Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Public Domain Conference Papers Online. 69

Posted by chrisd from the ben-woodard-isn't-wearing-shoes dept.
bwoodard writes "Over the weekend Duke University Law school held a conference on the public domain which included many well known Free Software advocates such as Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen. The papers (in PDF) are presented were quite thought provoking and well worth a read." Timothy brought this conference to our attention on scary halloween.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Public Domain Conference Papers Online. More

Public Domain Conference Papers Online.

Comments Filter:

  • "Public Domain" Conference Papers Online (Score:4, Informative)

    by robbyjo ( 315601 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:06PM (#2555075) Homepage

    This term is rather confusing. To scientists, conference papers means scientific papers on recend findings submitted for scientific conferences. These are copyrighted to the owners (usually) but you can read it if you subscribe to IEEE, for example -- and extend it or cite it for your works. I was confused at first at the term "Public Domain".

    You should give this post a title like "Conference Paper of Center for the Public Domain" to distinguish this from scientific conference papers.

  • Trying not to troll (but if you mod me down, it's ok, cause I got lotsa karma).
    Honestly, chrisd, is this front /. material?

    Looking at the original article, which had very few comments, and now looking at the comments here (at the time of writing *all* -1 trolls), it should show that this isn't something that should appear on the front page.

    I know it may be a slow news day, but there's always good techno-bits of news out there...

    • It clearly relates to stuff Slashdot covers all the time. The existence of Open Source, the legal jeporady Open Source is in with things like the DMCA and the SSSCA.

      Also, an article like this takes time to read for intelligent people who aren't intent on stupid trolling.

    • Re:Front Page Material? (Score:3, Informative)

      by luge ( 4808 )
      Actually, this is the most relevant 'YRO' link /. has posted in a long time. You just have to have time to read the 240+ pages of papers, or watch the 12+ hours of real video. Sadly, the piece I'm working on to explain why it's the most relevant thing you've seen in ages isn't ready yet, and evo 1.0 has ensnared it.
      Here's a preview of a brief fragment of what I've been writing (for context, I went to the conference):
      What I learned this weekend that every programmer, and every program user, and everyone else need to know
      • You have the constitutional right to speak; in other words, a constitutional right to create and use ideas. Creators and peddlers of information have a constutional responsibility to serve the "Public Good", for which in return they get the strictly limited right to copyrights and patents. Their current goals serve their own goods, not those of the public, so your right to learn and to create should win when your goals and theirs conflict.
      • Hackers aren't alone in realizing there is a problem. As a Linux user, I've known copyright and patent have been eating at my rights for a long time. I'd thought we were sort of alone in that realization, along with maybe a few clueful folks like Lessig and Barlow. But it turns out a lot of other people understand the problem and are working towards solutions. There is an entire movement here, coming into being as you read this. And it's full of incredibly bright and good people who are on our side.
      • We are also not alone in being affected. The continued erosion of the public domain threatens the ability of artists to create; it threatens the ability of biochemists to fight illness; it threatens the ability of every academic to create new knowledge. From now on, when I talk to my family and friends about Dmitry or DeCSS, I'll also talk about how Negativland creates music, and how patents on SNPs can stop medical research, and how academic journals that are free create information much more efficiently than closed journals. [FIXME: links] And it isn't an American problem, either: it's a global problem, with implications not only for America and Europe but for the second and third world as well. [FIXME: links]
      • We need to be involved. Obviously, we need lawyers to argue for us in court, but they need us too. They need our numbers; they need our help in generating publicity; they need our help in proving that people can and will work for the public domain for any number of reasons.
      Obviously this is still a work in progress [the links are intended to point at specific papers and webcasts]; I was hoping to have a few more days before /. talked about it :/ But yeah, in a nutshell... this conference was incredibly important to anyone who consumes anything you'd refer to as 'content'; and that includes anyone who takes medicine or does basic research, or even just enjoys sports stats. So... please don't underestimate the importance of the conference.

