My response to the original article, since I can't feel sure my response will get through moderation
I think this would be an appropriate place to observe a minute of silence for the distinction which used to be carried by the difference between "should" and "ought". That distinction would be helpful here if it were still a common part of the English language.
When advocates of free say things like "Musicians should give away their music and make money off concerts and T-shirts." etc., they nearly always mean "Musicians ought to give away their music...", without the moral suggestion that not giving it away is somehow evil. All that is meant is simply that it is a good idea to give away one's music and make one's money off a scarcity. I don't think I've ever seen anyone seriously entertain giving things away for free as a moral principle, particularly where creative work is concerned.
So, of COURSE it's okay for a musician to sell music or a teacher to sell books. It's just not likely to make you much of a living these days... Please note also that it is possible to be in favour of a "free" culture in which cultural ideas are shared without the permission of the creators without denying authors the right to sell their work. Believing that ideas should be widely shared does not mean creators should not try to benefit from their creations.
You lose me completely when you suggest that being in favour of "free" somehow means you cannot or do not value ideas. ("valuing only tangible artifacts and not ideas.") Ideas fundamentally gain value when they are shared as widely as possible. I *do* think there is a moral imperative to spread good ideas as widely as possible because of what this means for humanity. In an online world where spreading ideas is virtually costless, restricting access to ideas in an attempt to artificially boost price is a problem, and it's a problem because it reduces the value of the idea by slowing its spread. But that doesn't mean the idea shouldn't have a price or that it's somehow impossible to charge for it. It just means you ought to be charging for something other than access to the idea. Better to charge for the creation of the idea (e.g. a customized programming project, as suggested in another comment), for example, or a physical manifestation of the idea (a printed, dead-tree book), or any other scarcity created by the idea.
So, sorry, I consider attempting to monopolize ideas (i.e. restricting access to) far more anti-intellectual than the idea that ideas should be shared freely. How on earth can you reach the conclusion that spreading ideas is anti-intellectual?
"DMCA isn't an anti-piracy tool specifically, it is a notification tool."
The DMCA is certainly an anti-piracy tool (in the form of a law). If you're just talking about the "notice" part of notice-and-takedown, yes, that is a just notification tool, but it is also part of an anti-piracy tool -- that would be that takedown part.
"But most keyboard warriors don't have the balls to do it."
Correction: Most don't have the resources to deal with them safely and successfully -- or most are not in a position to respond at all, i.e. they are not in fact receiving DMCA notices, but are upset that certain others are.
"In the same manner that the same person would fight against any injustice, they take them to court."
This attitude is troubling. Yes, the courts are a venue for fighting injustice, but they should not be the first or only venue. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to live in a world where every little injustice gets the courts involved, not least because I am then left dependent on how much money I have to stand up for myself. Online protest is a much cheaper (and possibly more effective) option. It is also a way for me to attempt to redress other people's injustices that I would not have a reason to be in court for.
"Why does everyone always want to take pictures of/or film EVERYTHING? What ever happened to experiencing something, taking the time to look and appreciate, and remember with your own brains?"
Why would you insist that everyone enjoys things in the same way. Personally, I do tend to "look and appreciate", but I don't see why everyone should take that approach. EVERYONE doesn't want to photograph everything. You're just complaining that, generally, SOMEONE does.
"Maybe it is fair use, maybe it isn't. Why would Viacom want to fight it? Why would the producer of the show risk wasting a night worth of recording because part of the show can't be used?
I can really tell that you have never run a business or been in upper management (except maybe a McShiftManager), because you can't seem to think past your nose."
I think the issue here is that the system as it stands means it makes sense for upper management to make a decision like this. Copyright lawsuits are a bitch, and it's understandable why a company would want to avoid them. There's no question in my mind that the retelling was done as a hedge against liability (probably on advice from an overpaid lawyer), not because there's any question of *actual* liability.
