The documentary The Pirate Bay - Away From Keyboard has recently been released and I had a chance to watch it this week. I have followed much of the developments with respect to the case over a number of years so the issues werent new to me - overall I think it was very accurate and well put together.
The lawsuit against Gottfried Svartholm Warg, Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde (operators) and Carl Lundstrom (investor) was launched in 2008. At one stage TPB had 22-25 million users. They were charged with assisting copyright infringement for the distribution of 5 movies over a 6 month period with the movie industry seeking $13million in damages. The film concerns the events around this court case in Sweden and draws from a number of sources in explaining the side of TPB operators and the complainants.
Professor Roger Wallis is one person that features briefly in the film suggesting that he only supports copyright where it actually creates an incentive for creativity but that in its present form, it seeks to protect large corporations.
It was also interesting to note some of the tactics used by those bringing the case - they suggested that TPB earned an estimated $1.7million per year from 64 ads on the site, however TPB operators countered this estimate with the suggestion that the annual income was more like $110,000 a year with only 4 advertisements on the site.
In the first instance, TPB operators were each sentenced to 1 year in jail and an award for $4.5 million in damages was made. Just one week after the verdict, the Judge in the case was accussed of bias. It became publicly known that he had direct links to copyright lobby groups and had worked with the industry on copyright issues. The Judge had withheld this information during the trial. However in the end it was held (conveniently) that there had been no conflict of interest.
The District Court verdict was appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was held that their then ISP, Black Internet, must cease providing internet connectivity to the site or risk being fined $75,000 per day. TPB operators then sought assistance from the Pirate Party, a political party in Sweden, who subsequently provided the site with bandwidth (they also did this for wikileaks). The Pirate Party have a political platform of internet freedom and access to culture and as such were inline with the philosophy of TPB and had protection from the law.
Footage in the film also showed Peter Sundae speak about TPB and alternative business models at what appears to be a university based conference. He spoke of FLATTER, a system that would allow users to sign up to an account and place the amount of money they want to spend for the month on film and music in it. With buttons on various pages around the web similar to the facebook LIKE button, each time a user elected to give money to a creator they could click on the button. At the end of the month, the money that the user had chosen to spend in that period on entertainment would then be evenly distributed to those that they had clicked the button for.
Further to this, reference was made to other commentators and members of the public where it was suggested that Governments were not running society properly but rather acting in the interests of large corporations and that the youth of today want to consume movies and entertainment the way that they chose and that it was up to industries to adapt to the consumers, not 'adapt the consumers'.
It was at this point in the film that a failure in communication at TPB was brought to light. It was stated that Gottfried had failed to encrypt his email messages and that this had led to the accumulation of evidence against the operators.
In 2010 the Court of Appeal verdict was handed down Nostrom was sentenced to 4months, Fredrik to 10 months and Sundae to 8 months. Gottfried doesnt not appear to have been part of the appeal. However the amount of damages awarded went up from $4.4 million to $6.6 million. They stated that the verdict heralded the criminalisation of the internet, and that the entertainment industry would continue to try to shut down the internet to preserve their business model.
In February 2012 the Supreme Court rejected a further appeal.
The film closes with (perhaps older) footage of Sundae speaking at the EU Commission about the future of the internet.
This was a great film, certainly accurate according to what I have read about the events and very entertaining. I highly recommend seeing it - it is available for streaming off YouTube and other sites and the creators ask that people freely share it around:
Showing posts with label File Sharing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label File Sharing. Show all posts
Friday, February 22, 2013
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Tribler
I came across an article recently about Tribler - I have been following its development for a few years and thought it worth raising on this site as it appears to be a new generation of file sharing software.
Tribler is a decentralised file sharing system that uses the BitTorrent protocol to scan the internet for downloadable files - alleviating the need for indexing and tracker sites. The developers of Tribler suggest that it is impossible to stop file sharing now with the entire internet needing to be shut down to prevent it from happening.
Mark Gregory, Senior Lecturer Electrical and Computer Engineering at RMIT in Melbourne argues however that it will still be possible for the content industry to upload spoof files and for downloads to be tracked using watermark technology, still allowing for the prosecution of copyright infringement. Filtering and site blocking would also work as a means to prevent file sharing and graduated response systems would still make it possible to disconnect users of Tribler.
Further Information
The Conversation, An invincible file-sharing platform? You can’t be serious (6 March 2012) < http://theconversation.edu.au/an-invincible-file-sharing-platform-you-cant-be-serious-5343 > at 13 March 2012
p2pnet.net, Tribler 3.6.0: 4th gen file sharing (23 March 2007) <http://p2pnet.net/story/11746> at 27 March 2007
The Register, Tribler takes P2P to the ' Web 2.0 generation' (5 June 2007) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/tribler_bittorrent_client_mimics_youtube/> at 16 June 2007
Tribler is a decentralised file sharing system that uses the BitTorrent protocol to scan the internet for downloadable files - alleviating the need for indexing and tracker sites. The developers of Tribler suggest that it is impossible to stop file sharing now with the entire internet needing to be shut down to prevent it from happening.
Mark Gregory, Senior Lecturer Electrical and Computer Engineering at RMIT in Melbourne argues however that it will still be possible for the content industry to upload spoof files and for downloads to be tracked using watermark technology, still allowing for the prosecution of copyright infringement. Filtering and site blocking would also work as a means to prevent file sharing and graduated response systems would still make it possible to disconnect users of Tribler.
Further Information
The Conversation, An invincible file-sharing platform? You can’t be serious (6 March 2012) < http://theconversation.edu.au/an-invincible-file-sharing-platform-you-cant-be-serious-5343 > at 13 March 2012
p2pnet.net, Tribler 3.6.0: 4th gen file sharing (23 March 2007) <http://p2pnet.net/story/11746> at 27 March 2007
The Register, Tribler takes P2P to the ' Web 2.0 generation' (5 June 2007) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/tribler_bittorrent_client_mimics_youtube/> at 16 June 2007
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
ABC: The case for piracy
Great article from the ABC in Australia on piracy, check it out here.
"Nowadays, copyright barely resembles what it was originally designed for i.e. to protect both parties: inventors and content creators on the one side and the public on the other. Corporate America and government compliance have written out public interests in many instances."
Further Reading
ABC, The case for piracy (20 October 2011) < http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/10/20/3344351.htm > at 26 October 2011
"Nowadays, copyright barely resembles what it was originally designed for i.e. to protect both parties: inventors and content creators on the one side and the public on the other. Corporate America and government compliance have written out public interests in many instances."
Further Reading
ABC, The case for piracy (20 October 2011) < http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/10/20/3344351.htm > at 26 October 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
UPDATED: Aus AG calls for submissions on disclosing user identities
ZDNet and the Australian Pirate Party are reporting on a new proposal from the Australian Attorney General that would see a streamlined approach implemented for copyright owners to seek the disclosure of users identities for the purpose of copyright enforcement, most likely leading to a graduated response scheme.
Submissions are open until 22 November 2011 and I urge all readers to write in and oppose replacing the current system of court orders with basic judicial oversight in the disclosure of IP account holders details. The new system, which would replace the need to establish the probability of liability, will simply allow copyright holders to approach the court with the IP address of the user and a search report suggesting that they downloaded a file. Disclosure would be allowed on that basis.
It has been shown time and again that these investigation methods are flawed and in essence this proposal removes any need to establish actual infringement by removing the onus on the copyright holder to show probability. In the USA elderly citizens without file sharing software and even printers have been accused of copyright infringement with the investigation process being faulty.
The six page document, available here, suggests that the term 'carriage service provider' under the Telecommunications Act be expanded and that copyright Safe Harbours establish incentives for ISPs to co-operate with copyright holders.
This is a bad deal for the Australian public with need for court orders for the disclosure of private information being a basic human right. Write in now and show your opposition to the proposed changes. This is also a bad deal for ISPs who, despite having their costs met under the scheme, will be forced into the middle between copyright holders and users and be overwhelmed with the work of providing records to anyone who asks.
UPDATE: Apparently the AGs Department accidentally published a draft and the real document which has now been published does not call for a streamlined disclosure process... still worth a read and making a submission. You can find the updated document here.
Further Information
Australian Attorney General Department, Revising The Scope of the Copyright 'Safe Harbour Scheme; & the Process of seeking ISP Subscriber Details in Copyright Infringement Matters:Consultation Paper (October 2011) < http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%28689F2CCBD6DC263C912FB74B15BE8285%29%7ERevising+the+scope.pdf/$file/Revising+the+scope.pdf > at 14 October 2011
ZDNet, Govt considers 'streamlined' piracy policy (14 October 2011) < http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-considers-streamlined-piracy-policy-339324313.htm > at 14 October 2011
Delimiter, Govt redacts ISP anti-piracy consultation text (17 October 2011) < http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/17/govt-redacts-isp-anti-piracy-consultation-text/> at 18 October 2011
Attorney Generals Department, Revising the Scope of the Copyright Safe Harbour Scheme (October 2011) < http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Consultationsreformsandreviews_RevisingtheScopeoftheCopyrightSafeHarbourSchemetheProcessofSeekingISPSubscriberDetailsinCopyrightInfringementMatters > at 18 October 2011
Submissions are open until 22 November 2011 and I urge all readers to write in and oppose replacing the current system of court orders with basic judicial oversight in the disclosure of IP account holders details. The new system, which would replace the need to establish the probability of liability, will simply allow copyright holders to approach the court with the IP address of the user and a search report suggesting that they downloaded a file. Disclosure would be allowed on that basis.
