From Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>  Mon Jun 11 17:58:22 2001
From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr> (Bernard Lang)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:58:22 +0200
Subject: [Patents] UKPTO to extend IP cult to schools
In-Reply-To: <m158Pkk-002B4JC@querty.oas.a2e.de>; from PILCH Hartmut on Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 07:08:54PM +0200
References: <m158Pkk-002B4JC@querty.oas.a2e.de>
Message-ID: <20010611185822.B26593@margaux.inria.fr>


I can only agree with Hartmut.

However, another point is worth emphasizing in this document: Mr
Murphy's statement "Intellectual property crime [...] can be linked to
the deadliest forms of organised crime."

  This timely illustrates a recent article by Philippe Queau (from
UNESCO) in the Monde Diplomatique (in French ... but generally
translated in many languages, though on paper only ...):
      Nous sommes tous des cybercriminels
     http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/06/UAEUQ/
  by Philippe Uauq, Le Monde Diplomatique, page 3, Juin 2001.

  It begins by:
    RACISME, pdophilie, terrorisme, contrefaon  ... que
vient faire, au milieu de cet amalgame, la contrefaon ?

    RACISM, pdophilia, terrorism, IP infringement  ...  what is IP
infringement doing in the midlle of this mixture ...
   
   Since Mr murphy is so interested in citizenship, he might first
begin by having a proper scale for moral values.
  If there is a form of "Intellectual property crime linked to the
deadliest forms of organised crime", it is when pharmaceutical
companies will hold on their intellectual property at the expense of
the lives of millions of people who cannot pay for their patents.
This is organized crime indeed.

   But to call "deadly crime" a copyright infringement shows that Mr
Murphy has no moral sense whatsoever, and certainly no qualification
to state what should be taught to children.
   Though this really not important ... even children are smart enough
to see through the outrageous, irresponsible statements of Mr. Murphy.

  BTW... this statement was made in a speech to the publisher's
association, in April.  As we all know, copyright is there to protect
publishers, not authors.

   Another interesating reference:
Copyright Noncompliance (or why we can't "Just say yes" to licensing)
Jessica Litman, 29 N.Y.U. J. INT'L L. & POL. 237 (1997).
http://www.msen.com/~litman/no.htm
excerpt:
 even without any improvement in the incentives for authors
or the control authors have over their works, there will be lots and
lots of interesting things available over the Information
Infrastructure -- but that those things may not come to us from the
entities who have been supplying content to the conventional
media.... But, instead of trying to change the minds of millions of
people, instead of trying to persuade them that a long, complicated,
counterintuitive and often arbitrary code written by a bunch of
copyright lawyers is sensible and fair, why don't we just replace this
code with a set of new rules that more people than not think are
sensible and fair?


