[FS-UK-announce] Re: [Free-sklyarov-uk] Press Release - London and Edinburgh Protests
30 August (fwd)
Julian T. J. Midgley
jtjm@uk.eurorights.org
Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:54:59 +0100 (BST)
Below you will find a copy of my reply to a recent posting to the main
mailing list (free-sklyarov-uk@xenoclast.org). Timothy Baldwin has raised
the critical issue of whether or not the Campaign should present itself as
being in favour of copyright (in the traditional sense, not as amended by
laws like the EUCD and DMCA). I believe it is important that we reach
consensus on this issue, and therefore urge those on the announcement list
who might not normally participate in the discussions on the main list to
read the email below, and post their opinions to
free-sklyarov-uk@xenoclast.org.
In order that you don't have to subscribe to the main list to allow your
voice to be heard, I will approve all posts to the main list from
non-subscribers, whichever side of the argument they fall on.
To reply, merely email "free-sklyarov-uk@xenoclast.org" - the Reply-To
field on this email has been set, so merely hitting "reply" in your email
client should work.
(For reference: Timothy Baldwin's original email may be found at:
http://www.xenoclast.org/free-sklyarov-uk/2001-August/000418.html)
Julian
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:32:27 +0100 (BST)
From: Julian T. J. Midgley <jtjm@uk.eurorights.org>
To: Timothy Baldwin <tim@reinhouse.freeserve.co.uk>
Cc: free-sklyarov-uk@xenoclast.org
Subject: Re: [Free-sklyarov-uk] Press Release - London and Edinburgh
Protests 30 August
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Timothy Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2001 11:22 pm, jtjm@uk.eurorights.org wrote:
>
> > It is important to stress that we respect absolutely the principal of
> > copyright;
>
> A large and growing number of our potential supporters are opposed to
> copyright.
This is a very important matter, and critical to our chances of success -
I would appreciate it if members of the list would discuss this point of
view as a matter of priority.
The rest of this post represents my own opinions, and not
those of the Campaign:
As an author and a programmer, I make use of copyright to ensure that my
works are available to all. Without copyright, I would not have the
ability to release my works under the GNU Public Licence, for example. I
oppose poorly thought out copy protection laws, and I oppose the needless
extension of copyright for ever longer periods in the interests of
corporations. I do not oppose the principles of copyright per se (indeed
I support them, as do almost all open source programmers of my
acquaintance).
> > many of our members are programmers and authors whose works
> > enjoy the traditional protections of copyright.
>
> That reads like a statement in favour of copyright.
It is.
> > we do not condone copyright infringement in any form.
>
> The Campaign for Digital Rights should not condemn and probably not condone
> copyright infringement, nor should it support or oppose copyright, i.e. it
> should remain absolutely neutral.
>
> Individuals when not representing CFDR are
> of course free to campaign these and other issues. For the CFDR to adopt such
> a position would be to exclude people of the opposite position, we should be
> instead trying to build the largest possible campaign. For example the
> campigain to renationalise Railtrack would be a lot smaller if it took to
> position the train operating companies should not be nationalised.
You have a point, but if we are to persuade those with most influence on
the legislative process we will find it difficult to do so if we give the
impression of being against copyright (and believe me, being neutral on
the issue will be presented in the press as our being in favour of
copyright infringement - once that happens, we will have lost). If you
can devise a neutral answer to the question "Do you oppose copyright?"
that cannot be used as evidence that you might oppose copyright (not in a
court of law, but in the media), then you are a better man than I.
I believe that we will be at a significant disadvantage if we are unable
to state that we support the principles of copyright, and have gained the
impression (from the mailing list, IRC, and private conversations) that
this view is is supported by the majority of the active members of the
campaign. I may well be wrong in this - I will wait to see the results
of any ensuing discussion.
>
> Perhaps supporting copyright infringement in relation to acts which are
> currently covered by fair use with respect to physical copies would be
> sensible.
Acts covered by fair use or fair dealing provisions of existing
legislation (excluding DMCA and EUCD) are by definition not copyright
infringements.
> I kindly request that no one makes statements about the position of the CFDR
> which have not been agreed upon.
I notice that this is your third post to the list (as
tim@reinhouse.freeserve.co.uk) and that at no point prior to today have
you raised similar objections (nor, so far as my fragile memory can
recall, has anyone else). I would be delighted if it were possible to
have everything I say or write on behalf of the Campaign ratified first by
unanimous votes. In practice, it's not, and I have to do my best to
represent the majority of the publicly stated opinion of the Campaign's
supporters. I am very happy to be corrected where I have got this wrong -
I don't yet believe that this is one of those cases (but stand waiting to
be corrected).
>
> Are we not against Digital Rights Management, as it inherently restricts fair
> use?
No - I believe that we are against laws making it illegal to circumvent
Digital Rights Management for the purposes of fair use. The distinction
is significant.
All the best,
Julian
--
Julian T. J. Midgley http://www.xenoclast.org/
Cambridge, England. PGP Key ID: 0xBCC7863F
Beware the European Copyright Directive: http://uk.eurorights.org/
_______________________________________________
Free-sklyarov-uk mailing list
Free-sklyarov-uk@xenoclast.org
http://mailman.xenoclast.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov-uk