available on opensparc.net under the GPL. I’ve grabbed myself a copy and taken a brief look and it looks pretty useful. My course pretty much winds up over the next few months so after that I should have some spare time to get it running in a simulator and see what I can do with it.

A few weeks ago I saw a story which really made me laugh: ‘Sandal and ponytail set’ cramping Linux adoption?. Apparently the relaxed approach to clothing taken by Linux/FLOSS hackers is harming the uptake of Linux. What a load of old nonsense. Firstly, technical people are most often not customer facing, so nobody cares how they dress since they’re typically damm good behind-the-scenes technical people. I myself am not a stereotypical geek with a ponytail, sandals and long beard (maybe in twenty-or-so years) but like most geeks I do take a relaxed attitude to clothing (i.e. it’s purely functional – geeks don’t do fashion) and have never found it to be a problem. After all, decent clothes would certainly be ruined by all the ferreting around under desks and in comms cabinets. In any case, any business or government who wants to use Linux isn’t going to go to a Linux hacker for advice, they’re going to go to a suit-wearing consultancy filled with the kind of people geeks try to avoid at all costs. One quote really summarises the whole article:

"Open source has an unprofessional appearance, and the community needs to be more business-savvy in order to start to make inroads in areas traditionally dominated by commercial software vendors."

This guy seems to be living in a dream-world: the community doesn’t care about business. The community cares about producing good software and having fun doing it.

That’s all for now; I should get back to posting more frequently from now onwards.

The future of copyright?

Thursday, March 31st, 2005

During FOSDEM 2005 Richard Stallman gave a very interesting talk about copyright, and how it would be best to handle copyright in the future.

The main point I’m going to focus on is his discussion about how long copyright should be for different types of work. I’ve always thought that the best way to address this was to have different lenghts for different media, like the existing system does: so copyright on a film might be x years and a book might be y years. Or whatever.
Stallman’s approach is not to group things by media, but by how they’re used. His proposed groupings are functional works such as factual books or software, opinion such as essays & reviews and finally aesthetic works such as art, fictional books, films, music, plays and so on.

This seems to me to be a much more sensible way of splitting up the different kinds of work. For functional works, it makes sense that people should have the right to copy them and distribute modified versions even during the copyright period, since this helps the spread of information. Since people would have these freedoms, the copyright term isn’t really important; maybe 5 years would be sensible (how much software older than 5 years are you using anyway?). These are the kind of freedoms authors can give by using the GNU General Public License (for software) and the GNU Free Documentation License (for text). You’ll notice that all my software is licensed under the GPL and functional articles in my writing section are licensed under the FDL.

For opinion pieces, Stallman proposes that it isn’t a good idea to let people distribute modified versions: you don’t want people modifying your opinions and leaving them attributed to you! He suggests that it is sensible to perhaps limit the verbatim distribution of such works to non-commercial (I and the other writers of the world wouldn’t want magazines downloading our work from our websites and publishing them without paying!). Perhaps a copyright term of 5 years is best here too: who cares what someone thought about something 5 years ago?
These freedoms are exactly what the Creative Commons licenses are designed to provide.

Now for aesthetic works: Stallman proposes that commercial copying should be restricted during the copyright term (no reason why the artist shouldn’t be able to make some money from it), but that modified versions should be distributable upon payment of a fee. I think a sensible copyright term is again, 5 years. Most books are out-of-print after 2 years at the most and most films don’t make much money after 2 years either. Yet the current copyright term for books is the life of the author + 70 years; so my magazine articles are likely to be under copyright for at least the next 110 years. I’d love to know what benefit authors will get from their works once they’re dead.
Authors are keen to have their copyright terms reduced: when they write a book or piece of music, the publisher or record company then owns that work forever and the author makes very little money from it. As soon as the copyright expires, they can then publish and distribute copies themselves and charge for doing so.
Films are currently covered by copyright for the life of every main actor, director, writer and so on plus 70 years. Now remember that it won’t make any money after about 2 years (certainly almost nothing after 5) and ask yourself: is that really fair?