In management terms, the decision is simple: a 2 minute retelling (plus 5 minutes of discussion time, 10 minutes of lawyer's fees, etc.) is cheaper than filing the paperwork necessary to shrug off or settle a frivolous copyright lawsuit. That doesn't make it a right decision, but perhaps it is a rational one from a business perspective.
I would tend to think that such ridiculous risk aversion is a trait of middle, not upper management ... it's certainly not an entrepreneurial attitude...
The problem is not that upper management is making the wrong decision, it is that deciding whether or not singing four words is a copyright violation should not be a question in the first place. Any claim of copyright infringement for four words should be laughed out of court. I'm aware that this isn't the world we live in, but you can't blame me (or the rest of Techdirt) for being upset that it's not or wanting to change the world so that it is.
Wouldn't this qualify as a (muted) form of protest against limited time licenses? They could just throw up a good old 404 page, but instead we get a specific mention that copyright is the reason we can't see it. Seems specifically designed to get regular web folks (like us) up in arms against whoever is licensing them the content.
I believe copyright infringement can be criminal, but I hadn't really made that distinction in my original post. As far as I know, you're right though, P2P is largely a civil offence.
It's still illegal though, which makes it feel like splitting hairs not to call it a crime even though it's semantically correct.
Technically, copyright infringement is a crime. And the release scene is certainly organized after a fashion. It is premeditated, planned, and done in a way to avoid detection. Thus, the sources of most copyrighted material on the internet can certainly be characterized as organized crime. It's highly benign organized crime, but the label is technically correct.
The problem is, "Organized Crime" as a label carries all sorts of connotations with drugs, prostitution and other "gang" activities. Which means that, when copyright infringement is characterized as being a result of organized crime, we naturally assume it is associated with those other, undesirable activities, even though there is no such link.
It's a rather unfortunate conflation of a literal meaning that is correct and a folk meaning that carries great weight, and a very convenient one for a record industry that benefits from creating folk devils around infringement.
Why should the DMCA mention fair use explicitly? It requires that notices be sent only for valid cases of infringement, and fair uses are not infringing. Ergo, DMCA notices should consider fair use insofar as clear cases of fair use are not infringing. If the line is fuzzy and the copyright holder feels they can win in court, by all means they should file away ... but they need to actually be prepared to fight it out in court should the target of the notice disagree. And that means being liable for court costs (at a minimum) IF they lose.
On a separate note, fair use has nothing to do with how integral the original work was to the derivative work. It has to do with whether the creation of the derivative was done fairly, i.e. for purposes such as education, research, parody, or criticism. Even fully copying a work may be fair use if it is done for the right reasons.
They don't know when it's fair use. But, the RIAA has plenty of fish to choose from. It shouldn't be hard to be just a *little* cautious and only go after the cases that are clearly *not* fair use.
Congratulations. The top result for "Bev Stayart Levitra" is now this post. I think the speed at which this happened suggests that very little was associated with Bev Stayart until she filed a lawsuit ... and then Mike started writing about it.
This isn't one simple rating. Off the top of my head, "Everything's Gone Green" was rated PG in Canada and R in the States ... The PG rating is correct. The *only* objectionable material in the film is the portrayal of a grow op, but that's enough to make the anti-drug bias clear.
I have no strong feelings for pot, but it seems like a dumb thing to censor...
I am cross-posting this response to Dr. Ficsor's post here, since comments on Barry Sookeman's blog are moderated and my response on the original site has disappeared into the void. It's interesting that the one hosting complaints about Maoism is the one censoring its comments.
Dr. Ficsor writes like a lawyer — this piece is so laden with esoteric knowledge of particular niches of law that I understand very little of it.
However, one thing leaps out at me: His “WHHHHAT?” reaction to “discovering” the existence of Michael Geist’s blog rings quite false.
I can only react with incredulousness that the former Assistant Director General of WIPO has not heard of Dr. Geist before now. Dr. Geist may not be widely accepted in the powerful circles that Dr. Ficsor travels in, but he is a focal point for WIPO dissent and has been for some time. His writing is followed not just locally in Canada, but internationally, and he has written several times for European news sources (such as the BBC). I do not believe that WIPO is so out of touch that it does not know who its enemies are. Pretending he has no idea who Dr. Geist is is highly disingenuous, clearly politically motivated, and bad for Dr. Ficsor’s credibility.
