 Check out this shade of green, this is Libra office template number two. My laptop escape key has broken, so I'm stuck in this slideshow forever, but that's fine. I should use this for the eye. Hi, I'm Brenda. He was almost correct, we don't have employees. Oh man, sorry. And I've been using Python for a bit, and I have you guys for up to 60 minutes. I think I only need about 40, I can make my point a bit faster than that. And I want to talk to you about the state of copyright according to Brenda. Now firstly, Brenda's not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. This is for entertainment purposes, and before you actually do real things, go actually get a real lawyer. Cool. So firstly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're all programmers because you came to a conference on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday, all about a programming language. Instead of spending it with your family in the sun somewhere, you came here. So can we go with that as an assumption? You're all programmers in some way or some shape? Yeah, we agree. Cool. So if you remember this, this was two years ago, this is the census question. What do you do all day? I don't know what you guys wrote, but they were trying to get, not just do you write class methods, they wanted to know what you actually do. So I wrote typing basically. That's what I do, because there are examples where we're answering the phone. So I guess I do that too, but you know. So what we do all day is we type out the softwares. This is a quote from an old colleague of mine, Reed Wade. He says, what I do is I type out the softwares. Yeah? So what are you selling? If you're getting paid to do this, what are you selling? You're selling the copyright of the thing that came out of your beautiful, priceless programmer fingers. That's what you're selling, the copyright to it, or the use of it. There's some other scenarios here, but generally you're selling the copyright. So if you are a programmer, if you type out softwares in any way, shape or form, you are totally soaking in this concept called copyright. I wanted to put the photo from the you're soaking in at MAJ thing, but that would be copyright infringement, so I couldn't. So I took a photo of the pomolive on my windowsill, but hey. So what is copyright? It's ancient. I forgot how old, but it's ancient. It's not intended for making people adhere to the GPL. Copyright was intended for controlling the use of printing presses, this brand new invention that would let you write a message that maybe the Prime Minister didn't want you to say, and then make a hundred copies of it and then put it all over the London streets, or wherever printing presses came from, probably Germany, but moving on copyright came from England. And it was this idea that we couldn't just have all of you people having printing presses, we should just have people who have a license having a printing press. And from there it's evolved into something humongous that pervades all our lives, all your day, as you sit there typing your Python. It's come a long way, but it's still the same thing. And it was used to control speech, and it's still used to control speech. You don't like a video, you're the Prime Minister, I don't like that music video calling me bad names. I'll do it. Copyright infringement noticed down it goes. That wasn't the one they used, but they could have. You don't actually have to prove it's copyright infringement, you just claim it isn't, it tends to go down these days. So it's still used to control speech. So what is it? If you break down the word copy and write, it's the right to copy. I love the right to copy things. Copying is good, generally. So if you don't have the right to copy, you have to go seek it out. So when you're sitting at your day job, or wherever it is that you type out softwares, assuming some of you do that, who owns the copyright for the thing that you just typed sitting at your little cubicle desk or in a corner window office? Does anyone know who owns it? It depends on the answer, which is a good answer to almost any question. It tends to be you, but there's this concept of work for hire. So if you've been hired by someone to type it, instead of you naturally owning it, the person who hired you to do it naturally owned it, it might be your employer, it might be your employer's client, it might be your client, but it's not you. There may be, perhaps in theory, this instantaneous moment when you had the copyright of it, but it magically becomes the person who hired you. What about when you get home and you type out some software? Well, someone told me to take the word dodgy out, so pretend I got round to doing that in my slides. But when you get home and you type your stuff on your weekend, who owns it? Well, a heck of a lot of contracts in the world have this clause saying, even on your weekend and you hack first at the Python conference, me, your employer, I own it. So if you haven't checked your contract for this, you really ought to because you can get into some sticky trouble later and I know people who have in New Zealand. Sometimes they're in New Zealand contracts, sometimes not. Almost always in Europe, I'm told. So if you don't, if you don't know, check this. And some employers like to claim that they own everything you ever think of while you're working for them. You have a brilliant idea and you don't write it till you've left, they claim they own