Slashdot Mirror

3) Those who apply for an extension get one for 10 years. We could make it 5 if you like. The cost - $1 million per work. If you don't apply and pay the money, it goes into the public domain.

That is appealing to me, but would probably not fly with the big companies. American laws are relatively cheap to buy.

It's a long time since i read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, but IIRC he argues that a mandatory renewal in order to keep rights would be a huge improvement on the current situation even if the cost were $100 or free. The gist is that it would make available and save a lot of art that would otherwise be lost forever.

For instance it's not feasible to contact the participants in a movie/descendants of same to obtain permission for transferring old decaying cellulose films to a digital format, and a lot of movies from the 50's are decaying beyond recovery because of this.

Sheet music that didn't sell well, but can be useful for researchers and others can not be distributed because it's very difficult to even determine who the current rights holder is, let alone contact that person and get permission for a work they have never heard about. They might not even know that their grandfather wrote music.

If it were possible for Disney to keep making money on the soon-to-be centennarian mouse while requiring everyone to actually make a trivial effort to keep the rights to works they actually make money from we'd be a long way ahead of where we are now. You could even do something like making the fee non-trivial, but reimbursable on proof of actual profit from the work.

To learn about copyright ethics -- that is, how unethical the very concept is -- be sure to read Boldrin & Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly and Lessig's Free Culture.

> Because not watching Game of Thrones is a life threatening situation...

Some people believe that the extremely long term and onerous punishments which copyright inflicts on our society are life threatening to our culture.

Secondly, what TPB has succeeded in doing is showing the world that it is a practical impossibility to enforce copyright. When you add this to Bill Gates' candid confession that even if Microsoft had a magic genie which could totally prevent piracy of Windows in China, they wouldn't use it, you could interpret (wrongly, I know) your utterance as concerning (somehow totally enforced) copyright as being life threatening to the relative popularity of Game of Thrones.

I find it reasonable that Mickey is copyrighted as long as Disney company actively use the character and that can be for a very long time. The same should be true of any work being actively exploited (i.e. being in print or software being distributed).

I don't necessarily agree that a company must be able to exploit a work "for a very long time" (in perpetuity, as it turns out, with the Mickey Mouse act), that right should belong to the creator and possibly his/her immediate descendants. Otherwise I totally agree. So many works get lost because there's no practical way to obtain the rights to reproduce them, even if the work has no commercial value (probably > 99% of works still in copyright), and even if you're willing to pay for the rights. Leave the rights to commercially valuable works in the creator's hands, and let the rest be free for the public good.

In his CC book Free CultureLawrence Lessig outlines the problems with the current legislature and suggests a reasonable solution to the whole copyright issue which adresses all of Big Content's concerns, at least the overt ones. The book is a very good read, it's not outdated even if it's a few years old.

Like speeding, just because a law exists doesn't mean I will obey it. If I want to convert my Watch to cash, I will find a way to do it.

That is actually a really good segway into Free Culture. I'm recalling the book's discussion relating to the Adobe eReader incident.

This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright law as copyright code. The controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratied by courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded by programmers.And whereas the controls that are built into the law are always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the technology have no similar built-in check.

In the future, you don't break the law. The law breaks you.

Let me Google that for you.

In your defense, I did misspell it. It's "compulsory licensing", not "compulsive licensing". It's a well-established legal practice (it dates from late 19th and early 20th century, when faithful reproduction of a work became easy with radios, etc.).

Read Lessig's Free Culture, if you want to inform yourself properly. He'll explain it better than I can anyway.

Oh, right. Since you can't use Google, here's the link to Free Culture (he has a PDF there).

Furthermore, I've seen plenty of startups and even some actors and such that have embraced newer business models that don't necessarily depend on charging for content. I think the companies are terrified of this concept because this generally requires the content to actually be good to get the public to consume it. If the public isn't consuming it, you don't get advertisers and such. Most (not all) products and services out there have required the public to pay first. This was fine back in the day when good customer relations was key to keeping up sales.