When the copyright of a work expires, that work enters the public domain. This means that everyone is free to take that work and do with it as they please. They can copy it, modify it, whatever. This is important to our culture as it gives people free raw material to work with to create their own new works.

I think the whole copyright system is badly in need of an overhaul. But instead of looking at the situation sensibly, governments seem to be more interested in extending copyright terms rather than limiting them, in order to satisfy their rich corporate backers.

On a related note, Lawrence Lessig recently posted on his blog about the new Yahoo! Creative Commons Search. This allows you to limit your search to works released under a Creative Commons license. Typically, such works allow you to copy them, modify them and/or distribute them as much as you want. This is really cool and it’s nice to see a corporate giant like Yahoo! doing something like this. The search doesn’t seem terribly effective though and I’m not sure their method for determining how work is licensed is too good, but it’s certainly a good start.
Incidentally, I’m about to start reading Lessig’s “The Future of Ideas” [Amazon link] which is all about how publishers have become more powerful since the rise of the Internet and are restricting creativity with copyright and patents. Looks like an interesting read.

Extending Copyright

Wednesday, August 11th, 2004

I was watching the BBC breakfast programme this morning and they had a few guys on to talk about how big-business, specifically the record industry, is currently fighting to have UK copyright extended. It was a very interesting and well-balanced discussion with some interesting points made by both sides.

The “for-guy” as I will call him, was talking about the poor old artists who won’t be making any more royalties from their works. The fact that they’ve already made millions is beside the point of course. The “against-guy” pointed out that it’s record companies who have the most detrimental effect on artist’s revenues and that this is actually a good thing for artists. The specific example he used was the Elvis Presley Estate, who instead of making measly royalties via the record company, would have the freedom to release albums themselves, with the ability to include things such as new exclusive pictures from their archives. Of course they would also be getting all the profit from sales.

I won’t pretend to be as balanced as the BBC. I think it’s stupid to extend copyright past 50 years, as I think this is plenty of time to allow people to make profit from their works (and many will be dead before their works enter the public domain anyway). In the US copyright currently stands at 95 years, which is just stupid. The reason it is so long is mainly down to one company: Disney. They are scared because if Mickey Mouse goes out of copyright, they will lose one of their many sources of income (although I shouldn’t think income from this is significant compared to other sources). That’s why they’ve been fighting to have US copyright extended by 10 years – every 10 years. And because the US government listens to big-business rather than to the people, Disney always get their way.

There is also a “head to head” discussion on this (with the ability for readers to add their comments, some of which are very interesting) on the BBC News site. It is possibly the same guys who were on the show this morning, but I’m not sure. My favourite quote from the “against-guy” is this:

The record industry is fond of referring to its “intellectual property”, but I’m not sure there are too many intellectuals at work in the business.

How true.

Anyhow, if the proposal to extend copyright is even considered, I believe it would have to go through the European Parliament first, giving everyone a chance to voice their opposition via their MEPs.

LUGRadio goes political

Sunday, June 6th, 2004

The LUGRadio guys have released “Special Report 1″ of LUGRadio. This episode focuses on the forthcoming elections and discusses issues including software patents, open source/free software and the EUCD. They have an interview the Liberal Democrats‘ IT Spokesman Richard Allan MP and Labour local election candidate Howard Berry. They also have a look at the Green Party’s view but unfortunately the reponse to the e-mail interview didn’t come back in time.

This is great for anyone who cares about technological freedom, and not just Linux users.
Get it here.

Should Google be censoring search results?

Thursday, March 11th, 2004

Just got an interesting notice while searching for something on Google:

In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results.

I thought the whole idea of a search engine, was that it crawled the web and displayed the results. Why should Google ever have to censor anything? Surely it is not responsible for the content of the sites it lists? If Google are willing to exclude results because of supposed DMCA infringements, what else might they be excluding, when users are expecting pure, unedited search results? Perhaps they should start excluding all alcohol-related results, since it is illegal in a few countries in the world?
Who can tell what else they are excluding, and for who…

I am rapidly losing my faith in Google.