Damaging The Internet Is Not Acceptable Collateral Damage In The Copyright Wars
from the speak-up,-speak-out dept
Cory Doctorow has a fantastic opinion piece over in the Guardian in which he talks about how unfortunate it is that people seem to think that it's okay to damage the internet in any and all attempts to stop copyright infringement. The whole thing is absolutely worth reading, so here are a few snippets should whet your appetite.The internet is important, but the copyright wars treat it as a triviality: like cable TV 2.0; like the second coming of the telephone; like the world's greatest pornography distribution system. Laws such as the Digital Economy Act provide for disconnecting whole families from the internet without due process because someone in the vicinity is accused of watching TV the wrong way. That would be bad enough, if the internet were merely a conduit for delivering entertainment products. But the internet is a lifeline for families, and giving some offshore entertainment companies the right to take it away because they suspect you of doing them wrong is like giving Brita the power to turn off your family's water if they think you've been abusing your filter; like giving KitchenAid the power to take away your home's mains power if they think you've been using your mixer in an unapproved way.And, of course, like me, Cory makes his money by producing content. But we realize that the internet is much more important to us than stopping any kind of infringement of our content.
Look, I'm in the industry. It's my bread and butter. If you buy my lovely, CC-licensed books, I make money, and that will make me happy. As a matter of fact, my latest UK edition is Pirate Cinema, a young adult science fiction novel about this very subject that won high accolades when it came out in the US last autumn. But I'm not just a writer: I'm also a citizen, and a father and a son. I want to live in a free society more than I want to go on earning my improbable living in the arts. And if the cost of "saving" my industry is the freedom and openness of the internet, then hell, I guess I'll have to resign from the 0.0000000000000000001 percent club.The key point he's making there: the vast, vast, vast majority of folks who try to make a living making content will fail. The problem, today, is that many are blaming those failures -- which would have happened in almost any other era as well -- as if it's a problem from the internet. We have this blind spot for all of those failures. When people talk about how much musicians make or how many musicians are employed today, they leave out the parts about all the people who tried under the old system and were unable to make it. When you add those back in, the picture looks very, very different. And all of the amazing things that the internet is enabling is actually making it easier for many to create, to promote, to distribute and to monetize their content than ever before. By a long shot. But much of the "copyright wars" are not really about all that. It's about protecting the old gatekeepers who kept most comers out of the system altogether.
Thankfully, I don't think it has to be. The point is that when we allow the problem to be framed as "How to we get artists paid?" we end up with solutions to my problems, the problems of the 0.0000000000000000001 percent, and we leave behind the problems of the whole wide world.
And, for various reasons, politicians often fall for their story.
Anti-piracy campaigns emphasise the risk to society if people get the idea that it's OK to take without asking ("You wouldn't steal a car...") but the risk I worry about is that governments will get the idea that regulatory collateral damage to the internet is an acceptable price for achieving "important" policy goals. How else to explain the government's careless inclusion of small-scale bloggers and friends with their own Facebook groups in the scope of the Leveson press regulation? How else to explain Teresa May's determination, in the draft communications bill, to spy on everything we do on the internet?There's much, more where that came from. Highly recommended.
These policy disasters spring from a common error: the assumption that incidental damage to the internet is an acceptable price in the service of your own goals. The only way that makes sense is if you radically discount the value of the internet – hence all the establishment sympathy for contrarian writers who want to tell us all that the internet makes us stupid, or played no role in the Arab spring, or cheapens discourse. Any time you hear someone rubbishing the internet, have a good look around for the some way that person would benefit if the internet was selectively broken in their favour.
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: collateral damage, copyright, internet
Reader Comments
The First Word
“This statement may have had relevance ten years ago. It doesn't now. The fundamental premise of this logic is flawed because there is no functional difference between "artists and creators" and "the general public." You act like these are completely separate groups when modern technology easily combines the two. Youtube users are both creators and the public. Game modders are both creators and the public. Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, deviantart...all these people are creators and the public.
