Graphic Detail

Here's a graphic from a paper I presented a few years ago - as I wrote then, corporations are 'legally enabled, immoral, unaccountable greed driven "people" who are financially and therefore politically, more powerful than a national public government.'

'The impact of private governance in this context can be seen as a self perpetuating cycle.

Within wider society, liberalist capitalist corporations as enabled by the corporations law, use their economic power and public choice theory to get stronger copyright laws to strengthen their position. They influence their immediate public govenments to have their interests voiced in international forums and promoted through instruments such as bilateral trade agreements to further their control on a global scale.

Within the digital music environment this results in control over the production and distribution of music. Driven by a profit motive this in turn typically displaces politically educational music in preference for music more likely to be accepted and purchased by a wider sector of society. An associated impact is also evident with respect to the progress and development of new technology.

This therefore impacts on the receptive mediation of music by members of the public both in terms of their access to works and the diversity of messages that are available to them. This leads to a reduction in political and social awareness helping to perpetuate the cycle of corporate dictatorship.'

So ...Why Not?

Following on from my post yesterday about a proposed license scheme for file sharing I thought today I would try to answer the obvious question which is, why hasn't something like this been done yet?

The short answer is that it can't be done yet. Why? Because the four major record labels are not people - they are corporations. Corporations whilst enjoying the rights of people actually lack moral capacity (find and read Aidan Ricketts LLM thesis & the book 'When Corporations Rule the World by Korten). The Corporations Law requires that directors make decisions in the interests of the corporation (the business judgment rule) and from that comes considerations about profits - by law they can only do something if it will ensure more money to the corporation. Until we reach what I call the 'tipping point' that is the point where is it financially more viable to agree to a licensing regime there simply can't be one on a voluntary basis.

Furthermore compulsory licenses are hard to implement too - International Agreements raise the prospect of trade sanctions against Governments that do not act to protect intellectual property rights. While the big four still lobby for strong protections there are slim possibilities that Governments can enact legislation.

There's a lot more about this yet to go into my thesis but essentially it comes back to the fact that corporations are not people - they can't think of anyone but themselves and by law the directors are stuck even if they can see the benefits of these types of proposals. SO wait for the tipping point or make a strong case to the Government (unlikely in the USA due to campaign donations/public choice theory).

Without meaning to induce anything I would like to finish by saying - perhaps the more people file share now the sooner we will get some common sense back into the music industry....

Recent Developments

Two things have occurred this week that are worth a brief mention.

The first is a campaign by Get Up to challenge donations to political parties. Urging Australians to sign a petition to stop corporate and third party political donations as well as cap the amount of money individuals donate to campaigns their email states:

Politicians are elected to work for their employers - the Australian people. But someone else is writing their cheques: to the tune of millions of dollars. Will you join us in calling for an end to corporate and third-party political donations?

Developers given unfettered access to public land; mining companies' rights trumping traditional owners'; childcare services next to poker machines - we may get to vote every few years, but can we match the influence of large corporate donors?

Who's going to change it? The political parties addicted to big dollar corporate sponsorship? This change has to come from those who have a legitimate say over how the country is run: the Australian people. And we need to seize this rare opportunity, while the issue is in the headlines.

I have written previously about Public Choice Theory and how powerful corporate actors in essence dictate policy with respect to intellectual property law here. I refer to the disablement of public governance structures through political campaigns and financial pressure as in effect creating conditions of Private Governance which is perpetuated throughout the world through international treaties and free trade agreements.

Those interested in reading more about the campaign and signing the petition should visit:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/TheBucksStopHere


The second development worth mentioning is the handing down of a preliminary decision in the case of Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 799. This case concerns allegations of copyright infringement against EMI and the composers of the famous Australian song ‘Down Under’ who are alleged to have used a substantial portion of the song ‘Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree’. While Jacobson J does not consider the substantive copyright argument in the preliminary decision, he has determined that copyright does vest with Larrikin Music Publishing and that the copyright claim can proceed.

Plagiarism was initially raised as an issue on the popular Australian music quiz show Spicks and Specks two years ago. If copyright infringement is established the award of damages is likely to be very high given the popularity of the ‘Down Under’ song.

