Talk:Copyright Policy Working Group

From Pirate Party UK Wiki

Contents 1 Views on topics for discussion 1.1 Trademarks 1.2 Copyright 1.3 Patents 1.3.1 Patent theory 1.3.2 Trade secrets

[edit] Views on topics for discussion

• Be aware - abolishing copyright will not be a good thing since certain free software licenses such as the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) will not be able to keep their strengths because the GPL uses copyright to enforce its freedom. Abolishing copyright is not a good thing. I believe that we should change the terms of copyright to be less restrictive but not get rid of it. --86.134.47.10 20:37, 14 August 2009
  • I'm happy to confirm that we do not propose to abolish copyright, rather to reduce the term to a more appropriate level. We are also aware of the issue that arises in regard of the GPL (see discussion on the page) and the draft policy which follows shortly will address this. --JohnB 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • rms' point is that the Pirate Party's copyright reform platform focuses entirely on free (gratis) use of binaries (which may be timebombed to expire after five years, even, making them useless for *any* purpose, commercial or non-commercial), whilst simultaneously removing copyright protection from GPL and other Free (libre) licenses after five years, thereby allowing proprietary software producers to loot them after their protection has expired. When it comes to software copyright, why not retain the existing term if the software is distributed as free (gratis) source code which a) is in the preferred form for study or modification and b) can be readily compiled to produce a functional binary?
• I am not sure about proposals to force surendering of source code at the end of a softwares copyright. This could be quite complex. 1. In some cases, the company may not be able to provide source code for the whole program. What if they imported it for sale? What if they signed an NDA? The reason FOSS has such trouble getting drivers is that GPL spreads viraly into tightly bound software. UK software industry will have the same problem getting info from abroad. 2. In some cases a closed source helps protect the security of a safety critical application. "Security experts" who do not write code will say that good software doesnt need to be hidden, but in reality budget means that no software is ever perfect. --86.141.206.117 15:07, 13 August 2009
• DRM shouldn't be illegal - too close to freedom of speech / right to encryption options --Lowenthal 07:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'd argue for noncommercial direct infringement and all (including commercial) indirect infringement permitted. You have to sell someone a copyrighted, unlicensed work to accrue liability. --Lowenthal 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Author must assert copyright (or appropriate licence) on first publication, and thereafter. Protection started from first publication.
• There have been some academic studies on the 'ideal' copyright term - the length of time that provides maximum incentive for new work production. Too short, and there's a reduced incentive to do any work. Too long, and there's a reduced incentive to do more work. --Lowenthal 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• If the copyright limit, and extension limit are short, this shouldn't be a problem. Say that copyright term is just a few years: the first year following publication would be automatic, and subsequent years would require action (and minor cost) to register work for that year, however the work couldn't remain in copyright beyond the statutory limit. This would prevent rights hoarding for minor works. --Lowenthal 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• How about an approach modelled on s52 of the CDPA whereby industrial scale marketing of an article derived from an artistic work reduces the duration of copyright protection. By this means "true" creative works such as original paintings, live musical performances,original manuscripts etc. could be afforded the strong protection they deserve, but once they had become mere consumer goods e.g.by distribution as prints, cds, paperbacks etc, they would move to a much less restrictive regime. -- Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Why not use a blanket legislative definition in a unified law. Something that describes the sort of things that can be covered, and provides examples, then leaves it up to the court. It makes sense to have a unified term &c, with only minor modifications for the different ways that works are used. --Lowenthal 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• If there's a copyright registration office, source-code escrow could be a required condition of obtaining a software copyright. That would seriously mitigate this problem. --Lowenthal 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps the solution is to make non-commercial performances are unrestricted? Clearly, sufficient definitions of 'noncommercial' are needed: something along the lines of considering the performance to be of only minor contribution to the services provides by the establishment? --Lowenthal 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• This is a very difficult problem, especially with regards to orphan works. What if the author cannot be determined? Perhaps a longer attribution period (~50) years after copyright ends? --Lowenthal 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• "droit d'auteur" is substantially the same thing as copyright (these days). Droit d'auteur can be broken down into Patrimonial rights such as the right to copy or sell a work on one hand and moral rights such as the right to be recognised as a works author or to maintain the integrity of the work on the other. It is true that moral rights are rather underdeveloped in the UK, but I suggest there are practical and moral arguments for bolstering rather than ignoring them. They are, and should remain inailienable so as to benefit solely the original author, and not corporations who may acquire the patrimonial rights. If the right to be recognised as a work's author could expire, that would leave the way open for any individual or corporation to claim authorship. -- Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Another agreement for this class of policy. --Lowenthal 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Fair use and derivative works. Re-arrangements, pastiches, collages, remixes and re-interpretations of existing works should be given special exemptions (even under a reduced copyright environment) as a way of stimulating the development of new expressions and ideas.

