An Advocate for Open Access and Privacy Has Been Nominated to be the Librarian Of Congress

The Librarian Of Congress sounds like an unimportant position but it actually is very important for the influence they have over copyright policy in the USA (and the world because of how the USA prioritizes copyright over important national interests).

President Obama Nominates New Librarian Of Congress Who Supports Open Access, Fights Against Surveillance

Hayden was one of the leading voices speaking out against surveillance. As President of the American Library Association at the time when the PATRIOT Act was being debated, she was vocal in opposition, especially to Section 215, which was used to create the phone metadata program that Ed Snowden revealed. What many people forget is that it was the librarians who were most vocal about Section 215 when it was first proposed, as many people thought it would be used to demand things like library records to see what was being checked out -- and librarians are big supporters of privacy.

She's also spoken out for years about the value of free access to information. Here's a 2003 profile of Hayden in Ms. Magazine (where she was named Woman of the Year) in which she notes:
“Libraries are a cornerstone of democracy—where information is free and equally available to everyone. People tend to take that for granted,” says Hayden. “And they don’t realize what is at stake when that is put at risk.”

This is very good news. The broken copyright system is a deadly diseases for the USA economy and has done great damage for a long time. This is a one small step that could reduce the damage that is done. It is good to see President Obama taking a good step in this direction given how much damage he has done with his many other policy decisions, including Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TTIP.

Not blackballing someone because they believe in privacy is also somewhat remarkable given the consistent efforts of President Obama to greatly enhance the survailence state in the USA.

In President Obama's statement he says

Her understanding of the pivotal role that emerging technologies play in libraries will be essential in leading the Library of Congress as it continues to modernize its infrastructure and promote open access and full participation in today's digital world.

This is a good step. I hope she is confirmed. But it is one decision moving the right direction compared to a huge number of initiatives making copyright more damaging to the USA and globaly economy. So while I am glad for this one step, it doesn't come close to erasing all the damage his adminstration has done.

Related: Why Copyright Extension is a Very Bad Idea (2009) - Librarians Standing Up to the Madness (2009) - Library of Congress in Washington DC - I Strongly Support Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

British Library Makes Over a Million Copyright Free Images Kind-of Available

The British Library lets you view over a million copyright-free images available online.

Well, I was planning on linking to it and showing some photos but they chose to use a service that blocks you from downloading the photos without signing in. Seems like a lame way to provide what could have been open access content so it doesn't seem worthy of linking to in my opinion. Hopefully they will find a better solution soon.

See the Curious Cat creative commons attribution photo feed.

Library for All

There are many efforts looking at providing access to content to those in the developing world. We can use all sorts of good efforts to make the world a better place. The Library for All is another good effort. Related: Letting Children Learn – Hole in the Wall Computers - Given Tablets but No Teachers, Kids Teach Themselves – Having Never Seen Advanced Technology Before - Providing Computers to Remote Students in Nepal - Action Is More Important Than Sympathy - You Can Help Reduce Extreme Poverty

How About Only Enforcing Copyright in Your Country if the Owner Allows Your Citizens Access

I have seen many title of articles over the last few months talking about how American politicians forced foreign countries to serve the interest of those giving large amounts of cash to the American politicians. Now I honestly haven't read the articles or the evidence presented in the wikileaks releases (supposedly showing the tactics used to push the interest of those paying politicians large amounts of cash).

The extent to which the policies of the USA were naked power plays to serve the interests of large donors surprises me a bit, but it is consistent with the large amount of such dealing for those paying USA politicians large amounts of money. It is fairly amazing how readily other countries sold out their citizens. But then again it isn't hard to imagine the USA offered deals (including not carry out threats) to get countries to go along with the interests of those giving USA politicians large amounts of cash.

In any event the release of the selling out of citizens is a great opportunity for some principled politicians to appeal to voters by saying they will no longer be the lapdogs of the lobbyists the USA government told them to follow. Right now many of the companies that used the USA government to pressure foreign governments into crazy policies even as favors to large USA political donors even when those donors refuse to allow those countries citizens to buy the products.

I suggest saying "our country will no longer enforce copyrights if the foreign country company refuses to allow your citizens to buy the product."  For example, I can't watch BBC or USA network TV or use Netflix or buy the Kindle or... in many countries. If you want me to pass laws enforcing your copyrights then you allow my citizens to buy the products in questions. Some details would have to be worked out, my initial thoughts are any organization with sales or expenses over $1 billion must comply. And they may not charge more than double the price they charge others.

And that we don't intent to tolerate lawyer gimmicks like claiming some subsidiary in the Bahamas really owns... and therefore we are don't have to comply. If you play such games and we catch you, you forfeit all copyright claims in our country for that material. Negotiation can take place on the precise details. Until that time we do not agree to restrict our citizens access to material you have copyrighted in your country and refuse to allow my citizens to buy.

It seems like it has been long enough for companies to either start allowing my country to buy your products or quit telling me that I need to enforce your laws against my citizens. I realize the American government has pushed the policies of their big political donors into many international trade agreements. I am suggesting countries rebel from these policies that are treating their citizens as unimportant. We are willing to enforce some copyright rules as long as our citizens have a chance to buy the items.  If not, once you do we will.

Amazon won't sell the kindle to many countries. Amazon will let you individually look at the status of every single country. Amazon seems at least somewhat interested in treating a few more countries as worthy of dealing with than many companies do. Still they don't allow those in China to buy it - isn't it made in China? You are good enough to make it but no we won't allow you to use it. Yes, I bet the claim is that those ip lawyers, and the like, refuse to allow Amazon to treat those that make the device with respect. I am tired of that thinking. My guess is Amazon wants to sell them. My guess is the same people paying the USA politicians to twist the arm of foreign governments are not allowing the sale in some way.