The extremely overwrought “shock” at discovering that people (such as Dr. Geist) actually have the temerity to disagree with some of the WIPO policies doesn’t help either.
So, although I cannot understand the bulk of what is said here, I can see very clearly that it is politically motivated. Therefore, why should I bother to understand it?
While my personal opinions fall closer to Dr. Geist’s than Dr. Ficsor’s, I really do want to gain a full understanding of *both* sides of this debate. Understanding is essential to resolve it. Why is it so hard to find good (meaning honest) writing on the so-called “pro-copyright” side of the fence?
Ok, I thought we were done with Lily Allen. Seriously, I'm sick of hearing about her. I really don't need to know that some artist I've never heard of (but who is apparently big in the UK) doesn't get copyright. That's not news to me. Why even give her the dignity of paying attention to her?
Bring on the stories of artists who are experimenting successfully ... I can at least learn from them.
I suspect there's a very mundane explanation, at least for the Canadian bills. The art on the bills is commissioned from well known (or well connected) Canadian artists. As such, the visual design would fall under copyright.
My guess is whatever contract the mint has with the artists assigns the copyright of the bill's design to the government of Canada, and the copyright notice is evidence of this agreement.
I don't buy the vaguely conspiratorial theory that it is somehow meant to augment anti-counterfeit laws. I think this is a fairly clearcut (and, given the law, legitimate) case of an artistic design falling under copyright.
I thought a large part of the GPL's restrictions are there to ensure that there *can* be freeloaders. I must be missing a key part of the way the GPL works in practice, because I never thought it was intended to prevent freeloading.
It also seems strange to ignore the end users here, since, as someone else mentioned, the entire purpose of the GPL is geared towards freedom for end users.
I think it's also missing that the GPL isn't really designed for building businesses; it's designed as a political statement. Hence, the split between "open source" and "Free" software. I can well believe that there are better licenses for business because that's not what the license was developed for. By all means, use what works for you, but not everything comes down to business and money. The political dimension of the GPL is important in its own right.
I'm also not sure I agree with the "all restrictions are bad" attitude. We build structures with limitations and restrictions all the time because those limitations help us focus and simplify what we're working on. A system with the *right* limitations gives us a solid foundation of certainty on which to build things. Without limitations, it's impossible to define any sort of coordinated project. Sorry this is so abstract ... I'm trying to paint a picture of a general principle. Hopefully it's somewhat visible here.
My guess is they'll have some limited success from consumers who don't know how to rip and don't care about copyright issues.
Personally, the creepiest part of this is it lets Disney know exactly who is buying their physical products. The conspiracy theorist in my wonders if they will be tying physical purchases to pirated material.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
"You're just making up anything to support your position to bail out the executives who then receive substantial bonuses for failing. Or maybe you have stock in the RIAA and you're afraid of losing it?"
Calm down would you? I'm not suggesting any of the things you think I'm suggesting. All I'm saying is that this debate — and the change that is causing it — has a moral dimension. I'm not in favour of a bailout, and I'm not trying to cause a moral panic. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that the change we are in the middle of does in fact have moral consequences. Would you be here arguing if you didn't think there was a right or a wrong to the matter?
As far as I can tell, you don't even disagree with my basic point; that people are suffering because industries are collapsing around them. If your response is to force them to tough it out, fine. But, at least recognize that in taking that tough love position, you are making a moral statement.
Personally, I have sympathy for the people whose lives are collapsing around them, and I'd like to find a way to help them get back on their feet or at least not die poor, old and bitter. That doesn't have to involve money or bailouts, and it certainly doesn't involve making a futile attempt to reconstruct a broken and corrupt business model. But it does involve understanding where they are coming from and helping them adapt. Beyond that, I don't really know how to help them, but having some empathy for the vast number of people who are losing their lives because their industries haven't kept pace is a good starting point.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
Yup, I definitely agree the pro-copyright camp is abusing the morality card. Actually, they are using it like Mike is using economics: To claim that the issue is *solely* a moral issue, and there's nothing more to be discussed. What got me upset was Mike's attitude that morality has no place in the discussion at all; he's doing the same thing, but in reverse.