Copyright Law and the Scope for Implied Licenses

In Australia, as in many countries, the common law will construct or imply a contract in many circumstances. Yorston Fortescue and Turner define an implied contract as follows (at 55-56):

An implied contract is one in which the agreement is not reached by words, written or spoken, but by acts or conduct of the parties. An example of this type of contract is where you hail and enter a taxi. By this act the law implies that you promise to pay the fare to your destination and the taxi driver impliedly agrees to transport you.

The use of contract law in combination with copyright law is not a new phenomenon. Contract law is used to transfer ownership of copyrights between creators and investors – one need look no further than a recording contract between an artist and a record label as an example of this. Contract law is also used to establish licenses which restrict uses of copyright works - those that take the time to read the contracts associated with iTunes, Napster or any of the mainstream digital music stores would see that there are terms and conditions above and beyond the rights traditionally given to copyright holders. Similarly but with the opposite effect, open content licenses, such as the suit of licenses developed by creative commons, provide consumers with greater rights than those offered to them under copyright legislation.

I have been considering for some time whether there might be scope to argue for an implied license with respect to copyrights on the internet. In many circumstances it seems that creators make their works available on the internet without adding an open content license and yet do nothing to enforce their copyrights. This situation creates a great level of uncertainty for many users, particularly those that are aware of the automatic application of copyright and who seek to do the right thing. Those that are oblivious to the operation of copyright law are in constant danger of being sued for what they consider to be normal behaviour on the internet – something as simple as printing a recipe could leave them liable to pay damages. This is despite the fact that the general expectation in society is that those that make this information available are impliedly consenting to other people using it.

When it comes to music this is particularly problematic as many bands make tracks available without attaching licenses, mainstream copyright holders are vigorous (but not effective) in policing the uses of their works and the average person is left with a complex and expensive process to secure licenses without having any real way of knowing whether or not they are needed or will be forthcoming. Creative Commons is an excellent way of providing this information and expanding the rights traditionally offered, however the fact remains that it has not yet reached the level of saturation which overcomes these obstacles and it requires positive steps to be taken to advise others of the additional rights that are in place.

To me it seems more appropriate both from a policy and practical point of view to alter the default position of copyright through the use of an implied license mechanism. It would take very little for the courts to develop a system of recognition for non commercial uses on the internet.

One way would be to develop the doctrine of implied licenses to allow all non commercial uses regardless of the amount of the copyright work that has been used. This would prevent copyright owners from creating unnecessary burdens on the free flow of information and would not enable them to control what should be fair use of their works. In my mind this would be the best option as it would provide a level of certainty not currently available and reflect they way most people use the internet today.

Another option would be to allow all non commercial uses unless a copyright owner has taken steps to have the use of the work removed from the internet. In some respects the DMCA and equivalent legislation allow this to take place already but it does not provide the level of certainty needed. The DMCA is under constant scrutiny for being abused with copyright works being removed from the internet even when the use has been lawful. The difference between this form of an implied license and what is in place now would be that the average person would be entitled to expect a right to non commercial uses unless some positive step is taken by the copyright owner to exert their rights. This would secure the place of fair use/dealing and the public domain rather than the current situation which sees these concepts under constant threat.

Another option would be to enable all non commercial uses but to require notification of the use to the copyright holder up front and enable them to exercise a level of discretion in having the work removed from the internet when it does not fall within the current scope of fair dealing or fair use rights. This would overcome the difficulty many copyright holders currently have in both tracking the uses of their works and policing the commercial and unlawful uses that take place. To be possible however such a system would require an effective and ongoing registration system with minimal administrative costs for the searching and location of copyright owners.

In effect, a blanket implied non commercial license would alter the default position for copyright on the internet. It would enhance the flow of information, support cultural diversity and inturn free expression and democracy. Given the present level of influence of the major copyright holders over the legislators, it seems unlikely at present that copyright law itself will be altered to reflect the way most people use internet content. Nonetheless it may still be possible for the common law to step in and create the same effect through the doctrine of implied contracts.