it. So to watch out for this thing. So if you can't tell from your contract who owns the copyright of what you're going to do at the hack first, work it out. And I highly recommend clarifying it. If your contract doesn't say, get a clause in there that clarifies it. If you're signing a new contract, ask for it to be clarified and preferably in your favor. So some would say the opposite of copyright is copy left. It's not really statistically correct, but let's go with it. And copy left is this thing that came along hundreds of years after copyright and turned it upside down. They took a law that said you by default had no right to copy anything and turned it into the opposite. I'm going to use this law to do the opposite to say that you, without even talking to me or meeting me or describing it, have the right to copy it. We don't even have to meet. All good. And there's a whole branch of these from Creative Commons to GPL to the WTFPL or whatever. There's a heap of these licenses out there that explicitly say, hey, anyone, you can copy this. So how many people here have contributed to open source? Yay! Cool. For those that haven't yet, here's the way to do it. You find a bug, and honestly, in some projects, that's not too hard, and you report it. You can stop at step two, because if you report a bug, you've contributed to open source. That's all you really need to do. So perhaps you are contributing, I never realised. You can send a fix for the bug. That's even better. I massively encourage this, especially even if your fix is crap, that's still contributing. I find if I submit a bug, it goes to number 6,000 in the queue of bugs in buggy project. If I submit a bug with a patch, it goes to the top. It's a sneaky little hack to make them look at you faster. But it's really good. It's okay if it's really crap, because you may learn from it, and you may get yelled at, and that's about as bad as it gets. But more likely, you'll inspire someone else to come by, review your patch, say that's crap, and fix it. So how long does copyright last for? It depends. So once again, ask a lawyer before grabbing something you think has expired, because I'm not a lawyer and this is for entertainment purposes. There is a really good guide on digitalNZ.org. So before talking about how long copyright lasts, we should talk about what happens when it expires. It goes into a thing called public domain, which you may have heard of. If you're on the internet and you're reading English speaking websites, which most of you probably are, you'll see the word public domain all the time. But with all these words, you have to be careful that you're talking about the New Zealand context of public domain, not the US one, which may be slightly different. So in New Zealand, you can't pick up your softwares and put it in the public domain. We don't have that mechanism. I know the US can, and many people, countries, governments, put things in the public domain. But in New Zealand, we don't do that. You can't, it's not in the law, it's not a thing you can do. What you can do is do something almost exactly the same called CC buy, which is basically, if you use this, you have to say who wrote it. You can't pretend you wrote it, basically, as the last restriction left. And just as a side note, there is one open source initiative approved license that lets you pretend you wrote it. If you're looking to plagiarise somebody, it's the TABTFPL. But Tom will glare at me, because you should never use it. All right. So if you took a photo, that photo remains restricted by copyright law for 50 years after that photographer has died. That's quite a while. Literarily, dramatic and musical works are another category. 50 years after death. Now these are way more complicated than my bullet point. There's all these edge cases, just like when you're writing software, and all these little scenarios where something fell into the public domain due to legislation during that year, but if it was made six months later when the law changed, it would have stayed. All these sort of scenarios come up. This one does my head in. Computer generated works, 50 years after death. There's no human author, so I don't understand who's dying here, but that's it. Yeah. And this one's slightly different. Film or sound recordings is the fourth category I could find, and yeah, from create or publish, make whatever later. So it's all this incentivisation for people who are dead to keep reflecting royalties, basically, is what they were thinking about this. It's all about the zombies. So what about the software zombies? The long dead people who wrote software. How long does it last on software? So which do you think we are? Literary, dramatic music, computer generated, film or sound recording? Literary, you guys know better than my practice session. That's great. They were Ruby programmers, they don't know. They're watching the video now. So literary works is basically, we're in the same category as books. So I don't know about you, but I suspect books have, well, some of them, have a much longer usable life cycle than software. So this is a very strange fit, in my opinion. So basically, 50 years after you're dead is when your software finally hits public domain. Can I pick on a member of the audience for a moment and do some math? Hey, Jonathan. All right, Jonathan. Let's say you're about 23 years old today, that seems right. Okay. Yep. And you wrote some software in the break. Yep. And it's going to fall into public domain when? So it's 2015 now. Let's say you die at 85. Spoiler, yes. Carry the word. 112 years from now, which makes it 27. 