® BuscaLegis.ccj.ufsc.Br
What Does
"Copyfight" Mean?
Donna Wentworth
We've talked here before about what it means to be a
"copyfighter," with lawyer Erik J. Heels providing an excellent
definition (emphasis, mine):
I don't always agree with other engineers,
lawyers, or business people, especially if I feel they don't understand the
"how" of the technology, the "why" of the law, or the
"so what" of business. And don't get me wrong, I like being called
"linkable and thinkable." But if "copyfighter" means
"one who fights against bad copyright laws (and for smarter business practices),"
then I am a copyfighter.
Now Cory Doctorow, who has been spreading the
"copyfight" meme like a blazing inferno, has finally been asked,
point blank, "What does 'copyfight' mean?" Here's his definition, in
the context of an interview about what's happening at the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO):
Copyfight is the broad banner to describe people
who are fighting for reforms to intellectual property -- trademarks, patents,
copyrights and what are called "related rights" (broadcast rights and
so on). ...
[WIPO has been pursuing a policy of] simply
making more copyright, more patent, more related rights, more trademarks on the
grounds that all of these rights were themselves a good, regardless of the
impact they had on people -- whether they were denying access to patented
pharmaceuticals in poor countries that desperately needed them and couldn't
afford to buy them at the market price, or simply creating copyright regimes
that made basic education more difficult to provide in developing nations. ...
WIPO...created regimes that made it illegal,
just for instance, to reverse-engineer digital rights management tools and
create locally interoperable products, so you had to import foreign goods,
which could only play foreign media, and your local arts scene would find
itself smothered, your culture would find itself overwhelmed by imported
culture, and your local technologists would be undermined by foreign interests.
My own attempt at a definition: the copyfight is
the battle to keep intellectual property tethered to its purpose, understanding
that when IP rights are pushed too far, they can end up doing exactly the
opposite of what they're intended to do. That's why I find James Boyle's recent
series of articles on "IP stupidity" such a satisfying read. He
advocates for smarter IP, not no IP. And by smarter IP, he means IP that
doesn't threaten free speech and democracy, competition, innovation, education,
the progress of science, and other things that are important to our social, cultural,
and economic well-being.
Every so often, I get an email from a Copyfight
reader asking where the blogs are for "the other side" of the
copyfight. The question always makes me uncomfortable. For one thing, I don't
like to think we're all so easily lumped into categories. What possible good
can come from standing so far apart that we can only launch long-range missiles
at one another -- while readers yawn and look away? But more importantly, red
state/blue state thinking is a big part of what keeps us in this ridiculous
stalemate. You say tomato, I say tomato; we don't even get to potato before
calling the whole thing off.
What readers are really asking for is the kind
of real, honest-to-goodness debate that will give them the tools for
understanding things like the Grokster decision. I'd like to to see that kind
of debate, too. But what I often see from the "other side" is a
bizarre kind of baiting strategy -- attempts to get a rise by either suggesting
or outright arguing that people who fight for balanced copyright are
automatically opposed to any and all copyright.
Case in point: not long ago I received a very
polite email from the Institute for Policy Innovation's Sonia Blumstein
announcing its new weblog, IP Blog. Wrote Blumstein:
IPBlog is not the only blog on intellectual
property, we know, and it's not even the only one from a free-market
perspective. But we know we have compelling content and commentary to share,
and we hope you'll join us. ...We're also happy to have your suggestions for
content, if you come across something of interest. And we're interested in your
feedback and suggestions. We will be expanding and improving both the design of
the site and its content on an almost daily basis.
What a nice invitation. Off I went for a visit.
And found this post describing an interaction with A2K prononents at the WIPO
Development Agenda meetings:
In a discussion thread on this blog, I
challenged a critic to try to live an IP-free life for some brief period of
time. ...Anyway, that reminded me of something funny I saw back at the WIPO
meetings in April, the IIM/1, as it's come to be called. All the IP sceptic
folks showed up on the last day of the meeting wearing their adorable black
"A2K Now" tee shirts.
Well, as I was sitting in close proximity to the
commies with the Free Software Foundation, I got a close look at the tee shirts
in question. You can imagine my glee as I pointed out to them that the tee
shirts they were wearing actually carried not one but TWO different forms of IP
protection. On the tag there were both brand and style registered trademarks.
"Where are your open source tee
shirts?" I asked. "Show me your Creative Commons commemorative
gear!" I taunted. This resulted in a rather heated discussion, as you
might imagine, but I got a huge kick out of it.
Good grief. What's next -- spitballs?
I suppose this post is my inexcusably
long-winded way of arguing for a definition of the copyfight that gets us as
far away as possible from spitball territory. Is it really so difficult to
agree that intellectual property can sometimes be pushed too far, in ways that
harm society? That there are smarter approaches to IP law and policy than
one-size-fits-all, more = better? Do we really have to go back to grade school
each and every time to explain that we're not communists when we say so?
Disponível em: http://www.cbeji.com.br/br/novidades/artigos/index.asp?id=4833
Acesso em: 14 setembro. 05.