[Upd-discuss] Copyright has no purpose

[Sigmascape1@cs.com]

Are you, are any of us, surprised by this type of thought process, or lack of thought process? Basically, what Ms Jones wants is for the 'owners' of intellectual property to have perpetual control over copyrighted works. I cannot speak for other countries, but I do feel that in the U.S., people in general have no idea how bad things are and how bad things are about to become in terms of the true reach of certain laws. It seems like every time you turn around, another law that helps SELECT interests is being batted around congress. In a very basic way, somehow, people have to be made aware of the situation. The issues of extending copyright lengths and making fair use almost non-existent are becoming more pronounced.

Does it surprise me that the U.S. population seems to be letting this happen? Of course not. Laws are passed all the time that people have no idea about. At some point in the not-too-distant future, maybe my fellow Americans will notice some things happening... maybe they can't record that Major League Baseball game they wanted to see, maybe their TiVo tells them that there are laws against preserving an old episode of Hill Street Blues and simply deletes it, maybe their computers start relaying application installation data to a central point where 'SELECT' companies are able to see what you have installed, and if its 'legal.' Maybe then my fellow Americans will understand how bad a 'SELECT' few organizations have made it on them. They might then understand that this is just the way it is, and to like it.

MLF



Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>The UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Free and Open Source, which was held in
>Geneva in September 2004, was graced by a visit by Lucinda Jones,
>Senior Legal Officer of the copyright department of WIPO.  She made a
>most amazing statement:
>
>    Copyright does not have a purpose.
>
>Lest people misunderstand, I should explain that Ms Jones did not mean
>to say that copyright is pointless, or that the companies behind
>recent extensions of copyright power have no purpose in mind.  What
>she meant was that the public should not ask that copyright serve any
>particular purpose, and particularly not a purpose for the good of
>society.
>
>Ms Jones asks us to think of copyright as something that simply
>exists, the way earthquakes and hurricanes exist.  It is beyond
>question, so we are supposed to accept the restrictions of the
>copyright system--both the present ones, and the new ones that
>megacorporations regularly ask for--without question.
>
>In other words, WIPO says, "Don't ask us to justify copyright policy,
>just submit."
>_______________________________________________
>Upd-discuss mailing list
>Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>