New Research Suggests Digital Economy Act & ACTA Will Stifle Creativity
from the understanding-creativity dept
Glyn Moody points us to some research coming out of the University of Leicester which suggests that highly restrictive copyright laws and enforcement regimes actually serve to harm creative output and the creative industries. This is a point that we've discussed in the past, so it's nice to see more research being done in this area. Basically, what the research is finding is that these legislative efforts are serving to limit the technologies that are used to create new works today.Of particular concern is that it will "stifle the creative opportunities for youngsters with tough regulation on digital media restricting young peoples’ ability to transform copyrighted material for their own personal and, more importantly, educational uses." Now, I can already hear the copyright system defenders claiming that transforming copyright materials for their own uses is not a "creative opportunity," but that's wrong. The way young people learn to create is initially through emulation. You learn to draw what you see. You learn to play the music that others wrote. And as you start to play around, you transform it in your own way. That's the very basis of young creative expression.
The issue is that new digital technologies allow for a modern version of that in things like digital mashups and remixes. People who don't recognize that these are the modern day equivalents to creating new artworks by attempting to copy what others have done will scoff, but they are mostly demonstrating the myopic view that modern technology used for creativity and creative learning simply "isn't like it used to be." Creativity comes in all forms, and what young people learn today through transforming the creative works of others is what will lead to the great artwork and creative output of tomorrow... if the legacy industries and our politicians don't stamp out such creative opportunities.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, copyright, creativity, dea
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fair Use
Legally, I think the bigger problem with copyright legislation is not that it's getting "tougher" on infringement, but that the fair use exceptions are so vaguely defined. To figure out fair use in America, you have to use this indeterminate 4-factor balancing test. That gives courts and lawyers lots of room to maneuver, but it's confusing as heck for consumers and content producers. This, combined with the costs of being sued, has a substantial chilling effect on a lot of speech that would (should?) probably be considered fair use.
Tossing in a bright line or two into fair use law would probably go a long way towards fixing copyright abuse. I'd be a lot more comfortable with a three-strikes law if fair use was fixed (and if due process was guaranteed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use
Everybody will continue to do what they're currently doing.
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair Use
For example: A friend of mine owns a (small) record label. He was trying to press a record that contained samples on it (like in those old industrial songs). If this actually went to court, it would almost certainly be considered fair use.
But it didn't get to court. It didn't even make it out of the pressing plant. The pressing plant (United) refused to press the record unless my friend faxed over a written license for every sample on the recording. He couldn't do that, so they wouldn't press the record (and, in fact, refused to return the master plates, or his deposit).
Details:
http://www.urpressing.com/tips.php
Why are they doing this? Since they're in no position to determine what is "fair use" and what isn't, they put a blanket ban on all unlicensed use. "Just to be safe."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why the emphasis on the authority of lawyers?
The lawyers only present the points of contention, and the evidence. They do not actually decide. A judge or jury decides.
Emphasizing the false viewpoint that "a lawyer has to decide" detracts from the real point, which is that copyright is suppressing creative works, and political speech and whistle-blowing speech.
Also, you're wrong about "copying things" being wrong and illegal. "Copying things" is how every creative person gets their start. There's no contesting this, it's a facet of human nature. We all learn by emulating, we don't all start from nothing. No creative work appears ex nihilo.
About the best you can say about a "copy" is that if the original was created on or after 1923, you might have more problems with copyright enforcement than if your original was created before 1923.
Lawyers don't get to decide the outcome of an accusation of copyright enfringement, a judge or jury does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A simple example of such creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A simple example of such creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry to bring up TAM but..
Sleep well TAM, you can start clogging up the comments again on monday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
Your current iteration makes dark helmets everywhere cry. Well, not actually cry, as our tear duct genes were patented by a South African biotech firm, but you get the idea....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
Desperate times call for desperate voices filled with a desperate measure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
No, who am I kidding? You'll just dive into threads for a couple of hours then mysteriously stop posting after your theories have been thoroughly debunked (then pretend in the next thread that it wasn't you), because that's your M.O.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
Real artists or the rip-off "artists" blogs like this favor? You need to be more specific.
"Inspired by" and "derivative of" are not the same thing and never will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
Perhaps you need to ask a "real" creative person, since apparently you are "not."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong premise, and misplaced optimism.
Then: "what young people learn today through transforming the creative works of others is what will lead to the great artwork and creative output of tomorrow..." -- We've *already* been promised this, 30 years ago at least, was supposed to be here by *now*, but instead we've got "Lady Gaga". -- Anyway, it's easy to show that isolation is good for creativity, one isn't distracted by commercialized CRAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong premise, and misplaced optimism.
