[Commons-Law] Adelphi Charter

[Lawrence Liang]

Hi all


A very interesting  story on a meeting between Gilberto Gil (culture Minster
of Brazil), and James Purnell (Minister for creative industries) on the
Adelphi Charter ( http://www.ipcharter.org)


It will be good to discuss the Adelphi charter


This is what Stallman had to say about it " It sounds like a
well-intentioned activity, and it may do some good.
However, if they actually used the term "intellectual property",
that will tend to promote the very kind of thinking that they wish
to keep in check"


Lawrence




>From  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4348970.stm

 Copyright for the digital age
Arguments about intellectual property go far beyond the rights and wrongs of
movie piracy, says technology analyst Bill Thompson.


Piracy is widespread in countries like China
Two very different politicians had lunch together last week.

One was James Purnell, the MP for Stalybridge and Hyde who became Minister
for the Creative Industries and Tourism after May's General Election.

He shared what was by all accounts a remarkably pleasant meal at London's
Royal Society of Arts with Gilberto Gil, the Brazilian guitarist and
songwriter who happens to be his country's current Minister of Culture.

Mr Gil and Mr Purnell were together at the Royal Society of Arts for the
launch of the Adelphi Charter on Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual
Property, an attempt to set out new principles for copyright and patents in
the digital age.

It proposes what its authors believe is a compelling new way to balance the
economic rewards offered to creative individuals and companies, with the
less obvious benefits that come from the widespread circulation of their
works and inventions. It might even help governments when it comes to
passing the new laws on copyright and patents which we seem to need these
days.

Sadly, I was not there for the lunch, or the launch, but there is a nice
photo of the occasion on John Naughton's weblog.

Intellectual ammunition

I understand that our minister was rather less relaxed and chatty than his
counterpart, but that may just be because they are very different
politicians.

 
  The principles go far beyond our current obsession with music downloads
and movie piracy  
 Mr Purnell, like most ambitious New Labour MPs, presumably sees himself as
passing through the Department for Culture Media and Sport on his way to
high office in one of the major ministries of state.

I would suspect that Mr Gil, who has worked with Yes, Pink Floyd and Jimmy
Cliff in his musical career, cares rather more about the impact of new
technologies and the internet on creators and consumers of music and other
art forms. He has worked closely with Creative Commons, the world wide
organisation seeking to encourage creative expression and sharing, and is an
influential advocate of open software and open standards.

Mr Gil can be relied on to understand why the law should "ensure both the
sharing of knowledge and the rewarding of innovation". As for Mr Purnell,
the RSA's charter is pretty short, at just under 450 words, and fits nicely
on a single side of A4 paper so it will not fill his ministerial red box.

If he reads it carefully, he will have some intellectual ammunition to use
against the representatives of the music industry who are currently lobbying
hard for an extension of the copyright term on recordings, which currently
stands at only 50 years.

Last week I argued that Google should go ahead with their project to scan
and index millions of books, even those that are still in copyright, because
it serves the public interest.

The Adelphi charter is clear on this, stating that "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".

The time is clearly right for this discussion.

Piracy obsession 

The charter was launched the week after a government-sponsored conference on
the creative industries, and follows a general election in which Labour said
in its manifesto that "we will modernise copyright and other forms of
protection of intellectual property rights so that they are appropriate for
the digital age".

 
Last week France made Gil a Grand Officier of the Legion d'Honneur
In fact the RSA, or to give it its full name, the Royal Society for the
encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, has a long and distinguished
history of saying what needs to be said to those in power.

It was founded in 1754 to "encourage the development of a principled and
prosperous society". Like other 18th Century foundations, it was driven by
the industrial revolution and an awareness among the rising elite of the
time that the new economy required a new dispensation.

The old rules could no longer be relied upon to deliver wealth, happiness or
even that small degree of social justice that was considered necessary for a
stable society at that time.

The charter continues that tradition, trying to make sense of a body of
intellectual property law that is increasingly seen as unsupportable and
damaging both to the development of the new economy and to the creative
freedom that new technologies should make possible.

It is, according to John Naughton, one of the authors, "an attempt to
formulate a sane set of principles to guide law-making on intellectual
property in a digital age".

 The principles go far beyond our current obsession with music downloads and
movie piracy, and extend to tests for genetic predisposition to breast
cancer, Aids drugs and other life-saving inventions that matter far more to
humanity than being able to sample great music, even Gilberto Gil's.

This should not surprise us, since the commission who wrote it included
people like Sir John Sulston, the Nobel Prize-winning biologist who did much
to decode the human genome.

It is far too easy to act if the internet is the only challenge to today's
intellectual properly regime. It is also easy to be sceptical about the
ability of politicians at any level to engage in these issues, and this
creates a danger that those campaigning for change will simply ignore the
political structures and avenues for debate.

But effective change will only happen through the political process, even if
the pressure for that change is created by technological innovations. And
even if national policies are constrained by international agreement, change
is possible. It just takes time and concerted effort.

The broad perspective and commitment to an international approach which the
Adelphi Charter demonstrates makes it an excellent rallying point for all
those who feel it is time to rethink intellectual property law.