Beware of moral rights loopholes
grex replied to my previous post:
Interestingly enough the Creative Commons people try to have licenses translated and valid in each of the countries. I really don’t know how this can (and if it will) cause problems some time in the future… Maybe the reason for this different strategies is because of the different origin of the main members of these communities (Stallman as a programmer and Lessig et al. as lawyers).
Taking a look at some of the international CC licenses, it seems careful work has been done in adapting the license to the local jurisdiction but I believe that just translating/localizing the license risks creating loop holes that didn’t exist in the original. Moral rights could be one. I see moral rights more as a potential loophole could could be used by the copyright holder to prevent some use of the software than a problem of protection.
Take Zynaddsubfx for instance. The author has licensed his program under the GPL but has an extra wish: “Please don’t use this program to make music that is against God and Jesus Christ. Realize that the only way to the Salvation is Jesus Christ. Please don’t lose this chance and don’t make others to lose it!”
What if somebody took Zynaddsubfx and turned it into a (GPL-licensed) program called Satanic Synthesizer that was designed to create death metal type of music? Would this be a breach of the original author’s moral rights? Could the author sue based on his moral rights, although there was no GPL infringement?
Lessig has admitted that “In many jurisdictions that protect moral rights, you can’t just automatically give away the moral right, without knowing something about how, or in what context, the work is to be used. For those jurisdictions then, a Creative Commons-like mechanism just wouldn’t work.” He goes on saying that CC wasn’t created for these jurisdictions.
With regard to Stallman vs. Lessig I think it is more about their ideological background. Lessig seems to be constitutionalist whose argument is based on the idea of individuals’ rights, freedom of speech etc. while Stallman is more a communitarianian/anarchist type for whom voluntary co-operation and non-hierarchical society are primary goals.
Digital divide conference papers available
Recently we had a conference dealing with several digital divide related topics: citizen participation, free software, biopatents, copyright, and sustainable information society. Some papers are available. Keynotes by Colin Lankshear and Rishab Aiyer Ghosh may be of interest to FLOSS researchers, as well as the papers in the “Open and Collaborative models” session and Tere Vadén’s paper from the IP session. My presentation is missing from the conference site; you can read the slides while I’m finishing my paper. I think the conference was succesful. I met some good people to work with in the future.
Also, hello to people reading Planet FLOSS Research.
Copyright as a Penalty System
Rusty Russell has this brilliant piece on how copyright is a penalty system, not a reward system:
The first poorly understood point is that copyright on my work does not give me the right to copy it. It prevents everyone else from copying: a so-called “negative right”. As an example, if you own the last copy of my autobiography, I don’t have the right to make a copy: it’s your property. You don’t either: it’s my copyright. If you destroy that last copy, my copyright still exists, but is useless. This illuminates something noone ever spelt out for me: that copyright is a weakening of property law. Normally when you buy something, you get all the rights the previous owner had: if you buy apples off me and sell apple juice in competition with me, I have no legal recourse. Copyright weakens property law by not transferring the “right to copy” with sale: that sliver of rights is removed from every copy and remains in the hands of the copyright holder.
Even if copyright disappears, property rights don’t:
The traditional focus on copyright, without considering the property which is its source, skews the copyright debate quite badly. Works which are no longer copyrighted are often said to “fall into the public domain”. This is a terrible phrase, which implies that property rights are being destroyed. We don’t say that apples, which were never copyrighted, are “in the public domain”. Or consider UK singer Cliff Richard’s accusation that, as copyright expires, “every three months from the beginning of 2008, I will lose a song”, as if the songs will no longer exist.
Open Access required
Any research that has been funded by public money, should be public in terms of access and copyright. I don’t think there’s a way to deny this. The Wellcome Trust, which funds research “to improve human and animal health”, now requires that all publications of the research they fund must be freely available after 6 months. I’m waiting for Finnish public funders to follow. In my opinion this should also cover software and data.
Link: Open Access definitions
WIPO Cartoon Parody
Lawrence Liang and others at the Alternative Law Forum have produced a wonderful remix/parody of a WIPO copyright education cartoon. See also Lawrence’s nice essay called “Copyright, Cultural Production and Open Content Licensing”.
(Via Siva.)