I'm not sure I follow your version of history. If you're talking about the history of 'content' then some of the oldest existing business models do not depend on charging for content. Radio stole recorded performances and gave the content away for free. Eventually they had to pay composers (but not performers), and that's still the business model used today. They don't charge for content, and the content isn't famous (on slashdot anyway) for being good. But people still consume it, so they get advertisers. Broadcast TV doesn't charge for content, yet the same business model is in play here too. So 'back in the day when ....' does not refer to a time when providers charged for content universally.

Yes it's true that some business models 'back in the day' charged for content, just as some do today. And yes today we have some companies trying government intervention and/or litigation as a way to get the money, just as we did 'back in the day'.

You seem like someone who would enjoy (and benefit from) reading Lawrence Lessigs' book Free Culture (see http://www.free-culture.cc/toc/) which details some of the history of 'mere copyists' and content 'pirates' who are today's litigants. I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I don't really think you have a strong grip on the history of content providers. And since I'd like you to succeed in convincing the people who hear you, I think you'd be better off with more historical fact, rather than historical romanticizing.

Just my .02 cents (worth even less these days since George Vaccaro got done with Verizon)

Just wanted to mention that one should also check out Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, which has an interesting history of copyright, and the erosion of the public domain.

Boldrin and Levine have posted the bulk of their book Against Intellectual Monopoly on the Web. So, if you don't want to purchase a dead-tree version of the work, you can download what amounts to an e-book (free of charge, but minus the front and back matter) from Mssr. Boldrin's website.

Last time I checked, there was a copyright regime in place for published works. I call these authors enlightened, not hypocritical, for finding a middle ground. Their publisher, Cambridge University Press, probably requires a copyright on any works that they distribute, if for no other reason than to protect their investment. The publisher also shows a degree of enlightenment, in allowing the simultaneous posting in digital form without DRM, unlike most publishers these days. By the way, Lawrence Lessig has followed a similar approach with his book Free Culture. (That work is also copyrighted, but the PDF version on the Web is released under a Creative Commons license.)

See Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig (particularly the chapter outlining the four types of "piracy") and the introduction to Cory Doctorow's Little Brother for a far more succinct explanation of why Doctorow put it on the internet (and still sells tons of hardcover copies, iinm it was in the NYT's top 10). you and the publishers are not only wrong, but in the publishers' case, possibly terminally wrong.

Nobody ever went broke because of pirates, but lots of people have gone broke because nobody ever heard of their work.

When Asimov's Foundation trilogy was first published, he got no royalties at all from its publisher, a small company without the means to publicize. It only started making money when Doubleday bought the rights from that small publisher and let people know it existed. It won a Hugo for all time best science fiction series.

I don't know how many authors I've discovered by checking out their books at the library, then buying other of their books later. A free download, whether sanctioned or not, helps publishers rather than hurting them.

If you think the Slashdot crowd hasn't been making any sensible arguments (either pro or con) on the issue of copyright, well, there *are* people elsewhere who do make well-reasoned argument not based on ad hominem attacks but on the disastrous consequences of overly strong copyright laws.

Why don't you go read what they have to say and decide for yourself whether the copyright laws as they stand currently are worth defending?

If you want to make sure that you get all your arguments from a proven liberal (I don't know which side of the political spectrum the QuestionCopyright guys associate themselves with), you can always read what Lawrence Lessig has to say.

Just to complement your post with some reading material which can provide a lucid insight into the arguments that support the idea that (regardless of what your general opinion on copyright law is) the current implementation of copyright law is deeply flawed, having into account its original purpose (like you said, to secure a temporary monopoly of distribution of a work in order to promote the useful arts and sciences): http://free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

Don't worry, you can read it first, aknowledge the added value his work provides to society and pay the author afterwards if you feel he deseves it, like I did.

"Content creators" nowadays often assume that their works are created in a vacuum/ivory tower and that whatever they create is automagically unique and original and thus they have some sort of (god-given? gov-given?) unalienable eternal ownership rights over anything they may have thought up (or that vaguely resembles anything they may have thought up). That's one part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is the entertainment and scientific publishers which are increasingly becoming irrelevant in terms of usefulness (I can safely say that they are nowadays "hampering" in terms of usefulness), which are, of course, violently struggling for a "bail out".

