[Sussex] RMS Talking at Sussex Uni

[Steven Dobson]

Hi Dominic

On 10/03/11 17:06, Dominic Humphries wrote:
>>> I'm beginning to think he's trolling, TBH - he's had the point hammered
>>> home repeatedly but he's still apparently unable to grasp it. 
>>
>> You might be right, but I'm more inclined to think that he can't see
>> beyond his own small, little box.
> 
> That's the conclusion I've come to too. I think I'll give up on
> replying :o)

I noticed that you had tried again.  I also notice that there is a limit
to how many levels of replies the system allows.  This makes it
difficult to counter some of his latest arguments.

>> You are right, much code would be out of copyright.  But that would
>> apply evenly.  Lots and lots of propriety code would also enter the
>> public domain.  How much easier would it be to interface with XP of that
>> code as legally available?
> 
> It would certainly give Wine & ReactOS a boost!

Which I would count as a worth the cost of losing the long term
copyright on work I publish.

>> 1) Copyright would not be automatic.  All works would be in the public
>> domain unless copyrighted.
> Hmm.. I don't know.. that would potentially be a lot of work - what if
> every blogger out there wanted their posts copyright and started
> emailing them to the copyright office on publication?

I am not proposing that one has to register to get copyright.  One of
the copyright reforms turned on auto application.  I wish to returned to
the system before that.  If you want copyright you need to publish it
with a copyright notice.  I put a copyright noticed in my source files
because I care about them.  Posts like this I don't.  If a blogger
wished to have copyright he would only need to add the appropriate
copyright noticed to the site code (much like PJ does on Groklaw).

But if proprietary software companies wanted copyright protection for
there code that would be forced to publish it in some manor.  For them a
centralized, state run copyright office maybe the answer.  Given such
companies both copyright protection with out publication is giving them
to much power.  Think about the SCO clams of copyright infringement. SCO
would not have done what they did if the code they were claiming
infingment on was published - not in the public domain, but available
for public review of their claims.

> It's ironic that there's a system that most people would be very happy
> with WRT copyright that seems to be overlooked consistently:
> 
>  - Publish something, it's automatically copyright for a short time -
> say five years.
>  - After those five years, it either goes into public domain, or you
> have to register it for copyright
>  - Copyright can be renewed every five years for a small fee, with a
> very high maximum limit - a hundred years or so
>  - The small fee gets a little bigger with each renewal
> 
> That way, Disney could keep their precious Mickey Mouse films
> copyrighted for a long, long time without having to keep buying changes
> to the law; they don't force everything ELSE that gets copyrighted to be
> unusable as well; and only works with a clearly-defined owner that are
> valuable enough TO that owner to be worth the renewal fee would be
> copyrighted.
> 
> Considering Disney has made so much money out of things that were in the
> public domain, you'd think they could see the value in a system which
> could keep their creations out of it but put more material into it..

Yes, there is much to like in that system.  I'd even go so far as to say
that there should be no time limit on copyright extension.  If a
copyrighted work is still very profitable to the owner then maybe they
should be allowed to continue their monopoly.

I don't see that there is that much benefit to society as a whole for
Mickey Mouse entering the public domain.  We would no doubt get a rather
large number of cheep, shoddy merchandise, and I can see that some of
that maybe dangerous to small kids.

But there is a lot of work out there which as little or no commercial
value, but is being held back from the public domain, where it would be
of very high value to a small number of people.

>> 2). Mandatory publication of copyrighted works at termination of copyright.
> This one would be important for proprietary software - otherwise FOSS
> would go public domain and people could use it, but proprietary would be
> free to anyone who could get a copy.. but how would they get
> MS/Apple/whoever to actually GIVE them such a copy?

Do you really think that there are people out there that are not using
FLOSS because it isn't in the public domain?  Who do you know would
choose proprietary over FLOSS if there wasn't an PD version available?

However, you are right, publication at termination of copyright is not a
practical solution.  I now see that which is why publication at
copyright start is the way I think it should happen.  What I was trying
to implement was that copyright works get forced into the public domain
when they should.

Steve
-- 
Steve "Dobbo" Dobson