Make Art Not Law
from the Permeance-vs.-Permission dept
Below are the images and text of a Pecha Kucha talk I gave in Champaign, IL. The Pecha Kucha format is 20 slides x 20 seconds per slide. Hopefully the video will be online within a few months.
You are an information portal. Information enters through your senses, like your ears and eyes, and exits through your expressions, like your voice, your drawing, your writing, and your movements.
In order for culture to stay alive, we have to be open, or permeable. According to Wikipedia, Permeance is "the degree to which a material admits a flow of matter or energy." We are the material through which information flows.
It’s through this flow that culture stays alive and we stay connected to each other. Ideas flow in, and they flow out, of each of us. Ideas change a little as they go along; this is known as evolution, progress, or innovation.
But thanks to Copyright, we live in a world where some information goes in, but cannot legally come out. Often I hear people engaged in creative pursuits ask, “Am I allowed to use this? I don’t want to get in trouble.”
In our Copyright regime, "trouble" may include lawsuits, huge fines, and even jail. "Trouble" means violence. "Trouble" has shut down many a creative enterprise. So the threat of “trouble” dictates our choices about what we express.
Copyright activates our internal censors. Internal censorship is the enemy of creativity; it halts expression before it can begin. The question, “am I allowed to use this?” indicates the asker has surrendered internal authority to lawyers, legislators, and corporations.
This phenomenon is called Permission Culture. Whenever we censor our expression, we close a little more and information flows a little less. The less information flows, the more it stagnates. This is known as chilling effects.
I have asked myself: did I ever consent to letting “Permission Culture” into my brain? Why am I complying with censorship? How much choice do I really have about what information goes in and comes out of me?
The answer is: I have some choice regarding what I expose myself to, and what I express, but not total control. I can choose whether to watch mainstream media, for example. And I can choose what information to pass along.
But to be in the world, and to be open, means all kinds of things can and do get in that are beyond my control. I don't get to choose what goes in based on its copyright status. In fact proprietary images and sounds are the most aggressively rammed into our heads. For example:
"Have a holly jolly Christmas, It's the best time of the year
"I don't know if there'll be snow, but have a cup of cheer
"Have a holly jolly Christmas, And when you walk down the street
"Say hello to friends you know and everyone you meet!"
I hate Christmas music. But because I live in the U.S., and need to leave the house even in the months of November and December, I can’t NOT hear it. It goes right through my earholes and into my brain, where it plays over and over ad nauseum.
Here are some of the corporations I could “get in trouble with” for sharing that song and clip in public. I wasn't consulted by them before having their so-called "intellectual property" blasted into my head as a child, so I didn't ask their permission to put it in my slide show.
Copyright is automatic and there’s no way to opt out. But you can add a license granting some of the permissions copyright automatically takes away. Creative Commons, the most widespread brand of license, allows its users to lift various restrictions of copyright one at a time.
The problem with licenses is that they’re based on copyright law. The same threat of violence behind copyright is behind alternative licenses too. Licenses actually reinforce the mechanism of copyright. Everyone still needs to seek permission - it's just that they get it a little more often. 
Like copyright itself, licenses are often too complex for most people to understand. So licenses have the unfortunate effect of encouraging people to pay even MORE attention to copyright, which gives even more authority to that inner censor. And who let that censor into our heads in the first place?
Although I use Free licenses and would appreciate meaningful copyright reform, licenses and laws aren’t the solution. The solution is more and more people just ignoring copyright altogether. I want to be one of those people.
A few years ago I declared sovereignty over my own head. Freedom of Speech begins at home. Censorship and "trouble" still exist outside my head, and that's where they'll stay - OUTSIDE my head. I'm not going to assist bad laws and media corporations by setting up an outpost for them in my own mind.
I no longer favor or reject works based on their copyright status. Ideas aren’t good or bad because of what licenses people slap on them. I just relate to the ideas themselves now, not the laws surrounding them. And I try to express myself the same way.
Like millions of others who don’t give a rat’s ass about copyright, I hope you join me. Make Art, Not Law.
crossposted from ninapaley.com
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: copyright, culture, law, permission, permission society
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You just encapsulated all my beliefs regarding copyright, Ms Paley. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
I'm with ya on the stifling aspects. If you'll stick to pulling down The Rich and their controls that go beyond the specific expression, FINE. -- But when Rikuo brags about how much actual content he's stealing, that's outside statue and common law: you don't have any right to the work, content, or intellectual property that others have paid for, made, created, worked out, promoted, and so.