It has been shown time and again that these investigation methods are flawed and in essence this proposal removes any need to establish actual infringement by removing the onus on the copyright holder to show probability. In the USA elderly citizens without file sharing software and even printers have been accused of copyright infringement with the investigation process being faulty.
The six page document, available here, suggests that the term 'carriage service provider' under the Telecommunications Act be expanded and that copyright Safe Harbours establish incentives for ISPs to co-operate with copyright holders.
This is a bad deal for the Australian public with need for court orders for the disclosure of private information being a basic human right. Write in now and show your opposition to the proposed changes. This is also a bad deal for ISPs who, despite having their costs met under the scheme, will be forced into the middle between copyright holders and users and be overwhelmed with the work of providing records to anyone who asks.
UPDATE: Apparently the AGs Department accidentally published a draft and the real document which has now been published does not call for a streamlined disclosure process... still worth a read and making a submission. You can find the updated document here.
Further Information
Australian Attorney General Department, Revising The Scope of the Copyright 'Safe Harbour Scheme; & the Process of seeking ISP Subscriber Details in Copyright Infringement Matters:Consultation Paper (October 2011) < http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%28689F2CCBD6DC263C912FB74B15BE8285%29%7ERevising+the+scope.pdf/$file/Revising+the+scope.pdf > at 14 October 2011
ZDNet, Govt considers 'streamlined' piracy policy (14 October 2011) < http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-considers-streamlined-piracy-policy-339324313.htm > at 14 October 2011
Delimiter, Govt redacts ISP anti-piracy consultation text (17 October 2011) < http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/17/govt-redacts-isp-anti-piracy-consultation-text/> at 18 October 2011
Attorney Generals Department, Revising the Scope of the Copyright Safe Harbour Scheme (October 2011) < http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Consultationsreformsandreviews_RevisingtheScopeoftheCopyrightSafeHarbourSchemetheProcessofSeekingISPSubscriberDetailsinCopyrightInfringementMatters > at 18 October 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
I have been catching up on more reading this week - James Boyle's 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind' has been sitting in my reading tray for about 3 years and I was delighted to have an opportunity this week to take a look at it.
The central point of the book is that 'the line between intellectual property and the public domain is important in every aspect of culture, science and technology.' [pg xvi] Boyle begins by discussing the inherent aspects of intellectual property - that it is nonrival and nonexcludable and notes that financial reward is just one of the motivations behind creation - others are fame, altruism or because of another inherent creative force. [pg 3] Without limiting intellectual property rights, it becomes a system of corporate welfare. [pg 8] He writes:
'...the goal of the system ought to be to give the monopoly only for as long as necessary to provide incentive. After that, we should let the work fall into the public domain where all of us can use it, transform it, adapt it, build on it, republish it as we wish. For most works, the owners expect to make all the money the are going to recoup from the work with five or ten years of exclusive rights' [pg 11]
He discusses changes to copyright in recent years including automatic protection and term extension and notes that these have changed the contours of copyright regulation in a bad way. [pg 15].
Boyle terms the phrase 'The Jefferson Warning' to refer to the discussion of intellectual property at the time of its inception and the reluctance of the forefathers in granting monopoly rights. In essence intellectual property was not seen as a natural right rather a mechanism to create incentives, there is no entitlement as such to monopoly rights rather they are created by the State as a means to an end, they should not be permanent but rather only last as long as is needed to provide the incentive they set out to achieve, there are inherent dangers associated with intellectual property rights as they may cause more problems than they solve and the State must be careful to only award them when they are really needed. [pg 21-22] These sentiments were echoed by Thomas Babington Macaulay in his speech to the House of Commons in 1841:
'I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad.' [pg 22]
Reiterated by Boyle later in the text, he rephrases this to say that the concerns of the forefathers were that intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, high prices and low quality. [pg 37]
Boyle goes on to define the public domain and the commons:
'The public domain is material that is not covered by intellectual property rights. Material might be in the public domain because it was never capable of being owned. Examples would be the English language or the formulae of Newtonian physics. Alternatively, something might be in the public domain because rights have expired. The works of Shakespeare or the patents over powered flight are examples.
Some definitions of the public domain are more granular. They focus not only on complete works but on the reserved spaces of freedom inside intellectual property. The public domain would include the privilege to excerpt short quotations in a review. This vision is messier, but more instructive....' [pg 38]
'The term "commons" is generally used to denote a resource over which some group has access and use rights - albeit perhaps under certain conditions. It is used in even more ways that the term "public domain". The first axis along which definitions of the term "commons" vary is the size of the group that has access rights. Some would say it is a commons only if the whole society has access. That is the view I will take here.
The other difference between public domain and commons is the extent of restrictions on use. Material in the public domain is free of property rights. You may do with it what you wish. A commons can be restrictive. For example, some open source software makes your freedom to modify the software contingent on the conditions that your contributions, too, will be freely open to others.' [pg 39]
Boyle sees the public domain as important because it is the basis of art, science and self understanding. It is the raw material from which new things are made. [pg 39] He states that the more commodified and restricted our access to information, the less the market operates efficiently and more poorly it allocates resources in society. Creativity is undermined as the cost of the inputs rise. [pg 40]
Boyle then goes on to discuss the enclosure of land commons in England before referring to the increase in intellectual property rights as the second enclosure. [pg 43 -45] Here Hardin's tragedy of the commons does not apply as works are non rivalrous and nonexcludable. [pg 48] Indeed the increase in property rights creates a different problem:
'Using a nice inversion of the idea of the tragedy of the commons, Heller and Eisenberg referred to these effects - the transaction costs caused by myriad property rights over the necessary components of some subsequent innovation - as the tragedy of the anti commons'.
Boyle then goes on to term the phrase 'The Internet Threat' to refer to the digital environment and perceptions that technological changes empowering copying must mean an increase in property rights. [pg 53] In particular he refers to Napster and the changes that were brought about by file sharing. [pg 53] The logic of perfect control is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. [pg 61] The background to the Napster and Grokster litigation is also discussed. [see pg 71 - 79]
Chapter 6 discusses mashups in detail. In an earlier post here I embedded the YouTube clip to The Legendary KO's song 'George Bush Doesnt Care About Black People'. This is a fascinating chapter which traces the origins of that mashup and discusses the copyright implications for its reuse over time - this is a great example for anyone interested in the origins of mashups and the law around them. [pg 122] In discussing changes that need to be made to the law to allow for mashups Boyle states that one solution is to extend the system of compulsory licenses for cover versions to samples, or in the alternative, to exempt samples shorter than 5 seconds from copyright liability and clarify fair use. [pg 158-159]
Chapter 7 concerns the science commons with particular examples of software patents and synthetic biology. [pg 160]
Chapter 8 focuses on the creative commons and looks at flickr, ccmixter and creative commons [pg 179-181]. Boyle states that losses of sharing are every bit as real as losses from unauthorised copying. [pg 182] Further discussion on this topic looks to the free software movement and how creation of software takes place on a large scale despite a lower level of intellectual property rights. [pg 185]
In Boyle's eyes copyright maximalism was believed and pursued even when it did not make economic sense. [pg 198] It was a creation of a world view not a calculation of profit and loss:
'Not only did many of the rules we ended up with make no sense from the point of view of some of the largest economic players in the area - think of the device manufacturers, the search engines, and so on - they frequently made no sense from the perspective of those proposing them. Attempting to twist the law to make it illegal for technology to interfere with your business model is frequently bad for the industry seeking the protection, as well as for the technology, the markets, and the wider society.' [pg 199]
It was however a sincere belief that more rights would lead to more innovation. [pg 199]
Boyle is particularly critical of the lack of empirical evidence used to support changes in the law with a look at the legal protection for databases in the USA compared to Europe as one example. [pg 205 - 220]
Finally, Boyle proposes a movement along the lines of the environmental movement to lobby for changes to intellectual property law. [pg 230]
An excellent summary of the main points of the book is given on pages 205 & 236.
This is a brilliant book and very easy to read I really do recommend taking the time to look at it.
Further Reading
James Boyle, 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind' (2008) available for free at: < http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/> at 13 September 2011
The central point of the book is that 'the line between intellectual property and the public domain is important in every aspect of culture, science and technology.' [pg xvi] Boyle begins by discussing the inherent aspects of intellectual property - that it is nonrival and nonexcludable and notes that financial reward is just one of the motivations behind creation - others are fame, altruism or because of another inherent creative force. [pg 3] Without limiting intellectual property rights, it becomes a system of corporate welfare. [pg 8] He writes:
'...the goal of the system ought to be to give the monopoly only for as long as necessary to provide incentive. After that, we should let the work fall into the public domain where all of us can use it, transform it, adapt it, build on it, republish it as we wish. For most works, the owners expect to make all the money the are going to recoup from the work with five or ten years of exclusive rights' [pg 11]
He discusses changes to copyright in recent years including automatic protection and term extension and notes that these have changed the contours of copyright regulation in a bad way. [pg 15].
