TPB - AFK

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:

MashUps and the Reuse of Music

Mashups are a form of culture which take small pieces of pre-existing songs and blend them together to make something new. Perhaps the most well known artists in this field are Girl Talk and DJ Danger Mouse.

This form of culture has developed from rap and hip hop music which has traditionally used repetitive samples as additional parts in new songs. Samples themselves have long been part of our oral tradition. Indeed in everyday language we sample speech from each other through the use of catch phrases. The more recent composition method of mashups, have a tendency to include no new parts to the composition rather bleeding together material from a range of other sources.

The first time I ever experienced a mashup was in an interview with Professor Lawrence Lessig (formerly of Stanford University and now with Harvard University) in the film Good Copy Bad Copy that featured Bush and Blair footage cut to sit with the song Endless Love. This was a film clip about the close relationship between the USA and the UK on foreign policy. But to Lessig the clip also demonstrated the malleability of digital culture and the ability of old material to be used in a way that comments on new situations or events.

But what of music?

There has always been some resuse of music – most typically bands have played songs that others have already composed and released – those that do only this are commonly referred to as cover bands. These bands often offer a new interpretation of the song and sometimes play it in a new style. In other examples of the resuse of music, slightly more adaption takes place – one recent example are the artists Santagold and Diblo who adapted the Clash’s Guns of Brixton and released a version titled ‘The Guns of Brooklyn’. The original song reflected on the socio economic and social conditions of African immigrants in the UK and the intention of the derivative released by Santagold and Diblo was to further comment on the socio economic and social conditions of African Americans.

The cultural benefits of reusing music are profound. Culture allows us to see the world, to express the demands and events that take place in it and allows us to imagine and create a better future. Music that has a pre-existing association with social events and conditions that is then relocated from the past into new circumstances, allows audiences to make an immediate connection between the two spaces in time. The public are able to relive old sentiments, memories are triggered, feelings and emotions of an era past return and the perspective they had at that time can be used to view the contemporary world. The music is re-contextualised.

One example of this is DJ Danger Mouse’s The Grey Album, a remix of Jay-Z’s Black album and The Beatle’s White album which was distributed over file sharing networks. Whilst not sued, the artist, DJ Dangermouse, was threatened and sites hosting the file were subjected to take down notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Despite the efforts of the copyright holders, the tracks were quickly spread by internet users and a civil disobedience campaign launched to protest the inability of artists to remix music. The mashup itself was a form of political expression reflecting the need for racial harmony.

The institutional mechanisms of society, particularly law which is supported by capitalism, have not readily adapted to new forms of culture. While most forms of copyright legislation provide compulsory licensing mechanisms for cover songs, there are varying degrees and certainty to which samples can be used without a license under the protection of fair use/fair dealing. Typically licensing agreements are required which are expensive and take long periods of time to secure. In protest of the current state of the law a German Avant Guarde musician, Johannes Kriedler mashed 70,200 songs in 33 seconds, completed the necessary paper work and delivered it to the German Music Rights Organisation, GEMA.

In his text Remix Lessig notes that digital technologies have seen a move away from a Read Only culture to a Read Write culture where anyone is able to use cultural expression and mash it into new forms. Lessig suggests that there is a generational difference in the way in which culture is viewed with the older ‘couch potato’ generation unable to appreciate the need or desire of the younger generations to access and recreate existing works. We must be active in ensuring that the law catches up to technology, embraces new, transformative, cultural forms and does not inhibit their growth.

More Information

MySpace, Girl Talk (2009) <http://www.myspace.com/girltalk>at 17 May 2009

YouTube, Bush Blair Endless Love (12 April 2006) <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nupdcGwIG-g> at 17 May 2009

Imeem, The Grey Video by DJ Danger Mouse vs. Jay-Z vs. The Beatles (2009) <http://www.imeem.com/systim/video/Z0ejz5RQ/dj-danger-mouse-vs-jay-z-vs-the-beatles-the-grey-video-mus/> at 17 May 2009

You Tube, Santogold - Guns Of Brooklyn <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhGjGuzpSA> at 17 May 2009