It's all about reframing the debate in terms that make it impossible for the opposition to respond. It's a powerful debating tactic, but a poor way of actually understanding each other.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
"these allegedly deserving people should have thought of that before they decided to work for such a corrupt industry."
Not all of the industries collapsing under the weight of the internet are corrupt. And, when the majority of these workers entered their industries 20 to 40 years ago, it was far from obvious that there was any corruption at all. You are blaming these people for not knowing things they could not know and for simply existing in a system that no longer works.
If you are going to assign guilt by association like this, you might as well blame the entire population of America for being complicit in any number of the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the torture in Guantanamo, and for profiting off an economic system that has been stacked against the third world for centuries.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
I'm not talking about the fat cats. For the most part, they're still rich. When an industry collapses, there's a lot more people out of work than a few rich execs. There's a ton of people who built lives in the industry who are now losing their jobs because the system that they understand — the system where their skills are useful — no longer exists.
I'm not saying things should have continued the way they were going ... the system was corrupt and needed to be swept away; the superior qualities of internet distribution and promotion have done that. But there's a lot of innocent, ordinary people who depended on that system to survive.
The best analogy I can think of is GM. GM was big, complacent, and massively mismanaged. It deserved to fail, probably a long time before it actually did. But, we didn't let it fail, not out of any sympathy to the managers who created the mess, but because of the massive moral dilemma that allowing it to fail would have caused. There's a huge number of workers whose lives would have been ruined. Even if you think bailing out GM was a mistake (I'm not sure where I stand myself), I don't think it's controversial to think about the dilemma of saving GM's workers in moral terms.
On the post: Confusing Economic Factors With Moral Ones; Explaining Economics Is Not Anti-Intellectual
My response to the original article, since I can't feel sure my response will get through moderation
On the post: Google Music Blog Mess Highlights Why Three Strikes Will Not Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
The DMCA is certainly an anti-piracy tool (in the form of a law). If you're just talking about the "notice" part of notice-and-takedown, yes, that is a just notification tool, but it is also part of an anti-piracy tool -- that would be that takedown part.
"But most keyboard warriors don't have the balls to do it."
Correction: Most don't have the resources to deal with them safely and successfully -- or most are not in a position to respond at all, i.e. they are not in fact receiving DMCA notices, but are upset that certain others are.
"In the same manner that the same person would fight against any injustice, they take them to court."
This attitude is troubling. Yes, the courts are a venue for fighting injustice, but they should not be the first or only venue. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to live in a world where every little injustice gets the courts involved, not least because I am then left dependent on how much money I have to stand up for myself. Online protest is a much cheaper (and possibly more effective) option. It is also a way for me to attempt to redress other people's injustices that I would not have a reason to be in court for.
On the post: Google Music Blog Mess Highlights Why Three Strikes Will Not Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
Why would you insist that everyone enjoys things in the same way. Personally, I do tend to "look and appreciate", but I don't see why everyone should take that approach. EVERYONE doesn't want to photograph everything. You're just complaining that, generally, SOMEONE does.
On the post: Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time, Because Viacom Couldn't Have Him Sing Four Words: 'We Are The World'
Re: only 1 song in the world?
I can really tell that you have never run a business or been in upper management (except maybe a McShiftManager), because you can't seem to think past your nose."
I think the issue here is that the system as it stands means it makes sense for upper management to make a decision like this. Copyright lawsuits are a bitch, and it's understandable why a company would want to avoid them. There's no question in my mind that the retelling was done as a hedge against liability (probably on advice from an overpaid lawyer), not because there's any question of *actual* liability.