Boyle terms the phrase 'The Jefferson Warning' to refer to the discussion of intellectual property at the time of its inception and the reluctance of the forefathers in granting monopoly rights. In essence intellectual property was not seen as a natural right rather a mechanism to create incentives, there is no entitlement as such to monopoly rights rather they are created by the State as a means to an end, they should not be permanent but rather only last as long as is needed to provide the incentive they set out to achieve, there are inherent dangers associated with intellectual property rights as they may cause more problems than they solve and the State must be careful to only award them when they are really needed. [pg 21-22] These sentiments were echoed by Thomas Babington Macaulay in his speech to the House of Commons in 1841:
'I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad.' [pg 22]
Reiterated by Boyle later in the text, he rephrases this to say that the concerns of the forefathers were that intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, high prices and low quality. [pg 37]
Boyle goes on to define the public domain and the commons:
'The public domain is material that is not covered by intellectual property rights. Material might be in the public domain because it was never capable of being owned. Examples would be the English language or the formulae of Newtonian physics. Alternatively, something might be in the public domain because rights have expired. The works of Shakespeare or the patents over powered flight are examples.
Some definitions of the public domain are more granular. They focus not only on complete works but on the reserved spaces of freedom inside intellectual property. The public domain would include the privilege to excerpt short quotations in a review. This vision is messier, but more instructive....' [pg 38]
'The term "commons" is generally used to denote a resource over which some group has access and use rights - albeit perhaps under certain conditions. It is used in even more ways that the term "public domain". The first axis along which definitions of the term "commons" vary is the size of the group that has access rights. Some would say it is a commons only if the whole society has access. That is the view I will take here.
The other difference between public domain and commons is the extent of restrictions on use. Material in the public domain is free of property rights. You may do with it what you wish. A commons can be restrictive. For example, some open source software makes your freedom to modify the software contingent on the conditions that your contributions, too, will be freely open to others.' [pg 39]
Boyle sees the public domain as important because it is the basis of art, science and self understanding. It is the raw material from which new things are made. [pg 39] He states that the more commodified and restricted our access to information, the less the market operates efficiently and more poorly it allocates resources in society. Creativity is undermined as the cost of the inputs rise. [pg 40]
Boyle then goes on to discuss the enclosure of land commons in England before referring to the increase in intellectual property rights as the second enclosure. [pg 43 -45] Here Hardin's tragedy of the commons does not apply as works are non rivalrous and nonexcludable. [pg 48] Indeed the increase in property rights creates a different problem:
'Using a nice inversion of the idea of the tragedy of the commons, Heller and Eisenberg referred to these effects - the transaction costs caused by myriad property rights over the necessary components of some subsequent innovation - as the tragedy of the anti commons'.
Boyle then goes on to term the phrase 'The Internet Threat' to refer to the digital environment and perceptions that technological changes empowering copying must mean an increase in property rights. [pg 53] In particular he refers to Napster and the changes that were brought about by file sharing. [pg 53] The logic of perfect control is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. [pg 61] The background to the Napster and Grokster litigation is also discussed. [see pg 71 - 79]
Chapter 6 discusses mashups in detail. In an earlier post here I embedded the YouTube clip to The Legendary KO's song 'George Bush Doesnt Care About Black People'. This is a fascinating chapter which traces the origins of that mashup and discusses the copyright implications for its reuse over time - this is a great example for anyone interested in the origins of mashups and the law around them. [pg 122] In discussing changes that need to be made to the law to allow for mashups Boyle states that one solution is to extend the system of compulsory licenses for cover versions to samples, or in the alternative, to exempt samples shorter than 5 seconds from copyright liability and clarify fair use. [pg 158-159]
Chapter 7 concerns the science commons with particular examples of software patents and synthetic biology. [pg 160]
Chapter 8 focuses on the creative commons and looks at flickr, ccmixter and creative commons [pg 179-181]. Boyle states that losses of sharing are every bit as real as losses from unauthorised copying. [pg 182] Further discussion on this topic looks to the free software movement and how creation of software takes place on a large scale despite a lower level of intellectual property rights. [pg 185]
In Boyle's eyes copyright maximalism was believed and pursued even when it did not make economic sense. [pg 198] It was a creation of a world view not a calculation of profit and loss:
'Not only did many of the rules we ended up with make no sense from the point of view of some of the largest economic players in the area - think of the device manufacturers, the search engines, and so on - they frequently made no sense from the perspective of those proposing them. Attempting to twist the law to make it illegal for technology to interfere with your business model is frequently bad for the industry seeking the protection, as well as for the technology, the markets, and the wider society.' [pg 199]
It was however a sincere belief that more rights would lead to more innovation. [pg 199]
Boyle is particularly critical of the lack of empirical evidence used to support changes in the law with a look at the legal protection for databases in the USA compared to Europe as one example. [pg 205 - 220]
Finally, Boyle proposes a movement along the lines of the environmental movement to lobby for changes to intellectual property law. [pg 230]
An excellent summary of the main points of the book is given on pages 205 & 236.
This is a brilliant book and very easy to read I really do recommend taking the time to look at it.
Further Reading
James Boyle, 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind' (2008) available for free at: < http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/> at 13 September 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Pirate's Dilemma
I finally got around to reading the book 'The Pirate's Dilemma: How Youth Culture is Reinventing Capitalism' this week - you can find the book here. It is available for free as well as on Amazon and is well worth the read even if it has dated a little now.
An interesting link is made between piracy and Punk Capitalism:
'D.I.Y encourages us to reject authority and hierarchy, advocating that we can and should produce as much as we consume. Since punk, this idea has been quietly changing the very fabric of our economic system, replacing outdated ideas with the twenty-first-century upgrades of Punk Capitalism' [pg 12]
The Do It Yourself mentality has become a way of life for many in the digital age:
'Our world today is starting to look a lot more like a punk gig (okay, maybe with slightly less spitting). The barriers to entry are being kicked down, and this new breed of fans-turned-performers, including you, is rushing the world stage. Technology is cheap; information is everywhere; and the roadies are gone (who takes advice from roadies anyway?). The only thing left to do is to stop defining ourselves by the old hierarchy and run up on stage.' [pg 18]
Indeed there is no longer such a thing as 'owning the means of production':
'It seems that ownership of the means of production - the backbone of capitalism - is falling into the hands of the masses. But soon the notion of "owning" the means of production may itself be redundant.' [pg 28]
Piracy is seen largely as a good thing:
'Pirates create positive social and economic changes, and understanding piracy today is more important than ever, because now that we all can copy and broadcast whatever we want; we can all become pirates' [pg 35] '...Piracy transforms the markets it operates in, changing the way distribution works and forcing companies to be more competitive and innovative. Pirates don't just defend the public domain from corporate control; they also force big business and government to deliver what we want, when we want it. [pg 38]
File sharing is just one example of piracy in the digital age:
'The Internet community that believes file-sharing networks are vitally important to culture and innovation have never stopped opening new p2p networks as fast as the authorities try to close them down. A good idea is powerful only if people are willing to get behind it. By giving a community a new space that was not previously available to them, you can empower them, and they in turn will propel your idea forward.
In the case of piracy we have looked at so far, there are two ways in which they win. Either the laws prohibiting them change, or the pirates become so popular the laws are effectively ignored. But the pirate mentality has now been taken on by many who weren't breaking the law in the first place.' [pg 48]
There is an excellent discussion of remix culture and the history of hip hop among other issues such as patents, medicine, youth culture, graffiti culture, pirate radio, the open source software movement, Wikipedia, the history of dance parties, and the future of 3D printing.
In relation to music in particular, Mason states:
'Music, one of our most previous forms of information, has always wanted to be free, spreading across the globe and mutating into new forms' [pg 146]
Napster and the history and motivation behind file sharing is discussed in detail from pages 154 to 161. Reference is made to the exploitation of musicians by record labels, with particular reference to a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project:
'A study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project asked three thousand musicians and songwriters their views on file-sharing in April 2004. A total of 35 percent of those polled said that file sharing was not necessarily bad, because it helped market and distribute their work; 35 percent said file sharing had actually boosted their reputations. Only 23 percent of those asked agreed that file sharing was harmful; 83 percent said they had deliberately put free samples of their music online.' [pg 156]
The slow and painful death of the record industry was caused in part by their response to file sharing with Mason concluding:
'The death of the record industry was the best thing that could have happened to the business of making music.' [pg 158]
Blanket licensing is discussed with reference to Peter Jenner, the former manager of the Clash and Pink Floyd. [pg 160]
The changes in the music industry have been monumental over the past decade:
'The music industry is being replaced by a new middle class, but this isn't just a class of musicians, it's also a new democracy that offers businesses and citizens more opportunities, which is redefining our economic system.' [pg 166]
The Pirate's Dilemma is, ultimately, whether to compete with piracy or to try to stop it:
'The new democracy in the music industry gave us more choice, but for the old industry machine it means less dominance for marketing-led manufactured music and more opportunity for organically grown niche acts. We find ourselves with a unique opportunity to share anything that can be transmitted electronically the same way we share music, and all industries could face the same changes. The future depends on whether we fight these changes, or see them for the opportunities they are.' [pg 170]
Mason discusses game theory based on what is known as 'The Prisoner's Dilemma' and sketches out the consequences for society and businesses if they elect to compete or to quash piracy. Society gains maximum value when businesses compete with piracy. [pg 239] He states:
'Piracy isn't just another business model, it's one of the greatest business models we have.
