Hi just a note to say that due to the illness of a family member I have been unable to post to his page - sorry for the interruption and any inconvenience. I hope to be able to post again soon and thank you for your understanding.
GetUp are increasing the pressure on the Australian Government in an attempt to prevent the introduction of a widespread censorship program - from their latest email:
A decision on the Government's internet censorship filter could be just weeks away. It's crunch time for our campaign.
Live trials are nearly complete on the filter technology which will allow the government of the day to add any 'unwanted' site to a secret blacklist. This isn't China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - we could see a mandatory filter of all internet traffic right here in Australia as early as this year.
The Government could yet put the internet filter where it belongs: in the bin. But that will only happen if politicians feel the heat in their home electorates.
At this crucial time, can you contact your local MP about internet censorship?
Yes - I will request a meeting
Yes - I will send a message
103,564 Australians. That's how many of us have fought together to uphold our democratic principles.
Now let's make sure our politicians see how passionate (and how many) we are.
Picture the scene in your local politician's electorate office. The fax machine is running out of paper - it has a pile of messages every morning. Staffers have received dozens of meeting requests and the telephone message-bank is full. Voters have made it clear: draconian and unaccountable internet censorship is unacceptable in Australia.
Can you make it happen before politicians return Canberra in a fortnight?
Yes - I will request a meeting
Yes - I will send a message
Since we started this campaign in May, it has been revealed that the Government's secret blacklist includes everything from euthanasia and abortion sites to local dentists and tuckshops. It's easy to see how this filter would be open to abuse. We all want our children to be safe online, but the proposed internet filter will miss the vast majority of unwanted content while limiting our online freedoms and holding back the digital economy.
Now is the time to put this internet censorship plan to rest. Thanks for being part of the campaign.
In hope,
The GetUp team.
PS - A decision on the Government's plan to censor the internet may be only weeks away. Fax your local representative today or request a meeting with them to stop internet censorship and protect our democratic values.
Sal
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Off The Grid
Just a note to let you know that I will be away for the next week and will not be posting to this site.
Sally
Sally
Saturday, August 15, 2009
RIP: A Remix Manifesto
I have been a little slow to write about the film RIP: A Remix Manifesto - it has been available to stream for a short time now but I wanted to get a copy of the film that I could keep before deciding whether or not it might be included in my research.
After some delay in gaining access to the film - Australian's cannot download from iTunes USA nor is it available outside the USA from the official website - I finally got a copy off eBay. (It was advertised as a Region 1 DVD but it turns out it has no region coding at all. I have an old DVD player which I was guessing/gambling would have played the Region 1 DVD anyway).
This is a great film which discusses remix culture and the incredible imposition of copyright law. It primarily focuses on the music remix artist Girl Talk however also discusses mashups of other forms of culture as well as the more open attitude to culture taken in countries such as Brazil. With a number of similarities to the movie GoodCopyBadCopy, this film differs largley in the way that is is made - it itself in parts is a mashup of culture, some old and some new.
Indeed, there are a number of curious aspects to the way the film has been put together. At first I wondered whether these would amount to embarrassing errors - for example, it is specifically stated that this film is about a war over ideas however it is an elementary error to say that copyright law regulates ideas. Copyright law in fact regulates expression and is expressly differentiated from laws that regulate ideas. Other intellectual property law such as patents regulate ideas.
In addition to this, the movie characterises Napster1 as being a decentralised file sharing network when of course it is well known that Napster1 was in fact a centralised file sharing network - it required a centralised server in order to index and pass files from one user to another.
Why would this film state two obvious errors? (perhaps there are more that musicians or remix artists would find that are not obvious to me).
