Reuven M. Lerner wrote:
Havn't been to the last session about open source - had to leave in order to get to the Haifux event on time.Ira> anyone been there and cares to share any news and views they"Ira" == Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ira> collected? how was GBY's talk about Hamakor?
On the other hand, the session immediatly preceding it, the one about "Law and Internet - intelectual property", was a very interesting one. It was a panel headed by adv. Haim Ravia (Hamakor's lawer), which mainly means that he did the least amount of talking.
The middle speaker talked about the problems when a licensed intelectual property is not worded carefully enough. He gave the problem of "Pooh Bear" rights, that were sold to one company for the "Radio, T.V. and any such similar future devices", and then when Disney released their "Video" version, there was (and still is) a huge court battle over whether that is considered a part of the above definition.
When Haim introduced the panel, his opening speaches included such questions as whether a digital specific law is at all required, and are countries that made such laws more correct, or are the countries (like Israel) that did not correct. He also specifically mentioned the DMCA, and mentioned that there was one particularily problematic section there.
The first and last speakers disregarded the main question altogether. It was a presupposition to them that internet specific laws are necessary.
The first speaker (Narda, sorry for not remebering her full name) presented the "Safe Harbour" provision as the saviour of all problems, and as "the right ballance between user rights and intelectual property owners" (quoting a case in which the end user was an almost definite violetor). At some point I managed to squeeze in an intermediate cry in a way that was not too obtrusive, saying "If it's such a good law, how do you explain the enormous amounts of fair use trampling done with it?". It threw her off course a little, but time constraints and the fact that Haim had a more concrete rebutal planned for later saved her from the need to answer.
When she was done Haim took the stand to introduce the next speaker (the one about licensing problems when drafted before the internet age), and took the opertunity to mention that he is defending a case in Israel where all the "offender" did, if all allegations are true, was link to a stock exchange graph, saying that perhaps a "john doe" suit, where the defendant is unknown, will give better ballance between user's right to anonimity and the intellectual holder's rights to sue violators.
If the first speaker at least addressed the rights of end users, the last speaker (Orna, again, don't remeber her last name) took it for granted that all laws passed by WIPO and the USA are the best thing since the sliced bread, and gave a list of laws where the Israeli laws followed suite, where the Israeli laws didn't do anything (and specifically mentioning the "anti-circumvention device" clause of the DMCA), and places where the Israeli laws tried to follow suite, and created a situation drastically different than the original. This speaker also knew better how to handle intermediate cries, by saying "Yes" and then going on as if nothing had happened. Since the slides were much more single sided than the first, there were a lot more cries as well.
After the speakers were done, a miracle has happened. Time was left before the next session, and there was some time for questions and answers. Most questions were from frustrated users and IT managers saying, basically, "so, the IP holder's rights is all you are interested in?". One reporter even went as far as to compare these laws to the "Telescreens", from Orwell's "1984". Either because of lack of time, or because of his ignorance in the specific details, he did not explain why one led to the other.
There was one really amusing question, though. A semi-lawer semi-technical sitting in the audiance had Haim scroll the presentation back to the law that was supposedly mistranslated into Israel's law book, and showed that it does, in fact, say the same as the original law. There was some mumbling from both Haim and Orna, which I took to mean that this was all fine and well, but the courts do take consideration to the other possible interpretations.
Another interesting question was by Gilad, saying "You keep talking about how bad it is to copy, and yet the entire justice system is based on precedances." The reply to that one was totally incoherant to me. It basically amounted to "you have to think of the long term damages you are doing". I later told Orna in private that we ARE thinking of the long term damages caused, we just a have a drastically different conclusion from her. In one on one, however, she was even more careful of confronting any opposition, and just answered everything with "this is a matter of setting the limits", which could be interpreted any way you want.
One thing that was probably a very good thing to take into heart from Orna's lecture was that "complicated cases make for bad laws". It is probably better to have a law specifically saying that things are ok, than to wait for a court precedant.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Open Source integration consultant
http://www.consumer.org.il/sun/
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