I'm not American, but I'm kinda curious to see how Obama is going to deal with this (so far, the prospects aren't good). I can only wish you good luck.

It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.

No, but it's evil assist those who would seek to destroy our culture. This is the battleground: between greed and the preservation of our way of life.

I'm not kidding, and a shitload of people agree with me

I'm still waiting for slashdot article #1 where somebody presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers.

Sorry bud, but it ain't gonna happen. The "rightsholders" are the labels - this is only one of many reforms that need to be made. The recording artists should own copyright; they should NOT be "works for hire".

Copyright lengths need to be brought back down to sane levels. I should NOT have to pay for a Jimi Hendrix download.

Copyrights need to be registered again. Automatic granting of copyright is madness.

Out of print works should not be covered by copyright.

it would be so very socially awkward to point out that virtually all policies slashdot have supported so far amount to in effect a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy

I don't know where you got the idea that Sony-BMI executives (who actually own the copyrights) are poor and the downloaders are wealthy.

I suggest you read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. The following quote is abridged:

File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.

A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content.

B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it.

C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful type A sharing is.

While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example.

The fact is, the labels are on the wrong side of history. Independant (non-RIAA) artists have learned to use the internet to their advantage. The RIAA wants to use copyright law to kill the independant competetion, who use Lessig's "D" as a means of promotion.

It isn't about music lovers "stealing" music -- study after study shows that "pirates" spend more money on music than non-pirates. It's about squashing competetion. The RIAA has radio, the indies have P2P, so the RIAA wants to kill P2P.

Nobody outside the industry who understands the situation is on the RIAA's side.

Indeed. I just finished reading his book Creative Commons (you can download it here). I have to say I agree with just about everything he says in the book.

I think that if all his reforms were instituted, there wouldn't be an "abolish copyright" movement. If copyrights were truly limited, most of what is downloaded would be free to download anyway.

The main thrust of the book is that the "permission culture" (as opposed to "free culture") harms creativity itself, something I've also been preaching.

Have you hear the Kidd Rock song "all summer long?" It starts with a note-for-note and sound for sound copy of Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London and copies much of Skynard's Sweet Home Alabama (the song is about drinking whiskey and smoking dope and having sex while listening to Sweet Home Alabama). The Zevon start is a very creative statement about the fact that the two songs use the same chords and sound a lot alike, something he isn't alone in noticing (a friend of mine who plays in bars does a medely of those two songs and a third I can't think of right now). If he wasn't on the same label as Warren Zevon and Lynard Skynard, there would be hellishly expensive lawsuits. It isn't right that no independant artist could have recorded a similar song.

I've been reading Lessig's Free Culture (available online somewhere; I have a local copy). From the preface:

On December 17, 1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a heavier-than-air, self-propelled vehicle could fly. The moment was electric and its importance widely understood. Almost immediately, there was an explosion of interest in this newfound technology of manned flight, and a gaggle of innovators began to build upon it.

At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American law held that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface of his land, but all the land below, down to the center of the earth, and all the space above, to "an indefinite extent, upwards."1 For many years, scholars had puzzled about how best to interpret the idea that rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean that you owned the stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and regular trespass?

Then came airplanes, and for the first time, this principle of American law--deep within the foundations of our tradition, and acknowledged by the most important legal thinkers of our past--mattered. If my land reaches to the heavens, what happens when United flies over my field? Do I have the right to banish it from my property? Am I allowed to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth?

In 1945, these questions became a federal case. When North Carolina farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens because of low-flying military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently flew into the barn walls and died), the Causbys filed a lawsuit saying that the government was trespassing on their land. The airplanes, of course, never touched the surface of the Causbys' land. But if, as Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to "an indefinite extent, upwards," then the government was trespassing on their property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had declared the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the heavens, then Congress's declaration could well have been an unconstitutional "taking" of property without compensation. The Court acknowledged that "it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe." But Justice Douglas had no patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph, hundreds of years of property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court,

[The] doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim.2

"Common sense revolts at the idea."

He's no Isaac Asimov; the book isn't exactly gripping, but what he has to say is incredibly important.

Ironically, searching Google Books for Lessig's freely available book yields this: "This is a preview. The total pages displayed will be limited."