The concept of "art" as something created by an elite few for the pleasure of the masses has been dying a slow death since the internet developed. It's like we're passing legislation to prevent cars from going faster than 15 MPH in order to avoid causing "irreparable harm" to the horse-and-buggy industry.
You can't steal culture. You can fight culture, you can direct culture, you can profit off of culture. But it is not a commodity that can be taken away by spreading more of it.
We've created a society where every single person, including you, breaks the law on a daily basis, often without even realizing it. When a normal life becomes illegal, there is a problem with the law, not a problem with the people.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cool
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130327/15000422489/internet-under-attack-worlds-largest-d dos-attack-almost-broke-internet.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cool
Where did any author on this site having a call to action for a DDoS on any site!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cool
Just because you speak up against one injustice doesn't mean you have to speak up against every single other injustice for the sake of neutrality.
...and thank God for that or we'd waste a lifetime listening to everyone to speak out against everything wrong in the world every time they want to complain about something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cool
DDoS'ing a site (which may or MAY NOT have had knock on effects for others) for a period of time is very different from undercutting the fundamental technologies of the internet.
Mike has been pretty consistent in his take on DDoS.
Ipso facto, you suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For you, anyway, it's about taking away the rights of authors and artists. Your rhetorical move in focusing on these evil "gatekeepers" is cute (and I'm sure effective), but at bottom you don't think authors and artists should have any rights to their works. You never want to discuss that part of it because you know it doesn't sell as well to your audience of puerile malcontents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, since you are here (and don't seem to want to leave any time soon) I suppose I should welcome you to the club.
Here's your malcontent shirt.
And your puerile hat.
And this rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle. Don't ask.
Enjoy your stay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This statement may have had relevance ten years ago. It doesn't now. The fundamental premise of this logic is flawed because there is no functional difference between "artists and creators" and "the general public." You act like these are completely separate groups when modern technology easily combines the two. Youtube users are both creators and the public. Game modders are both creators and the public. Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, deviantart...all these people are creators and the public.
The concept of "art" as something created by an elite few for the pleasure of the masses has been dying a slow death since the internet developed. It's like we're passing legislation to prevent cars from going faster than 15 MPH in order to avoid causing "irreparable harm" to the horse-and-buggy industry.
You can't steal culture. You can fight culture, you can direct culture, you can profit off of culture. But it is not a commodity that can be taken away by spreading more of it.
We've created a society where every single person, including you, breaks the law on a daily basis, often without even realizing it. When a normal life becomes illegal, there is a problem with the law, not a problem with the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, let's just stick with the Constitution, which says the purpose of copyright is to benefit the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well I can't speak for Mike, but I have no problem with authors having rights to their works. I just think that the rights (and the rest of the copyright laws) should be carefully tailored so as to best serve the public interest, which is apt to result in rather different copyright laws than if we merely gave authors everything they wanted. I can't say I see a problem with putting the interests of everyone as a whole above special interest groups.
You never want to discuss that part of it because you know it doesn't sell as well to your audience of puerile malcontents.
You're just jealous that you haven't been taught the secret puerile malcontent handshake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike said he's copyflexible. Time and time again, but that pure-monopoly copyright isn't the correct way. Having a copyright system that allows for building on top of a work, whilst still preserving the rights of the creators of a work, is a far more laudable goal than the current system.
We just need to kill the MAFIAA and make it politically toxic to support breaking inter-connectivity in order to support a model that is negatively impacting all other aspects of economic growth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which dragon are you trying to slay again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...that there isn't anything positive about copyright?
Seriously, dude. Please post links to all the stories you've found that explain how copyright saved the day. If you could put them in separate posts with a summary, that'd be great. I seriously feel they would add to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's more subtle than that.
They shouldn't. Artists aren't the point. They never were supposed to be the point. The point of copyright law is supposed to be the art.
It's the art, not the artist.
