Hi.
Seth Johnson is trying to coordinate mutual support between "information freedom" advocates in Europe and the US. His e-mail is below. I have drafted a response from IFSO which I've put on the Wiki:
http://www.ifso.ie/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/CallForMutualSupport?action=show
My response is not itself a direct call for US assistance, but rather an initial statement of IFSO's position on the idea.
I plan to send it to the recipients of Seth's original e-mail tomorrow afternoon, so please make any necessary edits or comments.
Good luck,
Malcohol.
---------------------------------------
Hello folks,
I'm writing to all of you to provide you with a crucial opportunity to forge support from advocates in the United States for the cause of eliminating software patents.
A very broad range of advocates came together this past March for an Internet Commons Congress which was organized by Dan Berninger, an activist in the area of telecommunications policy, and New Yorkers for Fair Use [1].
The event was chiefly inspired by the United States Federal Communications Commission proposing to regulate Voice Over IP applications in accordance with regulations associated with the traditional publicly-switched telephone infrastructure. [2]
Dan realized the broad implications of this proposal and approached us to develop the program and do critical outreach for participants representing broader issues areas. The event was a great success. [3]
We designed this event to bring activists in telecommunications policy together with activists in a broad range of issues areas more closely related to exclusive rights policy. In order to do this effectively, we framed the event in such a way that exclusive rights policy implications were represented in terms of the following three rights or interests of the public:
1) the right to own fully-functional computers; 2) the right to make flexible use of published information; and 3) the right to express logic in code freely.
The upshot is that the third item is obviously highly relevant to what all of you are deeply involved in right now in Europe.
Coming out of the event, we have continued discussions among the participants. This is a group that crosses the entire information freedom activist community in the United States, including leading voices from the leading organizations. Besides the 50+ active contacts that derived from the event, nearly 250 more are regularly blind copied, as a result of their having shown interest by attending or responding to the initial outreach for the event.
So what can you do with this?
I am asking that all of you included in this email, work to compose a call for the assistance of the United States information freedom activist community, in your fight to block software patents in Europe. I can send your message to the ICC participants.
I would like to send your communication to the ICC participants by the end of this Thursday.
I see one specific thing you can most productively ask for: that they write a letter of support from advocates in the United States, signed by important voices in the fight, that could be sent to EU Council, Commission, Presidency, and Parliament contacts, national representatives in the member states, as well as relevant government agency contacts.
The one specific thing I most recommend you ask them to say, is that the EPO case law is wrong.
An important thing to understand: I believe most of you are aware that the U.S. activist community has a number of misdirected positions regarding software patents. What I wish to state now is that what you must do is something called "delineation." You have to make the most principled part of your position the key to your approach -- for instance, state that you want to repeal or block software patents, not fix the system. We can expect a number, significant or not, of people not to go along with a position of outright opposition to software patents as such. This would be normal; the thing to remember is that you nevertheless get the strong supporters and you build strength for a principled position.
What we of the ICC will get from this, is a strong representation from all of you, of the software patents issue as such. You will help us strengthen this part of the framework for the ICC, and help yourselves in the bargain. We have been circumspect about the software patent issue, and we need to confirm its importance on a principled ground with the ICC group.
I have thought for a long time about what other things I would include in this email, but I think all I need to do right here is give you the idea, and we can follow through with discussing the particulars.
Thank you for your help,
Seth Johnson
---
[1] http://www.internationalunity.org http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc/audio/byspeaker
[2] Briefly, this was a proposal to consider regulations for "IP-enabled services" to fulfill regulations allowing for wiretapping, intercarrier access fees and universal service charges, emergency call services, and disability access. (See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-28A1.pdf)
[3] Many great things took root at this event. Most significantly, much of the recent WIPO activity was initiated by James Love and Manon Ress delivering a pitch to the ICC on international policy developments. People who came together at this event also joined to block the INDUCE Act. Other VoIP initiatives have approached us.
Hey all, I'd actually reverse the order of these points turning On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 19:04 +0100, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
- the right to own fully-functional computers;
- the right to make flexible use of published information; and
- the right to express logic in code freely.
into 1) the right to express logic in code freely, 2) the right to make flexible use of published information, and 3) the right to own fully-functional computers.
The first right (IMHO) is the right to freedom of speech and, specifically, to express mathematics or more specifically to express statements in the lambda calculus in a non-Church'ian notation.
The second right probably shouldn't be a right (IMHO) as it's covered by a producers copy allowance (copyright seems a strange term when talking about rights). Producers copy allowance is reasonable if it's not the length it currently is and there were other legal protections (the type Stallman talks about, having different length producer copy allowances for different types of products) and if copyright couldn't be claimed on source code unless it's actually published (It's a trade secret until then).