21, 21, 27 is when that Python module you wrote can finally hit public domain. How usable will it be the year before? I mean, this is... This isn't... It doesn't make a lot of sense for software to be held this long. That is the case I will make. So there are other ways that I could use you. Let's say you do keep it locked up and I really need it to decode my Word document to get my secret culture or something out. I have to wait till then. So what about fair use? If you look it up on the internet, you'll tell you about how and when you can use the material under copyright without infringing. The first thing to state here is we don't have this in New Zealand. It's not in our legislation. If you're out there looking up copyright things, getting into arguments on Reddit, whatever, we don't have it here. We don't have a thing called fair dealing, which is nothing like it. It has a very narrow set of things you can do. It doesn't have an overarching concept of fair use, so you can't fair use. We have educational use. I talked to Creative Commons about this when I talked and they said, don't go there, it's too complicated. The teachers can't even work out if they can do it. So yeah, like you say, we don't have overarching. We have complicated rules and narrow definitions. I'll give you some examples. Within your lifetime is in about three years ago, there's five... Yeah, the day after the earthquake, they passed the legislation, so moving on from there. There were CDs. Everybody was buying music on these round things that looked like mirrors with sort of rainbow fix on them and they had music on them. And the cultural norm at that time was put it in a laptop and rip it and then put it on your iPod. Highly illegal stuff we should be stopping. And it was happening so often that Parliament decided everybody's breaking the law anyway. Let's make it legal. That's a very strange thing. They don't do it to other concepts. Everyone's speeding, let's change the limit. Everybody's doing this, doing that. But for some reason for this, they did. So it became normal to rip MP3, what they called them back then. And so they made it legal. But they put a restriction in. They said only to mobile devices. So you still can't rip audio and put it in your iPod. You can't rip audio and put it in your physically stuck there stereo because that's not a mobile device. So we only need to put it on mobile devices. So I guess my laptop's mobile but my desktop isn't. It's complicated. But you don't have to read all the words there. I copy pasted the quote from what was DIA that became MB. They said, oh, it's not possible to apply the same conclusion to video but you never want to look at movies while on the go. I mean, this is four years ago. This is how forward thinking they were. And you'll never want to watch them on the move using MP3 players. So this is how narrow they were thinking that the word MP3 player would apply to a video. So we have this thing that is now the cultural norm to get a video from whatever source and put it on your tablet but the law hasn't caught up yet with this cultural norm. So we don't have the fair use that a lot of countries have that it's fair to buy a thing and then watch it on a different device than it was intended. And I reckon we should do this. We should fix that. It's very glaring as a fault in our Copyright Act. And we have a First Principles review coming up but they're all a bit fuzzy about when it's going to happen. I've seen years of them saying it's coming, it's coming but other things are more important. Drinking during rugby is more important. I don't know. So what does fair use look like on your software? What does it look like? I could think of a few. I want to run it on a different PC than it came on. So I copy it from one to another. I want to run it in an emulator so I copy it there. I bought a Game Boy game and my game was dead so I copy it to an emulator. That seems like fair use. Or something was built 10 years ago and isn't a service and I make it a service. I put re-implementation here that really confuses me for that being a copy but that was what happened to Java. So Java was a copyright infringement because they re-implemented it. I don't understand that. So when should software become public domain? Is 21, 27 reasonable? Should it be a little earlier? A little later? These are good questions to think through. And I really want New Zealand to lead on this. We could do something quite revolutionary here. We're a small country. We can move fast on things. We're all just one or two degrees separated from the Prime Minister in theory. You can do these things. Certainly much easier than some other English-speaking countries out there. Anyway. So I propose that for those questions you guys pick some answers. Perhaps software should only last for 10 years and then run through the scenarios and see what the world would look like and is it better or is it worse? Basically, and I do a test on your version of the Copyright Act to run a simulation. So we've lost so much. You used to be able to pass your record collection to your kids. I don't know how many people can do that with their iTunes purchases. You can lend your friend your favourite book while I can't anymore because I buy e-books. Everything is harder and the law makes