Acting like a pirate-taking value from the market, or creating new spaces outside the market and giving it back to the community, whether it's with free open-source software or selling cheap Starbury sneakers-is a great way to serve public interests and a great way to make an authentic connection to a new audience.' [pg 240]
This is a great book, albeit a little short on referencing, but worth taking a look at. It is well written and easy to read and covers a whole range of subjects that are very interesting.
Further Reading
Matt Mason, 'The Pirate's Dilemma: How Youth Culture is Reinventing Capitalism' (2008) < http://thepiratesdilemma.com/download-the-book > at 1 September 2011
An interesting link is made between piracy and Punk Capitalism:
'D.I.Y encourages us to reject authority and hierarchy, advocating that we can and should produce as much as we consume. Since punk, this idea has been quietly changing the very fabric of our economic system, replacing outdated ideas with the twenty-first-century upgrades of Punk Capitalism' [pg 12]
The Do It Yourself mentality has become a way of life for many in the digital age:
'Our world today is starting to look a lot more like a punk gig (okay, maybe with slightly less spitting). The barriers to entry are being kicked down, and this new breed of fans-turned-performers, including you, is rushing the world stage. Technology is cheap; information is everywhere; and the roadies are gone (who takes advice from roadies anyway?). The only thing left to do is to stop defining ourselves by the old hierarchy and run up on stage.' [pg 18]
Indeed there is no longer such a thing as 'owning the means of production':
'It seems that ownership of the means of production - the backbone of capitalism - is falling into the hands of the masses. But soon the notion of "owning" the means of production may itself be redundant.' [pg 28]
Piracy is seen largely as a good thing:
'Pirates create positive social and economic changes, and understanding piracy today is more important than ever, because now that we all can copy and broadcast whatever we want; we can all become pirates' [pg 35] '...Piracy transforms the markets it operates in, changing the way distribution works and forcing companies to be more competitive and innovative. Pirates don't just defend the public domain from corporate control; they also force big business and government to deliver what we want, when we want it. [pg 38]
File sharing is just one example of piracy in the digital age:
'The Internet community that believes file-sharing networks are vitally important to culture and innovation have never stopped opening new p2p networks as fast as the authorities try to close them down. A good idea is powerful only if people are willing to get behind it. By giving a community a new space that was not previously available to them, you can empower them, and they in turn will propel your idea forward.
In the case of piracy we have looked at so far, there are two ways in which they win. Either the laws prohibiting them change, or the pirates become so popular the laws are effectively ignored. But the pirate mentality has now been taken on by many who weren't breaking the law in the first place.' [pg 48]
There is an excellent discussion of remix culture and the history of hip hop among other issues such as patents, medicine, youth culture, graffiti culture, pirate radio, the open source software movement, Wikipedia, the history of dance parties, and the future of 3D printing.
In relation to music in particular, Mason states:
'Music, one of our most previous forms of information, has always wanted to be free, spreading across the globe and mutating into new forms' [pg 146]
Napster and the history and motivation behind file sharing is discussed in detail from pages 154 to 161. Reference is made to the exploitation of musicians by record labels, with particular reference to a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project:
'A study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project asked three thousand musicians and songwriters their views on file-sharing in April 2004. A total of 35 percent of those polled said that file sharing was not necessarily bad, because it helped market and distribute their work; 35 percent said file sharing had actually boosted their reputations. Only 23 percent of those asked agreed that file sharing was harmful; 83 percent said they had deliberately put free samples of their music online.' [pg 156]
The slow and painful death of the record industry was caused in part by their response to file sharing with Mason concluding:
'The death of the record industry was the best thing that could have happened to the business of making music.' [pg 158]
Blanket licensing is discussed with reference to Peter Jenner, the former manager of the Clash and Pink Floyd. [pg 160]
The changes in the music industry have been monumental over the past decade:
'The music industry is being replaced by a new middle class, but this isn't just a class of musicians, it's also a new democracy that offers businesses and citizens more opportunities, which is redefining our economic system.' [pg 166]
The Pirate's Dilemma is, ultimately, whether to compete with piracy or to try to stop it:
'The new democracy in the music industry gave us more choice, but for the old industry machine it means less dominance for marketing-led manufactured music and more opportunity for organically grown niche acts. We find ourselves with a unique opportunity to share anything that can be transmitted electronically the same way we share music, and all industries could face the same changes. The future depends on whether we fight these changes, or see them for the opportunities they are.' [pg 170]
Mason discusses game theory based on what is known as 'The Prisoner's Dilemma' and sketches out the consequences for society and businesses if they elect to compete or to quash piracy. Society gains maximum value when businesses compete with piracy. [pg 239] He states:
'Piracy isn't just another business model, it's one of the greatest business models we have.
Acting like a pirate-taking value from the market, or creating new spaces outside the market and giving it back to the community, whether it's with free open-source software or selling cheap Starbury sneakers-is a great way to serve public interests and a great way to make an authentic connection to a new audience.' [pg 240]
This is a great book, albeit a little short on referencing, but worth taking a look at. It is well written and easy to read and covers a whole range of subjects that are very interesting.
Further Reading
Matt Mason, 'The Pirate's Dilemma: How Youth Culture is Reinventing Capitalism' (2008) < http://thepiratesdilemma.com/download-the-book > at 1 September 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
File Sharing Update
There has been some news in the Jamie Thomas case - she has again been found liable for $54,000 in damages for sharing 24 songs - the amount awarded by the jury was again reduced to $2,250 per song by the Judge in the case who made references to the excessive jury award as being unconstitutional. The damages set by Judge Davis are three times the statutory minimum for copyright infringement. The RIAA has already condemned the decision and stated that they intend to appeal, Thomas who disagrees with the finding that she was guilty of copyright infringement in the first place, plans to cross appeal.
In other news, independent labels have commenced legal action against Limewire seeking $5 million in damages for secondary copyright infringement.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Judge calls $1.5M file-sharing judgment "appalling," slashes to $54,000 (22 July 2011) < http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/judge-calls-15m-file-sharing-judgment-appalling-slashes-to-54000.ars > at 25 July 2011
TechDirt, Judge Decreases Amount Jammie Thomas Owes For File Sharing Again (Yes, Again); Says It's Appalling (22 July 2011) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110722/11552515212/judge-decreases-amount-jammie-thomas-owes-file-sharing-again-yes-again-says-its-appalling.shtml > at 25 July 2011
TechDirt, Indie Records Sue Limewire; Feeling Left Out From RIAA Settlement (18 July 2011) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110716/01570115119/indie-records-sue-limewire-feeling-left-out-riaa-settlement.shtml > at 25 July 2011
Digital Music News, Depressing: Indies Suing Limewire for $5 Million... (18 July 2011) < http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/071511limewire > at 25 July 2011
In other news, independent labels have commenced legal action against Limewire seeking $5 million in damages for secondary copyright infringement.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Judge calls $1.5M file-sharing judgment "appalling," slashes to $54,000 (22 July 2011) < http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/judge-calls-15m-file-sharing-judgment-appalling-slashes-to-54000.ars > at 25 July 2011
TechDirt, Judge Decreases Amount Jammie Thomas Owes For File Sharing Again (Yes, Again); Says It's Appalling (22 July 2011) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110722/11552515212/judge-decreases-amount-jammie-thomas-owes-file-sharing-again-yes-again-says-its-appalling.shtml > at 25 July 2011
TechDirt, Indie Records Sue Limewire; Feeling Left Out From RIAA Settlement (18 July 2011) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110716/01570115119/indie-records-sue-limewire-feeling-left-out-riaa-settlement.shtml > at 25 July 2011
Digital Music News, Depressing: Indies Suing Limewire for $5 Million... (18 July 2011) < http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/071511limewire > at 25 July 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Rethink Music Conference Papers
The Berkman Centre have kindly released the briefing book for the Rethink Music Conference held earlier this week in the United States. Of particular interest to me is the Framing Paper which considers some of the most recent developments in the digital music/law/internet field. The paper considers sampling, mashups and the emergence of remix culture; the changing relationship between artists and labels; anti piracy rights and the enforcement of copyright; law, policy and digital music delivery; collective licensing and alternative compensation methods, as well as network neutrality.
There are a number of other papers also worth reading so take the time to download the book and have a read.
Further Reading
Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Rethinking Music A Briefing Book (25 April 2011) < http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Rethinking_Music_Briefing_Book_April-25-2011.pdf > at 28 April 2011
There are a number of other papers also worth reading so take the time to download the book and have a read.
Further Reading
Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Rethinking Music A Briefing Book (25 April 2011) < http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Rethinking_Music_Briefing_Book_April-25-2011.pdf > at 28 April 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
EFF on file sharing
The EFF have a new post out about two recent reports that highlight the fact that the music industry is growing in the digital environment and that the recording industry should not blame file sharing as the sole cause of losses. This is an interesting read and worth a moment to take a look at.