There's thousands of talented and innovative musicians working right now. Your problem is with the way they're marketed and sold (lowest common denominator crap gets the biggest push from the majors), not with the musicians themselves. Turn off your ClearChannel controlled top 40 radio and use Pandora/last.fm/Jamendo/whatever to find some quality stuff you enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and others
Imagine if all "creative works", inventions, discoveries, and products have to be catalogued and run through a master database to determine it's origin and royalties must be paid out.
Indeed, by our very nature, humans are mutations derived from two parents. Is this type of creativity subject to a type of parental royalties? If so, my kin of several generations past should still own a majority of Northern Europe.
It is said that creativity tends to follow the views of intellegence, but by a lag of about 50 years.
Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi recently gave a TED Talk about creativity where he presented that Creativity is emergent from three key needs:
1. The individual.
The individual mastered some discipline
2. The cultural domain.
The individual works with items around them or near them.
3. The Socializing ability.
The individual shares their creation with others that ultimately pass judgment on the creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXIeFJCqsPs
Each part should be mutually important, and strengthening one over the other only serves to benefit fewer people. Think of it as a triangle.
The problem as I see it is that the Social ability has increased several fold while the cultural domain is restricted via lawsuits and efforts such as ACTA. Additionally, you have to ask if current copyright interests have properly contributed to the Creative Commons or Public Domain to ensure marketable products continue to be created, and brought to market and ultimately incent commerce. Of course, the answer to this is probably a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. In fact, the music industry looked down upon being creative with their business model until fairly recently, which is odd considering that they are a creative industry themselves.
As people's ability to share will increase using (and increasing) Social Ability. So when you draw this triangle, you'll be able to see that commercial works that rely on IP will be controlled by a small, small minority of people who will probably scavenge themselves trough the creative commons and public domain at their own will.
All of this is just as Thomas Jefferson intended when he created the USPTO. (Sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and others
I don't think very many artists want to go back to a patronage-based system.
Thomas Jefferson signed the Copyright Clause into effect along with everyone else. He understood the necessity. He understood that the free market is not infallible and that content creators would need protection against free market parasites for the betterment of all but they. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and others
Jefferson was actually out of the country at the time, but he was also very, very concerned about where that clause would lead us. You are right that he accepted it, but he clearly warned against letting it be abused. Comparing copyright today to what it was when it was put in the Constitution would almost certainly make him gag. The two are not even in the same ballpark.
Saying "deal with it" without admitting those differences suggests a pretty big ignorance of basic history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and others
Imagine if all "creative works", inventions, discoveries, and products have to be catalogued and run through a master database to determine it's origin and royalties must be paid out.
Indeed, by our very nature, humans are mutations derived from two parents. Is this type of creativity subject to a type of parental royalties? If so, my kin of several generations past should still own a majority of Northern Europe.
It is said that creativity tends to follow the views of intelligence, but by a lag of about 50 years. Now imagine what ownership will have value in 50 years. It won't necessarily be real property, but of imaginary property.
Most interesting to me was the recent research of Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He recently gave a TED Talk about creativity where he presented that Creativity is emergent from three key needs:
1. The individual.
The individual mastered some discipline
2. The cultural domain.
The individual works with items around them or near them.
3. The Socializing ability.
The individual shares their creation with others that ultimately pass judgment on the creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXIeFJCqsPs
Each part should be mutually important, and strengthening one over the other only serves to benefit fewer people. Think of it as a triangle.
The problem as I see it is that the Social ability has increased several fold while the cultural domain is restricted via lawsuits and efforts such as ACTA. Additionally, you have to ask if current copyright interests have properly contributed to the Creative Commons or Public Domain to ensure marketable products continue to be created, and brought to market and ultimately incent commerce. Of course, the answer to this is probably a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. In fact, the music industry looked down upon being creative with their business model until fairly recently, which is odd considering that they are a creative industry themselves.
As people's ability to share will increase using (and increasing) Social Ability. So when you draw this triangle, you'll be able to see that commercial works that rely on IP will be controlled by a small, small minority of people who will probably scavenge themselves trough the creative commons and public domain at their own will.
All of this is just as Thomas Jefferson intended when he created the USPTO. (Sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and others
Imagine if all "creative works", inventions, discoveries, and products have to be catalogued and run through a master database to determine it's origin and royalties must be paid out.
Indeed, by our very nature, humans are mutations derived from two parents. Is this type of creativity subject to a type of parental royalties? If so, my kin of several generations past should still own a majority of Northern Europe.
It is said that creativity tends to follow the views of intelligence, but by a lag of about 50 years. Now imagine what ownership will have value in 50 years. It won't necessarily be real property, but of imaginary property, and your silly to think this isn't what amounts to a landgrab, or even a war, through the methodological use of law rather than with weapons.