Further Reading
Yorston, Fortescue and Turner, Australian Commercial Law (20th .ed., 1994)

Creative Commons, http://www.creativecommons.org/

TechDirt, Even Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead Spat (12 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1651401368.shtml> at 13 June 2008

TechDirt, Would You Believe Copyright Infringement Notices Are Based On Faulty Information? (5 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080605/1227001318.shtml> at 7 June 2008

TechDirt, Judge Dismisses DMCA-Abuse Lawsuit Over Video Of Baby Dancing To Prince (28 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/105749968.shtml> at 30 April 2008

TechDirt, Can The DMCA Be Used To Stifle Speech? (28 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080326/194543660.shtml> at 30 March 2008

TechDirt, Air Force The Latest To Make Illegal False DMCA Claim (10 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080307/162737475.shtml> 7 March 2008

TechDirt, DMCA Misuse: Trying To Take Down A Negative Movie Review (14 January 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080113/235553.shtml> at 18 January 2008

(There are heaps more DMCA abuse articles on my other weblog: http://www.ocaustralia.blogspot.com/ - go for your life!)

PRO-IP Act

A few days ago it was reported that the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has passed an amended version of the H.R. 4279: PRO-IP Act (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act). The PRO-IP Act surfaced at the end of 2007 seeking to enhance civil and criminal intellectual property enforcement, including copyright infringements.

The Bill includes provisions designed to create a new position, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER) appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Reporting directly to Cabinet, this person would supervise much of the enforcement activities currently undertaken by the Department of Justice. The Bill also allows for increases to maximum penalties for those with prior convictions, as well as the seizure and disposal of equipment used to infringe intellectual property rights, with funds being directed back into the budget of the Department of Justice. Proposed changes to the ‘one work’ rule used to determine statutory damages for copyright infringement have been removed at this stage.

The nature and content of the legislation illustrates the combined lobbying power of the copyright, pharmaceutical and manufacturing sector. Dan Glickman of the MPAA stated on the introduction of the Bill:

From counterfeit medicine and fake automobile parts to pirated movies and knockoff handbags, the ill-effects of intellectual property theft are felt across many sectors of the U.S. economy. I am pleased to see a concerted effort by Congress to address this growing problem, and the MPAA looks forward to working with congressional leaders in the weeks to come.

From a public choice perspective the creation of a specific position within the White House to supervise the enforcement of intellectual property laws blurs the distinction between public and private governance. An appointee to a position of this nature would most likely have prior associations with influential corporate interests raising questions as to the potential consequences for democracy. Whilst it has been suggested that such a role would not involve policy development or influence decisions relating to prosecutions, there remains a strong likelihood that this will take place if not in a formal sense then in a subversive and largely unaccountable manner. Sigal Mandelker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, told the House Judiciary subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property:

We are always going to be concerned when you have somebody at the White House who may be in the position of directing our enforcement or what cases we do or don't do... That would be contrary to the long-standing tradition of the department making independent decisions regarding law enforcement.

The establishment of ten attaché embassy staff to work on intellectual property enforcement issues in other countries, further serves the goals of private interests.

Further Reading
ZeroPaid, New Legislation Would Increase Penalties for Copyright Infringement (8 December 2007) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9133/New+Legislation+Would+Increase+Penalties+for+Copyright+Infringement> at 12 December 2007

CNet News, Proposed new piracy penalties advance in House (30 April 2008) <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9932260-7.html?tag=nefd.top> at 2 May 2008

TechDirt, Can Someone Explain Why The White House Should Be Playing The Role Of Copyright Cop? (1 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080430/194141989.shtml> at 2 May 2008b

Washingtonpost, House Bill to Create Anti-Piracy Czar Advances (1 May 2008) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003360.html> at 2 May 2008

Yahoo News, DOJ Blasts New 'Copyright Czar' Bill (13 December 2007) <http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20071213/tc_zd/221645> at 18 December 2007

Wasingtonpost, House Bill to Create Anti-Piracy Czar Advances (1 May 2008) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003360.html> at 2 May 2008

The Public Choice Model of Webcasting

I posted recently on the relationship between modern corporations law, copyright law, record labels, the production and reception of music and the flow on effects for free speech and democracy. Further to this I wish to point out a recent Digital Music News article which explains that the RIAA paid $2.8 million in Congressional lobbying fees last year with $2.1 million of this being spent in the second half of the year:

[F]or recording royalties from terrestrial broadcasters, various anti-piracy initiatives, and issues tied to internet-based radio royalties.