As far as artistic megalomania goes: once you release something into the economy, your ability to control it obviously diminishes because justice dictates that the rights of all of your customers are no less valuable than your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But nope, that would be too easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's the relevant quote from the linked article. It was true in 1939 and it's still true in 2013 and will still be true in 2039.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/mar/28/copyright-wars-internet
And what of the entertainment industry and its "piracy" problem? Well, back in 1939, the science fiction writer Robert A Heinlein published his first story, "Life-Line," that contained his truest prediction:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cory Doctorow is an Author and he releases all his books under a CC license. He is also making money from selling the same books. He is not just competing with free ebooks, but competing against free copies of his own titles to make his money. Copyright could be abolished today, and he would still be able to make a living, as nothing would really change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright, as it stands, is designed to take rights away from users. CC (and the GPL, for example) are designed to take rights away from the "artist" and give rights to the user. Hence the term Copyleft (the reverse of copyright).
If copyright did not exist, we wouldn't need CC or GPL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And if the cost of "saving" my industry is the freedom and openness of the internet, then hell, I guess I'll have to resign from the 0.0000000000000000001 percent club.
That is he values the Internet and its benefits to society over making a living as an author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone has to eat and pay rent, and if Cory darling wasn't getting paid for this he'd be doing something else.
The most damage being done to the Internet isn't being done by creators, but by snooping, privacy invasive entities like Google.
Google glasses? Just say no to more "spywear" from the Evil Empire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You are not supporters of the system we have now, so you must be the extreme opposites and support anarchy, no money for the artists and terrorists".
There are quite a lot of space in between these 2 sides and that is where most people are. I think that almost all of us on this site support some form of copyright, but the way it is today, is not the way to go. It shits on the artists and the fans, and the collateral damage is so huge it makes my head swim just thinking about it.
We are already a decade behind the technology but ask yourself this: if we stop discussing this, if we stop protesting, if piracy stopped tomorrow; what do you think would happen?
Would the big corporations embrace technology suddenly and innovate?
I fear they would actually keep trying to make laws to control(break) the internet to make it hard for new artists to be successful without them and I believe they would actually go back to the physical media which they could control better than iTunes, Spotify, Netflix and the like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem with the permission-society today, is the sheer amount of permission seeking needed. If you are a big company, you can deny and sue as you please, but if sir Doctorow as a single person wants to distance his works from that industry, he has to use a low-restrictive copyright license to make his stances clear to avoid having to deal with the copyright flood! It is ironic and kind of highlights the problem with the way copyright works.
Registration of copyrighted works should be a demand to make life easier for Doctorow. Nothing very painfull for the oldschool industry at all, to solve this "conondrum"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
His books are copyrighted whether he wants them to be or not, the CC license is just his best attempt to mitigate that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't have any rights to my work! Once my work is completed I get paid (once) and - that's it! Sorry, but, your special snowflake status is about to be revoked for good. And that's a good thing - for you, me, everybody.
Have a nice future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Authors and artists DO deserve the rights to their works!
But the corporations who own the copyrights via work-for-hire contracts don't give them their due!
Examples:
Jack Kirby at Marvel Comics (owned by Disney)
Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster at DC Comics (owned by Time-Warner)
BTW, the vast majority of copyrights (movies/tv/prose/graphic novels, et al) are work produced for corporations under similar work-for-hire contracts, even today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Authors and artists (generally speaking) have very few rights, more often than not they've traded them away to the gatekeepers for a shot at the big time. So lets be real it's not their rights we're talking about.
We do want IP laws scaled back because they're increasingly encroaching on our rights as private citizens. Free speech is being removed, our browsing habits are being snooped on and lets not forget the guilty until proven innocent aspect of programs like 6-strikes. Oh yeah and we don't trust our governments to only censor the "bad stuff".
It would be a very different situation if the copyright cartels were actually working for the artists. But time and time again we're seeing the money from the trials of "evil file sharers" going into lawyers and execs pockets (and then into congress but let's not go there).