You can read/download it here at. Here is a PDF version.

I've been reading Lessig's Free Culture (available online somewhere; I have a local copy). From the preface:

On December 17, 1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a heavier-than-air, self-propelled vehicle could fly. The moment was electric and its importance widely understood. Almost immediately, there was an explosion of interest in this newfound technology of manned flight, and a gaggle of innovators began to build upon it.

At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American law held that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface of his land, but all the land below, down to the center of the earth, and all the space above, to "an indefinite extent, upwards."1 For many years, scholars had puzzled about how best to interpret the idea that rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean that you owned the stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and regular trespass?

Then came airplanes, and for the first time, this principle of American law--deep within the foundations of our tradition, and acknowledged by the most important legal thinkers of our past--mattered. If my land reaches to the heavens, what happens when United flies over my field? Do I have the right to banish it from my property? Am I allowed to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth?

In 1945, these questions became a federal case. When North Carolina farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens because of low-flying military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently flew into the barn walls and died), the Causbys filed a lawsuit saying that the government was trespassing on their land. The airplanes, of course, never touched the surface of the Causbys' land. But if, as Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to "an indefinite extent, upwards," then the government was trespassing on their property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had declared the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the heavens, then Congress's declaration could well have been an unconstitutional "taking" of property without compensation. The Court acknowledged that "it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe." But Justice Douglas had no patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph, hundreds of years of property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court,

[The] doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim.2

"Common sense revolts at the idea."

He's no Isaac Asimov; the book isn't exactly gripping, but what he has to say is incredibly important.

Ironically, searching Google Books for Lessig's freely available book yields this: "This is a preview. The total pages displayed will be limited."

You can read/download it here at. Here is a PDF version.

A student should get a fine for breaking the law, but one that matches the crime done. But students shouldn't get nailed for things like modifying a search engine that indexes songs and getting nailed with $15,000,000 lawsuit in damages. That's the *AAs.

Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture goes into detail about this subject and comes to the conclusion that it's a load of bullshit made up by the media companies.

It was sarcasm.

It's just as possible. For some reason, though, the internet is the one that scares content providers. Maybe it's the democratic nature of the web, as you point out, but I suspect a lot of it's just illogical fear.

Maybe, but one argument against mere "illogical fear" can be seen if you read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, where he describes his experience in trying to pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act.

The act proposed one small change to current copyright law: that after 50 years, a copyright holder would have to pay $1.00 for each ten years of it's existing copyright protection to maintain copyright protection, otherwise the work goes into the public domain. This would allow old commercially nonviable works to go into public domain after a reasonable period, yet imposes only the most trivial burden on maintaining protect for the tiny minority of works that are still commercially valuable after that period. However, the industry fought the bill tooth-and-nail and defeated it, for stated reasons you can see at the Wikipedia link which sound pretty disingenuous to me.

I tend to favor Lessig's argument, as summarized by WP:

"Proponents, however, have suggested that the real threat this poses to copyright holders is that a huge wave of previously unseen, unused, and forgotten works would spill into the public domain, free for anyone to tamper with. The PDEA would not compromise currently used copyrighted works like Mickey Mouse. Content that is being used, or even content whose owner is aware they 'own' it can be protected for a minimal fee. They suggest there is no reason to oppose it other than the fear of competition from the influx of new content."

And *that* is what I think they really fear about internet radio, not that people will steal their content, but rather *compete* with it.

That is a complex question, and it's best to start with where copyright came from.

I'd highly recommend that you read the Free Culture book by Lawrence Lessig:

http://www.free-culture.cc/

Lawrence Lessig has made his Free Culture book available for free. Chris Anderson is not very credible unless he does the same with his book.

As far as I can make out he's a single issue candidate (that may be a bit unfair, but close enough) trying to get a seat in a first past the post democracy. In other words don't hold your breath.

Lessig himself is the author of Free Culture and one of the architects of the Creative Commons licence (although this isn't the issue he's running on, it's an anti-corruption ticket as far as I can make out).

He'd probably do well in a proportional representation system, as it is he has to convince a limited geographical area to give him more votes than any other candidate; this article is about him facing up to reality.