It is my view that this is done deliberately to act as an illustration. By including errors in the film, this film serves as the perfect example as to why we should be entitled to remix. Culture of the past is often imperfect, can be added to, altered or changed in a way that makes it more relevant, useful and (in this case for those of us with a background in law) more enjoyable. It is my belief that the errors in this film are intended to invite discussion as well as corrections. If so, I consider this to be a brave tactical decision and one which enables further promotion of the film, increased relevance in the future, as well as aiding in the wider dissemination of the central messages of the film through ensuring people discuss it. [I also wondered whether it might be to bait IP lawyers to remix it in case the creator is sued and he needs some back up.... :-) ]
Just as music mashed up by GirlTalk in part gains its popularity through the ability of people to relate to the samples of songs they already know, any adaptation of this film would refer to the original at the same time as serving as a new creation. In fact in parts of the film, remixes of this very film are used. Completely displacing the notion that the purchased copy is a finished product, the creator has allowed all of the footage of the film to be uploaded to the internet and openly invites others to remix it.
Indeed the very fact that I was unable to purchase this film except via eBay and only then if it would work in my DVD player serves as a further example of the impossibility of the staggered releases of record labels and other media organisations, as well as the impediments of DRM. Of course I would try to purchase the film from eBay (as I am sure many other people have). The creator appears to be very cleverly demonstrating the futility of trying to close culture when the internet is always on and will always allow people to connect and share regardless of the attempts to prevent this. At present it is not even possible to purchase the film for private use in Australia - I could only view the copy I have because of what American's call the First Sale Doctrine. Had this copy been Region 1 encoded and had I not had an old DVD player my rights would have been lost altogether.
OR MAYBE there are no errors in the film at all and this is a lesson in not buying from the authorised supplier? How do I know I have the 'official' copy? perhaps it is a mashed up pirate version... I doubt it, I checked the sellers reputation and store but it is an interesting aspect to the experience of trying to get a copy of this film and the nature of its subject.
I am in the process of trying to organise a non commercial use license to show this film at the Southern Cross University Mixed Up Reels Flim Club night on 8th September 2009 (I am told the licesend copy of the film will arrive next Monday so ...fingers crossed... )
If you're not nearby - stream it, go along to see it at one of the other screenings, or buy it. You will be impressed by the creativity of the footage, the clarity of the message as well as be inspired to become a creator. Great flick!
After some delay in gaining access to the film - Australian's cannot download from iTunes USA nor is it available outside the USA from the official website - I finally got a copy off eBay. (It was advertised as a Region 1 DVD but it turns out it has no region coding at all. I have an old DVD player which I was guessing/gambling would have played the Region 1 DVD anyway).
This is a great film which discusses remix culture and the incredible imposition of copyright law. It primarily focuses on the music remix artist Girl Talk however also discusses mashups of other forms of culture as well as the more open attitude to culture taken in countries such as Brazil. With a number of similarities to the movie GoodCopyBadCopy, this film differs largley in the way that is is made - it itself in parts is a mashup of culture, some old and some new.
Indeed, there are a number of curious aspects to the way the film has been put together. At first I wondered whether these would amount to embarrassing errors - for example, it is specifically stated that this film is about a war over ideas however it is an elementary error to say that copyright law regulates ideas. Copyright law in fact regulates expression and is expressly differentiated from laws that regulate ideas. Other intellectual property law such as patents regulate ideas.
In addition to this, the movie characterises Napster1 as being a decentralised file sharing network when of course it is well known that Napster1 was in fact a centralised file sharing network - it required a centralised server in order to index and pass files from one user to another.
Why would this film state two obvious errors? (perhaps there are more that musicians or remix artists would find that are not obvious to me).
It is my view that this is done deliberately to act as an illustration. By including errors in the film, this film serves as the perfect example as to why we should be entitled to remix. Culture of the past is often imperfect, can be added to, altered or changed in a way that makes it more relevant, useful and (in this case for those of us with a background in law) more enjoyable. It is my belief that the errors in this film are intended to invite discussion as well as corrections. If so, I consider this to be a brave tactical decision and one which enables further promotion of the film, increased relevance in the future, as well as aiding in the wider dissemination of the central messages of the film through ensuring people discuss it. [I also wondered whether it might be to bait IP lawyers to remix it in case the creator is sued and he needs some back up.... :-) ]
Just as music mashed up by GirlTalk in part gains its popularity through the ability of people to relate to the samples of songs they already know, any adaptation of this film would refer to the original at the same time as serving as a new creation. In fact in parts of the film, remixes of this very film are used. Completely displacing the notion that the purchased copy is a finished product, the creator has allowed all of the footage of the film to be uploaded to the internet and openly invites others to remix it.
Indeed the very fact that I was unable to purchase this film except via eBay and only then if it would work in my DVD player serves as a further example of the impossibility of the staggered releases of record labels and other media organisations, as well as the impediments of DRM. Of course I would try to purchase the film from eBay (as I am sure many other people have). The creator appears to be very cleverly demonstrating the futility of trying to close culture when the internet is always on and will always allow people to connect and share regardless of the attempts to prevent this. At present it is not even possible to purchase the film for private use in Australia - I could only view the copy I have because of what American's call the First Sale Doctrine. Had this copy been Region 1 encoded and had I not had an old DVD player my rights would have been lost altogether.
OR MAYBE there are no errors in the film at all and this is a lesson in not buying from the authorised supplier? How do I know I have the 'official' copy? perhaps it is a mashed up pirate version... I doubt it, I checked the sellers reputation and store but it is an interesting aspect to the experience of trying to get a copy of this film and the nature of its subject.
I am in the process of trying to organise a non commercial use license to show this film at the Southern Cross University Mixed Up Reels Flim Club night on 8th September 2009 (I am told the licesend copy of the film will arrive next Monday so ...fingers crossed... )
If you're not nearby - stream it, go along to see it at one of the other screenings, or buy it. You will be impressed by the creativity of the footage, the clarity of the message as well as be inspired to become a creator. Great flick!
FridgyDidge
I just love this photo of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's fridge - it's cool! (pun intended).
Licensed under: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Generic 2.0 License
Quinnums PhotoStream Flickr:
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Recent Developments
Two things have occurred this week that are worth a brief mention.
The first is a campaign by Get Up to challenge donations to political parties. Urging Australians to sign a petition to stop corporate and third party political donations as well as cap the amount of money individuals donate to campaigns their email states:
Politicians are elected to work for their employers - the Australian people. But someone else is writing their cheques: to the tune of millions of dollars. Will you join us in calling for an end to corporate and third-party political donations?
Developers given unfettered access to public land; mining companies' rights trumping traditional owners'; childcare services next to poker machines - we may get to vote every few years, but can we match the influence of large corporate donors?
Who's going to change it? The political parties addicted to big dollar corporate sponsorship? This change has to come from those who have a legitimate say over how the country is run: the Australian people. And we need to seize this rare opportunity, while the issue is in the headlines.
I have written previously about Public Choice Theory and how powerful corporate actors in essence dictate policy with respect to intellectual property law here. I refer to the disablement of public governance structures through political campaigns and financial pressure as in effect creating conditions of Private Governance which is perpetuated throughout the world through international treaties and free trade agreements.
Those interested in reading more about the campaign and signing the petition should visit:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/TheBucksStopHere
The second development worth mentioning is the handing down of a preliminary decision in the case of Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 799. This case concerns allegations of copyright infringement against EMI and the composers of the famous Australian song ‘Down Under’ who are alleged to have used a substantial portion of the song ‘Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree’. While Jacobson J does not consider the substantive copyright argument in the preliminary decision, he has determined that copyright does vest with Larrikin Music Publishing and that the copyright claim can proceed.
Plagiarism was initially raised as an issue on the popular Australian music quiz show Spicks and Specks two years ago. If copyright infringement is established the award of damages is likely to be very high given the popularity of the ‘Down Under’ song.
The first is a campaign by Get Up to challenge donations to political parties. Urging Australians to sign a petition to stop corporate and third party political donations as well as cap the amount of money individuals donate to campaigns their email states:
Politicians are elected to work for their employers - the Australian people. But someone else is writing their cheques: to the tune of millions of dollars. Will you join us in calling for an end to corporate and third-party political donations?