  • Is this the right way for open source ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Krapangor ( 533950 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:10PM (#2555090) Homepage
    The main idea behind open source is that everybody should reuse and contribute to the sources freely. But for this to happen you need licenses everybody can understand. Most programmer ain't laywers, so if the licenses is too complicated everybody is scared away which makes open source useless.
    So I wonder if this isn't the wrong way. These academic laywers will create too complicated licenses and legal babble which will scare all programmers away from using open source.
    I think this is a big problem with the laywers you have in the US. Everwere they see something they crawl on to many all complicated and to suck money from class action suits. We here in europe are very lucky that we don't have such things. We might have weapon control but we won't have any raving mad laywers to sue our butt off.
    • Exactly what does Open Source have to do with IP licensed in the public domain? Very little. GPL and BSD certainly aren't public domain licenses, in fact the only real license that can be considered `Public Domain' is..er...public domain. Of which I know very little currently maintained software (though respond if I'm wrong).

      Open Source would be much better suited to a conference on how to word licenses effectively to ensure the intentions of those who wrote the various licenses granting rights and responsibilitities are honored and can be legally protected.

      Mike
      • Read the papers, please, Mike. Free Software has a lot to do with the Public Domain, broadly construed. No, it isn't free for everyone's use, but it is open to use for anyone who agrees to also share- which places it pretty squarely in the center of a public domain which intends to grow and be vibrant, as opposed to our current public domain (which is stagnant as a result of the Mickey Mouse Protection Acts.) I assure you that Eben Moglen would not have spoken if Free Software were considered irrelevant by the people who organized the conference.
        • I have read the papers - I couldn't find Eben Moglens paper but I've just read Yochai Benklers.

          I assure you that Eben Moglen would not have spoken if Free Software were considered irrelevant by the people who organized the conference.

          I'm not saying that Open Source of Free Software isn't considered relevant by the prganizers. I'm saying it shouldn't be, because the overwhelming majority of Free SOftware and Open Source is not public domain, including most of the examples Yochai mentions in his paper [duke.edu].

          Asides from the fact its factually incorrect, promoting things which aren't public domain as being public domain contributes the the existing misunderstandings people have about Open Source and Free Software and encourages people to ignore the responsibilities required in exchange for use of OSS / FSF applications.

          Mike
          • No, the problem is not that they misunderstand free software but that you misunderstand what they mean by public domain. I wish I had time to explain it further but I don't ATM... sorry. Maybe later this week :/
            • I don't think I've misunderstoof what they mean by public domain - I'm comparing the dictionary definition of `public domain' with the Open Source Definition of Free Software Freedoms list.

              From Mirriam Webster:
              Main Entry: public domain
              Function: noun
              Date: 1832
              1 : land owned directly by the government
              2 : the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone.

              Most OSS and FS does not fall under that definition.

              And yes, the papers are of merit. They're very informative and explore useful topic. Its just that a lot of them are about topics other than public domain.

              I don't think I'm being pedantic, I'm just following the common definitions of three terms and logically concluding that there is little overlap between OSS / FS and PD.

              And saying `no, you are wrong' is very Slashdot. Saying `I think' you are wrong is a little more polite.

              Mike
              • It's probably fair to say that there is little legal overlap between OSS / FS licenses and public domain as it is defined by Mirriam Webster.

                I do think that Paula Samuelson's article [duke.edu] gives a much more complete and interesting examination of the concept of public domain than is possible from a dictionary definition, though.

                But if you want to focus only on the dictionary definition of "public domain"... (and who could fault you for such an academic insistence on precision [dictionary.com] ?)... then I think you're right.
                • I would be pedantic if I used a dictionary definition to define a term that was commonly used differently (since definition in English has been determined by popular use).

                  But I think everyone I know, technical or otherwise, knows something that's `public domain' is pretty much free for anyone to do whatever they want with anytime. Including you.

                  But that's fair enough - you're just justifying [dictionary.com] your position.