The only problem is, songwriters don't have a full control over their creative work. The mechanics of the system goes under various names, such as "compulsory license", "statutory license", or in TFA, "mechanical license". Lessig's Free Culture gives a better account than I can, but the most songwriters can do is refuse to write more songs, not refuse to license their already-published work.

Given the usual release cycles of albums (probably the real difference between the music industry and TV shows), they will need to do be able to sustain their strike for one year or longer—how many strikes have you seen that lasted one whole year?

Great response.

I'll just add a nod to Lessig's Free Culture : when the RIAA and other media groups allow things to enter public domain (as they every 20 years for our country's first few hundred years), I'll start considering file-sharing as theft.

Until then its just a digital tea party.

Read Lessig's Free Culture http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf for a large number of well-reasoned responses, as well as numerous examples of the culture-squashing nature of existing copyright law.

"The Lion King 4" may or may not be a worthy work to hypothesize the existence of -- in the hands of one artist, it might be crap. In the hands of another, it might transcend all possible boundaries, far surpassing the Disney creation from which it was inspired. But unfortunately, no one will know until the year 2089 (1994 + 95 years). (That is, of course, unless the Disney Empire manages to get that extended further.)

Within the span of, say, 7-14 years from a creation's origin, it does seems a bit hard to argue with the original intent of copyright. But I can imagine even your facetious example being quite differently perceived in another decade or two. Certainly in nine.

I think the worst offenses on modern culture are probably against the youth remix/mashup community -- I've seen some incredible acts of creativity that basically can't be shared. They are for all practical purposes illegal, unless the artists go out of their way to claim "fair use" and take their chances with a lawsuit. The biggest offenses against legitimate fair use are the abuse of power and greed by these same corporations -- there are numerous documentarians who have not had the legal resources available to defend their fair use in court. Their creativity has been limited by corporate power in the name of copyright, even though their fair use is valid and legal. It's a matter of David and Goliath, and who knows what cultural significance we have lost when they are too afraid of being sued to create, or limit their vision out of the necessity of that fear. (The "Simpsons" clip incident in Lessig's book comes to mind, where Fox studio execs wanted $10,000 for a license to use a four-and-a-half second clip showing a episode of Matt Groening's "The Simpsons" on a tiny TV in the corner of a shot. Obviously fair use, yet squashed by the threat of legal action.)

To answer you directly: There is really no telling what the impact on our culture has been -- how the benefits to our culture have been reduced since the extension of copyright. We can't really know what numerous works of creative genius we have been denied.

Again, read Free Culture and see what you think after that sobering/insightful document.

What else is new?

Lawrence Lessig is saying just that for many years and he acknowledges that it is mostly in harmony with Richard Stallman's ideas. He doesn't propose abolition of copyright, but a constructive reform.

Lessig's "Free Culture" is one of the best books i ever read: http://www.free-culture.cc/

There is no possible way to sum this up in a slashdot comment, but I think the best I have ever heard it put was by Lawrence Lessig in his book, Free Culture .

Also, because it must be said, "You must be new here."

Thanks for the thoughtful replies Pfhorrest.

You seem like a person interested in property rights and copyright law. Here are some additional resources that clarify my viewpoints towards the fundamental connection between rights and property, and how so-called "intellectual property" and copyright laws muddy the waters.

The first is a video series by Michael Badnarik on the US Constitution. You can view the entire series here: http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

The second is a great book on copyright law history by Lawrence Lessig. Again, freely available here: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

While I fervently disagree with your assertion that a person can truly own something while at the same time be restricted from doing something with it, I respect your opinion. I hope you find the links I provided interesting (if you haven't already read/viewed them), I know I did.

Have a nice day.

Your post assumes that there are no artistic works that would not be made because of copyright laws as they exist now.

Give me a scenario.

You might want to read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. (It's even downloadable for free.) In it, he gives a number of scenarios where highly restrictive copyright laws, combined with the fact that there is no central registry by which one can determine what works are copyrighted any by whom, do inhibit creators from creating content.

This is the most insightful work I've read yet on the problems of modern copyright.

