Retort to “Linux: A European Threat To Our Computers”

I came across this article. I am responding to only two paragraphs, which I found to be most offending and misleading.

“Like most things that are worth owning, Computers are an American invention. Look at any modern computer and you will see that the whole thing is the product of American brilliance.”

Computers are not an American invention. America cannot take complete credit for computers. There are so many people, who are not Americans, but have contributed significantly for what has now become digital computers. For example, Charles Babbage is British. Americans have definitely contributed, but they are not the sole owners of computer technology. It has come from many other places.

Not everything that is worth owning is from America. Bicycle is an European invention. The internal combustion engine (which is the technology behind motor vehicles) is not from America. Go and check that history for yourself.

“If you see a company using Linux, it may be that they have not paid for this software. Report them to the Business Software Alliance who have the legal authority to inspect any company’s computers for illegal programs like Linux.”

GNU/Linux operating system is used by so many American companies, I don’t know where to start. Infact, GNU/Linux operating system is used all over the world. It is used here in India too. It is used in my home and my office too. It is used by my friends at their homes too. There is nothing illegal about it. I own my computer and I can run any software I want on it. Business Software Alliance or any other such organisation have no legal authority in US or anywhere else.

The original article is full of misleading information.

Transferability of Copyright

I have been perusing the Indian Copyright Office website at

http://www.copyright.gov.in

In that website copyright is talked about as some sort of author’s special rights. If that is the real purpose of the copyright act, then why does it allow the transfer of copyright from one person (or organisation) to another?

Does it make sense to ask for an amendment to make the copyright non-transferable? IANAL, hence this question. Any thoughts on this?
Some of the +ve effects of such clause would be,

• The authors would always be in control. The publishers can license the work from the authors. As far as I can see, in the current copyright system, only the publishers own most of the copyright and not the authors. This non-transferable copyright will set the copyright system in the correct course.
• If the author dies, the copyrighted work gets to public domain. Or inherited by his/her family. This will avoid copyrights for extending for a ridiculously long period of time (when it is not inherited.)
• No author can be forced or pressurized to transfer copyright. For example, if you want us to publish your paper you have to transfer the copyright to us. (http://cr.yp.to/writing/ieee.html).

All your comments are welcome. Thank you.