[Ubuntu-SG] Going back ontopic: Previously: Should we "Say No to Piracy"?
C David Rigby
c.david.rigby at gmail.com
Tue Jun 23 23:57:24 UTC 2009
Hello All,
I've enjoyed the debate and I'll add another $0.01 or so, though
admittedly I am just reiterating what I said on the original thread.
TUSG should focus on the technical. DVD playback is a specific legal
issue with technical implications. So are a lot of things. The solution
to the legal implications is to pay the licensing fees. If you use
Windows or MacOS, then you have paid them and gotten a group discount in
the process. If you insist on avoiding proprietary OS's at all costs,
then lack of legal DVD playback is one of your costs. Cope.
If one feels the need to engage IPOS on the topic, I am all for it. It
is critically important for citizens in a developed country like
Singapore to be active in governance and to educate themselves and
others about legal issues.
However, TUSG is not the mechanism. In terms of personnel and mission,
we are too limited to be effective in that arena. We have created a
better organization with the stated goal of engaging business,
educational institutions and government on FOSS topics. That
organization is FOSA. As a registered society, it (potentially) has the
standing to interact with the other groups and organizations involved in
the topic, including IPOS.
If you want to promote the engagement of Singapore's FOSS community with
IPOS, join FOSA, collect a group of like-minded members to your banner,
and have at it.
Regards
CDR
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:30 +0800, Tom Goh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I understand what you are saying and I wish that I felt I could make a
> difference. But my gut feeling is that it is a losing battle to get
> involved in fighting the patent system in Singapore. Singapore is so
> tied into the US patent system that we will not see changes until
> changes are made to the USPTO.
>
> Luckily the USPTO is trying to make a difference and have allowed for
> Peer-to-Patent review, where the general public are given the privilege
> to examine and submit "prior art" to discredit pending and I think
> existing patents (http://www.peertopatent.org/). This and other measures
> they have taken have done considerable good to reduce the number of
> bogus patents. While this is a good start it is a far cry from solving
> the many problems of being able to patent business processes and things
> like the human genome. Some of these patent are stifling so much
> research in medicine that it is potentially and indirectly causing the
> deaths of so many people.
>
> If you want to address IP in Singapore I suggest the approaches taken by
>
> http://www.pubpat.org/About.htm
> http://www.eff.org/about
>
> If you are interested in setting up some kind of patent reform
> organization organization, I would be more than happy to contribute
> towards it. You will need sponsors who are experts in IP law and public
> policy.
>
> I think that a Linux group fighting for patent reform in Singapore is
> not the right medium, we simply lack the expertise in law and public
> policy.
>
> Just look at these articles:
>
> http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/06/16
> http://www.eff.org/related/380/case
> http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm
>
> http://www.pubpat.org/News.htm (read some of the despicable things being
> done by Monsanto).
>
> For advocacy and education look at this page. Let me know what you
> think after, its a daunting task.
>
> http://www.pubpat.org/Educating_and_Advocating.htm
>
> Tom
>
> suhaw koh wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > I am very appreciative of the time you are taking to help me understand
> > your perspectives and position, just as I have done the same on my part.
> >
> > It appears that we have some significantly different interpretations to
> > a number of developments, but it would not be helpful to digress into
> > those here as that would then bring us off-topic again. They have
> > nevertheless helped me to understand your views better.
> >
> > Instead, I wish to focus on issues that we agree on and then explore how
> > we can take our common interest further.
> >
> > Like yourself, I agree that IP laws can be improved, even if we may
> > disagree on how much change is needed. The question I have then is how
> > should we go about effecting a change in the IP laws ?
> >
> > According to IPOS website: (http://www.ipos.gov.sg/topNav/abo/)
> > "The *Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS)*, a statutory
> > board under the Ministry of Law since April 2001, is the lead government
> > agency that advises on and administers intellectual property (IP) laws,
> > promotes IP awareness and provides the infrastructure to facilitate the
> > development of IP in Singapore."
> >
> > To be frank, I cannot see how we can hope to change IP laws without
> > engaging IPOS.
> >
> > And I hope you agree that we have to engage IPOS in some way. Pardon me
> > if I had jumped straight into the fire, but I proposed joining HIP
> > because HIP is "IPOS' flagship public awareness initiative". If you are
> > so against HIP, I am willing to concede that we need not join HIP, but
> > surely you have to agree that we have to engage IPOS in some way, even
> > if not HIP ?