Oh, and ESPECIALLY grifters like Kim Dotcom have NO right to get millions off what others paid for and created. File hosts sharing coprighted content is SIMPLY STEALING.
So just stick to the stifling.
Here's an old tagline, happily not much needed of late:
Where arrogance meets ignorance to conspire what they'll do with someone else's $100 million movie.
07:24:20[i-577-2]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
Rikuo (profile), Oct 29th, 2013 @ 4:12am
Better make sure the 'AAs don't raid my house. I've had my desktop on non-stop since I think Saturday night, I got up moments before writing this comment and check my utorrent. 114GBs uploaded. Fortunately, it was all through a VPN.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131028/07252625033/russias-leading-social-network-vkontakte-c leared-copyright-infringement.shtml#c55
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
Which would you say is more futile, the war on drugs or the war on piracy?
a) Just because "war" on vices can never be fully won doesn't mean that civilized people can just ignore them. Copyright makes possible the creation of entertainments, which is desirable. System will work fine so long as stealing is suppressed -- and that includes The Rich stealing what doesn't belong to them. (And I advocate return to no more than 28 years for copyright...)
b) What's really futile is expecting Techdirt fanboys to stay on topic, STATE a position, and NOT drag in utterly irrelevant VAST controversies, believing in their foolish way that they've made a point.
Whenever restraints are taken off, people NEVER become better. Especially not The Rich.
07:42:51[i-765-6]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
Show me a single instance of a court convicting someone of, putting someone in jail over, or assigning them huge fines for — and this part’s key, so pay attention — the theft of either intellectual property rights or ‘theoretical’ profits.
Not copyright infringement, but theft. The actual charge, decision, and judicial opinion must contain the word ‘theft’.
When you can do that, I’ll glady believe you and your multimedia conglomerate brethren when you equate copyright infringement to theft.
Until then: shut the fuck up when grown folks is talkin’.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
So maybe we should stop ‘fighting a war’ and start working to fix the root cause of the ‘war’ itself (i.e. the ridiculous terms and conditions of copyright law as it stands today).
Copyright makes possible the creation of entertainments
No, the existence of people makes the creation of entertainment products possible. Copyright doesn't do jack shit to influence or induce the creation of any creative work.
Show me a single artist who has ever said ‘I made this work because of copyright’ and I'll have a better chance of believing your stance.
What's really futile is expecting Techdirt fanboys to stay on topic, STATE a position, and NOT drag in utterly irrelevant VAST controversies, believing in their foolish way that they've made a point.
As opposed to your constant ad hominem attacks, erasure of context from quotes, and flip-flopping between stances of your own in a foolish attempt to troll the comments section of a site you apparently hate so much that you keep coming back here day after day to comment on it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
People use the Bittorrent filesharing tech for more than just trading movies via The Pirate Bay. You’d probably know that if you didn’t rush to demonize the actual technology for the actions of its users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I have one agree+thanks (agranks?) too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
"Good artists copy. Great artists steal."
So preventing this stealing IS stifling by definition. But then again why do I bother as the true meaning of that quote is probably beyond your capacity to comprehend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
You do know that legal torrents exist, right?
Rikuo admits liability that more than implies ILLEGAL: "Better make sure the 'AAs don't raid my house." It's not enough for a charge, but once MPAA has him in its sights...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It sounds as if she is able to do her thing quite effectively.
If she can do it, then why all the hand wringing by the copyright anarchists?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
People nerd to make copies to share knowledge and learning while publishers want to prevent copying for their bottom line.
We have to all ourselves a serious question... Which idea is more important?
Controlling quantities or sharing?
How much have we lost to sharing information?
How much have we lost when someone thinks about each skated copy as a sale?
Those are better questions imo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Citation needed
Because, you keep using that word, theft, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
Besides, ever hear of sarcasm? The MPAA and RIAA don’t exactly have a long, storied history of suing the ‘right’ people, after all…
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
1) Prohibition was a major factor in establishing organised crime.
