Slashdot Mirror

Does anyone else here see the least bit of hypocrisy in that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to make producers liable for the actions of users?

What about the "free expression" rights always demanded by movie and music makers, so-called artists who are making media even more sensational, whether through violence or sex, simply to increase profits? Popular culture (not art, mind you, since that is not a product like popular culture is) has been defended on the grounds of free expression for years, but it is a product and is in many ways responsible for the sensational reactions that viewers (i.e., users) have.

The way I see it is this:
(0) If code is seen as protected speech, then we should be in the clear.
(1) If code is not defined as speech, then coders are in trouble since computer code will be a product and thus the producers, programmers, will be liable.
(2) If code is speech, then it might not simply be protected speech. In this case, the case needs to be made that code is information, and that if the producers are still to be held liable, then producers of other information sold as products, like musicians (see here for my arguments on music as information), should be held similarly liable, or vice versa.

I personally think code is protected speech; that it can be useful as a tool only occurs if you have a compiler. I would agree that, especially when money is not being made off of it (i.e., somewhat different from Napster's case), code should be considered like an art form, deserving free expression rights.

The bottom line, though, is that coders need to get vocal, and not just on discussion forums. Write the mainstream press, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, with letters to the editor; write something that outlines your positions in ways others will understand. Heck, I'll post it on DigitalRenegades. Just SAY something that others will hear.

Though it may sometimes not seem that the US is a democracy, it is. And lawmakers always want to keep their jobs by getting your vote.

SB

Editor, DigitalRenegades

Does anyone else here see the least bit of hypocrisy in that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to make producers liable for the actions of users?

What about the "free expression" rights always demanded by movie and music makers, so-called artists who are making media even more sensational, whether through violence or sex, simply to increase profits? Popular culture (not art, mind you, since that is not a product like popular culture is) has been defended on the grounds of free expression for years, but it is a product and is in many ways responsible for the sensational reactions that viewers (i.e., users) have.

The way I see it is this:
(0) If code is seen as protected speech, then we should be in the clear.
(1) If code is not defined as speech, then coders are in trouble since computer code will be a product and thus the producers, programmers, will be liable.
(2) If code is speech, then it might not simply be protected speech. In this case, the case needs to be made that code is information, and that if the producers are still to be held liable, then producers of other information sold as products, like musicians (see here for my arguments on music as information), should be held similarly liable, or vice versa.

I personally think code is protected speech; that it can be useful as a tool only occurs if you have a compiler. I would agree that, especially when money is not being made off of it (i.e., somewhat different from Napster's case), code should be considered like an art form, deserving free expression rights.

The bottom line, though, is that coders need to get vocal, and not just on discussion forums. Write the mainstream press, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, with letters to the editor; write something that outlines your positions in ways others will understand. Heck, I'll post it on DigitalRenegades. Just SAY something that others will hear.

Though it may sometimes not seem that the US is a democracy, it is. And lawmakers always want to keep their jobs by getting your vote.

SB

Editor, DigitalRenegades

Does anyone else here see the least bit of hypocrisy in that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to make producers liable for the actions of users?

What about the "free expression" rights always demanded by movie and music makers, so-called artists who are making media even more sensational, whether through violence or sex, simply to increase profits? Popular culture (not art, mind you, since that is not a product like popular culture is) has been defended on the grounds of free expression for years, but it is a product and is in many ways responsible for the sensational reactions that viewers (i.e., users) have.

The way I see it is this:
(0) If code is seen as protected speech, then we should be in the clear.
(1) If code is not defined as speech, then coders are in trouble since computer code will be a product and thus the producers, programmers, will be liable.
(2) If code is speech, then it might not simply be protected speech. In this case, the case needs to be made that code is information, and that if the producers are still to be held liable, then producers of other information sold as products, like musicians (see here for my arguments on music as information), should be held similarly liable, or vice versa.

I personally think code is protected speech; that it can be useful as a tool only occurs if you have a compiler. I would agree that, especially when money is not being made off of it (i.e., somewhat different from Napster's case), code should be considered like an art form, deserving free expression rights.

The bottom line, though, is that coders need to get vocal, and not just on discussion forums. Write the mainstream press, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, with letters to the editor; write something that outlines your positions in ways others will understand. Heck, I'll post it on DigitalRenegades. Just SAY something that others will hear.

Though it may sometimes not seem that the US is a democracy, it is. And lawmakers always want to keep their jobs by getting your vote.

SB

Editor, DigitalRenegades

Personally, I do not see why people, in the free software community especially, are so willing to just let mainstream media and business characterize all users of Gnutella, etc. as thieves and pirates (not to say that a large amount of those people are not on Napster, etc. though).

It is true that the free software movement is different in many ways from the free music debate. Free software supporters do not advocate piracy as a means to fight the big software companies; instead, free software supporters say essentially "make it yourself" and then the "it will be better" part includes both "free (as in speech)" and usually develops the "quality" aspect as well.

But how does a listener (i.e., user) of music (you can argue if this is information until you are blue in the face, but that is not the main point here) make his or her own music to replace that of the music industry? In this, the free music debate cannot be solved in the same way the free software debate can.

Like it or not, piracy is a more integral part of the "civil disobedience" aspect of the free music debate. Or at least it is at the moment.

Piracy can be replaced by the alternatives being proposed by sites like fairtunes.com. But that cannot happen if services like Gnutella are somehow outlawed.

So, we have to make our voices heard to support the continuance of services like Gnutella; as I see it, Napster has helped to draw attention to the free music debate but in all the wrong ways. There are very legitimate uses of the technology, but we cannot simply allow the terms such as "piracy" and "stealing" to continue in use since that undermines the entire host of alternatives to the RIAA.

