W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Is there a way out?

From: <sstouden@thelinks.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:26:59 -0500 (CDT)
To: Rick Stockton <rickstockton@acer-access.com>
cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0209022037440.32242-100000@www.foxworth.com>


What can be said without the first bit of thought, is the copyright is an
issue in human freedom.  Worldwide it has pitted the small against the 
large, the free against the rule of law, and the nation state against its
citizen. 

The super class cannot lose, they do not die, hence they outlive all
humans, and since humans tire after only a few years, finding enough
humans to invest their time and resourses to keep up the work against 
the non human super class (corporation, government, NPOs, and
associations) is the problem. By definition no human is a member of the
super class.  

The copyright system creates feudal estates and like the landed
estate lords of the past, the copyright based feufal estate becomes 
the major source of employment for human class members.  Its the old
company store idea.

Humans, employed by one or more ofthe super class, do what their
super class employer [feudal lords] tells them to do.  Humans who want to
remain free, and who object to the idea of encapsulating the
Creativity-Originality knowledge, information and technology
(CO-KIT) generated by present and past humanity into
the shackles of the rule of law, want copyright of any kind
dismattled.  Rule of law shackled CO-KIT denies ungated, free human 
access to the CO-KIT.  

Freedom is the ungated, unchallenged option to engage human experience
within the space defined by the outer limits of imagination.  Human life
is very short.  A major benefit of a society of humans should be to engage
at will the CO-kit which our society has generated.

Ungated Access to the CO-KIT generated by humanity (not one member of
the super class can so much as cross the street, drink a glass of water, 
or go to sleep) is a basic human right, it is recognized as such because
the function of society is to "improve the lot of the human race, not to
gate the access of all humanity to the benefit of a few, especially if the
few are super class.  Governments which enable laws which restrict human
rights ( copyright and patents) are mercantilistic  governments which
serve but a very small part of humanity and all of the super class. 

The internet and its standards collectively are the most important means
of communications yet devised.  The internet should be looked at
as a public highway.  Everyone should be required to learn the
rules and the state should be sure that no one gates a persons
access to the highway. Copyrights and patents are a major gating
mechnanism which should be prohibited.

Standards which are for the internet or any technology that is a part of
that communications media [known as the super highway] should be and
must always remain free to use, unlicensed, and completely open and
available to users of the Internet. All parts of the standards[source and
functionality] should remain in the public domain.

Rand fails the open, ungated, free requirements of the obligation of
government and W3 to protect the rights of human man.

sterling.

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Rick Stockton wrote:

> 
> >  Gary Lea said
> >
> >  ...you could bar the licensor from performing audits 
> >(completely/save > in exceptional circumstances as defined) or 
> >demanding use of their
> >  products (that would probably be product tying and illegal anyway) 
> >or > any other of the evils listed on this board.
> >
> 
> I think that it is impossible to propose that a company which has 
> been awarded with so-called "RAND" licensing terms would << NOT >> be 
> allowed to enforce those terms, seeking compensation and punishment 
> as relevant laws allow.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is almost certain that some Open Software Users 
> would not send their license money (or required personal information, 
> or whatever "RAND" means for that particular standard) to the "RAND" 
> licensor. These people would be engaging in illegal behavior, for 
> which the license holder would deserve compensation. Once you accept 
> the implementation of "RAND", you accept the legal consequences.
> 
> I think that it is very likely that M$ (in particular) would use this 
> issue to inflict licensing hassles and compliance penalties on Open 
> Software Developers, as well as End Users of their programs. This 
> obviously creates GREAT harm to the Open Software Community. I 
> suspect that Microsoft considers that licensing damage (to the 
> Developers and Distributors) to be of far greater (selfish) value 
> than the "RAND" money proceeds.
> 
> With so many individuals, companies, and Countries trying to get out 
> from under the illegally-won monopoly power of M$, I feel that it 
> would be a grave disservice to the Internet Community for WC3 to 
> assist companies in requiring license fees for software which 
> utilizing 'Standards'. As others have pointed out, proprietary 
> software and data formats already play a major role in the Internet 
> WITHOUT claiming to be de jure 'Standards'. (MacroMedia, Microsoft, 
> RealNetworks, and Adobe are some examples.)
> 
> I agree that there is a real possibility of WC3 becoming 
> "marginalized" by the wrong decision on this issue. That could easily 
> occur after a significant Standard is established under the burden of 
> so-called "RAND" licensing. (I say so-called, because such licensing 
> is INHERENTLY UN-Reasonable and Discriminatory. This name was created 
> by Clever Marketing!) Entire National Governments now taking stands 
> to use Open Software products, partly because of the freedom from 
> licensing HASSLES (not just the freedom from licensing $$$.) It is 
> not unthinkable that a WC3, behaving as a voicebox for money-grubbing 
> companies with onerous "RAND" licensing requirements, would be 
> sidelined by a new Standards organization which did a better job of 
> representing the Interests of Internet Users.
> 
> A battle between a new Open-Friendly and the "RAND"-Friendly 
> organization would possibly consume vast amounts of effort on both 
> sides. I would not look forward to so much bad feeling and wasted 
> energy. But Standards must be Free, and Licenses must be respected.
> 
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 22:27:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:49 GMT