Wikipedia, The Grey Album (20 February 2008)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album> at 22 April 2008

P2p Blog, Musician mashes up 70,200 songs, delivers lists to rights holders by the truck load (21 August 2008) <http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-826.html> at 17 May 2009

Good Copy Bad Copy <http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/> at 22 April 2008

Wikipedia, Good Copy Bad Copy (30 March 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Copy_Bad_Copy> at 22 April 2008

OCA Research Review, Remix (27 October 2008) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/10/remix-lessig.html> at 17 May 2009

OCA Research Review, In the Matter of Mashups (2 September 2008) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/09/in-matter-of-mashups.html> at 17 May 2009

Get Up Stand Up: the history of pop and politics

The Get Up Stand Up series consists of six one hour documentaries detailing the history of popular music and its relationship to politics, social justice and the environment. The series looks predominantly at the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, and the music composed and performed to illustrate and comment on profound social events.

Aired on Australia’s ABC in April/May 2005, the first documentary, We Shall Overcome focuses on music as it relates to the American Union movement, Apartheid and Civil Rights.

The introduction to this program sees the likes of Bono, Graham Nash from Crosby, Stills and Nash, Ed Sanders from the Fugs, Patti Smith, Michael Franti and others discussing the power of music and its ability to communicate messages and speak on events in society. Changing even just one person is considered to be an achievement, and it is recognised that the ability to make social changes is always present but needs a concerted effort and a conducive environment in order to be realised.

In discussing the events in the early 1900s with respect to the Union movement in the United States reference is made to artists such as Joe Hill who composed tracks such as Workers of the World, Union Scab, Rebel Girl, The Preacher and the Slave and There’s Power in a Union. Hill recognised that many people could not read or write at that time and considered music the best way to get messages across. As technology for recording was not developed or widespread, the music was performed live and passed on by word of mouth to inform, educate and empower the workers.

Joe Hill is considered to be the father of modern protest music, influencing the likes of Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan. He was eventually executed on a murder charge that many considered trumped up and designed to get him out of the way.

Other songs leading on from this era include Which Side Are You On which again refers to the Union movement and early civil rights songs such as Hard for a Blackman by Oscar Brand and Free and Equal Blues by Josh White.

Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and later Bob Dylan embraced the folk tradition and to many are seen as the real drivers of political music in the United States. Woody Guthrie’s, This Land is Yours and Ranger’s Command, Pete Seeger’s, If I Had a Hammer and Midnight Special all reflected the events taking place in society at that time.

Other instances of political censorship include the banning of The Weavers, who sang Marching to Pretoria, from public performances until 1955. The persecution of socialist thinkers at that time is reflected in the Peter Paul and Mary song, Have You Been To Jail For Justice.

The documentary also takes a detailed look at the music and events that took place with regard to the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are the focus from a historical perspective with songs such as Pete Seeger’s adaptation of the 19^th century negro gospel number We Shall Overcome and the Freedom Singer’s song, Freedom, demonstrating the use of music to reflect on current events.

The documentary also pays homage to Bob Dylan with songs such as Subterranean Homesick Blues, Mr Tambourine Man, Blowing in the Wind and Times they are a Changing all considered to be among his best political music at that time.

Johnny Cash is also mentioned, in particular his Bitter Tears album and the song Rusty Cage which refers to the treatment of native American Indians.

The documentary also considers events which have, and continue to take place in China with respect to human rights in Tibet and consideration is given to the Miller Rapper Fund set up by the Beastie Boys. Adam Yauch comments that music and concerts are one means of communicating a message and inspiring others to act. He considers grass roots political action such as letter writing, demonstrations and boycotts as the natural flow on effect from political music and the combination of the two which produces social change.

In the final part of this documentary Apartheid is considered with songs such as Peter Gabriel’s BIKO, Simple Mind’s Mandela Day, UB40’s Sing Our Own Song, Sade’s Why Cant We Live Together and the Artists United Against Apartheid’s Aint Going to Play Sun City and the Free Nelson Mandela song, all illustrative of the power of music to comment on and help change society.