In management terms, the decision is simple: a 2 minute retelling (plus 5 minutes of discussion time, 10 minutes of lawyer's fees, etc.) is cheaper than filing the paperwork necessary to shrug off or settle a frivolous copyright lawsuit. That doesn't make it a right decision, but perhaps it is a rational one from a business perspective.
I would tend to think that such ridiculous risk aversion is a trait of middle, not upper management ... it's certainly not an entrepreneurial attitude...
The problem is not that upper management is making the wrong decision, it is that deciding whether or not singing four words is a copyright violation should not be a question in the first place. Any claim of copyright infringement for four words should be laughed out of court. I'm aware that this isn't the world we live in, but you can't blame me (or the rest of Techdirt) for being upset that it's not or wanting to change the world so that it is.
On the post: Bad Web Experience: This Article Removed Because Of Copyright?
Intentional Irony?
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Re: Well, technically they are correct...
It's still illegal though, which makes it feel like splitting hairs not to call it a crime even though it's semantically correct.
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Well, technically they are correct...
The problem is, "Organized Crime" as a label carries all sorts of connotations with drugs, prostitution and other "gang" activities. Which means that, when copyright infringement is characterized as being a result of organized crime, we naturally assume it is associated with those other, undesirable activities, even though there is no such link.
It's a rather unfortunate conflation of a literal meaning that is correct and a folk meaning that carries great weight, and a very convenient one for a record industry that benefits from creating folk devils around infringement.
On the post: Should Copyright Holders Pay For Bogus DMCA Takedowns?
Re: Re: Re:
On a separate note, fair use has nothing to do with how integral the original work was to the derivative work. It has to do with whether the creation of the derivative was done fairly, i.e. for purposes such as education, research, parody, or criticism. Even fully copying a work may be fair use if it is done for the right reasons.
On the post: Should Copyright Holders Pay For Bogus DMCA Takedowns?
Re: fair use
On the post: Bev Stayart Sues Yahoo Again For Violating Her Privacy Rights
Top result is now this post
On the post: MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle
Not a one time thing...
This isn't one simple rating. Off the top of my head, "Everything's Gone Green" was rated PG in Canada and R in the States ... The PG rating is correct. The *only* objectionable material in the film is the portrayal of a grow op, but that's enough to make the anti-drug bias clear.
I have no strong feelings for pot, but it seems like a dumb thing to censor...
On the post: Hungarian Copyright Treaty Author Insists That Those Who Don't Like Anti-Circumvention Clauses Are 'Hatred-Driven' Maoists
Link and censorship
I am cross-posting this response to Dr. Ficsor's post here, since comments on Barry Sookeman's blog are moderated and my response on the original site has disappeared into the void. It's interesting that the one hosting complaints about Maoism is the one censoring its comments.
Dr. Ficsor writes like a lawyer — this piece is so laden with esoteric knowledge of particular niches of law that I understand very little of it.
However, one thing leaps out at me: His “WHHHHAT?” reaction to “discovering” the existence of Michael Geist’s blog rings quite false.
I can only react with incredulousness that the former Assistant Director General of WIPO has not heard of Dr. Geist before now. Dr. Geist may not be widely accepted in the powerful circles that Dr. Ficsor travels in, but he is a focal point for WIPO dissent and has been for some time. His writing is followed not just locally in Canada, but internationally, and he has written several times for European news sources (such as the BBC). I do not believe that WIPO is so out of touch that it does not know who its enemies are. Pretending he has no idea who Dr. Geist is is highly disingenuous, clearly politically motivated, and bad for Dr. Ficsor’s credibility.
The extremely overwrought “shock” at discovering that people (such as Dr. Geist) actually have the temerity to disagree with some of the WIPO policies doesn’t help either.
So, although I cannot understand the bulk of what is said here, I can see very clearly that it is politically motivated. Therefore, why should I bother to understand it?
While my personal opinions fall closer to Dr. Geist’s than Dr. Ficsor’s, I really do want to gain a full understanding of *both* sides of this debate. Understanding is essential to resolve it. Why is it so hard to find good (meaning honest) writing on the so-called “pro-copyright” side of the fence?