Most interesting to me was the recent research of Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He recently gave a TED Talk about creativity where he presented that Creativity is emergent from three key needs:
1. The individual.
The individual mastered some discipline
2. The cultural domain.
The individual works with items around them or near them.
3. The Socializing ability.
The individual shares their creation with others that ultimately pass judgment on the creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXIeFJCqsPs
Each part should be mutually important, and strengthening one over the other only serves to benefit fewer people. Think of it as a triangle.
The problem as I see it is that the Social ability has increased several fold while the cultural domain is restricted via lawsuits and efforts such as ACTA. Additionally, you have to ask if current copyright interests have properly contributed to the Creative Commons or Public Domain to ensure marketable products continue to be created, and brought to market and ultimately incent commerce. Of course, the answer to this is probably a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. In fact, the music industry looked down upon being creative with their business model until fairly recently, which is odd considering that they are a creative industry themselves.
As people's ability to share will increase using (and increasing) Social Ability. So when you draw this triangle, you'll be able to see that commercial works that rely on IP will be controlled by a small, small minority of people who will probably scavenge themselves trough the creative commons and public domain at their own will.
All of this is just as Thomas Jefferson intended when he created the USPTO. (Sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heck, if they pay a license, they can even perform in public or release the songs if they like. nobody is stopping anyone from anything. total bullshit strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
he beats around the bush, but what he really wants is for remix artists to have unlimited access to others works without fees, license or restriction, someone confusing this sort of stuff with progress of the arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cool, now TAM is an expert on licensing and financing and totally never makes absolute declarations like "the license fees are not unreasonable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm talking about ASCAP, BMI, and the other enforcement agencies that make the IRS in the 90s look like total newbies compared to the extortion rackets they have now.
Let's see if those fees aren't exorbitant...
2009 closing due to fees
2007 suings fee relief
I mean, seriously... You try making heads or tails of their need to supposedly collect every dollar that a business can make, then tell me that they aren't killing their goose by heavy enforcement. Oh, and on top of the enforcement, they don't even give all of the money to the artists that the song may allude to. There's no collective fund for live performances. That just goes into the coffers of ASCAP until further notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mistakes to fix...
You try making heads or tails of their need to supposedly collect every dollar that a musician makes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
as for the two cases you note, honestly, you need to read further. the ascap fees didnt kill the warehouse, it killed itself. "Dodge said there isn't room in the budget for that because after expenses in 2008, the Warehouse actually lost money." regardless of the fees, the business was losing money. even in a room that brings in only 100 people a night, 2 nights a week (friday saturday), you are looking at a net cost (at $3500) of about 33 cents per person for the feature entertainment. holy crap, come on. they probably spill more beer than that.
sorry, but your arguments just dont hold water in the slightest. blaming fees for someone shutting down your favorite club is incredibly misleading, the business model was dead before the bill even showed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps if there were more leeway with the license (I'm aware that the Jamendo license is only $185) then perhaps it would have given them more room to do other things. As it stands, when you start to look at the fixed costs, paying that much for a license is ludicrous IMO. It's almost like the concept of rent control in NY. It just doesn't work because no matter how much you pay, it will never be enough. Not enough to fix everything wrong with the license in the first place.
Just to drive the point home that they are really out of date with their fees... they sued the girl scouts for 1200 per camp. Now, they license the music for 1$ a day but still. Why would you sue the girl scouts in the first place? The point still stands that any one of these nonprofits will sue for maximum profit if they can get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Every creative artist copies from others. Every one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FIXED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FIXED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..
(though relieved to know we're not to blame)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in other news
And in other news, shit stinks, glue is sticky and the ocean is wet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright measures and the future of the creative industries
It's a shame that these steps are needed, however, with so much content from across the creative industries being shared illegally online, the problem of copyright theft has a real impact on the income of those whose hard work and time goes into creating them.
For the Film and Television industry (who I work with), the perception is often that copyright theft doesn't really matter because the large companies can afford to lose some of their profits. However, it's an industry alll about reinvestment, so all lost money means less money to make future films, and therefore less jobs for those that make them.
Ultimately, production companies will have to choose to make only the sort of content they know they will get a big return from, so we risk getting a much more narrow, less diverse choice of films and TV shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright measures and the future of the creative industries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright measures and the future of the creative industries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright measures and the future of the creative industries
so we risk getting a much more narrow, less diverse choice of films and TV shows.
From professionals. But that doesn't mean we will have a less diverse choice of films and TV shows, because not only professionals make films and TV shows. Rookie mistake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright measures and the future of the creative industries
Don't hold your breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]