Further Reading
EFF Deeplinks, It’s Time for the Recording Industry to Stop Blaming "Piracy" and Start Finding A New Way (25 March 2011) < https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/it-s-time-recording-industry-stop-blaming-piracy > at 26 March 2011
Further Reading
EFF Deeplinks, It’s Time for the Recording Industry to Stop Blaming "Piracy" and Start Finding A New Way (25 March 2011) < https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/it-s-time-recording-industry-stop-blaming-piracy > at 26 March 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The cHook
I dont know where to start with this article - I hate people who characterise the internet as something 'new'. Its been around for donkeys years already and massive changes to the way music is experienced has been around for more than ten years. Its disappointing that this article didnt give a voice to those with the opposite view point - and there are many. This attempt at discussing the value of music is nothing if not repetitive of out dated arguments and a narrow view of the music industry. I do appreciate the suggestion at the end that collection societies may have a greater role in the future but suggestions of 'theft' and analogies to road safety are ridiculous. Take a look if you can be bothered.
Further Reading
The Music Network, 'The Hook: Do we need to accept that music should be free?' (15 February 2011) < http://www.themusicnetwork.com/music-features/industry/2011/02/15/the-hook-do-we-need-to-accept-that-music-should-be-free/ > at 15 February 2011
Further Reading
The Music Network, 'The Hook: Do we need to accept that music should be free?' (15 February 2011) < http://www.themusicnetwork.com/music-features/industry/2011/02/15/the-hook-do-we-need-to-accept-that-music-should-be-free/ > at 15 February 2011
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
So what could be better than this?
For my thesis I have been re reading three proposals for an alternative to litigation with respect to illegal file sharing. The three models I have been reading about come from Terry Fisher in his text ‘Promises to Keep’, Neil Netanel’s Non Commercial Use Levy and the EFF’s White Paper in this area. While each of these have the potential to realign the digital environment to allow for compensation to artists at the same time as the free sharing of music, each appear to me to have short comings that would result in a difficult implementation.
What I wanted to write about today is what I consider to be the best alternative and in some respects this comes from a mashup of ideas that these three offer. I propose a Compulsory/Voluntary License for music only, with changes to intellectual property law to allow for 3 second or less samples of music.
The Compulsory/Voluntary License I propose to allow for file sharing would see copyright holders being forced to release their works to the public while allowing freedom of choice for consumers. For a small flat monthly fee payable by file sharers they would be offered immunity from litigation for the sharing of music for non commercial purposes. This would ensure that all music is available to listeners at the same time as recouping a significant amount of funds for artists. Digital tracking and/or population sampling would be used to ensure that the funds are distributed to copyright holders based on popularity. Applying to non commercial uses only copyright holders would remain free to negotiate prices for other uses particularly those that relate to the mass media. I propose that the funds be divided up based on popularity however a threshold of downloads would need to be achieved to receive payment. I suggest that a model be introduced that ensure that a greater number of artists receive payment for their music but also that a sector of society remain amateur. Economic modelling would ensure that the funds are divided up in a way that would mimic the market place and as such it would not be possible to remunerate artists for every single download but rather ensure a professional sector of creators receive some concentration of funds.
Furthermore I propose that copyright law be altered to allow for a 3 second sample in either non commercial or commercial works. As a person with a background in law (not music) I am painfully aware of the expense and time that artists must spend accounting for samples they seek to use in new songs. I believe a blanket 3 second rule would alleviate much of the confusion that arises with respect to sampling. A 3 second rule would enable short riffs to be used and could be looped or repeated at will without incurring the need to negotiate licenses. This would provide enormous clarity to what is right now a difficult area of the law. Follow-on creators would have the certainty they need to ensure that their compositions would not attract litigation at the same time as protecting the integrity of the original composition.
These are two of the ideas that are central to the 5th chapter of my thesis and to me appear to be the best way of achieving a balance in the current debate.
What I wanted to write about today is what I consider to be the best alternative and in some respects this comes from a mashup of ideas that these three offer. I propose a Compulsory/Voluntary License for music only, with changes to intellectual property law to allow for 3 second or less samples of music.
The Compulsory/Voluntary License I propose to allow for file sharing would see copyright holders being forced to release their works to the public while allowing freedom of choice for consumers. For a small flat monthly fee payable by file sharers they would be offered immunity from litigation for the sharing of music for non commercial purposes. This would ensure that all music is available to listeners at the same time as recouping a significant amount of funds for artists. Digital tracking and/or population sampling would be used to ensure that the funds are distributed to copyright holders based on popularity. Applying to non commercial uses only copyright holders would remain free to negotiate prices for other uses particularly those that relate to the mass media. I propose that the funds be divided up based on popularity however a threshold of downloads would need to be achieved to receive payment. I suggest that a model be introduced that ensure that a greater number of artists receive payment for their music but also that a sector of society remain amateur. Economic modelling would ensure that the funds are divided up in a way that would mimic the market place and as such it would not be possible to remunerate artists for every single download but rather ensure a professional sector of creators receive some concentration of funds.
Furthermore I propose that copyright law be altered to allow for a 3 second sample in either non commercial or commercial works. As a person with a background in law (not music) I am painfully aware of the expense and time that artists must spend accounting for samples they seek to use in new songs. I believe a blanket 3 second rule would alleviate much of the confusion that arises with respect to sampling. A 3 second rule would enable short riffs to be used and could be looped or repeated at will without incurring the need to negotiate licenses. This would provide enormous clarity to what is right now a difficult area of the law. Follow-on creators would have the certainty they need to ensure that their compositions would not attract litigation at the same time as protecting the integrity of the original composition.
These are two of the ideas that are central to the 5th chapter of my thesis and to me appear to be the best way of achieving a balance in the current debate.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Limewire
ArsTechnica are reporting that Limewire has been issued with an injunction forcing it to no longer provide file sharing software or support. This comes after a ruling earlier in the year in which the courts held that Limewire induced copyright infringement. A visit to the network shows a notice which states:
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT LIMEWIRE IS UNDER A COURT-ORDERED INJUNCTION TO STOP DISTRIBUTING AND SUPPORTING ITS FILE SHARING SOFTWARE. DOWNLOADING OR SHARING COPYRIGHTED CONTENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION IS ILLEGAL.
I have a very old version of Limewire but when I logged in I couldn't connect to the network. I guess this means Frostwire will be the next port of call for those wishing to share - this is an open-source file sharing network which has not been subjected to any litigation to date. And of course the popularity of BitTorrent will mean that most people can still get what they want. Its a shame to see it go really though - what a waste of a perfectly good business.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Sour ruling for LimeWire as court says to turn off P2P functionality (26 October 2010) < http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/sour-ruling-for-limewire-as-court-says-to-turn-off-p2p-functionality.ars > at 27 October 2010
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT LIMEWIRE IS UNDER A COURT-ORDERED INJUNCTION TO STOP DISTRIBUTING AND SUPPORTING ITS FILE SHARING SOFTWARE. DOWNLOADING OR SHARING COPYRIGHTED CONTENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION IS ILLEGAL.
I have a very old version of Limewire but when I logged in I couldn't connect to the network. I guess this means Frostwire will be the next port of call for those wishing to share - this is an open-source file sharing network which has not been subjected to any litigation to date. And of course the popularity of BitTorrent will mean that most people can still get what they want. Its a shame to see it go really though - what a waste of a perfectly good business.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Sour ruling for LimeWire as court says to turn off P2P functionality (26 October 2010) < http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/sour-ruling-for-limewire-as-court-says-to-turn-off-p2p-functionality.ars > at 27 October 2010
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.
Friday, May 15, 2009
The Icing
I haven't been able to verify it from another source yet but I was just reading an article on Digital Music News which I found hysterical. Apparently DJ Dangermouse (of The Grey Album fame) and Sparklehorse have released a new album titled 'Dark Night of the Soul'. The trick is that the CD (R) is blank - they are having a dispute with their record label (EMI) and cannot release the music. The music however is available on the net, so all consumers are getting are the liner notes with a 100 page booklet of photos and the instructions to 'Use It As You Will'.
Too funny - when will these labels learn?
More Information
Digital Music News, Danger Mouse + Sparklehorse: The Art of Releasing a Blank CD... (15 May 2009) <http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051409danger> at 15 May 2009
Wikipedia, The Grey Album (6 May 2009) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album> at 15 May 2009
Too funny - when will these labels learn?
More Information
Digital Music News, Danger Mouse + Sparklehorse: The Art of Releasing a Blank CD... (15 May 2009) <http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051409danger> at 15 May 2009
Wikipedia, The Grey Album (6 May 2009) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album> at 15 May 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
FMC: Win-Win When? Copyright and Innovation in the Digital Age
I am a big fan of the US organisation called the Future of Music Coalition. They are an artist focused association that lobby the US government and industry for changes to laws and practices that promote musicians welfare. They have been vocal supporters of Network Neutrality, payments for recording artists for terrestrial radio air play and frequently run conferences on topical issues.