it illegal. Why should it be illegal to lend my friend a book? And we're about to lose so much more. Increasingly, we're going to lose access to data because we can't copy the software to read it. I'm going to go up on a limb and say we're increasingly releasing the data when a product dies, like Google Reader is gone, GeoCities or some product has discontinued because they're ran out of money. We released the data but we're not releasing the code and I'm saying it could be really useful to release the code a bit more often. Okay, so moving on. Remember that clever hack where they took Copyright and created Copyleft using Copyright? We need another clever hack. Now, I'm hoping I explain this one really well because it can take three or four passes to get your head around it, but let's do it. Indigenous cultural property has been created by the generation of this far-right side individual ownership. So Copyright does not work for Indigenous stuff. They don't have ownership. They don't have a person who owns that wire tower. They wrote it maybe, but they don't have a person who owns it. Some examples of this. So all of these are a bit shit, really. Someone somewhere decided to make Maori King Ayl copy to Moko and put on some fashion models. This is stuff, but Copyright doesn't work for this. It doesn't fit at all. Some quotes. It's a living heritage. These things are modern and it is massively disrespectful to take it and use it in that term. Take a sacred concept that you earn or is part of done with respect and to make it a label on a McDonald's cup or something. Creative Commons have been working on this, trying to find a clever hack for how do you do this. An example of this, where they need this most, would be Te Papa have digitised their collection. They have a massive collection about it Te Papa and they've put most of it online as they can afford it. But some of it, there are cultural reasons why they don't want this copied and remixed and disrespectful things done to it and they've gone on it and put it up anyway with all rights reserved, which is very confusing because these are 19th century photos. The photographer has been dead more than 50 years and according to Copyright, they're public domain. But they still want to put it up so that Kiwis can come see our cultural heritage there. So they have this confusing message and really what they want to say is only you, the law lets you do things, please don't. So it's not a licence, it's a notice. The Creative Commons have been working on a notice that goes on these things so that me as a person who doesn't want to accidentally take this photo and do something disrespectful, actually gets a warning that this is the case. So there's my slide. Yeah, they've published it with all rights reserved and they would like to do better. Another example of this would be the Dylan's Sign Language Dictionary. So this is another culture, deaf is an entire culture in its own. And they released their dictionary including videos of all the signs and they released it under Creative Commons. Some very clever clogged people came along and found all the words for like bottom or penis or something, all the words that they could find and strung them together to make as if that person was signing something quite offensive that they would say. And they thought that were very, very clever doing this and yes, Creative Commons let you copy and reuse and do this. So they're like, the people the volunteers who were signing in these videos are like, I don't want to do these signs anymore. I don't want to do anything Creative Commons, this is chilling, I don't want to say that about the Pope, you know, whatever it is. Yeah, and so now they don't have the same volunteers. It's this thing where the law and the legislation and the license says you can do this, but the effect of you doing this. So what I mean by this, before you call me a complete hypocrite for saying copy left, copy everything, remix awesome but respect people's cultures I want to differentiate between two things. There's the norms and there's the law. The norm was for everybody to copy from their CDs to their iPod and then the law followed. So what Creative Commons and others in this space are trying to do is to create a language and a notice and a way of describing, please follow this norm of respecting people's culture that they don't want this done even though the law doesn't back us up and where the law follows is I don't know but I would like the norm to move in this direction. So I would like to have both things, free and open access to our culture which includes Game of Thrones, you know that is part of our culture sorry and respect for fellow human beings. Just because you can take this and say something really racist doesn't mean you should. So in behalf like I said signals they're going to do a comprehensive review of New Zealand copyright law. Yay very tentatively but they'll do it after the TPP has been signed yeah. So if you don't know what this is I'll just do one quick thing it's a treaty it's secret none of us know what's in it all we know is the copyright review is going to happen after so it's a bit of a sign and it's been leaked a few times and there are people who have seen it and have been able to loosely describe what they've seen and it looks like they're rewriting IP not in a massively fundamental way more in a let's make it more worse. And I say laws need to be made transparency we need