As the opening documentary to this series I found this program to be incredibly detailed and informative. If you have the chance to see it I highly recommend it.

More Information

PBS <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/getupstandup/about.html>

National Library of Australia <http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an42200446>

Private Copying of Films

Further to my previous post on the review of the private copying exceptions conducted by the Australian Attorney General’s Department earlier this year, I will now briefly discuss s110AA of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) which relates to films.

The review considered whether the current operation of s110AA provides an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and others, what might be the options for achieving better policy outcomes and the costs and benefits of these. Comments were then sought on the circumstances which might warrant the law to permit additional copying, the kinds and sources of films likely to be affected, the frequency with which TPMs might be applied to such material, whether proposed changes would impact on the normal market exploitation of the material and whether these changes would enhance the achievement of the governments policy objectives. The review then asked whether the law should be narrowed to reduce private copying rights, again looking at issues such as normal market exploitation and government policy objectives including the achievement of fair and balanced copyright law. The review also briefly sought consideration as to whether the law should be amended to include films embodied in computer programs.

I suggested that the current operation of s110AA provides undue protection to copyright owners and therefore fails to achieve the objectives of allowing consumers to legitimately enjoy purchased goods and creates inequity given that citizens in similar jurisdictions have much wider rights than Australians.

I stated that the best option is to redraft the section to allow for fewer limitations on private copying for non commercial use. Similar provisions have been drafted with respect music under s109A which illustrates that wider copying rights still meet Australia’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

In considering the costs and benefits of such a change I noted firstly, the creation of incentives for consumers to purchase legitimate material.

There has been a significant change in perception of the film industry since the advent of digital technology with many consumers perceiving the lobbying for undue limitations on private use as being unfair and greedy, furthering a lack of respect and a sense of justification in failing to obtain legitimate goods. The provision of reasonable private copying rights would restore some of the lost confidence created by the restrictions currently in place. There would be no additional cost to the industry as such measures would serve to increase the favourability of purchasing legitimate goods.

Secondly the benefits would be to consumers on an individual level and thirdly to society as a whole.

On an individual level consumers would be entitled to make back up copies, to have copies on more than one device and to make copies in the same format. This would reflect what is, in some cases already current practice and in many others, is very much the desired practice.

The increase usability and availability of culture serves society as a whole by producing an informed citizenship, educated and aware of issues, exposed to a diverse range of material and thus ultimately producing progress within society.

In discussing what changes should be made, I suggested that all private copying for non commercial purposes should be permitted, with no restriction on the number of copies or format of the copies that can be made.

Primarily the kinds of films would include entertainment and documentary style features. The sources would be most commonly professional productions although some amateur productions may also be reproduced.

There is a reasonably high chance that films of an entertainment nature would be the subject of anti-copying measures. Arguably this is less likely for other forms of film such as documentaries, art house and amateur film.

This inquiry did not specifically concern the application of TPMs however I felt it necessary to state that the current provisions as well as any changes could only ever be enjoyed in real terms if the government changed the law with respect to TPMs. Similarly, legislative provisions are needed to ensure that contractual provisions cannot be used to override any offers of fair dealing made under copyright legislation.

...There would be no loss in economic incentives to create and distribute films, no risk of an increase in piracy, nor any negative impact on emerging digital markets.

I therefore argued that there should be no increase in the limitations on the private copying of films.

In discussing the extension of the law to visual images embodied in computer programs I stated that the law should extend private copying provisions to film embodied in a computer game or program. This could be implemented by the inclusion of this form of subject matter specifically within s110AA or in another unique section of the Act. It would be optimal to expressly state its inclusion rather than leave it open for interpretation.

This again gave raise to the issue of TPMs:

...All TPMs are incompatible with consumer rights and with respect to any formulation of fair dealing. Without legitimate access to circumvention devices and the ability to use these to access material, any law purporting to offer private copying rights will be easily avoided by creators. Similarly, legislative provisions are needed to ensure that contractual provisions can not be used to override any offers of fair dealing made under legislation. The government should take steps to prevent the wholesale abrogation of consumer rights through the use of this technology and completely change the law in this area.