[edit] Trademarks

• What about the practice of specifying ahuge range of goods and services far beyond anything the registrant has the intention to use the mark on. The mark can be partially revoked after 5 years for the goods for which use cannot be demonstrated, but the matter still has to go before the courts, until when trademark infringement can be alleged for whole swathe of goods/services. Patents last upto 20 years and have to be novel and inventive. Trademarks can be renewed indefinately and there is no originality requirement. -- Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

• Legal Deposit Libraries: Publishers and distributors in the United Kingdom and in Ireland have a legal obligation to deposit published material in the six legal deposit libraries. These collectively maintain the national published archive of the British Isles. The principle of legal deposit has been well established for nearly four centuries and has great advantages for authors and publishers. Publications deposited with the legal deposit libraries: Are available to the libraries' registered users; Are preserved for the benefit of future generations;Become part of the national heritage. I suggest the legal deposit scheme is extended to require publishers to deposit electronic copies of published material (this makes it much more searchable and accessible). I also suggest that the legal deposit scheme is extended to include digital copies of film and television programs.

[edit] Patents

• What do you mean by "public-review period". UK patent applications are printed 18 months after filing along with their search report. The examiation then starts during which anyone can submit comments to the Examiner. There is also the possibility of requesting an opinion under s74A PA1977. I suppose the next step would be an opposition procedure as per that of the EPO.-- Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• The distinction of "ideas patents" is completely arbitrary- all patents are for ideas. Almost all patents include both method and apparatus claims- what is the objection to "method patents"- surely a method of making a car tyre (for example) if new and inventive can properly be protected by a patent? What is a "software patent"- is it a patent which specifically relates to a programming technique, oris it anything that can be implemented in software? In the latter case again, the distinction is arbitrary since the same invention could doubtless be implemented in hardware. -- Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Aren't patents for inventions, as opposed to ideas? -- Dan 14:17, 18 September 2009
• The idea of providing a working prototype belongs to the steam age and is unworkable in todays technology-Notwisthstanding the practicalities of storingthousands of prototypes, just imagine I have invented a new microelectronic memory device (say)- providing a working model is pointless, because the patent office will nothave the resources to determine how it is working, and will not, in fact, be able to tell if the model really corresponds to the claimed invention.-- Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rather than suggesting abolishing patents altogether,how about something based on the Soft IP approach. The present proposal is that patentees may have the option of making Licences to their patents available as of Right, at predetermined, reasonable rates (in return for a reduction in the yealy maintainance fees that patent owners pay). This means that patents are no longer the "sword of damocles" hanging over developers heads, since if it turns out that they have inadvertently infringed someones patent, they just get an automatic license. This idea could be developed so that in certain technical domains, all patents were "soft" patents. The terms of the licenses could also be set by the state. Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Patent theory

• I agree, I don't think patents should be abolished, but the do need serious reform in times granted as well as the exclusion of certain subsets such as software and business method patents. As per Bilski a machine or transformation test should be applied to all patents, and prior art should be thoroughly examined by the patent clerks. I oppose the ability to patent single naturally occuring genes, but should an inventor such as Craig Venter create an entirely new organism that produces a hydrocarbon soup as a waste product then this should be patentable imho. Valisk1 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• The comments above concerning patent theory are quite correct- patents should not be looked on as a way of encouraging innovation(which may or may notbe effective), but rather as a way of encouraging innovators to share their ideas, rather than keeping them secret- imagine if John Pemberton had patented the recipe for Coca Cola rather than keeping it secret, the recipe would now have been in the public domain for 100 years! In the age of cloud computing, it will be increasingly easy to keep software innovations secret,with only the client-side results visible to the public. We should be thinking about ways to encourage sharing of these innovations. Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trade secrets

• Does the UK have law covering trade secrets? Is it a legally protected form of knowledge? I know the US has trade secrets law, but I haven't seen any references to trade secrets law in the UK. If there is no law covering it then it doesn't seem necessary to have a policy. --MichaelFoord
• I disagree with Michael here. Even if there is no law covering trade secrets at the moment, a statement of policy now is still useful, should anything be drafted in future. I believe that a badly scoped trade secret law leaves big avenues for abuse, but haven't yet found any obvious examples of such behaviour, even in the US.--MCMLXXXIV 10:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what you're all talking about here. Trade secrets are not a form of intellectual property in the legal sense- they're just secrets. The law can be used to keep secrets secret through contracts (e.g. confidentiality agreements) and employment law (fiduciary duty of employees, etc.)Sparkston 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)