This is a classic example of the manifestation of public choice theory with the record labels and the royalty collection agency Sound Exchange, acting as ‘egotistical rational utility maximisers’ – which means simply that they are acting in their own best interest without concern for the wider impact of their activities. In this instance it is independent artists and the public, the people most deserving of consideration in the decision making process, that are disadvantaged by being unable to meet the financial investments made to facilitate the decision making process.

One example given above of the use of financial donations to lobby for stronger laws is that of internet-based radio royalties. This issue was heavily debated throughout last year in the United States, with the Copyright Royalty Board dramatically increasing the royalty rates for webcasters for the period (in part retrospectively) January 1^st 2006 to 31^st December 2010. The nature of the increase and the fact that it applied to a prior period of operation was considered excessive and detrimental to many small webcasters.

As pointed out recently by ArsTechnica, the way the royalties are formulated in itself aims to support existing business models. If a webcasters were simply able to pay a percentage of profits rather than a fee per individual track, there would be far less complication and a far greater chance of them staying in business. Sound Exchange lobbied for a per track fee (which is what they received in the end) or 30% of the profits of webcasters. While there was some effort to secure a percentage based royalty system, arguably the sincerity of this intention is questionable - satellite radio stations only pay around 7% of profits.

The majority of music played on internet radio stations is from independent artists so many suggested that the ploy to lobby for higher royalties by major labels (through the royalty collection agency Sound Exchange) was in fact an attempt to shut down (or at least seriously limit) the number of webcasters and the avenues for non mainstream artists to reach their audience. In the end there was some further negotiation and a compromise reached in recognition of the damaging impact on the webcasting industry but these events nonetheless demonstrate how unbalanced pluralism or ‘corporate dictatorship’ favours existing players over emerging technologies.

Articles
Digital Music News, Inside the Beltway, RIAA Charges $2.8 Million... (18 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/041708riaa> at 26 April 2008

Wikipedia, Public Choice Theory (14 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory> at 26 April 2008

Copyright Royalty Board "Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings; Final Rule" (37 CFR Part 380) (PDF) (1 May 2007) <http://www.loc.gov/crb/fedreg/2007/72fr24084.pdf> at 27 April 2008

Wired Listening Post, Copyright Royalty Board Sets New Rates for Satellite Radio (4 December 2007) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/12/copyright-royal.html > at 27 April 2008

ArsTechnica, RIAA tells Ars: We're not hypocrites (11 March 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080311-riaa-tells-ars-were-not-hypocrites.html> at 18 March 2008

ArsTechnica, RIAA plays both sides of the street in music royalty debate (2 March 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080302-riaa-wants-to-pay-percentage-rate-it-denied-to-webcasters.html> at 4 March 2008

WashingtonPost, Web Radio Seeks Resolution (24 October 2007) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302123.html> at 31 October 2007

Digital Music News, Smaller Broadcasters Blast SoundExchange Proposals (19 September 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/091907small> at 24 September 2007

ZeroPaid, RIAA War With Webcasters Really a War on Indie Artists and Labels? (30 July 2007) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8937/RIAA+War+With+Webcasters+Really+a+War+on+Indie+Artists+and+Labels%3F>at 6 August 2007

TechDirt, Why Does The RIAA Hate Webcasters? Webcasters Don't Play Very Much RIAA Music (30 July 2007) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070726/181155.shtml> at 6 August 2007

Digital Music News, The Internet Radio Royalty Debate: Frequently Asked Questions (15 July 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/071507ten> at 22 July 2007