2) Citizens of Mexico and Columbia, amongst others, might have have a word or two to say about the war on drugs, but I doubt that they would be very polite. They are paying a high price for USA war on drugs.
Fake wars on what people wish to do, that does not hurt other people, are very destructive of society, and only advance the means of control desired by power seekers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
The Blue called, they want their fucking monkey back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
But let's really get real. A website taken out here and there has no effect, not even a SCRATCH, on the following: Google's linking to alternatives, advertising flooding the pirate sites, BitTorrent and the "I am Spartacus" effect, ISPs, VPNs, Tor, Encryption, international piracy, China's 80% piracy market share. The only thing you can do is break these piracy monopolies (especially China's) caused by the Al-Capone enabling of copyright, by abolishing copyright completely and force them to suffer from free-rider problems, in favour of a crowdfunding system that more strictly adheres to the principles of John Locke (i.e. not confusing products with services) where all monetisation goes to the artist if anyone is to benefit whatsoever.
Copyright is not out to prevent piracy, it is the ENABLER of piracy. You need to get this right or everything else will just fall apart. The Chinese government and Kim Dotcom probably SUPPORT copyright for the same reason drug cartels would lobby to keep the war on drugs going if they could. All untaxed, all unregulated.
But since you did not directly answer my question and say which "cause" is better than the other, drugs or piracy, I may as well say this. I know what would happen if I were to call the police and report somebody for possessing Class A drugs: they would most likely break down their door within the hour and search the house inch by inch. If I were to report somebody to the police for an illegal copy of a movie, chances are that I would be arrested for wasting police time.
If that doesn't tell you everything I do not know what does.
And I don't know why other people's opinions on this website should have any relevance to mine. I can do my own work, thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
I say these fit your criteria:
MPAA 'Settles' Another 'Victory' Against Hotfile For $80 Million That No Artists Will Ever See
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131203/16342525445/mpaa-settles-another-victory-against-hotfil e-80-million-that-no-artists-will-ever-see.shtml
As does the prior $110 million from Isohunt linked there:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131017/10532524916/isohunt-agrees-to-shut-down-pay-110-mill ion.shtml
IF you grasped those cases, the charges include getting money indirectly from advertising drawn by known infringing content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
Did Hotfile and IsoHunt plead guilty to the crime of ‘theft’?
I want you to understand what I’ve asked of you here here: I don’t want you to show me a case where the courts have convicted a person/company/etc. of (or said person/company/etc. has pleaded guilty to) the act of copyright infringement.
You want me to believe you when you refer to such acts as ‘theft’, and I’ll believe you as soon as you show me a single court case that has ended with someone convicted for/pleading guilty to an actual charge of ‘theft’ (not ‘copyright infringement’) in relation to either intellectual property rights or ‘potential’ profits.
Until then, I’mma just go by what the Supreme Court has already said on the issue in Dowling vs. United States:
[I]nterference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
Also, I notice you've finally realised the benefit to having a signed in account here on Techdirt, that of searching for and quoting past comments. I don't mind that you're quoting me. The only reason you never bothered creating your own account was to stop us from doing the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright has endangered public domain. So much so it's to the point that public domain is being retroactively retracted. I am reminded of the recent court trial over the "No Fly List" posted here earlier today where the judge tells the lawyers for the DOJ that they don't get to retract public info into the world of National Security for the purposes of denying the court the use of that info.
As it is, nothing you hear in your lifetime will ever be public domain that is now locked up in this insane idea of copyright lengths. To add insult to injury they are wanting it longer? BS. At this point I am agreeing that the bargain with the public to allow copyright to exist has been damaged beyond recognition and that bargain now needs to be retracted and absolved. It no longer functions as intended for the benefit of the public. Greed has it's end price and in this case, most aren't asking permission any more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So get over your lies. Get over it is sharing information about your horsemanure. Create a negative or interesting design company.
And rip off artists and creators artists suckers off rip. Pocket Web site + fools fools is paid 5 m apologists falsely claim suckers to believe shared files come out.
07:24:20[i-577-2]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If someone is being sued they did something to deserve it
Don't want the time don't do the crime, isn't that right, Napster Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
With enough time I will steal all of the braincells on this site and then I will be a genius!!!
