UNESCO Suggests COVID-19 Is A Reason To Create... Eternal Copyright

from the what-the-actual-fuck? dept

Yes, we've seen lots of folks using COVID-19 to push their specific agendas forward, but this one is just bizarre. UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is an organization that is supposed to be focused on developing education and culture around the globe. From any objective standpoint, you'd think it would be in favor of things like more open licensing and sharing of culture, but, in practice, the organization has long been hijacked by copyright maximalist interests. Almost exactly a decade ago, we were perplexed at the organization's decision to launch an anti-piracy organization. After all, "piracy" (or sharing of culture) is actually how culture and ideas frequently spread in the developing countries where UNESCO focuses.

So, I guess it isn't so surprising a decade later that UNESCO is using COVID-19 to float the idea of an eternal copyright. I only wish I was kidding:

They phrase this as "just started the conversation," but that's a trollish setup for a terrible, terrible idea. In case you can't see the video, it's electronic music creator Jean-Michel Jarre suggesting eternal copyright as a way to support future artists:

Why not going to the other way around, and to create the concept of eternal copyright. And I mean by this that after a certain period of time, the rights of movies, of music, of everything, would go to a global fund to help artists, and especially artists in emerging countries.

First, we can all agree that helping to enable and support artists in emerging countries is a good general idea. I've seen a former RIAA executive screaming about how everyone criticizing this idea is showing their true colors in how they don't want to support artists. But that's just silly. The criticism of this idea is that it doesn't "support" artists at all, and will almost certainly make creativity and supporting artists more difficult. And that's because art and creativity has always relied on building upon the works of those who came before -- and locking up everything for eternity would make that cost prohibitive for all but the wealthiest of creators. Indeed, the idea that we need copyright and copyright alone to support artists shows (yet again) just how uncreative the people who claim to support copyright can be.

The way copyright works, with content (eventually) aging out into the public domain is exactly how these works already support emerging artists, by giving them more raw materials to build on and be creative around and to share further around the globe. It's the locking up of content behind copyright and paywalls that limits that cultural sharing and cultural raw material.

And, of course, one can only imagine how much Disney would need to pay into this global fund for all the public domain works it turned into its movies.

It's also not clear how all of this works. He seems to suggest that the eternal copyright would lead to money going into a fund that is used to support artists, rather than the heirs of the copyright holders. So, more or less a giant collection society for old copyright. Of course, we've spent decades detailing how nearly every collection society is rife with corruption. There are stories of them using the money to pad execs' pockets, of using it to lobby, and of frequently distributing the money in unfair ways that actually tend to favor successful artists at the expense of up-and-coming artists. Or in some cases, they just claim they they "can't find" the artists they owe money to.

Does anyone really expect that this new mega fund, taking money from ancient works will somehow magically give the money to smaller artists? Or will it just be used to divert funds to the already successful?

Again, there are plenty of reasonable concerns about artists making money -- especially during the pandemic. But an eternal copyright may be the worst possible suggestion, and I'm only skimming the reasons why. Dan Takash has an excellent Twitter thread detailing many more reasons as well, including how this would almost certainly lock-in certain forms of "western" culture, at the expense of cultures around the globe.

Incredibly, just days later, UNESCO is tweeting about how culture is part of our "shared humanity." Yeah, that's why we have the public domain. To make sure that the public can share in it all. The plan for a universal copyright is to literally take away that culture and to lock it up with bureaucrats who get to determine who is allowed to do what with culture and for how much. That's not a shared humanity.

Filed Under: artists, collection society, covid-19, eternal copyright, jean-michel jarre, unesco

DailyDirt: Pass Me A Cold One...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Beer has shaped civilization for centuries. It's one of the oldest alcoholic beverages, and it comes in countless varieties for just about every taste. The progress of beer is unstoppable, and here are just a few more advances in the field of beer.

• Frozen beer foam looks like the new way to chill your favorite beverage without adding ice. For those out there who prefer room temperature beer, this stuff is also a possible dessert, serving as kind of a beer-flavored sorbet. [url]
• The next James Bond movie will ditch a shaken martini for a sip of a Heineken. Rumor: The secret agent's nifty gadgets will soon be provided by Best Buy's Geek Squad instead of Q's labs. [url]
• The German institute for pure beer (DIRB) is trying to get Germany's 16th-century beer purity law listed by the UN as one of the world's cultural treasures. For context, UNESCO already includes activities such as flamenco dancing and wrestling in oil. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: alcohol, beer, dirb, germany, james bond, unesco
Companies: heineken

Wikileaks Denied A Speaking Opportunity At UN Conference About Wikileaks?

from the perhaps-someone-will-leak-a-pass? dept

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, is hosting a conference about The Media World after Wikileaks and News of the World. Sounds like it could be an interesting event, but one organization not happy about it... is Wikileaks. Seeing as it was a conference that touched on Wikileaks' interests directly, Wikileaks asked to take part, and was instead denied a chance to speak at the event. When asked about this, UNESCO actually claimed that choosing to not allow Wikileaks attendees was an exercise in "freedom of expression," which seems like a poor choice of words.

Of course, Wikileaks doesn't come out of this looking very good either. In unfortunately typical overstatement from Wikileaks, it tries to paint this as some big censorship issue, but that seems like an exaggeration. UNESCO noted that Julian Assange's legal advisor is taking part, as are numerous news organizations that partnered with Wikileaks. Wikileaks complains that even if Assange's legal counsel will be on one panel, there's no Wikileaks representation on other panels. Now, if I were organizing the event, I might use that as an opportunity to invite direct representatives of the site... if only for the fact that it would draw more interest to many of the discussions. However, beyond the irony of telling Wikileaks it can't speak at an event about Wikileaks, it really seems like the site is trying to make a bigger deal out of this than is justified.

Filed Under: conference journalism, speaking, un, unesco
Companies: wikileaks

Why Is UNESCO Supporting Locking Up Information?

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Today may be World Intellectual Property Day, but this past Friday was also apparently World Book and Copyright Day (quite a bookended weekend for government monopolies on knowledge!). Bas Grasmayer points out that UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which is supposed to be focused on "promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture" oddly chose Friday's "World Book and Copyright Day" to launch an "anti-piracy observatory."

This is bizarre for all sorts of reasons. An organization focused on encouraging education and international collaboration seems like the last place that would be supporting locking up information through government-granted monopolies. This "observatory" appears to have little interest in determining whether or not stronger copyright actually promotes international collaboration through education, science and culture -- and simply assumes it must. Given that the actual evidence on this particular topic -- especially in developing nations where you would think UNESCO would be most concerned -- suggests exactly the opposite, it's quite troubling that UNESCO would take this particular position. It's a position that harms developing nations solely to benefit a few corporations. That doesn't seem like a position UNESCO would support.

Filed Under: intellectual property, unesco