> >
> > I see many similarities in the aims of FOSS and Creative Commons (CC).
> > And CC-SG had approached IPOS:
> > http://creativecommonssingapore.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/creative-commons-cited-on-ipos-website/
> >
> > I feel that FOSS should similarly engage IPOS too. Sure CC-SG had only
> > limited success, but it is only their first real contact with IPOS. I
> > thought it was a very creditable start.
> >
> > If you can agree that we need to engage IPOS in some fashion, we can
> > then discuss the form and extent that the engagement should be.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> >
> > suhaw
> >
> >
> > 2009/6/23 Tom Goh <tomgohj at gmail.com <mailto:tomgohj at gmail.com>>
> >
> > suhaw koh wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > Call me naive, and thank you for listening. Let me put forth my
> > line of
> > > thinking on why we should consider being HIP. :-)
> > >
> > > IPOS is a government organisation staffed by civil servants. Say
> > what
> > > you want, but their mandate is to serve the people. And I can
> > > personally vouch for many civil servants friends who are really
> > > committed to serving the people in the best way they know how.
> > Because,
> > > behind the organisational front of the gahmen, they are still
> > individual
> > > human beings like yourself and myself. They have families, parents,
> > > siblings and children like the rest of us. And it is very much
> > in their
> > > interest to help make society better for everybody.
> > I agree that most people would prefer to serve the people. However,
> > like any organization, government or corporation, there is a hierarchy
> > of command. So in my opinion when an MNC wants something from country
> > x, they lobby their governments to get their lobbyists and politician to
> > persuade country x to do what they want (especially small third world
> > countries). Granted this does not always work but generally speaking
> > thats how things work.
> >
> > > But you got to give them a chance. One problem with Singapore
> > society
> > > (compared to the developed Western societies) is that we lack strong
> > > civil/civic organisations.
> >
> > Even with strong civic organizations it does not guarantee that things
> > are better for the people. Look at the US Environmental Protection
> > Agency. It used to be run by a puppet, from the Bush administration,
> > who caved into all business needs. What has the EPA really done for the
> > US. Not much. They did not even sign the Kyoto treaty. Don't even get
> > me going with the FDA.
> >
> > To still think that we live in a world where common people can make
> > changes in the way governments rule, is just fantasy. This world is run
> > by capitalists and their lobbyists. Money = power.
> >
> > AWARE is an exception to the rule and see
> > > how some religious folks tried to take them over. While we have many
> > > strong religious organisations (think Soka at NDPs for another
> > example),
> > > the only big community group(s) I can think of come under the
> > stat board
> > > called People's Association.
> > BTW, SOKA has no effect on economic stability so it can have a greater
> > audience with the government. When we start talking to the government
> > about free software where they make no money out of it.... Well you get
> > the picture.
> > >
> > > So, in the absence of strong grassroots movements, big companies
> > get to
> > > dominate the stage and have their voices/interests heard by the
> > > government officials. It is no wonder that our government seem
> > to echo
> > > the big companies when the only groups lobbying them are the
> > companies.
> >
> > Big companies have lots of money that can greatly influence the economy
> > of a country, so governments listen. It is in the best interest of the
> > country and rightly so. My problem is companies that work unethically
> > to squash innovation and invention.
> >
> > Can you tell me what happens to countries that decide to "Do their own
> > thing", they get pushed to the sidelines and get hit with trade tariffs
> > and embargos. Look at Cuba.
> >
> > I am not saying that grassroots efforts are useless. Its just a long
> > long fight. And one should not compromise on their ethics. If the IP
> > market is so crippled and wrong why should we support organizations that
> > support it. If it is changed for the better I have no objections. But
> > in its current state it is so broken that any support of it, is going
> > against our beliefs in software and technology freedom. We think FOSS
> > is better so we promote it to people and we slowly grow our movement
> > till a tipping point occurs. When I joined SLMG it was 7 people, it is
> > now well over 600 and growing fast. That was 2004
> >
> > >
> > > You may ask why we should engage the government. Very simply: the
> > > government is there to serve the people's interests and they have
> > > massive resources to allocate in the name of the public good.
