Copyright = Monopoly: UK Government

Blimey, it must be Porcine Aerobatics Week or something. Here's the UK IPO - the official keeper of things "eye-pea" - on the European Commission’s proposal to extend the term of copyright protection:

Minister of Intellectual Property Baroness Delyth Morgan said,

"Because copyright represents a monopoly we need to be very clear that the circumstances justify an extension. We will therefore need to consider these proposals carefully to understand how they would work and what the benefits are likely to be."

Kudos, Baronness: you grok it. But wait, there's more:

"I would like to hear what the public thinks about this and would urge all those who have an interest in these proposals to make sure their voice is heard and to contact the UK-IPO by the end of August."

Thanks for the request. You know what to do, Brits:

If you have any comments on the proposal you are invited to contact Barbara Squires at Termextension@ipo.gov.uk by the end of August.

(Via IPKat.)

How Daft Can You Get?

Let me count the ways:

David Cameron has pledged to extend copyright on music to 70 years - in exchange for an effort by music bosses to curb violent music and imagery.

What on earth has one got to do with the other? How will "music bosses" "curb" this stuff? What happens if they "curb" only some of it? Or if only some of them curb it? Do they all get an extension to 63 and a bit years? Or do some get any extension to 70, but the others not? Talk about hare-brained....

A Bad Taste in the Mouth: Copyrighted Food

Just what the world doesn't need: the extension of copyright to food. (Via BoingBoing.)

The Euston Manifesto

After the right espousing open source and related open goodness yesterday, today we have the left. More specifically, we have something called The Euston Manifesto (via Compromiso Social por la Ciencia). This may sound a bit like an Ealing Comedy, but it includes the following rather surprising paragraph:

14) Open source.
As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders. The open source model is collective and competitive, collaborative and meritocratic. It is not a theoretical ideal, but a tested reality that has created common goods whose power and robustness have been proved over decades. Indeed, the best collegiate ideals of the scientific research community that gave rise to open source collaboration have served human progress for centuries.