Personal perspectives on information science, the evolving Internet, delivery of public services online, Web 2.0, the Web of Data, the Semantic Web, communities, folksonomies and more. With an emphasis upon convergence between some or all of the above, and a UK slant.
Adelphi Charter seeks balance between the rights of creators and those of re-creators
The recently launchedAdelphi Charteron creativity, innovation and intellectual property is couched in words that appear to strike a reasonable balance between the insane protectionism of some rights holders and the equally insane posturing of those who don't think that anyone should ever pay for anything.
“Laws regulating intellectual property must serve as means of achieving creative, social and economic ends and not as ends in themselves.
These laws and regulations must serve, and never overturn, the basic human rights to health, education, employment and cultural life.
The public interest requires a balance between the public domain and private rights. It also requires a balance between the free competition that is essential for economic vitality and the monopoly rights granted by intellectual property laws.
Intellectual property protection must not be extended to abstract ideas, facts or data.
Patents must not be extended over mathematical models, scientific theories, computer code, methods for teaching, business processes, methods of medical diagnosis, therapy or surgery.
Copyright and patents must be limited in time and their terms must not extend beyond what is proportionate and necessary.
Government must facilitate a wide range of policies to stimulate access and innovation, including non-proprietary models such as open source software licensing and open access to scientific literature.
Intellectual property laws must take account of developing countries' social and economic circumstances.
In making decisions about intellectual property law, governments should adhere to these rules:
* There must be an automatic presumption against creating new areas of intellectual property protection, extending existing privileges or extending the duration of rights. * The burden of proof in such cases must lie on the advocates of change. * Change must be allowed only if a rigorous analysis clearly demonstrates that it will promote people's basic rights and economic well-being. * Throughout, there should be wide public consultation and a comprehensive, objective and transparent assessment of public benefits and detriments.”
That sounds fair. The devil is, of course, in the detail.
Thanks to tech journalistBill Thompson, whosewrite-upmade me look at something that a lot of others had already been discussing.