> >
> > Peoples primary interest are in ensuring that they make money to live
> > and therefore, it is in the interest of the government to ensure
> > friendly ties with MNCs and foreign governments so that they bring in
> > the money. If company x does not like country y's IP policies they will
> > not invest the money to go to country y. They will look for a country
> > that best protects their interest. So I am still stuck with a Linux box
> > with no DVD playback capabilities even though I purchase legal DVDs.
> >
> > And Open Source in its current setting in Singapore contributes so
> > little to the overall software and technology market worth $3 billion.
> > To tell the government to promote the use of free software, which
> > generates little income for the country is just not realistic. Not at
> > least until the FOSS business revenues, through software services, can
> > match that of proprietary software companies.
> >
> > >
> > > Of course they won't shower us with money just because we ask
> > them, but
> > > if we can make out a case that what we are doing is in the public
> > > interest and we can use their help (and in which aspect/manner), I am
> > > reasonably confident that we can make some headway. At the very
> > least,
> > > we won't know whether it will work until we try.
> >
> > Yes there is some truth to that, we can make headway and are doing it
> > actively. SLMG grew by leaps and bound and we just started FOSA to
> > promote FOSS in business, government, and EDU.
> >
> > What I fail to see is why there is a need to join HIP to prove anything.
> > No major open source project has been shown to violate any IP and if it
> > were in fact proven; the offending code would be removed and rewritten.
> > An when rewritten it will probably be done in a much better way so we
> > can prove that FOSS methodologies are better.
> >
> > >
> > > If you accept or at least generally agree with the above, now, to
> > apply
> > > to our current situation.
> > Personally, I don't agree with any of it. Just my opinion.
> > >
> > > IPOS is a government organisation staffed with intelligent and
> > educated
> > > individuals. HIP is currently populated by many "Open
> > > Source-unfriendly" organisations who try to influence IPOS's agenda.
> > > But there is no reason why HIP has to be "Open Source-unfriendly".
> >
> > I don't think they will be unfriendly to us and I think that there are
> > intelligent people there.
> >
> > But other than that I still think our voices will not be heard there.
> > They are a consortium of companies that have a lot to lose and with
> > their millions of dollars will lobby the right people to get what
> > they want.
> >
> > Look at the whole ISO thing with openXML, Microsoft spent millions of
> > dollars to make sure that their broken standard became a standard, just
> > because government started requiring open standards to maintain backward
> > compatibility with their documents. These governments were starting to
> > move to PDF and Open Document Format.
> >
> > >
> > > HIP's stated aims are:
> > >
> > > "The HIP Alliance is a group of Government agencies, private
> > > organisations and industry associations with a common interest in
> > > pursuing the need for education on IP.
> >
> > Personally I do not want to support the education of IP to people, when
> > it is so fundamentally broken. As I have stated before, if there are
> > major reforms to patents where we grant patents to original and novel
> > inventions and innovations, I will happily support HIP. Not in its
> > current state. There are just too many uesless patents being issued.
> >
> > >
> > > In partnership with the HIP Alliance members, the Alliance rallies
> > > people to respect and reward original creative works by Saying NO! to
> > > Piracy. "
> >
> > I am fine with paying for original creative works. But since the
> > umbrella is IP and not just creative content I cannot agree to it.
> >
> > >
> > > It does NOT state it is against Open Source nor does it prescribe
> > how IP
> > > should be respected. Imho, the reason why HIP is so quiet about Open
> > > Source is because our views are not represented... yet.
> >
> > As I have stated before it is controlled by lobbyist not the grassroots.
> >
> > >
> > > The way I see it, kids like to explore and are naturally resistant
> > > towards software priced for companies and working adults. Student
> > > versions tend to be crippled or cumbersome to activate.
> >
> > So you plan to go to HIP and say stop buying proprietary software
> > because we have open source and its free. How would Microsoft reply to
> > that and what will the start doing?
> >
> > An exposure to
> > > Open Source would open up many possibilities and will go a long way
> > > towards getting students to respect and honour IP. At the very
> > least,
> > > it will break down some barriers that kids harbour against IP by
> > > dispelling the notion that IP must equal to expensive software.
> > IP can
> > > also mean free Open Source software. In fact, as both mentioned
> > a few
> > > times in this discussion, without IP, Open Source falls apart
> > > completely. The key is that IP protects the author's rights.
