June 8, 2004
This article was contributed by Tom Chance.
Since my last article for LWN
on software patents, a lot has happened. Weeks of speculation and frenzied
lobbying culminated in the EU Council passing a version of the software
patent directive that permits software patents; the FFII has continued to lobby on and discuss
the Council's position, whilst preparing for the EU elections and the new
MEPs; and the Union for the Public
Domain has begun to lobby the BBC to release its archives under a Creative Commons license. And as
usual, there's plenty for European hackers to do!
Software patent news
To begin with software patents, on the 18th May the EU Council of Ministers
voted on the controversial software patent directive, passing with a narrow
majority a version that, according to the FFII, ensures that "software and
business methods ... are ... to be treated as patentable inventions" (source).
This version of the directive removed all of the important amendments made
by Parliament in September 2003 that explicitly stated that software and
business methods cannot be patented. But despite this, many ministers
continued to reassure the public, and those considering rejecting the
directive, that it would not allow these things to be patented, describing
it as a "compromise". The key to understanding this dispute is that without
all of the amendments passed by Parliament in September 2003, the
directive could still allow software patents. But the Council's compromise
scrapped the first four amendments present in the Parliament's version, and
instead made a weak version of the fifth amendment that stated that a
technical contribution must be "new".
One member of the Committee of Permanent Representatives explicitly
described it as a
"compromise between Microsoft and Linux." When I talked to
Dr Caroline Lucas MEP (Green, UK), she commented that:
Software
patenting represents a serious threat to creativity and the right of
computer programmers to make a living practising their art. For the Council
of Ministers to completely disregard the views of the Parliament, the EU's
only directly-elected institution, makes a mockery of the EU's democratic
credentials.
It is worth noting that the Irish Presidency of the EU, due to expire next
year, is sponsored by none other than Microsoft, amongst other
companies. Furthermore, "almost 35% of Ireland's registered companies
totaling 150,000 are non-resident" (source) due to tax
exemption laws. "Over 40% of all PC package software and 60% of business
applications software sold in Europe is produced in Ireland. US companies
such as
Microsoft, Lotus, Claris, Digital, Oracle, IBM and Novell contribute
significantly to this growth" (source). It is
clear where the interests of the Irish government lie.
So where do we go from here? The Parliament has already voted against
software patents, and the Council has voted for software patents. In June,
the Council must formally adopt their position, which is likely (but not
certain) to happen (it may get delayed, or not happen at all). Assuming it
does, the Parliament must then vote again on the directive, and pass their
version with an absolute majority to overrule the decision of the
Council. So the next step for activists - by which I mean any EU citizen
with a pen, phone and/or e-mail client - is to get back to lobbying MEPs.
It is, or was, the EU elections on June 10th. If you're an EU citizen
reading this in time, make sure you go to the polling booth, and bear in
mind the MEPs' positions on software patents when you cross the boxes. You
can find out how they voted in September with this handy
page.
Once the election results come in, we'll need to start lobbying our new
representatives, and continue with those that held their seats, to ensure
Parliament votes against software patents again. When the directive comes
up for a vote (perhaps by the end of this year), it will need an absolute
majority to pass, whereas in the previous vote it only needed a majority
from those actually voting. This means that we need to persuade more MEPs
to actually vote, and more to vote against software patents. The most
important thing is to send off that first letter, and to then follow it
up. When writing your letter, you might find it useful to look at this guide to the
key arguments, and also this page to find
your MEPs' contact details. If they disagree, try to respond and show
why they are wrong; if they agree with you, ask them to sign the FFII's Call
for Action II.
If you've got a little more spare time (i.e. half an hour), and you'd like
to do more than just write a letter, there's a nice project that you can
get involved in that will introduce you to the world of lobbying proper. It
involves phoning MEPs and asking them some questions, then sending the
results back to the FFII, so they can build up a database both of MEPs'
voting records and their stated positions. To join in this project, first
read this handy
guide, and then find the questionnaire itself here. Though the
project started only as an elections tool, it will still be useful leading
up to the vote, and it gives you a good chance to really make a big
difference with a small amount of your time.
You should also try to contact your national government
representatives. They will often have a lot of influence over the minsters
who sit in the Council, and over their party's MEPs. Again, contact them by
letter, and follow up appropriately. If they're supportive, ask them to
sign the FFII's Call for
National Governments.
We defeated software patents in Parliament last year. If we fail this time,
we will not only see large corporations using patents against free software
projects increasingly aggressively, but we will also miss an opportunity to
affect the outcome of the debate in the US. A vote against software patents
in Europe would send a strong message to legislators in the US, and provide
a huge boon to the EFF's Patent
Busting Project.
BBC Archives
In other news, there has been some development surrounding the BBC's
promise to give the public full access to its archives online. When originally
announced, then-director general Greg Dyke suggested that they
would open up the full archives, but so far the only concrete plans have
been to make available thousands
of three minute clips from documentaries. After a launch reception in
London, which Lawrence Lessig and the BBC Archive's project leader
attended, the Friends of Creative Archive have launched a campaign
to have the full archives released under a Creative Commons license.
The argument behind this position is a familiar one to anyone who follows
Lessig's work, but at the risk of boring you, I'll run over them
briefly. Innovation, particularly amongst more creative types like
musicians, artists and filmmakers, depends upon being able to draw on
culture and past creations. Culture is not just about passively consuming
and creating entirely new works, but about remixing and building upon past
creations. The more culture there is in the public domain, the more
potential there is for new and interesting work to be made. So, the
activists argue, as the BBC is funded by license payers for the benefit of
the British public, it ought to release its archives for the benefit of the
British public.
Having an open archive of this kind would provide two special benefits to
the free software community. First, it would provide a large source of
DRM-free, standards-compliant media so that whatever the rest of the
industry does, we will always have a decent media resource
available. Secondly, it will send out a strong signal throughout the
industry and to governments that the principles of the free culture and
free software movements should be taken seriously. It would be much harder
for the media, hardware and software monopolists to impose proprietary
standards on us if organisations as large as the BBC were publicly doing
the opposite. Combined with the recent work on the Dirac codec, it could be
the start of a healthy alliance between the BBC and the free software
community.
The creation of a free creative archive seems like an obviously good idea,
and one would hope that it would strike the BBC that way, but at the moment
they've not had any input from the public on
this issue. So if you'd like to encourage the BBC to adopt a Creative
Commons license, rather than restricting access through DRM and nasty
licenses, consider signing the Friends' letter here.
(
Log in to post comments)