Developers given unfettered access to public land; mining companies' rights trumping traditional owners'; childcare services next to poker machines - we may get to vote every few years, but can we match the influence of large corporate donors?
Who's going to change it? The political parties addicted to big dollar corporate sponsorship? This change has to come from those who have a legitimate say over how the country is run: the Australian people. And we need to seize this rare opportunity, while the issue is in the headlines.
I have written previously about Public Choice Theory and how powerful corporate actors in essence dictate policy with respect to intellectual property law here. I refer to the disablement of public governance structures through political campaigns and financial pressure as in effect creating conditions of Private Governance which is perpetuated throughout the world through international treaties and free trade agreements.
Those interested in reading more about the campaign and signing the petition should visit:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/TheBucksStopHere
The second development worth mentioning is the handing down of a preliminary decision in the case of Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 799. This case concerns allegations of copyright infringement against EMI and the composers of the famous Australian song ‘Down Under’ who are alleged to have used a substantial portion of the song ‘Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree’. While Jacobson J does not consider the substantive copyright argument in the preliminary decision, he has determined that copyright does vest with Larrikin Music Publishing and that the copyright claim can proceed.
Plagiarism was initially raised as an issue on the popular Australian music quiz show Spicks and Specks two years ago. If copyright infringement is established the award of damages is likely to be very high given the popularity of the ‘Down Under’ song.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions
I wrote recently about a report released by the Australian Government called: Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions and how the Government is considering the positive and negative impacts of three strikes policies. I wrote to Senator Conroy this week outlining the nature and aims of these proposals, provided a summary of the current state of three strikes programs around the world, outlined the reasons as to why this is a counter productive and unnecessary approach and discussed the most appropriate alternative that should be employed instead – a voluntary or compulsory licensing scheme.
Here’s what I wrote about viable alternatives:
The fact remains that there are far better alternatives available to the government and the music industry to ensure that financial rewards remain for the production of content. These include voluntary collective licensing or the blanket licensing of music. Differing primarily in whether consumers and copyright holders are forced to participate, these schemes enable users to pay a flat monthly fee for the unlimited access to music, use technology to track the downloading of songs and use the collected funds to compensate artists for the use of their works. Whilst requiring some development to be introduced, such a scheme would enable the unrestricted exploration of culture, increase competition in the creative sector by providing an even playing field that does not operate in favour of strong media corporations and address all of the concerns raised above.
Proposals have been developed in the United States by the likes of Professor Fisher, Professor Netanel and the Electronic Frontiers Foundations. At present in the United States, Choruss, a corporation set up with connections to Warner Music, are trialling licensing schemes of this nature in colleges. Trails have also been undertaken by Professor Fisher at Harvard University in other countries.
There is real potential to implement a licensing system in Australia. ABS data as at December 2008 states that there are 6,680,000 Australian non dial up subscribers. Applying a monthly tax to these subscribers of $5.31 per month would recoup the entire sales of the Australian Recording Industry Association for 2008 - $425,638,008. Over a 12month period each non dial up connection would go up $63.72. While on the face of it this appears to be a fairly minor increase, other options are also available - this simply represents the maximum cost placed on the maximum number of people.
A broadband levy or licence could also be scaled to accommodate only the loss of income to the record industry. Taking the peak of 2001 where total sales were $647,620,000 and relating this to the total sales for 2008 of $425,638,008 shows a total drop in sales of $221,981,992. To simply recoup the difference, broadband subscriptions would rise by only $2.77 per month. The levy could be adjusted annually to accommodate the changes in lost income and the number of subscribers. As the number of broadband subscribers increases the monthly levy would be reduced.
Another option would be to spread the levy to include dial up services as well and implement a tiered structure. In this scenario, dial up services would increase by as little as $1 per month, reducing the impact on broadband subscribers. While all internet users would be supporting the music industry, those with the faster connections and greater capacity to download music would pay more of the costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