to have these conversations about what does it mean if we make it a hundred years after death for our software. We need to have these conversations not have them secretly done by negotiators so it looks like in the leaks it looks like they're going to add yet more extensions to copyright before it hits public domain. You can go read it on WikiLeaks there's the May version of the TPP is up there which is one version old by now and it's in legal latinese so it's probably a better idea to read someone's blog on it unless you're a lawyer. Moving on, geolocks. Who loves geolocks? Yeah. Global mode. Global mode was a thing that some of the ICPs were selling where you magically could pretend you were from the US and get US version of things from Netflix to BBC for the UK, whatever all these things. It's been dead since Tuesday so basically it doesn't come for free with the ICPs. It's not being legitimised by an ICP anymore. Just to keep some confusion it didn't go to court. They didn't have a verdict. It's still completely ambiguous. No one's quite sure. I spoke into several lawyers for their opinion and they all have different opinions on whether global mode was legit and legal but because they settled with scary lawyers out of court instead of going to court we don't know. Still needs to clarify. So you can buy a DVD on Amazon have it shipped to you. You can't watch the same thing on Netflix. So we have parallel import for physical goods. It doesn't say physical goods and yet they're planting that on digital. So the point I want to make is the internet, the big giant copying machine that is the internet, is brand new. These are early days. They've just got here, just built these things days for the glorious future that comes ahead in the next centuries. So we need to build the foundation now not later. This is a brand new technology that has changed the game. Let's get it right now. There's this concept of you're not stuck in traffic. You are traffic. Well, you're not on the internet. You are the internet. Everyone who is on there especially if you're building things whatever level of stack you're on you are the internet and we should make it the best internet we can be. Fix the copyright mess for this copying machine for our children's children's children. Please, if you're naming a Python module don't name it after someone else's cultural secret item unless you really know their culture really well and are a member of it. And cultural appropriation isn't illegal. You can go do it but many asshole behaviors are not illegal. And keep talking about this stuff. I'm not going to go through because there are some problems here we don't have the answers to but I don't want to make it worse. Write letters to your MP fishy around this copyright reform and lastly you should always consider the future less the presence when you're writing laws when you're writing anything when you're writing norms how will this look going forward how does it work not what does it work right now. Our esteemed colleague will be has just been volunteered by me 10 seconds ago to run around and chase people who put up their hands so let's make him work. Is there a question from over there? Hey, you said we should change something but what can we as individuals do and do you have any ideas on that front? Mostly don't be quiet if we're talking if we acquire what we will get is the worst of the TPP we've seen this all before with ACTA ACTA was a predecessor treaty that had all the same stuff in it and the noise that we were making around no, you can't throw the internet away to sell a bit more milk actually stopped ACTA and took out the worst causes so seriously tweeting is useful. Hey you're talking about global mode falling off but what happens with people who sign up for VPNs independently? So it's still in the same murky thing depending on which lawyer you talk to and lawyers don't decide as judges do whether it's legal or not it's all up in the air so as mentioned I'm on the board of internet and Z if you ever heard of it and we really wanted it to go to court we wanted it clarified so people knew where they stood and it didn't so we don't know if you understand it, entertainment purposes not legal advice, you're not breaking the law you're breaking the terms and services of Netflix for example Hi, going back to your sign language example in Australia we have a very vague concept of moral rights for artists which would help in that case does New Zealand have anything like that? I know that the moral rights of the artists are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which we ratified I don't think Australia did it doesn't have a hell of a lot of teeth I understand there is a natural right in there but I don't know about the moral right the moral right tends to be the moral right to say I did write this but I don't know about pulling it and it's under creative commons license so it's the harder one Hello so who were the shadowy cabal of lawyers that settled this out of court was that a record company? Yes, Sky and Spark and I'm going to forget the rest those were the protagonists sorry, antagonists they're the guys I disagree with I can't remember them we have to google that so I don't have it in my brain right now but it was basically a whole bunch of big media ISP companies big New Zealand size big against the tiny little company in Auckland so they just couldn't defend it that's how the justice works you were talking