Recently I viewed the panel discussion from their DC Policy Day held on 11 February 2009. The speakers were:
Rick Carnes President, Songwriters Guild of America
David Carson General Counsel, US Copyright Office
Zahavah Levine Chief Counsel, YouTube
Steve Marks Executive VP and General Counsel, RIAA
Hal Ponder Director of Government Relations, American Federation of Musicians
Gigi Sohn President, Public Knowledge
Walter McDonough General Counsel, Future of Music Coalition (moderator)
I was particularly interested to hear of the intentions of the new administration with respect to the role of the Copyright Czar, the potential to revisit the DMCA and the possibility of copyright reform with respect to sampling.
The close relationship and the campaign contributions made by the content industry to the Democratic Party was one point raised by Gigi Sohn, as was the need to be careful in making senior appointments to the new government. Discussion also turned to the policy reasons behind the inclusion of broadband infrastructure in the stimulus package.
Zahavah Levine agreed with the panel that the current priorities of the administration may make it difficult to get much needed copyright reform, which for YouTube focuses largely on the difficulties in gaining publishing licenses for people to use sound recordings in their personal videos that are uploaded. The difficulties lie largely in locating the owners of the rights, the multiplicity of rights that apply and the lack of legislative clarity on fair use, with the best solution being the blanket licensing of these rights.
Hal Ponder speaks of the move to introduce terrestrial radio performance rights and notes the sliding scale of royalty payments designed to reduce the burden on small radio stations because of their importance in ensuring that niche artists retain access to public broadcasting.
I laugh at Steve Marks suggestion that the RIAA's approach is always balanced.
Take a look for yourself:
The clip goes for around 1.5hrs.
More Information
Future of Music Coalition <http://www.futureofmusic.org/> 20 March 2009
Future of Music Coalition, DC Policy Day 2009 (11 February 2009) <http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/dcpolicyday09/schedule.cfm> 20 March 2009
Future of Music Coalition, Network Neutrality Fact Sheet (May 2008) <http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/NNfactsheet.cfm> at 20 March 2009
Future of Music Coalition, Fact Sheet Public Performance Rights for Sound Recordings <http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/pprsrfactsheet.cfm> (March 2008) at 20 March 2009
Recently I viewed the panel discussion from their DC Policy Day held on 11 February 2009. The speakers were:
Rick Carnes President, Songwriters Guild of America
David Carson General Counsel, US Copyright Office
Zahavah Levine Chief Counsel, YouTube
Steve Marks Executive VP and General Counsel, RIAA
Hal Ponder Director of Government Relations, American Federation of Musicians
Gigi Sohn President, Public Knowledge
Walter McDonough General Counsel, Future of Music Coalition (moderator)
I was particularly interested to hear of the intentions of the new administration with respect to the role of the Copyright Czar, the potential to revisit the DMCA and the possibility of copyright reform with respect to sampling.
The close relationship and the campaign contributions made by the content industry to the Democratic Party was one point raised by Gigi Sohn, as was the need to be careful in making senior appointments to the new government. Discussion also turned to the policy reasons behind the inclusion of broadband infrastructure in the stimulus package.
Zahavah Levine agreed with the panel that the current priorities of the administration may make it difficult to get much needed copyright reform, which for YouTube focuses largely on the difficulties in gaining publishing licenses for people to use sound recordings in their personal videos that are uploaded. The difficulties lie largely in locating the owners of the rights, the multiplicity of rights that apply and the lack of legislative clarity on fair use, with the best solution being the blanket licensing of these rights.
Hal Ponder speaks of the move to introduce terrestrial radio performance rights and notes the sliding scale of royalty payments designed to reduce the burden on small radio stations because of their importance in ensuring that niche artists retain access to public broadcasting.
I laugh at Steve Marks suggestion that the RIAA's approach is always balanced.
Take a look for yourself:
The clip goes for around 1.5hrs.
More Information
Future of Music Coalition <http://www.futureofmusic.org/> 20 March 2009
Future of Music Coalition, DC Policy Day 2009 (11 February 2009) <http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/dcpolicyday09/schedule.cfm> 20 March 2009
Future of Music Coalition, Network Neutrality Fact Sheet (May 2008) <http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/NNfactsheet.cfm> at 20 March 2009
Future of Music Coalition, Fact Sheet Public Performance Rights for Sound Recordings <http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/pprsrfactsheet.cfm> (March 2008) at 20 March 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Choruss - Jim Griffin
Check out the slide show by Jim Griffin regarding the proposed licensing scheme for file sharing on college campuses in the USA.
The intention is to implement a voluntary licensing scheme which does not required amendments to copyright law nor government intervention. Similarly Griffin does not propose that the fees paid for legal downloading should be applied on a compulsory basis, rather intending to offer opt-in, opt-out and all-in options. However, Choruss's focus is not solely on the legalisation of p2p file sharing - Griffin refers to this as a mere side effect - the aim of the proposal is to ensure monetisation of the digital music industry which includes other digital architectures in addition to p2p.
Interestingly he notes that in introducing a voluntary collective licensing scheme that mathematical perfection is impossible but that a reasonably fair division of funds can take place.
He states that it would be impossible, short of a compulsory license, for Choruss to prevent all future DMCA notices - partially because it will only apply to audio and also because it will only concern artists and labels that have agreed to cooperate. Major record labels are said to be negotiating however not all arists or labels will sign up to the scheme. They hope to have a test in place from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010.
Developments in technology mean that it is now far easier to count and compensate for the sharing of music than to filter exchanges and prevent it. Griffin concludes by noting that 'control' should not be the ultimate aim of the music industry.
While admirable in intention, as usual, there seems to be more questions than answers (check out the chat forum on the side of the slide show). The presentation goes for 1 hour.
Further Reading
Educause, Choruss: A New Business Model for Digital Music (3 March 2009) <https://admin.na3.acrobat.com/_a729300474/p72627963/> at 14 March 2009
The intention is to implement a voluntary licensing scheme which does not required amendments to copyright law nor government intervention. Similarly Griffin does not propose that the fees paid for legal downloading should be applied on a compulsory basis, rather intending to offer opt-in, opt-out and all-in options. However, Choruss's focus is not solely on the legalisation of p2p file sharing - Griffin refers to this as a mere side effect - the aim of the proposal is to ensure monetisation of the digital music industry which includes other digital architectures in addition to p2p.
Interestingly he notes that in introducing a voluntary collective licensing scheme that mathematical perfection is impossible but that a reasonably fair division of funds can take place.
He states that it would be impossible, short of a compulsory license, for Choruss to prevent all future DMCA notices - partially because it will only apply to audio and also because it will only concern artists and labels that have agreed to cooperate. Major record labels are said to be negotiating however not all arists or labels will sign up to the scheme. They hope to have a test in place from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010.
Developments in technology mean that it is now far easier to count and compensate for the sharing of music than to filter exchanges and prevent it. Griffin concludes by noting that 'control' should not be the ultimate aim of the music industry.
While admirable in intention, as usual, there seems to be more questions than answers (check out the chat forum on the side of the slide show). The presentation goes for 1 hour.
Further Reading
Educause, Choruss: A New Business Model for Digital Music (3 March 2009) <https://admin.na3.acrobat.com/_a729300474/p72627963/> at 14 March 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tenenbaum
The RecordingIndsutryvThePeople Blog is reporting that oral argument in the Tenenbaum case will be narrowcast and streamable from the Berkman Centre's website on the 22 January 2009. A website has also been set up which enables people to keep in touch with developments in the case.
More Information:
RecordingIndustryvThePeopleBlog, January 22nd oral arguments in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum will be televised over the internet (14 January 2009) <http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html#3145693789782359556> at 15 January 2009
Joel Fights Back <http://joelfightsback.com/> at 15 January 2009
More Information:
RecordingIndustryvThePeopleBlog, January 22nd oral arguments in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum will be televised over the internet (14 January 2009) <http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html#3145693789782359556> at 15 January 2009
Joel Fights Back <http://joelfightsback.com/> at 15 January 2009
Saturday, December 20, 2008
FANTASTIC NEWS... maybe
It is reported that the RIAA are abandoning their mass lawsuit campaign against file sharers in the United States with suggestions that ISPs will be cooperating with them to provide warning notices. Since the litigation campaign commenced over 35,000 people have received letters of demand for payment of damages with the threat of litigation for illegally sharing music. All suits that have been commenced will be continued. It will be interesting to see what 'cooperating with ISPs actually means' - if that means poor quality evidence is used to disconnect accounts it is questionable whether this is a step forward or not.