TechDirt, New Webcast Royalty Rules Will Line SoundExchange's Pockets With Billions In 'Administrative Fees' (7 June 2007) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070607/092053.shtml> at 16 June 2007

There are a further 32 links to articles on this topic available on my associated weblog, Open Content Australia, listed each month under ‘webcasting’: http://www.ocaustralia.blogspot.com/

European policy on ISP responsibility for copyright infringement

In recent weeks there has been increasing discussion regarding the desire for internet service providers to take steps to reduce breaches of copyright law. There are three ways in which major copyright holding corporations seek to involve internet service providers in the pursuit of those who fail to respect their property rights. These include the disclosure of users identities following private investigation of their internet use, a three strikes policy forcing the banning of users after a series of notifications of copyright infringement and an internet wide filtering policy.

Disclosure of users identities

Earlier this year the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Community does not have to disclose the identities of those in breach of copyright law unless a country's national law requires such a disclosure.

The EFF reported: The decision in Promusicae v. Telefonica involved a request made by a Spanish music rightsholder association (Promusicae) to Spain's leading ISP (Telefonica) for personal data about Telefonica subscribers using particular dynamic IP addresses, which Promusicae alleged were engaged in filesharing.

The decision upheld the importance of privacy protections preventing the disclosure of users identities where infringement does not incur a criminal penalty.

Three Strikes & Filtering

Initially France announced its intention to introduce a three strikes policy; a strategy later attracting further attention in the UK and other countries around the world. The European Parliament has also been in the process of discussing and debating the Bono Report on the Cultural Industries. In November 2007 the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), following heavy lobbying from organisations such as the IFPI, tabled an amendment supporting the introduction of internet wide filtering by ISPs.

This sparked widespread public outcry forcing the Parliament to rethink this approach.

Last week further changes were introduced to the report seeking to reverse the adoption of these strategies, instead providing formal recognition of the need to preserve human rights on the internet and to maintain a degree of policy independence:

BBC News reports stated: The amendment called on the EC and its member nations to "avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of internet access."

Two hundred and ninety seven members (out of three hundred and fourteen) of the European Parliament voted to accept these changes. Whilst not having immediate or direct impact on the laws implemented at a National level, it nonetheless represents a recognition of the negative implications of these approaches and overall policy objectives of balancing copyright protection with other fundamental human rights as they relate to the internet.

The blanket filtering of copyright material on the internet posses significant practical, social and creative implications.

The practical implications include the need to provide and maintain expensive infrastructure in an attempt to prevent unlawful access and use of such material. This would result in additional costs for ISPs which would be borne by individual and commercial users of the internet. At best, the flow on effect would be one of performance degradation, with some copyright material still likely to be accessed regardless.

The social issues are also immense. Essentially such a move would enable private interests to dictate what members of the public could access, with significant implications for free speech, cultural diversity and the future development of technology. Other arguments include the favouritism of large media corporations over that of independent producers, and the artificial continuance of business models and practices that are simply no longer relevant to the digital environment. Fair use/fair dealing rights are also likely to suffer from the adoption of a policy of this nature.

For ISPs there also remains significant questions as to their independence and liabiltiy as communications carriers. There has been a long held belief across many jurisdictions that it is for the overall benefit of the public that the internet remains an open and accesible network.

Similarly, the social costs of a three strikes policy include the restriction of internet access to those most likely to need and benefit from it – children and students. I have posted on the problems associated with this strategy in the past.

Let’s hope that these developments signify the recognition of competing interests in this space and a determination not to automatically accept the arguments offered by powerful corporations.