about getting involved and I see up there you mentioned Trader Commons New Zealand what other organisations in New Zealand are around that are interested in this sort of area and are worth actually supporting I mean the indigenous stuff? Yeah, a bit of any of those either that or the IP issues It depends how activist you are and how right wing or left wing you are or if you want to I think it crosses left and right the whole spectrum of this copyright debate and you'll find that Labour and National are both in favour of TPP which is confusing brings her against for organisations I'm involved with Internet and Dead and we try and neutralise the wrong word but we don't tend to lump in with the more activist ones Jane Kelsey has been she's she's been very vocal on the TPP side of that organisations Trader Commons is a great one I don't think they're a member organisation but massively support them I just wanted to bring up the point about 50 years after death and as a contractor I have to sign but I do sign over my copyrights to my employer and that's always a corporation so is that 50 years after death of the corporation after my death the corporation's copyright because you can sell the copyright to somebody and selling it like you do as a contractor doesn't reset the clock so as I understand it you as the business type of software it's really complicated when 60 people wrote this software we had this debate I used to work on at a place that made movies and they said after the death of who you know 6,000 people worked on that's the number Hi Brenda you made a wonderful case for the software and I thought we should also spare thought for what you actually generate the software and data and copyright pertains to the data that's generated or collected with your software I don't think yeah when the software is generated from the software like no humans are involved is that your question in the case I was thinking also you're thinking VFX I used to work with this guy yeah and also we store it because I think for example in the direct space we provide their infrastructure that's sitting somewhere and they have to adhere to certain national laws and what not I mean are they registered in Switzerland for a reason it's complicated because it's complicated in terms of who has access to your stuff even if you don't want it this is why you get a lawyer involved because it's not just this person being dead and what was the law at the time that they wrote it what's the law now what changed in between what jurisdiction were they in were they in two jurisdictions at once is there a treaty, was there a treaty that were cancelled there's so many variables in copyright that it's really hard you have to do a massive research project which is part it's also partly why very macabre all the archives when you see this a photograph by Bob Smith they put the date of death there they're not so accurate on the birth but they're really accurate on when they died and it's kind of macabre because it's all about when the person is taking photos not to answer your question I don't know about software generated there is that category that I mentioned where it's human it's computer generated things and the copyright on that is from the death of a computer somewhere I understand it Digital NZ do have a big giant PDF that helps explain it but even then that might not protect you against the lawsuit I have tried to use photos from an Otago collection that was well after the photographer's death and still been told I couldn't and well I'm pretty sure I can but I don't want to fight a court case do you know anything about ground copyright in New Zealand parliamentary proceedings I understand we can use it it's pretty darn open but not everything that the Crown produces is under ground copyright and they have a bunch of very recent instructions to government departments to make things pretty open unless there is a reason not to so it tends to be good but Parliament is different so yeah Crown is one thing but Parliament is not beholden to the same rules as Government they're a force in their own and things like that so I imagine they can do whatever they want with their copyright Hi Brenda, you mentioned that you work for Internet as Ed other than the sorts of things you've been talking about today what kinds of things does Internet as Ed work for or on Internet as Ed I'm just on their board so not an employee so I can only say things that the board has agreed on the sort of things we work on and the Internet open and un-catchable that's an older phrase that we still use and the Internet is for everybody which is no matter it should be for the benefit of all and we work towards that and there are a number of forces in this country Telecom 15 years ago would have loved to have owned the whole Internet you can't use the Internet unless you're paying money to Telecom and that would be a thing to fight against as an example or you can't use the Internet unless you've paid your fee to Hollywood that sort of stuff would be no, that's capturing Internet for everybody so if you're interested in Internet as Ed we're a member society so you can join up and you can have your say in things you can have your say without joining up too but it's nice to have your members You were talking about computer generated stuff basically if you are coding or something and you're generating code is that the computer's code or is it yours? I believe it is when they wrote