Further Reading
ABC, US Music Industry Abandons Mass Piracy Lawsuits (20 December 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/20/2451897.htm?section=justin> at 20 December 2008
CNet News, RIAA President: No talk of blakclisting file sharers (19 December 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10127313-93.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1> at 20 December 2008
Wall Street Journal, Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits (19 Decemebr 2008) <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html> at 20 December 2008
Digital Music News, Developing - Major Lables Endign Lawsuits Against Individuals (19 December 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/121908riaa/view> at 20 December 2008
Slyck, RIAA Drops Lawsuit Campaign – Mostly (19 December 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1812_RIAA_Drops_Lawsuit_Campaign_Mostly> at 20 December 2008
ZeroPaid, RIAA to Quit Suing File-Sharers, Wants ISPs to Disconnect Instead (19 December 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9907/RIAA+to+Quit+Suing+File-Sharers%2C+Wants+ISPs+to+Disconnect+Instead> at 20 December 2008
EFF Deeplinks, RIAA v. The People Turns from Lawsuits to 3 Strikes (19 December 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/riaa-v-people-turns-lawsuits-3-strikes> at 20 December 2008
ArsTechnica, No more lawsuits: ISPs (19 December 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081219-no-more-lawsuits-isps-to-work-with-riaa-cut-off-p2p-users.html> at 20 December 2008
Further Reading
ABC, US Music Industry Abandons Mass Piracy Lawsuits (20 December 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/20/2451897.htm?section=justin> at 20 December 2008
CNet News, RIAA President: No talk of blakclisting file sharers (19 December 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10127313-93.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1> at 20 December 2008
Wall Street Journal, Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits (19 Decemebr 2008) <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html> at 20 December 2008
Digital Music News, Developing - Major Lables Endign Lawsuits Against Individuals (19 December 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/121908riaa/view> at 20 December 2008
Slyck, RIAA Drops Lawsuit Campaign – Mostly (19 December 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1812_RIAA_Drops_Lawsuit_Campaign_Mostly> at 20 December 2008
ZeroPaid, RIAA to Quit Suing File-Sharers, Wants ISPs to Disconnect Instead (19 December 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9907/RIAA+to+Quit+Suing+File-Sharers%2C+Wants+ISPs+to+Disconnect+Instead> at 20 December 2008
EFF Deeplinks, RIAA v. The People Turns from Lawsuits to 3 Strikes (19 December 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/riaa-v-people-turns-lawsuits-3-strikes> at 20 December 2008
ArsTechnica, No more lawsuits: ISPs (19 December 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081219-no-more-lawsuits-isps-to-work-with-riaa-cut-off-p2p-users.html> at 20 December 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
REMIX: Lessig
I have just finished reading the book REMIX by Lawrence Lessig. This is thought to be his last book on intellectual property law/internet/culture issues.
Lessig introduces the text by considering the war on piracy and the collateral damage that is evident from the strategies of the major players in the content industry. While endorsing the existence of copyright law he argues for essential changes to take place to ensure that balance is achieved and future generations are not criminalised for what they perceive to be reasonable uses of culture. He urges us to step back and to assess the impact of policies and to take account of the both the need for, and likelihood of success, rather than assuming that legislative constraints are the most appropriate solution.
Lessig analyses culture as being either RO (read only) or RW (read write). He begins by examining cultures of the past with the oral tradition of singing and community interaction with culture prior to the advent of modern technology. He observes that developments such as the phonogram, player piano, radio, cassettes, CDs, televisions, VCRs, DVDs etc changed the experience of culture from RW to RO. In doing so there was a loss of tradition, amateurism, creativity and technique. He states that new technologies promise to enable society to return to a RW culture.
He explains that it is not a matter of selecting between two extremes – the internet vs hollywood; RW vs RO; the future vs the past, gains vs losses – but rather that both RO and RW culture can be extended by new technologies and that businesses which incorporate both are likely to emerge. He states that it should not be a matter of preserving RO culture at the expense of RW culture but that all should be encouraged to develop.
He acknowledges that there is part of culture that is created by professionals that we simply consume. Technology has enabled industries to develop with an emphasis on professional creation – the limitations in copying using analogue technology and support from the law prevented individuals from creating and reproducing recorded works. Now, with the advent of digital technology, any person can reproduce culture – it is not impossible but it is illegal.
He refers to the conditions that have always been present for writing – that quoting with citation has always been allowed and that there is an expectation of being able to lend texts from libraries - and argues that all culture will be ‘bookified’ this century. That is to say that we will develop norms around all forms of culture similar to those that have always been present for text.
While RO culture demands respect for creations, provides authority and integrity to culture and is an important part of ensuring the spread of knowledge; RW culture offers itself as a draft, invites a response and empowers as much as it educates and entertains.
RW and in particular remix culture is seen as a form of collage around which communities are developed and which enhances learning and education through participation. Creators are both professionals and amateurs. He argues that RW is an ecosystem that must have conditions which enable it to evolve and develop. Copyright law supports the practices of RO culture and opposes practices of RW culture.
He reflects on what may have been had the content industry accepted and adapted to the introduction of peer to peer file sharing and questions whether the next ten years should be focused on the war on piracy.
Lessig then goes on to describe three economies – the commercial, the sharing and the hybrid. The tangible value exchanged in the commercial economy is money. It is a simple way of spreading wealth and critical to the internet. Examples of internet based commercial economies include Netflix, Amazon and Google with three central features being the long tail, recommendation systems, and lego-ized development.
By contrast, the intangible value exchanged in a sharing economy is not money, indeed money is seen as poisonous to this economy. Rather it depends on the development of social relations in which participation is a key element. Lessig explains that there are two types of sharing cultures – the thin and the thick.
A thin sharing culture is driven by personal gain where motivations for self gain motivate contributions – examples include Skype and AOL’s IM Network.
A thick sharing culture whilst also depending on norms of sharing and cooperation are driven by a motivation to help others – examples include Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, Project Gutenberg, the Distributed Proof Readers Project, Distributed Computing Projects such as SETI@Home, the Internet Archive, the Mars Mapping Project, the Open Directory Project and Open Source Food.
Sharing cultures take advantage of tasks that users would do anyway and are enhanced in the digital environment because of the non rivalrous nature of intangibles. Different technologies enable new forms of participation and sharing and he suggests are likely to become part of the core of the internet’s ecosystem rather than reside at the periphery.
Hybrid economies combine both commercial and sharing attributes. Free Software and in particular Red Hat Linux are specific examples – the community of programmers are respected, they are given responsibility and the sense that they are part of something meaningful – this in turn enables commercial benefits to be derived and combined with a sharing culture. Lessig lists three main forms of hybrid successes, those that create community spaces such as Dogster, Craigslist, Flickr and YouTube; those which create collaborative spaces such as Politech, Slashdot, Last.fm, Usenet, Yahoo! Answers, Wikia and fan sites; and those which create communities such as Second Life. These forums are designed with community in mind and must balance competing priorities and expectations to succeed.
Hybrid economies produce both economic and social value with the spill-over of information having both public and private benefits. Some of the keys to long term sustainability of hybrids include not being overly focused on commercial priorities by aiming to achieve moderate rather than maximum profits, exercising only moderate control with participants being empowered to make some decisions, and transparency of motives. He refers to the transition of CCDB to Gracenotes as one example where greater transparency was required. Feelings of betrayal and a backlash from participants are inevitable when changes are made without consultation or consideration.
He states that one very damaging practice certain to undermine the success of a hybrid is share cropping. He refers to the EULAs of remix competitions where by participant's copyrights are automatically made the property of the competition organisers as one example of this practice.
Lessig states that parallel economies are possible and that creators should be free to move from one to the other as it suits them. He also acknowledges that the existence of hybrid economies which allow some legal uses of creative works as being fundamental to the decriminalisation of the cultural practices of young people.
To ensure a vibrant future for RO culture, RW culture and hybrids Lessig contends that there must be significant changes to the copyright system with far less emphasis on using the legal system to solve problems. At present the default position of copyright is set to ‘No’ but technology and the creativity of youth demand more. While he suggests that Creative Commons goes someway to addressing the issues what is really needed is a complete overhaul of the copyright system.
Lessig argues that there are five central changes which need to be made to Copyright Law. The first is that amateur production needs to be deregulated – non commercial uses should be free use not fair use. There also needs to be clear title to creative works which can only be achieved through a registration system with a renewal process imposed after a short automatic term. Copyright law must also be made simpler with legislation, in addition to fair use, specifying that some uses are not within its scope. He also suggests that the law must be rewritten to focus on uses (such as public distribution) rather than be determined on the notion of copies. Finally he advances that Congress should move to decriminalise file sharing by allowing non commercial sharing with additional taxes or by imposing a blanket licensing procedure.
Without these changes Lessig fears a destructive impact on the rule and respect for law by future generations.
This was a very enjoyable book, it is well written, easy to read and at times quite funny. For my purposes I found it a little too descriptive and thought there could have been more analysis.
The recommendations to change copyright law are not new and could have been more directly integrated with his observations with more attention given to why they are needed and what impact these changes would have on the ecosystem. The coexistence of these two forms of culture (RO/RW) have been the impetus for much of the conflict in this area and there is scope for a much more detailed discussion as to how these can survive and thrive alongside each other.
He uses the recording industry as an example of a hybrid economy with specific reference to the loss of income to major record labels as an illustration of the ability of the industry to embrace both commercial and sharing culture. Whilst I would argue that the music industry (which is wider than just the major record labels) can, and is, a hybrid economy, I would not have referred to these statistics as an example.
There was never any deliberate effort or desire on the part of the labels to embrace this strategy rather it was imposed upon them. They took active steps to prevent this from happening and only in recent times have accepted through the development of avenues such as MySpace Music and changes to Yahoo's search engine results, that complete control is not necessary. The definition of a business within a hybrid economy, and indeed the other examples he uses, refer to businesses willing to give something away in order to gain, rather than what is taken from them. The loss of income to labels while not conclusively or solely due to file sharing, could well be interpreted as an indicator of their inability to be embrace a hybrid model.