The third right is a function of the marketplace and as such I don't think it should be a right at all. Any reasonable computer will be an implementation of a Turing machine. I presume these guys are trying to get at the TCPA style devices. It should (IMHO) never be a right to own a non-TCPA computer; customers should demand it.
I don't want to modify Malcom's nice wiki page with my opinion, I'm just putting it out for debate. I do agree with Seth's "hard-line" approach to SW patents; they suck, they're a barrier to free speech and they're a protection for mathematics (something we've always considered we discovered, not invented).
Thanks Malcolm! Looking good so far . . .
I also have some motion behind the scenes on the FFII side, not specific yet, but looks like when one or both of you raise your heads, you'll find them supportive as well.
Seth
Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
Hi.
Seth Johnson is trying to coordinate mutual support between "information freedom" advocates in Europe and the US. His e-mail is below. I have drafted a response from IFSO which I've put on the Wiki:
http://www.ifso.ie/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/CallForMutualSupport?action=show
My response is not itself a direct call for US assistance, but rather an initial statement of IFSO's position on the idea.
I plan to send it to the recipients of Seth's original e-mail tomorrow afternoon, so please make any necessary edits or comments.
Good luck,
Malcohol.
Hello folks,
I'm writing to all of you to provide you with a crucial opportunity to forge support from advocates in the United States for the cause of eliminating software patents.
A very broad range of advocates came together this past March for an Internet Commons Congress which was organized by Dan Berninger, an activist in the area of telecommunications policy, and New Yorkers for Fair Use [1].
The event was chiefly inspired by the United States Federal Communications Commission proposing to regulate Voice Over IP applications in accordance with regulations associated with the traditional publicly-switched telephone infrastructure. [2]
Dan realized the broad implications of this proposal and approached us to develop the program and do critical outreach for participants representing broader issues areas. The event was a great success. [3]
We designed this event to bring activists in telecommunications policy together with activists in a broad range of issues areas more closely related to exclusive rights policy. In order to do this effectively, we framed the event in such a way that exclusive rights policy implications were represented in terms of the following three rights or interests of the public:
- the right to own fully-functional computers;
- the right to make flexible use of published information; and
- the right to express logic in code freely.
The upshot is that the third item is obviously highly relevant to what all of you are deeply involved in right now in Europe.
Coming out of the event, we have continued discussions among the participants. This is a group that crosses the entire information freedom activist community in the United States, including leading voices from the leading organizations. Besides the 50+ active contacts that derived from the event, nearly 250 more are regularly blind copied, as a result of their having shown interest by attending or responding to the initial outreach for the event.
So what can you do with this?
I am asking that all of you included in this email, work to compose a call for the assistance of the United States information freedom activist community, in your fight to block software patents in Europe. I can send your message to the ICC participants.
I would like to send your communication to the ICC participants by the end of this Thursday.
I see one specific thing you can most productively ask for: that they write a letter of support from advocates in the United States, signed by important voices in the fight, that could be sent to EU Council, Commission, Presidency, and Parliament contacts, national representatives in the member states, as well as relevant government agency contacts.
The one specific thing I most recommend you ask them to say, is that the EPO case law is wrong.
An important thing to understand: I believe most of you are aware that the U.S. activist community has a number of misdirected positions regarding software patents. What I wish to state now is that what you must do is something called "delineation." You have to make the most principled part of your position the key to your approach -- for instance, state that you want to repeal or block software patents, not fix the system. We can expect a number, significant or not, of people not to go along with a position of outright opposition to software patents as such. This would be normal; the thing to remember is that you nevertheless get the strong supporters and you build strength for a principled position.
What we of the ICC will get from this, is a strong representation from all of you, of the software patents issue as such. You will help us strengthen this part of the framework for the ICC, and help yourselves in the bargain. We have been circumspect about the software patent issue, and we need to confirm its importance on a principled ground with the ICC group.
I have thought for a long time about what other things I would include in this email, but I think all I need to do right here is give you the idea, and we can follow through with discussing the particulars.
Thank you for your help,
Seth Johnson
[1] http://www.internationalunity.org http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc/audio/byspeaker
[2] Briefly, this was a proposal to consider regulations for "IP-enabled services" to fulfill regulations allowing for wiretapping, intercarrier access fees and universal service charges, emergency call services, and disability access. (See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-28A1.pdf)
[3] Many great things took root at this event. Most significantly, much of the recent WIPO activity was initiated by James Love and Manon Ress delivering a pitch to the ICC on international policy developments. People who came together at this event also joined to block the INDUCE Act. Other VoIP initiatives have approached us.
--
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
Sign up for eircom broadband now and get a free two month trial.* Phone 1850 73 00 73 or visit http://home.eircom.net/broadbandoffer
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie