Omaha and I were discussing the recent SCO spitball broadside on the GPL. Our conversation came around to noting that SCO was treating this as a sea-of-restrictions case, rather than a sea-of-rights case.
The latter case states that we have inherent human rights, and laws are specific restrictions necessitated by contingency-- and this is the most common view of law in the United States. In this view, the copyright law states that even if the copyright holder attempts to restrain you by contract from making emergency backups for the purpose of preserving your capital investment, he (the copyright holder) is restricted from doing this, protecting your right. He cannot take away that right.
SCO's argument is that it goes the other way: we live in a sea of restrictions, and the law is notice of specific rights we are granted as exceptions to these restricts. Because the copyright law grants you the right to make a copy for the purpose of preserving your capital investement, you have no additional rights. No contract allows the owner of a software copyright to negotiate additional rights-to-copy in addition to this right-to-make-backups; the law doesn't allow for it.
Needless to say, this will get laughed out of court the first time SCO tries it. Too much of our commercial infrastructure relies on the government to enforce copyright law, which relies on the capacity of producers to distribute their products as they wish. Berkeley Software won this case already, and without breaking a sweat.
But as I was talking to Omaha, I said, "You know, there are justices on the Supreme Court who believe in the sea-of-restrictions view of law."
She said, "That's still just as stupid."
"No, that's Justice Scalia."
Badump-bump.
You might remember a few days ago when I raged about the ascension of Libya to the chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission, and UNHRC's decision to suspend Reporters Without Borders (RSF, from the French) because RSF dared to protest such a callous and outrageous decision.
Well, if Libya is chairing your human rights in general, guess who at the UN is making decisions about your freedom of speech, the press, religion, and association?
Cuba and Iran.
Cuba has inserted language into the working Information and Communications Technologies Declaration of Principles stating that broadband deployment and the granting of access to the Internet should proceed "in conformity with the domestic legislation of each country" [Paragraph 17]. Which sounds innocuous enough until you appreciate that what's really being said here is that Cuba is seeking U.N. approval for its policy of denying its citizenry access to external information sources.
Iran has inserted the words "intergovernmental" into the phrase "Internet governance must be multilateral, democratic, and transparent." This is typical U.N. language for "The U.N. shall make all major decisions regarding the deployment and availability of Internet traffic."
My objections here are not contradictory. I think the U.N., as a representative body, should deplore Cuba's censorious record and condemn Cuba for having it in the first place. On the other hand, I think that the U.N. should not have legislative powers over the inner workings of a given nation state. There's a difference between leadership and control; the U.N. is seeking control, but surrendering any moral value of leadership. This is completely ass-backwards.
There's also a paragraph, not in the current Declaration of Principles but proposed by Cuba, that reads, "accountability by the global media should be enhanced through targeted measures of screening by governments." Think about what this means: your blog is a "a global media." Your blog will be subject to "screening by governments" and you will be held "accountable."
Feel better yet?
The latter case states that we have inherent human rights, and laws are specific restrictions necessitated by contingency-- and this is the most common view of law in the United States. In this view, the copyright law states that even if the copyright holder attempts to restrain you by contract from making emergency backups for the purpose of preserving your capital investment, he (the copyright holder) is restricted from doing this, protecting your right. He cannot take away that right.
SCO's argument is that it goes the other way: we live in a sea of restrictions, and the law is notice of specific rights we are granted as exceptions to these restricts. Because the copyright law grants you the right to make a copy for the purpose of preserving your capital investement, you have no additional rights. No contract allows the owner of a software copyright to negotiate additional rights-to-copy in addition to this right-to-make-backups; the law doesn't allow for it.
Needless to say, this will get laughed out of court the first time SCO tries it. Too much of our commercial infrastructure relies on the government to enforce copyright law, which relies on the capacity of producers to distribute their products as they wish. Berkeley Software won this case already, and without breaking a sweat.
But as I was talking to Omaha, I said, "You know, there are justices on the Supreme Court who believe in the sea-of-restrictions view of law."
She said, "That's still just as stupid."
"No, that's Justice Scalia."
Badump-bump.
You might remember a few days ago when I raged about the ascension of Libya to the chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission, and UNHRC's decision to suspend Reporters Without Borders (RSF, from the French) because RSF dared to protest such a callous and outrageous decision.
Well, if Libya is chairing your human rights in general, guess who at the UN is making decisions about your freedom of speech, the press, religion, and association?
Cuba and Iran.
Cuba has inserted language into the working Information and Communications Technologies Declaration of Principles stating that broadband deployment and the granting of access to the Internet should proceed "in conformity with the domestic legislation of each country" [Paragraph 17]. Which sounds innocuous enough until you appreciate that what's really being said here is that Cuba is seeking U.N. approval for its policy of denying its citizenry access to external information sources.
Iran has inserted the words "intergovernmental" into the phrase "Internet governance must be multilateral, democratic, and transparent." This is typical U.N. language for "The U.N. shall make all major decisions regarding the deployment and availability of Internet traffic."
My objections here are not contradictory. I think the U.N., as a representative body, should deplore Cuba's censorious record and condemn Cuba for having it in the first place. On the other hand, I think that the U.N. should not have legislative powers over the inner workings of a given nation state. There's a difference between leadership and control; the U.N. is seeking control, but surrendering any moral value of leadership. This is completely ass-backwards.
There's also a paragraph, not in the current Declaration of Principles but proposed by Cuba, that reads, "accountability by the global media should be enhanced through targeted measures of screening by governments." Think about what this means: your blog is a "a global media." Your blog will be subject to "screening by governments" and you will be held "accountable."
Feel better yet?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}