On the post: Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free
Seriously?
Bring on the stories of artists who are experimenting successfully ... I can at least learn from them.
On the post: Why Do Canada And Europe Copyright Money?
Art
My guess is whatever contract the mint has with the artists assigns the copyright of the bill's design to the government of Canada, and the copyright notice is evidence of this agreement.
I don't buy the vaguely conspiratorial theory that it is somehow meant to augment anti-counterfeit laws. I think this is a fairly clearcut (and, given the law, legitimate) case of an artistic design falling under copyright.
On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times
I don't get it
It also seems strange to ignore the end users here, since, as someone else mentioned, the entire purpose of the GPL is geared towards freedom for end users.
I think it's also missing that the GPL isn't really designed for building businesses; it's designed as a political statement. Hence, the split between "open source" and "Free" software. I can well believe that there are better licenses for business because that's not what the license was developed for. By all means, use what works for you, but not everything comes down to business and money. The political dimension of the GPL is important in its own right.
I'm also not sure I agree with the "all restrictions are bad" attitude. We build structures with limitations and restrictions all the time because those limitations help us focus and simplify what we're working on. A system with the *right* limitations gives us a solid foundation of certainty on which to build things. Without limitations, it's impossible to define any sort of coordinated project. Sorry this is so abstract ... I'm trying to paint a picture of a general principle. Hopefully it's somewhat visible here.
On the post: Disney's Keychest: Is Giving Back Your Fair Use Rights With More DRM Really A Step Forward?
Convenience and creepiness
Personally, the creepiest part of this is it lets Disney know exactly who is buying their physical products. The conspiracy theorist in my wonders if they will be tying physical purchases to pirated material.
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
Calm down would you? I'm not suggesting any of the things you think I'm suggesting. All I'm saying is that this debate — and the change that is causing it — has a moral dimension. I'm not in favour of a bailout, and I'm not trying to cause a moral panic. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that the change we are in the middle of does in fact have moral consequences. Would you be here arguing if you didn't think there was a right or a wrong to the matter?
As far as I can tell, you don't even disagree with my basic point; that people are suffering because industries are collapsing around them. If your response is to force them to tough it out, fine. But, at least recognize that in taking that tough love position, you are making a moral statement.
Personally, I have sympathy for the people whose lives are collapsing around them, and I'd like to find a way to help them get back on their feet or at least not die poor, old and bitter. That doesn't have to involve money or bailouts, and it certainly doesn't involve making a futile attempt to reconstruct a broken and corrupt business model. But it does involve understanding where they are coming from and helping them adapt. Beyond that, I don't really know how to help them, but having some empathy for the vast number of people who are losing their lives because their industries haven't kept pace is a good starting point.
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
It's all about reframing the debate in terms that make it impossible for the opposition to respond. It's a powerful debating tactic, but a poor way of actually understanding each other.
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
Not all of the industries collapsing under the weight of the internet are corrupt. And, when the majority of these workers entered their industries 20 to 40 years ago, it was far from obvious that there was any corruption at all. You are blaming these people for not knowing things they could not know and for simply existing in a system that no longer works.
If you are going to assign guilt by association like this, you might as well blame the entire population of America for being complicit in any number of the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the torture in Guantanamo, and for profiting off an economic system that has been stacked against the third world for centuries.
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
I'm not saying things should have continued the way they were going ... the system was corrupt and needed to be swept away; the superior qualities of internet distribution and promotion have done that. But there's a lot of innocent, ordinary people who depended on that system to survive.
The best analogy I can think of is GM. GM was big, complacent, and massively mismanaged. It deserved to fail, probably a long time before it actually did. But, we didn't let it fail, not out of any sympathy to the managers who created the mess, but because of the massive moral dilemma that allowing it to fail would have caused. There's a huge number of workers whose lives would have been ruined. Even if you think bailing out GM was a mistake (I'm not sure where I stand myself), I don't think it's controversial to think about the dilemma of saving GM's workers in moral terms.
Next >>