Association for Computing Machinery (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Reacting to computer news from ACM (Association for Computing Machinery): “Computer Scientists Oppose Oracle’s Bid to Copyright Java APIs”…
Computer Scientists Oppose Oracle’s Bid to Copyright Java APIs IDG News Service (05/30/13) James Niccolai In a court brief, nearly three dozen computer scientists voiced concerns over Oracle’s plan to copyright its Java application programming interface (API), which they believe would hinder the computer industry and limit end users’ access to affordable technology. The group, which includes MS-DOS author Tim Paterson and ARPANET developer Larry Roberts, signed the amicus brief in support of Google in its copyright lawsuit with Oracle. Oracle accuses Google of infringing the copyright on its Java APIs in the development of Google’s Android operating system, and is seeking billions of dollars in damages. Google argues that software APIs are not eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law. Last year, a district court in California mostly agreed with Google and ruled against Oracle in the case, but Oracle appealed the decision. “The freedom to reimplement and extend existing APIs has been the key to competition and progress in the computer field–both hardware and software ,” the brief states. “It made possible the emergence and success of many robust industries we now take for granted–such as industries for mainframes, PCs, peripherals, workstations/servers, and so on–by ensuring that competitors could challenge established players and advance the state of the art.” http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040360/computer-scientists-oppose-oracles-bid-to-copyright-java-apis.html
It’s time to revisit the entire idea of copyright, patents, and even maybe trademarks. Technology has forced the relevant issues into the open, in my view, rather than changed them.
Copyright law began to get fat after the invention of the printing press when Popes and kings began to try to control the proliferation of ideas with the technology that spread the ideas of dissidents and opponents. Next came lists of unauthorized books, banned books.
ARBITRARY COPYRIGHT SPECIFICS ARE PART OF ITS (LEGAL) DEFINITIONS
One clue, in my opinion, to a basic problem with trying to apply copyright law in the real world, is the fact that so much of it is arbitrary. Pick a number out of a hat, almost. What is right in practice might vary from case to case.
#1. How long is “limited”?
From the moment of inception of a work, or its publishing, how long should copyright protection cover it? The United States Constitution says a “limited” period. To me, in 2013, 70 years seems to be unreasonable. I read one author once who said he thought copyright should be inherited and passed on to infinite generations.
#2. What is the perfect “percentage”?
If printed (or electronically copied) work “A” takes an excerpt from previous work “B” and adds context, how much is “fair” to quote? How many words, paragraphs, alphabetical characters, or computer storage bytes? One or two Bible versions I’ve looked at state that you can quote verses and short passages, but to use an entire chapter you have to get permission (and presumably, possibly pay up). With other works, it gets more iffy.
#3. What about paraphrases?
This is one I have not seen much discussion about. I list it here because it’s another example of how there is no “natural” threshold that emerges for this as to how close a paraphrase has to be to violate any “natural” law that may apply.
#5. Translations
For example, again with Bible “versions”, aka “translations”, each newly copyrighted “translation” must differ a certain percentage from ALL other previous copyrighted versions to qualify for a new “unique” status. Of course the copyright owners of a previous “translations” has the right, presumably to “create” as many “derived” works they like.
In my opinion, this is why the major “translations” get revisions every 20 or 25 years. That way they can expand their “territory” of possibly covered works. The more important one might be to extend copyright coverage out further into the future. But maybe most important is that the “latest version” is expected to supplant the earlier one. These are moral hazards at best. At worst, it also introduces temptation for owners, publishers, editors, and translators for all the above, and it makes for multiplied opportunities to introduce tainted doctrines and bad interpretations.
#6. Open Source
The razon d’être of copyright in the U.S. Constitution is said to be to promote science and art. From Article 1, Section 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
But there are indications that the “promotion” of science and the “useful Arts” may be much better served by opening it up.
The roaring success of many open source projects shows that such goals can be enhanced by opening it up. We do not look upon other government industry monopoly grants with much sympathy. Maybe the lock-down on science is holding us back, rather than helping progress.
The benefits of producing Open Source have been expounded in many places already. The same intellectual fervor that creates good products like Firefox and Linux and the fact that enterprises that are more efficient and can run with it, and that there have been plenty of bad ones fallen aside, shows that may be a better model in the long run anyway.
In other words, continuing to produce value –rather than a monopoly license grant– may help promote truly useful science and arts.
The courts in the U.S. have certainly recognized the utter futility of attempting to apply copyright protections to mere mathematical algorithms. It’s impractical, it’s inefficient, and would stop progress. Enforcement would have to get a massive bureaucracy of desk clerks squinting at the tiniest little details, and how could you even track it all?
PATENTS
Most of the above arguments apply here, especially concerning algorithms,as applied to patent law.
There’s also publicly funded projects that finance discoveries that have resulted in privately acquired patents that provided the economic base for new companies.
WHO INVENTED WHAT? WHO WROTE WHAT?
There is one other factor. Most of the copyrights and patents granted or recognized today worldwide are NOT granted to the original authors, but to the very big corporations that “own” that work based on employment or contract.
Stan Lee fought for Spiderman. Courtney Love belted out a very big speech raking the music industry tycoons over the rails for how they treat the authors of their art. Famous singers often get little for their trouble over the height of their fame. Motown stars often ended in poverty later on. I have heard from someone I trust on this that the classic movie mega-hit Cimarron was plagiarized after a rejection letter was sent to the true author. How often has Hollywood been sued for piracy?
Trutherator's Weblog 