                  Mike ;)
                  • Discussing 'the public domain' as a conceptual meeting place/workspace is different from reading the section of the dictionary definition of 'public domain' which is especially applicable to licenses.

                    OSS/FS licenses are not public domain licenses. Right. (again)

                    But that doesn't mean that Free Software and Open Source don't belong in a discussion of the public domain.

                    Posting in response to an article on a very interesting conference and complaining it doesn't belong because you can point to an example of the narrower defintion is... well...
      • Exactly what does Open Source have to do with IP licensed in the public domain? Very little.

        This comment is either very pedantic or shows very little imagination. Reading the papers on the site, they are all about how to make the 'intellectual commons' or the 'public domain' of knowledge viable in the legal/cultural climate we live in. ie: They're about how to create viable mechanisms for providing for non-exclusive access to intellectual property.

        Does that really have very little to do with Open Source? Yes, GPL and BSD are not 'public domain' licenses. But to say that Open Source "would be much better suited to a conference ... to ensure the intentions of those who wrote the various licenses ... are honored" is hardly a reasonable comment. Intellectual property licenses, including Open source ones, require mechanisms to ensure that authors' wishes are protected.
        But I hope there's a bit more to Open Source than that!
    • Please have some hope in human nature, and in the intelligence of lawyersand coders alike. These ideas will be clarified, debated and scrutinized, and they will be simplified so that Joe Average Programmer can understand the issues. This is what has happened and will continue to happen as long as academic and intellectual freedom reigns. Undergraduates today are doing tabletop experimenst that experts did using complicated equipment. There is every idication that law happens this way too, albeit at a much slower pace.
    • The US is certainly an exception. They accept the fact that sports stars, (some)lawyers and (some) doctors should be hugely overpaid. Luckily though one is allowed to own guns so raving lawyers can be dealt "Shakespearean" justice ... ;-)

  • Interesting quote (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Walter Bell ( 535520 ) <wcbell@bellandho ... inus threevowels> on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:13PM (#2555106) Homepage
    From the Goldman paper:

    Few companies who develop free software have proven themselves on Wall Street. The problem is not so much the profitability of free software itself, but rather the profitability of their misguided approach. Free software should be used to supplement a traditional, profitable strategy, rather than as the core strategy of a business.

    This made a lot of sense to me. My sister worked at one of the failed Linux dot-coms and from what she described, it seemed like her company (to remain nameless) took the "Free Software first, business strategy second" approach. The only thing left of that company is a bunch of homeless guys and a couple Aeron chairs for sale on ebay. Ouch.

    By contrast, one of the companies who had used Linux to their advantage in a profitable way is IBM. They started with a very profitable consulting division, and expanded it through judicious contributions to Linux. Their move to Linux saved them a lot of money in training costs, kept things standardized, and helped provide a united front against the competition (Microsoft, Sun, etc.).

    ~wally

  • I really liked that they included a link... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tonyc.com ( 520592 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:20PM (#2555144) Homepage
    ...to the GhostScript [wisc.edu] open-source PDF reader, right beside the link for Adobe Acrobat. Sadly, though, the link is broken, thanks to an extra space at the end.

    Atention to detale is impotent!

  • dang it (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by firewort ( 180062 )
    dang it, the one weekend I go out of town, Lessig, Moglen, and Benkler come to lecture! Lousy lousy lousy- I wanted to be there!

  • this cuts to the bone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rodentia ( 102779 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:45PM (#2555265)
    There are posts asking what this notice has to do with nerds and their news. I gotta say this is the hottest link I've pulled from /. in months. The material domain of this conference cuts right to the heart of what is important about software libre and the digitisation of cultural activity. The pragmatist coders here will say that its all about efficiency of algorithms, fast debugging, and software development models. Not so. What is at stake is not RIAA profits, closed Windows API's or top-down management models. What is at stake are fundamental assumptions the 20C capitalist West has made about the nature and outcomes of intellectual activity. There is a real revolution in the works and, as is so often the case, those at the forefront don't always realize what they're fighting for or what they are really achieving. I'm not wheezing about the digital future; there are real changes afoot in the way we think, create and work. The papers here begin the work of specifying those changes.

    • I see several papers mentioned - don't miss Lessig's "The Architecture of Innovation." He's running with the ideas that he presented in Code, and they have definitely evolved since then. The description of the different notions of architecture/ownership at the outset of the paper is worth the price of admission alone. I'm not sure how much is replicated in his new book The Nature of Ideas, but this article is stark in its description of the challenges that we face, as well as bleak in terms of his expectations for the future given the path that we are on now.

    • ...is the best read on collage since
      barnsley's theorem. negativland was there
      way before the web and its interpreters
      samuelson and lessig.

      (but then, so was m. duchamp and l.h.o.o.q.)
      • Yes, yes, man! But you failed to mention Kurt Schwitters. Merz lives! Merz dies! Merz lives again!

        Its always kind of spooky when you run into an artist so far ahead of his time. I am sure there is that sense among contemporaries and for himself, that he his pushing the boundaries, but oftentimes without knowing precisely how or in what direction. It is a remarkable thing to be able to watch a century old work of art grow into its significance; the zeitgeist coalescing around it like a growing crystal.
  • This post too hard. Good post means:
    • 2-3 minutes to find juicy bits
    • 5-10 minuts think funny comeback
    • all done!

    Please forward this to /. management. They need make money. This not make money.

  • see www.trilug.org for details. Its in Chapel Hill if anyone is local.
  • patents and copyrights will expire and as such there is a growing base of public domain. Intentional injection into this and compatable directions only helps to establish benefits for all alot sooner, like while we are still alive, you and me. It's what is presenting MS with it's real threat. Natural legal evolution of software property.

    • patents and copyrights will expire and as such there is a growing base of public domain.


      Except that practically nothing copyrighted has become public domain for decades now. I think saying "copyrights will expire" is being overly optimistic, and maybe downright presumptuous. If Disney's lawyers and campaign contributions have anything to say about it, no copyrighted work will ever again become public domain unless it's specifically made so by the owner.

      • FWIW, Danse, Lessig and others discussed this particular issue at the conference. There is one case (Eldred v. Reno) that the Supreme Court is looking at soon and may break the Disney Act; if not, there are three others wending their way through the courts. The (extremely bright) group of lawyers at the conference seemed fairly confident that this latest overreaching would be a key component of the downfall of the law.

        • The (extremely bright) group of lawyers at the conference seemed fairly confident that this latest overreaching would be a key component of the downfall of the law.


          I would hope so. I've read Lessig's book "Code", but I haven't looked into the Eldred case lately. I'll be reading these papers tomorrow probably, they sound interesting.

          • Eldred (quick refresher for the /tons/ of people looking at this fascinating thread) is basically about an online archiver who puts works whose copyrights have expired on the web. He sued, claiming his first amendment right to post these works had been abridged. A good summary of the state of the case is here [harvard.edu].
  • I just noticed today (in part due to this /. story) that a paper that was seminal in the development of my thinking on IP is now online: Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach [tomgpalmer.com]. The same author [tomgpalmer.com] has another interesting paper up called Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified?: The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects [tomgpalmer.com]. I've been recommending the first to people for nearly a decade, so I'm very pleased to find it out of the law library and online.
  • Yep in the real world there's only about 1% difference if you run a ATA 66 drive off a ATA 66 controller with a 40 core cable (there-by forcing it to default back to 33mhz), & if you run it at 66mhz (by using a 80 core cable).

    Really until HDD technology catches up ATA 100 & ATA 133 are just wank offs. Its only just now (after 2 years) than new drives are reaching the limits of ATA 33, let alone ATA 66.
  • The topic preamble mentions Eben Moglen - but I can't find his paper. Can you help? Where is it?

    Thx

Slashdot Top Deals

A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. -- Klipstein

Close