Mike Masnick picks up on the conflict between copyright and free speech link here. Many of you have probably read it but if you haven't, you ought to. You will ask yourself what you have been thinking. And to wonder what the courts have been thinking.

Ashlee Vance writes in today's New York Times Sunday Business section about the problems open source software has with enforcing the agreement of users to publish the source code with the the actual software, so that it can be further developed link here. I don't think the article explained the issue very well; it says only that the agreement with the open source community has been violated.

The point of the open general license is that software which finds new uses or builds on the underlying code and alters it then becomes available to the rest of the open source community. Hopefully, the accumulation of applications will in time be a highly competitive rival to the big profit making software suppliers like Microsoft and Apple. It is also a way to reduce the high cost of profit-seeking software makers that retain their software monopolies for long periods.

The article makes a point that financial penalties for failing to abide by the standard open software agreement have been modest if not nil. This no doubt softens the reluctance of users, as evidence by the rapid spread of such applications to new gadgets that are now pouring into the market.

Finally, the article sends readers to the Linux Foundation for more information; to Hewlett-Packard, which has helped develop a standardized inventory list for software so that companies can keep track of their code and licenses," and to a website, "Gpl-violations.org, an organization named after a popular open-source license, [which] receives an e-mail complaint from someone who suspects that a product may use open-source software without adhering to the rules" and checks it out.

Brad DeLong reports that Citigroup published an appraisal of the Obama administration's bank reform policy in 2009 link here. It was mild and viewed the changes favorably, so the report conveyed a sense of relief at the bank. Come 2010, the bank has now sent a blog which posted the report, a take-down notice for violating its DCMA link here.

DeLong's verdict; "Whatever you think about the DMCA, it should not be used to prune the historical record of primary sources about how various economic policies were perceived at the time." Brad then reprints the Citigroup report link here. Good for him.

The PBS Newshour last night had a interesting take on medical research: that the problem slowing medical progress is the failure to coordinate research and development, producing lots of research to very little effect. To many of us, the problem is more likely with the IP laws and the commercial advantage that exclusive IP rights give. The program did not examine those issues and had it done so, its point would have been greatly reduced. As things are, drug firms have a strong motive to slow innovation. You can see the video and read the transcipt here.

Mike Masnick takes up the question of the conflict between copyright and freedom of expression link here. I have to admit it came as a revelation to me. Is there any way to argue that copyright doesn't limit one's freedom of expression? If you think it does as I now do, then your argument conflicts with the First Amendment of the Constitution which says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...."

This provision clearly conflicts with Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;...."

I am no lawyer, but since the first amendment was passed on March 4, 1789 after the Constitution was ratified on September 25, 1789, it would logically override that part giving Congress such power (for dates link here). Of course, there is never any certainty about how the Supreme Court may decide an issue.

Mike recommends a book which I haven't read yet, but his statement is pretty strong. He says David Lange and Jefferson Powell, the authors of No Law, "spend the first half making the compelling and detailed (if densely written) case that copyright law absolutely violates the First Amendment." They apparently backslide in the second half.

I do take personal exception to Mike's comments on the State Department officials toadying to the IP interests. As a middle aged and fairly senior diplomat, I had to try to enforce our IP agreements with the Korean government. I had no option to express an opinion, but instead was told to enforce what I was told was the law.