I'd actually like more rights for artists I think the best way to do that would be to make copyright non-transferable to stop large corporations making hugely 1 sided deals with them. I doubt you'd go for that because it's not actually the artists you're in support of is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would probably fail to change the actual situation, the corporation would switch to a commercial contract giving them sole permission to publish a work, and prohibiting the work being offerered to any other publisher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If one of the big record labels/movie studios cheats a creator, they will end up losing access to the work in question. If the label/studio succeeds in making it popular, the creator can then take full advantage of it.
Now other labels/studios are more likely to give better licensing terms for something that's already hugely popular, assuming the creator of the work decides to go with another group. They could self-publish by that point in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore I would say that copyright acts as a magnet to the dregs of humanity. Its promise of a income (effectively) for ever in exchange for no further effort brings out the worst in people (and brings the worst people in!).
Look at the kibnd of people who run the gatekeepers, the kind of creators who proactively defend copyright - and - yes - the trolls round here - and you will see what I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the corporations who own the copyrights via work-for-hire contracts don't give them their due!
Examples:
Jack Kirby at Marvel Comics (owned by Disney)
Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster at DC Comics (owned by Time-Warner)
"
"Authors and artists (generally speaking) have very few rights, more often than not they've traded them away to the gatekeepers for a shot at the big time. So lets be real it's not their rights we're talking about."
What they have mentioned in the above quotes never seems to get answered by the IP retards that troll around here. So many true artists and creators buy into the snake oil pitch they get tossed and only when they get burned do they realize they got played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @AC: Because want to get filthy rich easily.
Wasn't long ago -- the 1970's -- that the US had reasonable rates of taxation as I outline above, and everyone WAS better off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suggest you actually read the linked article, which was written by an author who explicitly said that he thought his "rights" were less important than the integrity of the internet and he was prepared to abandon them if the damage caused by keeping them was too great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 2nd, 2013 @ 6:10am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just. Go. Away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Preaching to the converted
One alternative, which I have attempted at http://digital-freedoms.org/, is to spell out in relentless (and possibly boring) detail, exactly what digital freedoms there are that we might care about, and how copyright and patents and security and various other things might all conflict with those digital freedoms.
The general theme of my approach is not so much "we have to do this", or "we have to do that", but more, "these two things conflict, and we actually have to choose one of them and not the other".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I especially like the loss aversion part. I never thought about it before but it sums up the entertainment industry perfectly. Their tunnel vision is so strong that they focus on what they see as losses that they completely miss the gains they have made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correct, people would care more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First flaw: Innumeracy, the inability to grasp numbers.
Now, you kids may think that as author Doctorow is entitled to exaggerate for effect, but his inability to work with real numbers surely indicates a disdain for facts. And it IS an opinion piece, that's all. He has his notions: they aren't matched in reality.
Doctorow is asking for a situation he doesn't actually want. He appears to be both loony libertarian and nihilist, destroying his own ability and right to profit from his works. Actually, he's benefitting from the current legal milieu. Like many, he thinks that a complex system of rights and moralities can be eliminated entirely and the situation will only get better. That's clearly insane.
And he fancies himself as part of "industry"! Sheesh. I've read some of his product: he churns out pablum for kids.
As Mike says in his last line: there's TONS of soft-headd crap like Doctorow's on the internet. But if you want to KNOW about copyright, sit down and write your own work, then see how you feel about it being taken without money sent your way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First flaw: Innumeracy, the inability to grasp numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First flaw: Innumeracy, the inability to grasp numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First flaw: Innumeracy, the inability to grasp numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First flaw: Innumeracy, the inability to grasp numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First flaw: Innumeracy, the inability to grasp numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the point of Copyright again?
If so, why do we need to incentivize people to make works? I mean if there isn't a market for it, there shouldn't be (as many) people thinking their entitled to an earning by doing it. If there aren't enough atrists/works, then won't people start paying more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]