[Patents] UKPTO to extend IP cult to schools

[Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr> (Bernard Lang)]

one more detail:

Anthony Murphy delivered the speech as the keynote address at the AGM
of the Publishers Association on Tuesday 10/4/01

(source: Peter Colegate, contact for UKPTO press release)

Bernard


On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 06:58:22PM +0200, Bernard Lang wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 Uaéuq, Le Monde Diplomatique, page 3, Juin 2001.
> 
>   It begins by:
>    « RACISME, pédophilie, terrorisme, contrefaçon » ... que
> vient faire, au milieu de cet amalgame, la contrefaçon ?
> 
>    « RACISM, pédophilia, 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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