[pp.int.general] Uppsala Declaration - DRM, Derived works, non-commercial patent use

[Hans Häggström]

(Resending from the mail address that is subscribed to the list)


The draft looks good, with the exception of the group alliance question, that I
don't really have that much insight in, and the three points
(DRM, Derived works, and non-commercial patent use) I analyze below:

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM, \"Mårten Fjällstr\"öm
<marten.fjallstrom at piratpartiet.se> wrote:
> - Parliament writes copyright law, not the lobby
> Technical measures that prevent consumers from using culture in ways
> permitted by law, so-called DRM technologies, are outlawed.

Outlawing DRM can be somewaht problematic - how do you define DRM?
Will it be illegal to encrypt something, and then sell a software that
can decrypt it?

In my mind, it could be better to approach this by

1) Removing the laws that make reverse engineering or spreading
software (or hardware) that enable interoperability illegal.  To
examine, take apart, and try to understand software or hardware is a
natural human instinct, trying to restrict it is just an attempt to
restrict competition, innovation, and human thinking.

2) Improve consumer protection - require that DRM damaged products are
clearly labeled ("will only play on Apple IPod", etc), allow consumers
to return products that don't meet interoperability requirements, and
so on.

3) Require interoperable programs and formats for government purchases, etc.


>
> - Derivative works always permitted
> Instead of having derivative works normally prohibited except in quite fuzzy
> fair use exceptions, under our copyright, derivative works are always
> permitted (not covered by the original copyright), with exceptions to this
> very specifically enumerated in law with minimal room for interpretation
> (like "direct translations of a book").

So commercial derivative works are allowed?  Can I use a music piece
in a commercial movie without permission?  Can I use pieces of a
commercial movie in a music video (that I sell to MTV)?  Can I use the
mickey mouse figure in my own commercial movie?  Can I use other
peoples pictures and photos as textures in my commercial game?

This seems like it could cause some problems.  Non-commercial
derivative works should of course be permitted, but commercial
derivative works could more or less remove copyright for cross-medial
reuse.



Also, Patents should only apply to commercial use (until we can
abolish them completely) - if it isn't already the case (I haven't
studied patent law, and it's different for the member countries
anyway).

There are engineering projects that work on open source hardware 3D
printers that are able to print arbitrary parts out of plastic, and
soon also electronic components: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprap
This might introduce a new paradigm shift in cheap, ultra-customizable
products that you can print yourself at the cost of the plastics and
electronic components, with a potential to revolutionize hardware
production in the same way that open source revolutionized software.
If companies can stop these with hardware patents that monopolize a
lot of mechanical or electronics ideas, then the potential of open
source hardware will be slowed down by a few decades.

By pushing for allowing use of any patented ideas for non-commercial
uses we can win this fight faster earlier on, and avoid a dragged on
fight later when companies realize that consumers suddenly can create
their own hardware.


-- Hans Häggström (zzorn)