If Gnutella, etc. are made illegal, then how exactly are these alternatives ever supposed to get off the ground?

SB

Editor, DigitalRenegades -- Give your opinions a permanence on the web; submit and make your voice heard.

I find that in Mr. Katz's article there are several points where it would be helpful to consider the concept of "fairness" in a broader perspective than simply in relation to the prices charged by recording companies, for example.

When I first heard the saying, "Information wants to be free," applied to the music copyright debate, I thought it was pointless. Music is entertainment, not information, one would at least first think. But, it came to me when thinking of the value of music as art that perhaps we should not be so quick to write off the consideration of music as information.

When we consider the natural right of free expression to be applied to the arts and humanities, frequently we come to the conclusion that having free expression is integral to a thriving artistic culture. But in guaranteeing free expression, for example, to musicians, is society being treated fairly by then having to pay simply to be exposed to the products of free expression?

I like to consider myself a big supporter of free speech/free expression/etc., but I also have a distaste for some of the "popular culture" (what I would call crap) that is being produced by the entertainment industry. However, as was seen in the previous crusades against explicit lyrics in music, for example in the ones led by Tipper Gore, the most that has been achieved by "concerned parents" organizations, for instance, has been the label of "explicit" lyrics now attached to many albums. The music industry continues to use the argument of free expression to allow it to produce sensational products, including rap by such "artists" as Eminem and Dr. Dre (just examples, since the "Up in Smoke" tour just rolled through my area).

But why, I should ask, should we as a society guarantee these musicians completely free expression? Are they truly artists?

The recent MP3 debate sheds some light on this question since copyrights, one can see, have had the effect at least in the music industry of turning music, the art, into music, the product. By demanding complete control of their works, "artists" like Lars Ulrich restrict the products of the free expression rights that society has vowed to protect. But in this control and subsequent requirement of payment, these "artists" limit the people that can be exposed to their works to only those socio-economic classes that can afford such exposure.

Thus, the lower socio-economic classes, who are very much a part of society, are not treated fairly by artists for whom those classes have guaranteed free expression rights. Also, those classes then cannot try to attempt any control of the content of those music products because of the right of free expression that has been granted to musicians.

The conclusion that I think arises from realizing that art is information (and therefore music as a form of art is information) is that if the current copyright system is to persist, then everyone must be guaranteed the ability to access the works of the artist in some way (hence, services like Napster, Gnutella, etc.) if the musicians are to be guaranteed the right to free expression.

Otherwise, if musicians like Lars Ulrich want to have "complete" control of their works, then they should have to answer to "concerned parents" organizations concerning the content of their music, being that their music is a product and not the art protected by free expression. That we restrict pornography from minors, for example, shows how things that are products can have their content controlled by organizations like those of "concerned parents."

I do not wish that musicians be controlled by parental organizations, but in the sense of fairness, I think that businesses should have to live up to standards of propriety. If music is to be a business, then let it be controlled. Art is not responsible for the downfall of society, but sensational popular culture products made sensational to make more money do not help artistic culture to survive and grow.

www.DigitalRenegades.org -- Good comments or editorials getting unfortunately buried? Submit them to get them published on the web for all to see.

In reality, the Napster shutdown is not the worst fallout that could result from this case. Napster is essentially a business that has as its strategy using the trading of copyrighted works as a means to make money for itself. In this sense, Napster is not significantly better than the RIAA in terms of exploitation of other people, though the RIAA companies certainly have exploited more artists and customers in their actions.

The worst of the outcome in this case lies in how digital copyright violators are perceived by the mainstream media (and especially the representatives in DC) after this case is over. The business aspect of Napster has unfortunately been associated with the users of Napster, but in reality (as shown by the earlier articles on the insides of Napster, Inc.) the reasoning and purposes of the two groups of people differs widely.

Napster users could very well being using Gnutella, Freenet, or any other service (including OpenNAP servers) that allows the "piracy" of copyrighted works. The justification of those users would still have the same validity, though, regardless of the service being used. The Napster business group, though, as described above, is essentially planning to exploit the copyrighted works of others to make money. Due to the fact that Napster, Inc. is being sued, though, the users will likely be branded "pirates" and "thieves" along with the company due to the inevitable adoption by the mainstream media of the RIAA's lexicon.

So, in conclusion, I would say that losing Napster is not the bad part of this case. It is the possiblity that users of those services, people who violate digital copyrights but feel that such action is justified in some way, will result from this case with a bad reputaion, unable to be taken seriously since they are perceived simply as criminals, just like those once-famous Napster executives.

SB

www.digitalrenegades.org is a great idea! I hope that a good number of people saw the post and bookmark the site. It has happened quite a number of times on /. that people were looking for more places to voice their opinions. If dr catches on and gains some recognition by receiving intelligent contributions, it could be a nice voice of the people. I'll be checking the site over the next few weeks and will try to find the time to contribute something myself.

Although the mailing lists mentioned above are certainly good for insightful discussion, I do not think that mailing lists will serve well to get our voices heard since there is usually a lot of discussion that can bury good, insightful, and intelligent comments. I think it would be best to try to unify the voices as to why the current copyright violations are NOT simply wrong or immoral.

I have started a web site, www.digitalrenegades.org, for anyone that would like to write something to be posted in the form of an essay, a short opinion, or as a response to an article (in the mainstream media, for example). If you have any suggestions please feel free to e-mail. I think we need to unify our dissent to show that these violations are not immoral but ultimately caused at least in part by corporate domination.