06:72:54[i-784-2] (To stop the kiddies from committing fraud on my username)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AGREEE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
only one reason i'm posting...
felt compelled to make it 42...
thanks for all the fish ! ! !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wow oh wow oh wow...
talk about a concise and universal graphic definition of 'culture', wow ! !
(i was going to self-censor on a micro-scale, and say 'shared culture'; but -to your point- that is redundant: that which is not shared, can NOT be part of our culture; that which is shared, will thrive (or fail) based on a varied mix of usefulness, novelty, and beauty, as valued by all the sheeples...)
brilliantly done, and of course the whole thing looks terrific... wow ! ! !
(would have appreciated a comment on what 'pecha kucha' is (besides this org); now i gotta goog or wiki... and, yes, i am a lazy sort, thank you very much...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
And when your chosen methods for fighting a "war" on vices has the exact opposite effect to what you intended, and the unintended consequences are worse than what you were trying to prevent in the first place, it's time to completely re-evaluate your approach. Should've been done years ago in the War on Drugs and should've been done years ago in the fight against piracy.
"Copyright makes possible the creation of entertainments, which is desirable."
This comment clearly illustrates your complete ignorance of what actually makes people create content. People would continue creating without copyright, as they did for thousands of years before copyright was introduced.
"What's really futile is expecting Techdirt fanboys to stay on topic, STATE a position, and NOT drag in utterly irrelevant VAST controversies, believing in their foolish way that they've made a point."
Like bringing up Google in every topic that has nothing to do with them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like the silhouette characters btw.
The "cutout" dashed outline looks awesome. Got yourself the beginnings of a recognizable and unique character there. Seriously Nina, those white dashed outlines on grey BG are nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
No, you're not. You've not once defended fair use, for example.
If you'll stick to pulling down The Rich and their controls that go beyond the specific expression, FINE.
So if it's the government, or someone who is not "rich" by your (never-explained) definition, then stifling speech is fine? Goody.
But when Rikuo brags about how much actual content he's stealing, that's outside statue and common law
Rikuo bragged about torrenting files, not about committing copyright infringement. There is a difference. The fact that he acknowleges that the MPAA can't tell the difference just shows that he knows the MPAA.
And, for the love of all that's holy, stop saying it's common law. Copyright was never, at any time, in any part of the world, a common law right. Nobody in history was ever granted a post-publication monopoly unless legal statutes said they were. Unlike fair use.
you don't have any right to the work, content, or intellectual property that others have paid for, made, created, worked out, promoted, and so. [sic]
Not only is that not why copyright exists, that's not even an accurate portrayal of copyright law. If your use is one that falls under the many exceptions to copyright, you absolutely do have a right to use others' intellectual property.
File hosts sharing coprighted content is SIMPLY STEALING.
Copyright infringement is not stealing, and no file host has ever been found guilty of theft. They have been found secondarily liable for copyright infringement. In other words, they weren't stealing, and they weren't liable for anyone else stealing; they were liable for other people (none of whom were "the rich") infringing on copyrights.
Where arrogance meets ignorance to conspire what they'll do with someone else's $100 million movie.
Amazing. In one post, you've gone from claiming that you're fine with "pulling down The Rich and their controls," to insulting people who infringe on the copyright of artworks that only the rich are capable of creating.
I would say your hypocrisy knows no bounds, but I don't think you're smart enough to be hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
Sorry, I thought you said "bought" by the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
When you're out of the blue, you go into the black.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This explains copyright maximalists: they can't make sense because they don't have enough brain cells. Meanwhile "pirates" are using stolen brain cells to make well-reasoned, sensible arguments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bad Copyright Bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
2. The case hasn't been tried yet so there the courts have not given a ruling.
His question was very specific:
"Show me a single instance of a court convicting someone of, putting someone in jail over, or assigning them huge fines for — and this part’s key, so pay attention — the theft of either intellectual property rights or ‘theoretical’ profits.
So no, MegaUpload does not count.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad Copyright Bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131207/12200225496/make-art-not-law.shtml#c716
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The OP Anonymous Coward just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad Copyright Bad
Also, tap water is free, yet people still buy bottled water. Why then would anything prevent me from making money without relying on copyrights ?(Which I'm actually aiming to do pretty damn soon, to shutup people like you, and fat old geezers playing at running the world)
Don't bother replying, those are rhetorical! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]