that law I'm pretty sure they were thinking of music and things like that but if you write software the thing you generate I think you generated it, you're controlling it but I don't understand that category at all because 50 years from deaf made no sense that's a good research project to work that one out to classify what is in here and what's not So what's your view on harmonization of laws between jurisdictions because you mentioned that it gets really complicated when there's different laws in different places and perhaps you've got programmers working in different countries and things like that so what's your view on harmonizing laws and obviously in my opinion the VA isn't the way to do it but could we have a movement of people that want to have same laws sort of across the world Laws are a very heavy hammer to solve most of these things they tend to have a failure mode of like you broke it now really terrible things will happen to you they don't have a midway a lot of the time and they tend to set in stone the values at the time they were created or even five years before they created because they take so long and they have people who've been out of the loop liking them but I don't I don't really work in that area so I'm just the bits I can say on harmonizing them whenever I've worked on these you have an agreement within your project of which jurisdiction you're working on how the heck that works in open source I don't know but if that's your question towards open source things there is a license so that if the dispute is solved it will adhere to copyright according to GPL license I think that we don't harmonize it by laws I don't think I want to harmonize it by a bunch of 60 year old sitting in parliament so that's not fair there's at least 135 year old so I don't think that's the way to do it it'll be done by treaty negotiators it'll be term grosser sitting down and it'll be over dairy and I can't think of a way of harmonizing these it'll be worse than what we've already got so maybe I should have more faith in our elected officials but no when something's infringing copyright it only has to match one section of the infringing code it has to match the licensed one if I output a bunch of random data just pure binary stream wouldn't some of that infringe on some copyright? yes and that's why it's ridiculous it's the monkeys with top writers will eventually write Shakespeare that approach to copyright infringing yeah I agree it's absolutely ridiculous if you take the example code from I've done some android programming and there's a whole lot of examples of how to use their APIs and I copy pasting the example in order to court the API but it's all right reserved so all rights reserved on this thing that tells you how to copy how to actually talk to the API I think it's ridiculous that a single line copied can cause copyright infringement but I think it depends on that line if that line is the magic secret source formula that makes this whole thing go then copying that is not on the license it's complicated because software also had patents on that sort of thing so we don't have software patents in New Zealand just to clarify copyright and patents are completely different things yeah patents are in there I'm told so a patent is for a method copy is for copying you take copy past that's different to having the same method and yeah if you have the secret source formula it really renders the smoke that came out of the dragon that perhaps should be protected because someone worked their ass off on it but the line that says printf hello you know that that doesn't yeah that shouldn't be protected there's one hand up for that so following on from that if I ask a question on say sec exchange and someone very much more clever than me answers it and I copy paste it in my program in my Violet and Copyright this is feedback that Tom gave me on put this in your talk and I didn't have time to add it to my slides it's the same thing when someone puts something up on github I don't know how many of you have put things up on github and forgot to stick a license on it I mean are you open sourcing it and if so what how it's not so I'd say you probably are unless they've said you can use it so it's absolutely it's as ambiguous as global mode no one really knows if you can or not until they say you can and by default it's all rights reserved so yeah if you guys are putting, if you people I'm gonna stop using guys if you people are putting stuff up on github or whatever and you're not sticking a license on it you're not making the world all that much better it means that someone out there will make the mistake of using your python module or whatever in their project and it won't actually have been open sourced and you've just made a big horrible trap for somebody one day that whoever in here at your state will go through them who knows you had a bunch of Maori words I think in one of your slides I don't actually know what any of that meant they kind of I don't know for sure but I think they went for today all words because they don't translate well am I gone past it? there what am I doing am I giving a keynote other words tikanga was one of them the lag there we go taonga this I can do is treasure precious things you know what Maori means tikanga maybe protocol no it's not quite customs, cultural anyone speak it fluently can help no wrong yeah the way you should do things but in the culture norm maybe but sometimes they're a bit older than recent mataranga anyone want to do that one I don't know that one I just realised so treasures or something that are Maori in accordance with the cultural norms and protocols that are done there I'm not doing this translation justice really I'm pretty sure I'm probably wrong but yeah there seems to be an assumption that death plus 50 years is a really bad way of doing copyright terms according to me yeah so I personally don't have an issue with that like I have an issue with the plus end just creeping up if it was just plus 50 years and it had been that way forever I think I'd be okay with that do you slash the net NZ have a better way of dealing with that I can't speak for internet NZ I'm on their board but I don't speak for them can I speak for me I would go back to how it used to be it was just from when you wrote it or published it that's it there's no incentive to kill someone to make it come around earlier that's a good start and it yeah I'd say that having a 50 year run from when you wrote your module seems good enough to me we'd have to start tracking when it was published instead of tracking whether they're dead yet just following on from that plus 50 years thing I mentioned something that I don't think many people thought about but sometime in the next 100 years or so and this isn't too whack it's kind of like our people 5 years ago thought about in B3 play sometime in the next 100 years we're going to have a situation where humans are going to be on Mars having a weekend off doing some programming and the copyright was going to fall somewhere with this x plus 50 you know death plus 50 years but whose 50 years is it Earth 50 years or Mars 50 years and what happens another 1000 years in the future if we end up with time dilation problems that's just some whack kind of thinking that if we're going to re-engineer copyright why not think about this kind of stuff that's very forward thinking that's good there's a microphone is it are there any examples of like implicit copy left for example like if I create some kind of work of art or something there's an implicit copyright on that when you create it you own the copyright by default and no you have to actively choose to make it left especially in New Zealand you can't like I said can't even put it in the public domain if you wanted to there is a license called CC Zero I'm not sure if there's a New Zealand version of it yet which waives all rights I believe even the right to say that you made it so let's say you grab some creative common clip art and you don't want to put creative common drawing of a butterfly by Jane on it some CC Zero let's you do that it's just a useful one you don't want that or through your document but no there isn't you can't actively do it this is entertainment purposes not where keep saying that what about when I write a reply on slash dot and implicitly there's the intention that someone might use this code so what was the first type though if I reply to a question on slash dot and I type out some code for them yes I know copyright doesn't have implicit anything in it I would say that's implicit in the other documentation here's how you use my API here's a six line example yet they still say all rights right there on the page I have a question for the audience after this hi could you talk about CC in schools I don't work in that context okay no sorry all I know is creative common people I talk to their actual employees of it we're telling me it's really complicated I don't know that it is complicated I just the teachers don't actually know about it well enough to bravely use it okay so what is your favorite open source license I just wanted to get this idea do you have one who puts their hand up for GPL cool whose favorite one is BSD there's a Python one isn't it PSF no what MIT sorry yes the Ruby people who made up their own one don't do that man what else a fair A GPL I like that okay some of my friends don't no really MPL no I don't use an MPL cool all right GPL and a bit of BSD in this room it's good not surprising I think GPL and BSD yeah it depends it's the most common be be I don't know I have code be aware I don't think that's open I have some code under WTFPL from when I was younger because I thought it was funny it's not really helping anybody don't put your code under creative commons it's not built for that put your PNGs under that but not your code it's confusing what if you had something like software that you're writing code in and they create like oh you write this code but we own it because you're writing it in our software like say you had notepad had a copyright so whatever you write in notepad is notepad's code it's not yours yeah they can do that like Facebook all that everything you put up there is theirs now twitter has something like that most of the websites out there have an Instagram I don't know it's slash what do you call it, StackOverflow or something they probably had something like that for all I know and the reason they do it is because they need to copy it they ask you to they tell you in their terms of service that you're given over copyright or licensed to do whatever the hell they want with it that's because they have to write backups and you know do Postgres database dump and stuff and that's why the reasoning is there also because their lawyers are overzealous tell them to get everything they can please can everyone join me in thanking Brenda for her time