Bernard

On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 07:08:54PM +0200, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> Under
> 
> 	http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/press/releases/2001/copyrightcrime.htm
> 
> you find an UKPTO press release that reads as follows:
> 
>               The law alone is not enough to stop copyright crime
>                                        
>    In the digital age, legislation on its own is not enough to stop
>    copyright infringement, warns Anthony Murphy, Director of Copyright at
>    the UK Patent Office.
>    
>    Mr Murphy said: "We need to change people's attitudes, the importance
>    of respecting and valuing copyright needs to be realised
>    internationally, wherever books are read or music is listened to."
>    
>    "The idea that counterfeiting and piracy are victimless crimes is an
>    all too common perception. Intellectual property crime has a huge
>    impact on local communities and local jobs and can be linked to the
>    deadliest forms of organised crime."
>    
>    Copyright law may have emerged victorious from its tussle with music
>    swapping site Napster, but Mr Murphy feels that this is just the first
>    round in the 21st century copyright fight and wants more than
>    legislation in his armoury. "Napster was easy to sue because it had a
>    base in California, but more sophisticated rivals don't have a central
>    file server, so are very difficult to pin down. Where do you sue
>    them?"
>    
>    Copyright crime
>    
>    In Autumn 2002, a new subject, Citizenship, is being introduced into
>    the National Curriculum in UK secondary schools. Its aim is to teach
>    children how to be good, moral citizens and Anthony Murphy believes
>    the subject would be an ideal vehicle for teaching children about
>    intellectual property.
>    
>    "By bringing awareness of the importance of copyright into our
>    schools, tomorrow's consumers can take their place in a community
>    which understands, values and respects intellectual property."
>    
>    The creative industries in the UK are worth 60 billion (pounds
>    sterling) annually - about 4% of the GDP - and last year accounted for
>    7 billion (pounds sterling) in exports. They employ 1.4 million
>    people and collectively grow twice as fast as the UK economy as a
>    whole.
>    
>    Further information on patents, trademarks, registered designs and
>    copyright can be found on this web site or by visiting the government
>    Intellectual Property Portal at: [13]www.intellectual-property.gov.uk
> 
> The problem here is that the UKPTO is mixing up problems and presenting a
> one-sided view.
> 
> Remuneration of copyright is often based on a situation similar to the
> prisoner's dilemma of game theory: if a fair copyright regime is found and a
> minimum number of people are willing to support it for ethical reasons, then
> this will be in the interest of everybody.  Those who undercut such regimes
> for their own benefit, don't deserve our moral support.  There is nothing
> morally glorious about pirating commercial software, and "sharing to help
> one's neighbour" is usually not a good excuse.  Good Citizienship always
> entails a certain willingness to choose the public interest over one's own,
> when faced with the prisoner's dilemma.  And copyright of proprietary
> information is such a situation.
> 
> However in many cases the proprietors of copyright do not treat us as good
> citiziens in the first place.  The relationship between both sides is poisoned
> from the start.  By complying with the terms of the proprietor, I pull
> everybody into a lock-in situation, and I don't necessarily reward anything
> that is really worth rewarding.  Moreover the software is priced at a level
> where it is very unlikely in the first place that anybody will behave like a
> good citizien.  The proprietor himself does everything to not allow good
> citizienship to happen, perhaps because he has no confidence in it in the
> first place.  In that case, the only morally acceptable option is to opt out
> of the game altogether and instead support free software.
> 
> So far, digital copyright is largely in such a state, where it is not designed
> toward the "good citizien", and thus putting it into curricula for good
> citizienship is somewhat cynical, especially when the addressees of the
> "ethics" teaching are children in an uncritical age.  This again makes one
> think of 
> 
>       Richard Stallman's grim vision of a civil war about the "Right to Read"
>       http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
> 
> who envisages a systematic indoctrination of school children with an unnatural
> system of copyright ethics. 
> 
> What makes this look even more cynical is that the proposal comes from the
> patent office.  The patent system has increasingly maneuvered itself into a
> situation of moral bankruptcy, where it can no longer rely on anything but
> brute force for the acceptance of its rulings.  The UKPTO is among those
> patent offices who have been granting patents on non-technical rules of
> calculation and organisation, contrary to the letter and spirit of the written
> law and of the customary consensus on the scope of the patent system as a
> system for rewarding technical inventions (and not just any kinds of good
> ideas) by a time-limited monopoly.  One of the reasons why this has happened
> lies precisely in the fact that the people at the patent offices have become
> imbued with an ideology of "intellectual property" which is no longer rooted
> in any balanced consideration of economic tradeoffs.  One could suspect that
> they now want to extend the increasingly sectarian nature of their patent
> movement to the defenseless children in British schools.
>  
> When law and ethics drift apart, as Mr. Murphy seems to be complaining, then
> it is first of all the responsibility of political decisionmakers like Murphy
> to do something to bring them back together.
> 
> See also 
> 
>     http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/05/2338246
> 
> for some discussions and links concerning this issue.
> 
> --
> Hartmut Pilch                                           http://phm.ffii.org/
> Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation	      http://swpat.ffii.org/
> 79100 signatures against software patents     http://petition.eurolinux.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX


