Via: "Anivar Aravind"
*Please Circulate widely*
With Usual apologies for X-posting
On behalf of the organizers,
Free Software Users Group- Bangalore
cordially invites you to
The National Public Meeting on Software Patents
====================================
==Venue==
2nd Floor, Ecumenical Resource Centre,
United Theological College,
Millers Road, Benson Town.
(Behind Cantonment Railway Station)
Bangalore–560046
==Time==
10:00–17:00
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Software patents in India occupy a contentious and indeterminate legal
space. While recent amendments to the Patent Act have sought to bring
our law in conformity with WTO-mandated standards, these amendments have
shied from pronouncing conclusively on the patentability of software.
The result is an equivocation in the law which is being wrestled
aggressively and effectively by corporate interests, patent attorneys
and the Patent Office in favour of granting software patents. Unheard,
and so unrepresented in this powerful triad are the interests of
millions of citizen-consumers who are either presumed too ignorant to be
credited with a view on the issue, or are presumed to be irrelevant to
the determination of issues which are seen as purely "business" matters
(as opposed to "citizen" matters).
Software is everywhere you look (and many places you never think
of looking). With the explosion of low-cost computing devices (think
mobile phones and iPods), software has leaked out of its traditional
home—the PC—and begun infiltrating various aspects of our lives. From
traffic signals to toilet commodes in some countries, refrigerators to
railway tickets, vacuum cleaners and electronic voting machines, TVs,
refrigerators and electronic pacemakers, inanimate objects of all sizes
are humming to themselves, chattering amongst themselves in an
intricate, highly complex tongue called 'software' that few of us can
ever hope to understand. On the impulses of software, we stop or move on
streets, fill up on petrol, and elect governments. Someone's heart
beats. Someone else receives land records on a village kiosk. Someone is
standing by helplessly for fourteen years (the un-evergreened term of a
patent) because software failed to factor in her disability.
There are big stakes involved in the control of software in an era
when software is becoming increasingly central to the way we humans
organize our lives and inhabit a democracy. At one level this is about
preserving the right of agency and self-direction that citizens have in
their own lives. At another, it is about the right not to be silenced
when our long-fought democratic republic is at risk of being diminished
by a few lines of software in a machine. Whether or not we are all in
fact capable of deciphering software is inessential. Those of us who are
ought not to be denied the freedom to interrogate, tinker and improve.
Patents have the effect of adding an additional layer of 'protection'
to already existing copyright protection of software, while
simultaneously overriding the various affordances and safeguards built
into copyright law. For instance, the right of "fair dealing" under
copyright law permits users to examine and modify any software in order
to make it interoperable with other software. This is an extremely
potent right that reasserts our right to intervene in the shaping of our
surroundings. It is also one of the rights that is most imperiled by
software patents.
The present "public hearing" on software patents is an invitation
for dialogue on the various issue surrounding software patents.
Although the Patent Office had scheduled a public consultation on its
Draft Patent Manual to be held in Bangalore in August this year, that
meeting was abruptly cancelled (or postponed indefinitely, or to an
unannounced date—we can't be sure) without any reasons having been
assigned by the Patent Office. This signals either of two unpleasant
scenarios: first, the Patent Office is proceeding with its consultations
in an extremely mechanical fashion, not intending inputs received in the
course of these consultations to qualitatively impact their functioning
in any way; or secondly, perhaps the Patent Office underestimates the
amount that citizens living in the IT capital of India might have to say
on the subject of software patents.
It is our attempt in this public hearing to organize the kind of
consultation that the Indian Patent Office ought to have conducted. We
hope also hereby, to serve as a gentle but firm reminder to the Patent
Office that its task is as yet undone.
==Agenda==
1000–1100
Presentation on the principles of patent law and
software patents
Sudhir Krishnaswamy
(National Law School)
Prabir Purkayastha
(Delhi Science Forum)
Nagarjuna G.
(Free Software Foundation of India)
1100–1130
Discussion on software patents in the Indian context:
Indian Patent Act, and the draft patent manual
Prashant Iyengar
(Alternative Law Forum)
Venkatesh Hariharan
(Red Hat)
1130–1150
Tea break
1150–1240
Discussion on patents and the development sector
(freedom of speech, open standards, healthcare, biotech, agro-sector,
etc.)
Sunil Abraham
(Centre for Internet and Society)
Anivar Aravind
(Movingrepublic, FSUG-Bangalore)
Others
1240–1300
Presentation on the software patents that have been
granted so far in India
Pranesh Prakash
(Centre for Internet and Society)
1300–1400
Lunch break
1400–1700
Open House
T. Ramakrishna
(National Law School)
Abhas Abhinav
(DeepRoot Linux)
Joseph Mathew
(Special It advisor, Govt of Kerala)
Sreekanth S. Rameshaiah
(Mahiti Infotech)
Vinay Sreenivasa
(IT for Change)
Any others who wish to speak
==Organizers==
Centre for Internet and Society; Free Software Users Group-Bangalore;
Free Software Foundation of India; SPACE; IT for Change; Alternative
Law Forum; Delhi Science Forum; Movingrepublic; Sarai/CSDS; OpenSpace,
; Swathanthra Malayalam Computing; Servelots - Janastu; Mahiti; DeepRoot
Linux; Wiki Ocean; Turtle Linux Lab; Zyxware Technologies; INSAF; Aneka
Anivar Aravind
+91 9449009908
Via: "Raman Chima"
Hello again all,
Apologies, but needed to make a small clarification concerning the
last post - the deadlines for submissions to the Journal for it's next
issue is November 15th of this year, not October 31st as stated in the
last post.
Sincerely,
Raman.
Via: "Raman Chima"
{Apologies for cross-posting on the Reader List}
The Indian Journal of Law and Technology, published by the Law and
Technology Committee of the Student Bar Association of the National
Law School of India University, Bangalore, is India's first and only
journal devoted to the field of law and technology. Articles are
selected for publication after being peer reviewed by an external
Article Review Board consisting of eminent academicians and
practitioners in the field of technology law. The Journal is managed
and edited by an Editorial Board comprising of students from the
National Law School of India University, selected annually on the
basis of editing skill and expertise in technology law.
The Journal accepts submissions in the form of articles, notes,
comments, and book reviews on a host of legal issues regarding the
interface between law and technology, including e-commerce, cyber
crime, biotechnology, bioethics, competition law, outsourcing,
intellectual property, relevant public policy, and law and society
issues posed by technology, communications and evidentiary technology,
with particular emphasis on issues affecting developing nations.
Past issues of the Journal have featured articles by distinguished
authors such as Yochai Benkler, Donald S. Chisum, Raymond T. Nimmer,
John Frow, Lawrence Liang, and Shamnad Basheer, among others. The
forthcoming 2008 issue of the Journal features:
• A special comment entitled 'Saving the Internet' by Jonathan
Zittrain, Harvard Professor of Internet Law and Co-Director of the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
• An article on Data Protection Efforts in India by Latha R. Nair,
Partner, KNS Partners, New Delhi.
• A review of Thomas Schultz's 'Information Technology and
Arbitration: A Practitioner's Guide' by Promod Nair, an Associate with
Herbert Smith LLP's International Arbitration Group.
• An article on a way forward with respect to Database Rights by Deepu
Jacob Thomas and Prasan Dhar.
Submissions are invited for Volume 5 of the Journal, which will be
published in March–April 2009. The Journal follows a rolling
submissions policy with the deadline for the 2009 issue being 31st of
October of this year; manuscripts received after this date will be
reviewed for publication in the subsequent issue. The Journal welcomes
articles from a variety of viewpoints, and greatly encourages
submissions which respond to content previously published in the
Journal. All submissions may be e-mailed to ijltsubmit@nls.ac.in with
a CC to ijlt2009@gmail.com.
Information regarding the journal, including subscription and
submission information can be found at
http://www.nls.ac.in/students/IJLT. Abstracts of articles published in
the current issue, and full texts of past articles, are also
available. For any further information concerning the Journal's
editorial policies, or subscription details, kindly contact us at
ijltedit@nls.ac.in.
Sincerely,
Raman Jit Singh Chima
Chief Editor,
The Indian Journal of Law and Technology.
Via: "Pranesh Prakash"
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=SC0809/S00059.htm
ICT Industry Moves To Address Copyright Confusion
Friday, 19 September 2008, 10:25 am
Press Release: Joint Media Statement
Joint Media Statement by Telecommunications Carriers' Forum;
InternetNZ; Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand;
Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand; New Zealand
Computer Society; Women in Technology
Auckland, 19 September 2008
ICT Industry Moves To Address Copyright Confusion
"A deeply flawed law that undermines fundamental rights and simply
will not work."
That is what the telecommunications industry, internet service
providers, user groups, internet advocates and IT professionals think
of parts of the recently passed Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment
Act.
The TCF is today announcing steps to create a Code of Practice to
guide ISPs and internet users through a legislative minefield created
by section 92A of the Copyright Act.
"Section 92A has achieved one thing, and one thing only", TCF CEO
Ralph Chivers said today, "uniting the ICT sector and others who will
be affected in an unprecedented show of solidarity against it".
"While we recognise that the Act has introduced a number of positive
measures, some hastily inserted last-minute changes have placed an
unacceptable burden on internet service providers and have the
potential to significantly undermine the legal rights of internet
users", Mr Chivers said.
Section 92A, when it is brought into force, will require ISPs to
"reasonably implement" a policy to disconnect "in appropriate
circumstances" the internet services of users who have repeatedly
downloaded or uploaded infringing music, movies, games and other
copyright material.
"The Act gives no guidance on what 'reasonably implement' or 'in
appropriate circumstances' mean," Mr Chivers said. "This leaves the
door wide open to those who seek disconnection of an alleged repeat
infringer based on flimsy evidence, or worse, allegations alone."
"Identifying repeat offenders will not be easy. A complex data
matching exercise will be required, and even then it will not always
be clear who the real offender is, particularly when an internet
account is used by a family, a business or a school. The potential for
an alleged offender to be denied natural justice is significant. For
these reasons, a court order backed up by solid evidence would
normally be required before taking such invasive action."
"Businesses support the need to protect intellectual property, and we
are sympathetic to the significant problems the music, movie and
gaming industries face. However, balance is the key. Protecting one
person's interests at the expense of others is completely
inappropriate," Chivers said.
InternetNZ Executive Director Keith Davidson agrees. "The potential
for infringement of human rights is a significant concern to us.
Arguably one of the great benefits of the Internet has been the
strengthening of human rights and the development of democratic
freedoms around the world. However, this law change has the potential
for Internet users to have their service disconnected on very weak
grounds, undermining the fundamental right of 'innocent until proven
guilty'."
"Rights holders and the industry need to work together, to find more
pragmatic solutions. We need to preserve the service providers'
obligations to offer unencumbered access to the Internet for their
customers but at the same time find ways to adequately protect
copyright," Davidson said.
Internet Service Providers Association President Jamie Baddeley
likened the situation to putting private security guards in to quell a
riot without body armour. "The worst aspect of this law is that it
provides no protection to ISPs who try and implement the law's
requirements in good faith. They are exposed to legal risk from their
customers if they act, and to legal risk from copyright holders if
they do not. They are caught in the middle without any form of legal
protection and will be required to go through a costly and complex
process to solve a problem that is not of their making," Mr Baddeley
said. "This has the potential to put some of our smaller innovative
members out of business - undoing a lot of the great work the
government has previously done to develop a more competitive
environment."
"It is unacceptable that Parliament has placed the burden of sorting
out this mess on ISPs," TUANZ CEO Ernie Newman said. "ISPs in New
Zealand are socially responsible; it's not their job to interpret and
enforce vague laws, particularly when they interfere with their
customers' rights. Worse still, the definition of ISP in the Act
captures schools, universities, and libraries – in fact just about
anyone who provides internet access to someone else. The loose
language Parliament has included in the legislation will require an
army of lawyers to interpret, at the expense of ISPs and ultimately,
their customers."
"The New Zealand Computer Society strongly supports protection of
Intellectual Property, but this isn't the way to do it", NZCS's Chief
Executive Paul Matthews added. "You could use the same flawed
justification that underpins this law to force The Warehouse to ban
someone from shopping there for their food and clothes just because
they are accused of copying a few DVDs that they have bought. Yes,
copyright infringement is wrong, but it needs to be proven first and
the penalty kept in proportion. Termination of all internet access in
this day and age of online education, social networking and electronic
services is a huge penalty," Matthews said. "This is simply bad law
whichever way you look at it."
Cheryl Horo from Women in Technology pointed to the value of solving
the underlying issues. "Ultimately it is in all of our interests to
ensure that artists, as with our technology businesses, receive a fair
return on their investments. New Zealand's film, music and gaming
industries are increasingly dependent on advanced information
technology - it is in all of our interests to help these sectors grow
and develop. Education will play an important role in progressing this
issue."
Recognising the difficulties created by s92A, the TCF is developing a
Code of Practice aimed at providing a consistent and workable approach
to meeting the requirements of the Act.
"We are grateful for the early work done on this issue by InternetNZ,"
Mr Chivers said. "We will build on this work to create an industry
code that has wide buy-in, so that users are appropriately protected
and ISPs are able to continue providing services without unnecessary
legal risk."
"The TCF will continue to consult widely as we develop the Code,
including with copyright holder groups. We accept that copyright
infringement is a problem and we will do our part to ensure it is
appropriately managed," Chivers said.
"In our view, it makes sense to delay the introduction of section 92A
to give time for the Code to be developed. In our discussions with
copyright holders and government we have stressed the need to find a
better way of managing this problem – section 92A as it stands simply
won't cut it. Regardless, it will be the responsibility of the next
Parliament to repair the problems caused by this deeply flawed
legislation."
Via: "Pranesh Prakash"
From the Beeb:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621647.stm
"Merged banks' names cybersquatted"
Internet addresses corresponding to recent bank mergers are already
being hoarded and sold online.
In "cybersquatting", likely addresses are bought cheaply in the hope
of selling to the businesses involved, or as a medium for advertising.
Domain names for the merged Bank of America/Merrill Lynch as well as
for Lloyds TSB/HBOS have been snapped up.
In one case, the domain name has already been listed on eBay, with the
site directing visitors to the auction.
As reports of Lehman Brothers' intent to sell itself first surfaced
last Friday, cybersquatters had already spotted Barclays, HSBC and
Bank of America as potential buyers.
Accordingly, barclayslehman.com, hsbclehman.com,
hsbclehmanbrothers.com and bofalehman.com had been acquired.
With the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America this week,
cybersquatters registered bankofamericamerrilllynch.com and
bofaml.com.
In the UK, speculation surrounding the merger of Lloyds TSB with HBOS
prompted yet more cybersquatting, so that now lloydstsbhbos.com and
hboslloydstsb.com are owned.
"It shows how there are opportunists out there waiting to pounce on
any event," says Jonathan Robinson, chief operating officer of
NetNames.
"We've seen it in the case of celebrity with David Beckham going to LA
Galaxy, we've seen it in the case of tragedy, with Princess Diana's
death. There's a subtle twist on the whole thing now, which is the
anticipation of the event."
'Click-through value'
Many cybersquatters have pay-per-click ads as revenue generators while
awaiting potential buyers.
"Back in the mists of time, these names had a capital value and could
be exchanged for cash," says Mr Robinson.
"There's another value they have nowadays and that's a click-through
value, a cash flow that they generate in the whole world of online
advertising.
"There's even automated software that will populate a website with
relevant content."
The speculative HSBC/Lehman site, for example, looks like a news site
about the myriad mergers and movements but features Google adverts
along the margins.
In the case of bankofamericamerrilllynch.com, the object is more
apparent; a visit to the site directs visitors to an eBay auction in
which the domain name is for sale.
"The lesson has been there for a while for anyone working in the
mergers and acquisitions area that this is a key area to focus on in
the due diligence process," Mr Robinson says.
"One can't wait until after the deal is announced or the product is launched."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7621647.stm
Published: 2008/09/17 17:32:18 GMT
(c) BBC MMVIII
Via: "Pranesh Prakash"
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lea Shaver
Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 00:59
Subject: [A2k] Materials from A2K3 Conference, September 8-10
To: a2k@lists.essential.org
- --
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
The ISP's third annual Access to Knowledge conference (A2K3) has just
concluded in Geneva. Summaries of all the panels and materials
submitted by the participants are available at http://a2k3.org/.
Thanks to everyone who helped make the event such a success!
Best,
Lea
- --
Lea Bishop Shaver
A2K Program Director
Information Society Project
Yale Law School
203-432-7046 (office)
203-535-2560 (mobile)
- ---------
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1214&print=1
Intellectual Property Watch
9 September 2008
Access To Knowledge Conference Begins Addressing New Challenges With New Ideas
By Kaitlin Mara
A key conference on access to knowledge (A2K) opened Monday, with
veterans of the A2K movement mixed with many new faces and all
participants hoping to find new ideas over the next few days, as they
seek to clarify the best paths forward.
"The great insight of this movement," said Yale Law School Information
Society Project Director Jack Balkin during the welcome address, "was
bringing together a wide range of people who didn't even imagine that
they were working on similar goals, dispersed as they were in their
focus on health, science, movies, music, culture, telecommunications
policy, innovation, fair competition, freedom of the press and
transparency in governance."
The access to knowledge (A2K) movement, which emerged in the early
2000s, "helped us to see we were all after the same things," said
Balkin, but "precisely because of this success, [the movement] is at a
crossroads."
Maximiliano Santa Cruz of the Chilean mission in Geneva noted that the
intellectual property scene in Geneva four years ago was very
different. Changes since then include a public health amendment to the
World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects on
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), agreement on a World
Intellectual Property Organization Development Agenda, and the recent
adoption of the World Health Organization Global Strategy on Public
Health, Innovation, and Intellectual Property, all of which he said
were informed by the A2K movement.
But how the initiative will remain relevant in the future is the
question begun to be answered yesterday. The third conference,
organised by the Yale Internet Society Project, Geneva think tank
IQsensato and others, is taking place in Geneva from 8 to 10
September. Yale hosted its first A2K conference in 2006.
New Voices; New Directions
Some highlights of discussion throughout the day included future
funding of A2K activities, the expansion of the A2K effort into new
agreements, rules and regulations (such as international standards),
concrete efforts to build capacity in developing countries, and new
ideas on how to exploit linkages between intellectual property rights
and international trade that had previously been thought barriers to
access to knowledge.
Financing will be a key upcoming issue, noted Michael Geist, a law
professor at the University of Ottawa. "These initiatives haven't
happened by accident," he said, noting that foundation funding had
played "a crucial role in allowing the voices to come together."
Teresa Hackett of Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net)
echoed this concern, saying civil society groups are less well-funded
than private interests and lobby groups, so creative solutions must be
found with funders to allow continuing participation.
Others mentioned new angles in the access movement might need to
examine as it makes its way into the future. Tim Hubbard, a leading
scientist with the Human Genome Project, noted that a rising question
for A2K advocates in the future was going to be balancing the drive
for access to information with the need for privacy. With human
genomes, even summaries of the data needed for statistical analysis
are detailed enough to identify the individual who donated genetic
material. It will be necessary either to accept that this kind of data
will be public, or to find a way for data to be filtered through a
trusted third party to prevent the misappropriation of private
information.
Margaret Chon of Seattle University Law School presented her recent
research on standard setting and certification as "increasingly the
way we regulate things globally." For every access issue, she noted,
there is a corresponding standard: for innovation systems, there are
open source standards; for climate change, clean development
mechanisms regulating emissions standards; for public health, food
safety standards.
These standards are often made and managed by non-governmental
organisations, notably the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), but also several focussed non-profit bodies
managing, for instance, "fair trade" certifications. On the one hand
this management style allows space for grassroots leadership and new
entrepreneurs, Chon said, but on the other hand it is unclear who
holds standards bodies accountable, and the shear number of bodies and
standards can obfuscate what any one in particular means.
Gabrielle Marceau of the WTO secretariat noted that standards are a
good way to bring ideas from outside the WTO system into its law. If a
member state puts up a trade restriction, but does so in order to
comply with an international standard, it is considered to be
acceptable at the WTO, she explained. But Chon said it is important
that standards be used to encourage not just access to knowledge but
access to justice.
Also generating interest was a statement by Catherine Bennett of the
National Foreign Trade Council, the first member of a private sector
association to speak at an access to knowledge conference. Her
organisation's stakeholder support for intellectual property is borne
out of a desire for the kinds of infrastructure, transparency and
enforcement they need to feel comfortable with foreign direct
investment.
"The private sector is weary," she said, "of the confrontational
nature of intellectual property." She added that her organisation was
"interested in a dialogue" but that putting too many demands on the
private sector "will drive the golden goose away," reducing the
foreign direct investment (FDI) developing countries need. Several
audience members raised concerns that FDI has been shown not to
encourage technology transfer in the least developed countries.
Sisule Musungu of IQsensato noted that access to knowledge needed to
focus not only on intangible assets such as intellectual property
rights and technical barriers to trade, but also on physical goods.
"If we are just concerned about software," he said, "how do we ensure
that the one-laptop per child computers move to where they are
supposed to be?"
Richard Owens of WIPO said whether details of technical assistance
provided by the UN agency are made accessible is traditionally up to
the national government who requested it, but he expected this would
be reviewed by the incoming WIPO director general.
Marisella Ouma of the African Copyright and Access to Knowledge
Network presented an innovative project in Africa to deal with these
necessary capacity building issues. Her group is examining the way
that copyright law can be amended to facilitate access to educational
material, noting that "what happens in practice influences A2K" as
much as what's on the books, and further noting that while wireless
telephony has revolutionised the A2K movement it is important to
consider how many people actually have access. She noted that her lack
of broadband internet at home presents a real barrier to accessing
information online, due to long download times.
Other innovative ideas were presented by Thiru Balasubramaniam of
Knowledge Ecology International - who presented a KEI proposal for a
WTO agreement on the supply of knowledge as a public good, which would
use "voluntary but binding commitments to enhance the supply of a
heterogeneous" set of global public goods - and by Molly Beutz of New
York Law School and Christian Courtis of the International Commission
on Jurists, who discussed the application of the UN Universal
Declaration on Human Rights to access issues.
Andrew Rens of the Shuttleworth Foundation had reservations on this
use of human rights discourse, asking if it were simply a needless
rhetorical change, when the language of development, and in particular
economic development, is already strong enough to incentivise action
on A2K.
Over the next two days, attendees to the conference will be discussing
in detail different specific applications of access to knowledge to
varying areas of intellectual property, including possible alternative
models of business organisation.
The hundreds of participants from around the world include government
and intergovernmental officials, academics, lawyers, human rights and
health activists and a wide range of non-governmental organisations,
entrepreneurs and corporate representatives, think tanks, librarians,
and funders.
Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.
Via: "Pranesh Prakash"
Dear All,
The Open Rights Group (in response to the European Commission's
proposed extension of copyright term) notes that "for the vast
majority [80%] of performers the projected extra sales income
resulting from term extension is likely to be meagre: from as little
as 50¢ each year in the first ten years, to as 'much' as €26.79 each
year."
Blog post: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/09/05/performers-likely-to-get-as-little-as-50%C2%A2-a-year-from-increased-term-of-copyright/
Submission to Commission:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/uploads/080829_ukipo_ectermextension.pdf
Commission's proposal:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/term/ia_term_en.pdf
Bernt Hugenholtz's open letter to the EC:
http://www.ivir.nl/news/Open_Letter_EC.pdf
The Ars Technica report on the ORG's submission:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-80-of-artists-would-get-30year-from-copyright-extension.html
80% of artists would get <€30/year from copyright extension
By Nate Anderson |
Published: September 08, 2008 - 09:45PM CT
The EU is considering a plan to extend musical copyrights for another
45 years ,
ostensibly to help out aging performers who are being cut off when the
current 50-year terms expire. But those musicians (can someone
introduce them to the concept of saving for retirement?) won't see
much of the new cash, according to the UK's Open Rights Group
.
Most performers will make less than €30 a year, even as major labels
and big stars take far more.
The Open Rights Group, a UK "grassroots technology advocacy
organization," is responding to a request for comments from the UK's
Intellectual Property Office. UKIPO wants to know how it should weigh
in on the EU-wide proposal, and the Open Rights Group's response is
clear: the proposal is a bad idea.
This was also the conclusion reached by a leading European copyright
expert, Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, in a paper actually paid for in
part by the European Commission. (When the Commission simply ignored
the paper in making its policy proposal, Hugenholtz went public with
his astonishment and displeasure
.)
It was also the conclusion reached by the Gowers Review
in the UK,
which took a wide-angle look at intellectual property issues and
concluded that copyright term extensions weren't necessary or
justified by the facts.
In its analysis, the Open Rights Group focuses on one of the key
problems presented by the EU: aging musicians whose royalties run out
just as they become old and infirm. According to the group, a 45-year
term extension is hardly the best way to address the issue.
"The Commission makes much of the challenging financial situation
facing aging performers," it says. "While we do not accept that IP law
is an appropriate mechanism to deal with this situation, as we will
demonstrate in the second section of this submission, it also turns
out to be a very inefficient one."
That's because 90 percent of the extra money generated during the
extended term will go to music labels. Of the 10 percent that goes
directly to artists, eight or nine percent will go to the "top 20
percent of earning performers"—in other words, the most successful
groups, which have already made millions.