Articles
EFF, Music Industry Pressures EU Politicians for Filtered Internet (7 December 2007) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/12/music-industry-europe-filter-pressure> at 15 April 2008

ZeroPaid, European Parliament Rejects Plans to Disconnect File Sharers (11 April 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9398/European+Parliament+Rejects+Plan+to+Disconnect+File-Sharers> at 13 April 2008

BBC News, Europe rejects anti-piracy plans (11 April 2008) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7342135.stm> at 13 April 2008

TechDirt, European Parliament Rejects IFPI Plan To Make ISPs Copyright Cops (10 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/165146815.shtml> at 13 April 2008

ZeroPaid, European Amendment to Stop P2p (8 April 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9391/European+Amendment+to+Stop+P2P+Disconnections> at 8 April 2008

EFF Deeplinks, EU Politicians Strikes Back Against Three Strikes (7 April 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/eu-politicians-strikes-back-against-three-strikes> at 8 April 2008

EFFector, EU Law Does Not Require ISP to Hand Over Customers' Identity Data in Alleged Filesharing Case (6 February 2008) Vol. 21, No. 04 <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/eu-law-does-not-require> at 7 February 2008

Public and Private Governance

Following on from a number of recent posts which have considered the dominance of major record labels and the impact of their actions on the production and reception of political music, today I would like to briefly introduce the concept of private governance.

Below you will find links to a power point presentation I delivered last year titled ‘The Dialectical Interplay of Public and Private Governance: consequences for audible culture’. Arguing that we have reached a state of globalised private governance over audible culture, I conclude that the present degree of disablement of public governance structures, which took place through a series of historical developments and the emergence of modern corporations law, dramatically hinders (if not completely prevents) the resolution of the present conflict with respect to digital music.

This is not so much a new concept as an application of an existing perspective to the digital music environment. Lawrence Lessig began to consider the impact of private governance in cyberspace in Code (2.0). Chapter 16 in particular, concerns ‘the problems we face’. Here he refers to the limitations that are presently in place preventing the courts, legislature and ourselves, from being able to respond to the challenges of cyberspace.

He contends that the courts are paralysed from making the decisions they need to make as they are unable to adequately separate themselves from the political environment and because there is no ability for them to apply constitutional values to a space that is primarily privately owned and operated.

He also refers to the problems of governance itself (not just governance with respect to cyberspace), including the corruption of the political process through campaign donations and the establishment of private governance mechanisms such as ICANN, located outside the democratic process.

Finally he considers the problems with our understanding of, and interaction with, code, suggesting that in recognising the private status of this form of regulation, we should be asking things like: Who makes and writes the law? What is the scope for society to have an input into its development? Do we have a right to know about the regulation? And, is there a way for us to intervene or review it?

He states (at 324):

Whether code should be tested with these constraints of public value is a question, not a conclusion. It needs to be decided by argument, not definition... Courts are disabled, legislatures pathetic and code untouchable.

In real space, the concept of private governance has also been considered in the context of the destruction of the natural environment.

I see the impact of private governance on digital music as being a self perpetuating cycle – using the corporations law and public choice theory, media entities lobby and receive stronger legal protections enabling them to control the production and reception of culture, which in turn limits the awareness and ability of the public to challenge their control. Indeed, when culture is controlled in this way the implications are much wider than just digital music - impeding the realisation of constitutional values in cyberspace, the natural environment and many other areas of life. Political music illustrates, educates, motivates, and in conjunction with social movements, precipitates into social progress - provided it can be produced and accessed on a socially cohesive scale.

The solutions are outlined by Lessig in Chapter 17 of Code 2.0 and are undoubtedly the subject of much of his current research. As one of the major drivers of wider social progress, I would suggest that freedom of culture is a key component to this movement. Whilst it is tempting to suggest that the freedom of culture has to come before the reclamation of the legislature and democracy, more accurately, this is a fight that needs to be fought on multiple fronts at the same time. One cannot succeed without the other and both will happen in increments.

There are two versions of this file:
The first is an animated slide show with a synchronised audio track for those wishing to play the presentation – the text of the talk is also available in the notes view (large file): http://www.filefactory.com/file/bb3dbe/

The alternative version has just the text of the talk which can be read in the notes view (smaller file): http://www.filefactory.com/file/545d0c/

A separate document is provided as a bibliography: http://www.filefactory.com/file/61ff19/

Further Reading:
Lessig, Lawrence, Code 2.0 (2006)

Korten, David C, When Corporations Rule the World (2nd ed. 2001)

Wikipedia, The Prince (8 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince> at 11 April 2008

Project Gutenberg, The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli (1532)
<http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1232> at 11 April 2008