Lessig could have also paid more attention to the role of the Corporations Law and how the fiduciary duties of directors and company executives impact on the choices that are made and the obligations to prioritise profit over community.
Lessig introduces the text by considering the war on piracy and the collateral damage that is evident from the strategies of the major players in the content industry. While endorsing the existence of copyright law he argues for essential changes to take place to ensure that balance is achieved and future generations are not criminalised for what they perceive to be reasonable uses of culture. He urges us to step back and to assess the impact of policies and to take account of the both the need for, and likelihood of success, rather than assuming that legislative constraints are the most appropriate solution.
Lessig analyses culture as being either RO (read only) or RW (read write). He begins by examining cultures of the past with the oral tradition of singing and community interaction with culture prior to the advent of modern technology. He observes that developments such as the phonogram, player piano, radio, cassettes, CDs, televisions, VCRs, DVDs etc changed the experience of culture from RW to RO. In doing so there was a loss of tradition, amateurism, creativity and technique. He states that new technologies promise to enable society to return to a RW culture.
He explains that it is not a matter of selecting between two extremes – the internet vs hollywood; RW vs RO; the future vs the past, gains vs losses – but rather that both RO and RW culture can be extended by new technologies and that businesses which incorporate both are likely to emerge. He states that it should not be a matter of preserving RO culture at the expense of RW culture but that all should be encouraged to develop.
He acknowledges that there is part of culture that is created by professionals that we simply consume. Technology has enabled industries to develop with an emphasis on professional creation – the limitations in copying using analogue technology and support from the law prevented individuals from creating and reproducing recorded works. Now, with the advent of digital technology, any person can reproduce culture – it is not impossible but it is illegal.
He refers to the conditions that have always been present for writing – that quoting with citation has always been allowed and that there is an expectation of being able to lend texts from libraries - and argues that all culture will be ‘bookified’ this century. That is to say that we will develop norms around all forms of culture similar to those that have always been present for text.
While RO culture demands respect for creations, provides authority and integrity to culture and is an important part of ensuring the spread of knowledge; RW culture offers itself as a draft, invites a response and empowers as much as it educates and entertains.
RW and in particular remix culture is seen as a form of collage around which communities are developed and which enhances learning and education through participation. Creators are both professionals and amateurs. He argues that RW is an ecosystem that must have conditions which enable it to evolve and develop. Copyright law supports the practices of RO culture and opposes practices of RW culture.
He reflects on what may have been had the content industry accepted and adapted to the introduction of peer to peer file sharing and questions whether the next ten years should be focused on the war on piracy.
Lessig then goes on to describe three economies – the commercial, the sharing and the hybrid. The tangible value exchanged in the commercial economy is money. It is a simple way of spreading wealth and critical to the internet. Examples of internet based commercial economies include Netflix, Amazon and Google with three central features being the long tail, recommendation systems, and lego-ized development.
By contrast, the intangible value exchanged in a sharing economy is not money, indeed money is seen as poisonous to this economy. Rather it depends on the development of social relations in which participation is a key element. Lessig explains that there are two types of sharing cultures – the thin and the thick.
A thin sharing culture is driven by personal gain where motivations for self gain motivate contributions – examples include Skype and AOL’s IM Network.
A thick sharing culture whilst also depending on norms of sharing and cooperation are driven by a motivation to help others – examples include Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, Project Gutenberg, the Distributed Proof Readers Project, Distributed Computing Projects such as SETI@Home, the Internet Archive, the Mars Mapping Project, the Open Directory Project and Open Source Food.
Sharing cultures take advantage of tasks that users would do anyway and are enhanced in the digital environment because of the non rivalrous nature of intangibles. Different technologies enable new forms of participation and sharing and he suggests are likely to become part of the core of the internet’s ecosystem rather than reside at the periphery.
Hybrid economies combine both commercial and sharing attributes. Free Software and in particular Red Hat Linux are specific examples – the community of programmers are respected, they are given responsibility and the sense that they are part of something meaningful – this in turn enables commercial benefits to be derived and combined with a sharing culture. Lessig lists three main forms of hybrid successes, those that create community spaces such as Dogster, Craigslist, Flickr and YouTube; those which create collaborative spaces such as Politech, Slashdot, Last.fm, Usenet, Yahoo! Answers, Wikia and fan sites; and those which create communities such as Second Life. These forums are designed with community in mind and must balance competing priorities and expectations to succeed.
Hybrid economies produce both economic and social value with the spill-over of information having both public and private benefits. Some of the keys to long term sustainability of hybrids include not being overly focused on commercial priorities by aiming to achieve moderate rather than maximum profits, exercising only moderate control with participants being empowered to make some decisions, and transparency of motives. He refers to the transition of CCDB to Gracenotes as one example where greater transparency was required. Feelings of betrayal and a backlash from participants are inevitable when changes are made without consultation or consideration.
He states that one very damaging practice certain to undermine the success of a hybrid is share cropping. He refers to the EULAs of remix competitions where by participant's copyrights are automatically made the property of the competition organisers as one example of this practice.
Lessig states that parallel economies are possible and that creators should be free to move from one to the other as it suits them. He also acknowledges that the existence of hybrid economies which allow some legal uses of creative works as being fundamental to the decriminalisation of the cultural practices of young people.
To ensure a vibrant future for RO culture, RW culture and hybrids Lessig contends that there must be significant changes to the copyright system with far less emphasis on using the legal system to solve problems. At present the default position of copyright is set to ‘No’ but technology and the creativity of youth demand more. While he suggests that Creative Commons goes someway to addressing the issues what is really needed is a complete overhaul of the copyright system.
Lessig argues that there are five central changes which need to be made to Copyright Law. The first is that amateur production needs to be deregulated – non commercial uses should be free use not fair use. There also needs to be clear title to creative works which can only be achieved through a registration system with a renewal process imposed after a short automatic term. Copyright law must also be made simpler with legislation, in addition to fair use, specifying that some uses are not within its scope. He also suggests that the law must be rewritten to focus on uses (such as public distribution) rather than be determined on the notion of copies. Finally he advances that Congress should move to decriminalise file sharing by allowing non commercial sharing with additional taxes or by imposing a blanket licensing procedure.
Without these changes Lessig fears a destructive impact on the rule and respect for law by future generations.
This was a very enjoyable book, it is well written, easy to read and at times quite funny. For my purposes I found it a little too descriptive and thought there could have been more analysis.
The recommendations to change copyright law are not new and could have been more directly integrated with his observations with more attention given to why they are needed and what impact these changes would have on the ecosystem. The coexistence of these two forms of culture (RO/RW) have been the impetus for much of the conflict in this area and there is scope for a much more detailed discussion as to how these can survive and thrive alongside each other.
He uses the recording industry as an example of a hybrid economy with specific reference to the loss of income to major record labels as an illustration of the ability of the industry to embrace both commercial and sharing culture. Whilst I would argue that the music industry (which is wider than just the major record labels) can, and is, a hybrid economy, I would not have referred to these statistics as an example.
There was never any deliberate effort or desire on the part of the labels to embrace this strategy rather it was imposed upon them. They took active steps to prevent this from happening and only in recent times have accepted through the development of avenues such as MySpace Music and changes to Yahoo's search engine results, that complete control is not necessary. The definition of a business within a hybrid economy, and indeed the other examples he uses, refer to businesses willing to give something away in order to gain, rather than what is taken from them. The loss of income to labels while not conclusively or solely due to file sharing, could well be interpreted as an indicator of their inability to be embrace a hybrid model.
Lessig could have also paid more attention to the role of the Corporations Law and how the fiduciary duties of directors and company executives impact on the choices that are made and the obligations to prioritise profit over community.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Thomas case
ArsTechnica have reported that the Jammie Thomas case has been overturned. Thomas had previously been ordered to pay $220,000 in damages for sharing 24 songs.
Judge Davis of the United States District Court has held that the instructions given to the jury - that merely making files available without actual distribution is sufficient to base copyright infringement claims - were incorrect. The case will now be reheard. No decision was given with respect to the excessive finding of damages.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Thomas verdict overturned, making available theory rejected (24 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-thomas-verdict-overturned-making-available-theory-rejected.html> at 25 September 2008
Capitol Records et al v Jammie Thomas, Civil File No. 06‐1497 (MJD/RLE)
<http://arstechnica.com/news.media/thomas-ruling-1.pdf> at 25 September 2008
Judge Davis of the United States District Court has held that the instructions given to the jury - that merely making files available without actual distribution is sufficient to base copyright infringement claims - were incorrect. The case will now be reheard. No decision was given with respect to the excessive finding of damages.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Thomas verdict overturned, making available theory rejected (24 September 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-thomas-verdict-overturned-making-available-theory-rejected.html> at 25 September 2008
Capitol Records et al v Jammie Thomas, Civil File No. 06‐1497 (MJD/RLE)
<http://arstechnica.com/news.media/thomas-ruling-1.pdf> at 25 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