> > The fact
> > > that big companies are making tonnes of money is a result, not the
> > > fundamental basis.
> >
> > Yes we use their weapons against them. But we call it copyleft not
> > copyright. This distinction shows that people in the FOSS world think
> > that there are flaws in the copyright system. We use because it is our
> > only avenue to protect freedom and not restriction.
> > >
> > > Personally, I believe in empowerment as opposed to restrictions.
> > I see
> > > IP as empowering even if there are corporate interests in
> > restricting.
> > > Unfortunately, the message out there for the kids is that IP is very
> > > restricting. By promoting Open Source, we help to show them that
> > IP can
> > > be very empowering too.
> >
> > Unfortunately I have to disagree on this point. IP in its current form
> > is not empowering, it is stifling innovation and I cannot stand for it.
> > I continue to respect creative content and original and novel
> > inventions but not much more.
> >
> > For all I care the likes of Microsoft can continue on their "Empowered
> > IP" kick and kick themselves out of the game. The world is slowly
> > moving towards open source and it is just an eventuality. Those who are
> > not genuinely in the playing field will die a slow death.
> >
> > >
> > > And that is very much in line with what IPOS aims for: educating the
> > > students (especially teenagers) to respect and honour IP.
> >
> > For creative content and original novel inventions yes. Not for the
> > rest of it. I buy all my books, videos and pay an annual subscription
> > to emusic.com <http://emusic.com>. I respect this part of IP and
> > don't mind paying musician
> > money to make more music. Not to patent things like the human genome.
> > Where is the invention in that. I own my own genome they did not make
> > my genome. Who are they to patent something that is a fundamental right
> > of all human beings. Are they going to charge you money because they
> > have a patent on chromosome x.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > As such, if we were to embark on the Schools project I mentioned in
> > > earlier emails, that project will further IPOS's aims and it is
> > in their
> > > interest to support us as then they can add this on their list of
> > things
> > > (like KPI) they have done towards their stated aims.
> >
> > I am fine doing the School project but what does IP have to do with it.
> > Are we promoting the use of FOSS or promoting IP. We do not need the
> > help of HIP to promote ubuntu for EDU. Linux is IP sound.
> >
> > My main concern with this project is how do we get DVD and mp3 playback
> > to work on a Ubuntu desktop without breaking the law and keeping the
> > costs reasonable. At USD$90 for fluendo and Cyberlink DVD Player, I
> > think the user is just as likely to say "well that almost cost the same
> > as XP may as well get XP".
> >
> > My final opinions and thoughts on this as it has taken too much of
> > my time.
> >
> > 1. We are a FOSS group lets promote FOSS. I fail to see how IP comes
> > into this picture.
> > 2. I think most of us can say we respect creative content and novel and
> > original inventions.
> > 3. HIP supports all IP concepts, in which I think most of it is severely
> > broken. I cannot support something that I think is broken and stifling
> > innovation.
> > 4. A grassroots group in HIP will be useless against the millions of
> > dollars used by the lobbyists. Who do you think created this group?
> > IPOS?
> > It was created by lobbyist to protect their IP and not some kind hearted
> > Civil Servant.
> > 5. The crux of our problem here is how do we get multimedia playback on
> > Linux computers at educational facilities without breaking the law.
> >
> > Tom
> > >
> > > Cheers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > suhaw
> > >
> > >
> > > 2009/6/23 Tom Goh <tomgohj at gmail.com <mailto:tomgohj at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:tomgohj at gmail.com <mailto:tomgohj at gmail.com>>>
> > >
> > > suhaw koh wrote:
> > > > Going back ontopic, should we at least engage HIP ? Or
> > should we sit
> > > > back and let the pro-business interests dictate the agenda ?
> > >
> > > What do you plan to achieve by joining and what will be your
> > plan of
> > > action once joined?
> > >
> > > I will keep and open mind and if it is convincing I will
> > support this
> > > initiative.
> > >
> > > <<< Pardon me for deleting the earlier stuff so that we can
> > focus on
> > > the topic >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ________________________
> > > Koh Su Haw 许树浩
> > > http://suhaw.teresaville.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ________________________
> > Koh Su Haw 许树浩
> > http://suhaw.teresaville.org/
>
>
More information about the Ubuntu-SG
mailing list