It is not ok, to treat most of the world as unworthy and as thieves. Allow them to buy the items or don't expect us to attack our citizens for you. In the information age if you citizens are denied the right to information your country will suffer.

It isn't ok to let those that pay USA politicians well harm your citizens. Now when those politicians just harm the USA that is their business, and the business of those that chose to elect them.

I'm sure many companies will say it is too hard for us to serve your citizens.  Fine, then they can consume those goods any way they want.  No I am not going to harm my citizens while you ignore them just because you think sometime maybe you will get around to caring enough about them.  When you care to make them customers we will enforce reasonable copyright laws, until them the material is in affect open access.  You can fix that buy making them customers.  My problem, as leader of my country, is not how you make this work for your company, it is serving the citizens of my country.  I'm willing to negotiate.  I am not willing for you to pay your politicians to have them force us to bully our citizens.

The next thing that will be needed is for countries that have some leaders not so beholden to those paying them large amounts of money to create harmful copyright rules for society put some balance back into copyright rules. I'm sure there are plenty of people that can improve the ridiculously silly system we have now, but Lawrence Lessig would be a good person to talk to.

Then those countries can frame a sensible international treaty that benefits society not just a few people that pay politicians well. Hopefully you can lead the world, including the USA, to a better future.

Related: Copywrong - Deadly disease #9, A broken intellectual property system - What is Wrong with Copyright Taking Public Good for Private Special Interests - Lessig Video: Information Revolution - Banks Hoping they Paid Politicians Enough to Protect Billions in Excessive Fees

200 Years of Times (London) Newspaper Available Online

200 years of newspapers, the Times (London) are now available online. Good move. "Every issue of The Times published between 1785-1985, digitally scanned and fully searchable"

Related: Open Access Journal Wars - UC-Berkeley Course Videos - Programmable New York Times On the Way

What is Wrong with Copyright Taking Public Good for Private Special Interests

Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique by Neil Netanal:

Numerous commentators have decried the growth of copyright holder rights in recent decades. Copyright's expansion is widely said to be inimical to copyright's core goals and economic rational. If so, why has that expansion occurred? Without question, there are multiple causes. This essay surveys and critiques a number of them, beginning with the copyright industries' raw political muscle and moving to the rhetorical and theoretical frameworks for expansion.
...
the public interest – as reflected in some 300 years of copyright precedent – is for a narrowly tailored incentive for authors to contribute to the store of knowledge and enrich the public domain. Copyright is meant to spur creativity and expressive diversity. When it has the opposite effect – when authors cannot freely build upon their predecessors’ works in creating new expression and when copyright serves as a tool for entrenching media conglomerates – something has gone awry.

This is another good look at the failure of public policy that is the current ever increasing special interest favors at the expense of society.

Related: Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation - The Differences Between Culture and Code - Lessig Video on Information Revolution - Innovation and Creative Commons - DMCA Debacle

Science and Engineering open access

Open access posts on the Curious Cat Science and Engineering blog

13 Things For Ubuntu

13 Things to do immediately after installing Ubuntu:

1. Enabling/Adding Extra Repositories
...
10 . Installing the extra multimedia codecs,players
12 . Installing beagle
13. Installing gdesklets

Time Series Data Library

Time Series Data Library - lots of time series data on all sorts of things: economics, sports, chemistry, crime, health...

Bad Amazon Unbox

Bad Amazon Unbox:

Amazon's new video-on-demand store may sound like a good idea, but once you take a look at the "agreement" you enter into by giving them your money, that changes. The Amazon terms-of-service are among the worst I've ever seen, a document through which you surrender your rights to privacy, integrity of your personal data, and control over your computer

Amazon does many things right, but they need to fix this problem quickly.

Amazon Unbox better left off your box - My fight with Amazon Unbox

Database of Federal Grants and Contracts Bill Passes Senate

Senate OKs Coburn bill on spending:

Frist said in a press release, "A tremendous effort from the blogosphere and our constituents, and the patience and cooperation of colleagues, led us to take this healthy step forward when it comes to responsible federal spending."

The release said, "The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 will create a single, easily searchable database capable of tracking approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans."

Coburn cited the vote as proof that government works when people demand change.

It is true that if the public demands change something usually is done. Whether what is done "works" is not so definite though. Still, so far, so good on this effort of some to shine light on bad behavior and force those who often tolerate and encourage such behavior to take positive action.

Are Software Patents Evil?

Are Software Patents Evil? by Paul Graham

A company that sues competitors for patent infringement is like a a defender who has been beaten so thoroughly that he turns to plead with the referee. You don't do that if you can still reach the ball, even if you genuinely believe you've been fouled. So a company threatening patent suits is a company in trouble.

Because there's so much scope for design in software, a successful application tends to be way more than the sum of its patents. What protects little companies from being copied by bigger competitors is not just their patents, but the thousand little things the big company will get wrong if they try.

And on the topic of companies in business just to sue others he gets to the point that patent law exists not for some abstract purpose. Patent law exists for the greater economic good (by rewarding inventors with a chance to profit from their invention for a period of time we encourage people to invent). As he says:

The American way is to make money by creating wealth, not by suing people.

Related posts:

• The Patent System Needs to be Significantly Improved
  
• The Pending Problem With Patents
  

Public Information Wants to be Free

"Another study estimates that Europe invests €9.5bn in weather data and gets approximately €68bn back in economic value - in everything from more efficient farming and construction decisions, to better holiday planning - a 7-fold multiplier. The United States, by contrast invests twice as much - €19bn - but gets back a return of €750bn, a 39-fold multiplier."