I'll refer you to Chapter Two of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture (http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf). The gist of it is that during the late 1800s, there were a series of court cases that were to determine whether or not you needed permission to take photographs of anything that did not belong to you. This would include personal likenesses, landscapes of other people's property, etc. Thankfully the courts' answer was No, with a few minor exceptions for commercial paparazzi, but if it had gone the other way it could have actually killed off all of amateur photography.

But unfortunately, in this day and age we seem to have this notion that everything of incidental value, that is even tangentially related to intellectual property, is exclusively controlled by the owner of that property. And let's not forget that the facts of IP infringement cases are irrelevant if the target is a single, poorly-funded entity that can be buried in legal threats. We've learned this from the ??AA suits and various Cease and Desists for Fair Use.

How are you, gentlemen?

From the article:

It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.

This is exactly what people like Lawrence Lessig ( Free Culture ) and Yochai Benkler ( The Wealth of Networks ) have been saying all the time.

The magic and fascinating thing about the Internet isn't that it makes it more convenient to purchase pre-packaged content from big media corporations (although that is good too), but that it makes new forms of cooperation between people possible, on a scale never seen before.

The examples used by Benkler in The Wealth of Networks include the ones listed in the article, but he also mentions Slashdot as another example of the same phenomenon.

So, yes, I do feel that we all have reason to feel just a tiny bit proud about having received this award. The award has gone to the internet culture that we have all taken part in fostering and promoting, and it is great to see that being recognized by the mainstream media in this way.

Ad ignorantium. Historically, artists were commissioned and each product was handmade, so they were compensated for their time. Now, a painter can paint a painting and it can be lithographically copied...

You still don't get it. Without the first one, there aren't any to copy. That is why artists will still be paid even without copyright. I'm not going to make the first one until you pay me. You can make as many copies as you want but you will not have anything to copy unless I get paid.

I find it particularly delicious that you mention the mandate of the Constitution. Perhaps you're not aware that the Framers were rabidly opposed to ANY devolution of property and ownership rights?

Apparently you haven't actually READ the constitution. Try reading the section where it mentions copyright. It's very cleary seperate from the sections dealing with actual physical property. They go so far as to explicitly say that copyright shall be for a limited time only after which it reverts to the public, a very stark contrast to the statements they make regarding real property. Lawrence Lessig, in his book "Free Culture" goes into this is detail. You are simply wrong on this point.

Nobody said anything about guarantee.

Actually you did:
"Artists deserve to break even at the very least on the work they put into a project."

There is no welfare for the public if you've wiped out all the innovative thinkers and artists

This is simply BS. It is a demonstrable fact that thinkers and artists existed BEFORE copyright. To suggest that the abolishment of copyright would lead to the total cessation of invention and creativity shows an ignorance of both history and the motives of both scientists and artists.

Copyright law reserves the right of copying a work to the author of the work. You may not copy a work to your computer's disk, to its RAM, or portions thereof to its cache, processor and other components without permission.

You should read Free Culture for an understanding of why copyright controls everything in the digital age, particularly the "PROPERTY" chapter and especially pages 139 onwards.

Read this book: Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig (PDF warning). He discusses the different types of piracy. I'm in a criminology class, and right now (beginning of semester), we're defining crime. A lot of it has to do with the idea of "social harm". Some piracy brings social harm, some piracy brings social benefit, and some brings no net social change at all. The goal here should be getting rid of "harmful" piracy while allowing "beneficial" or "neutral" piracy. In fact, a clever person could find ways to optimize their benefit from "beneficial piracy" and get some gains out of "neutral" piracy. that's what I'm trying to say.

Someone has read http://www.free-culture.cc/ the book by Lawrence Lessig?

In theory, you're 100% covered by fair use.

In practice, fair use is an incredibly fuzzy thing. If you can't pay or your company can't pay a team of lawyers to protect your fair use rights against the 800lb gorillas from Hollywood, then you better not do it.

Lawrence Lessig details this issue in his book. Basically, even if it is a cut clear case of fair use, even then it is only clear cut as long as you have the lawyers to back that up. Lessig mentions the case when some documentary filmmaker was filming in a theatre and there was about 4 seconds of Simpsons caught on footage from a tv in the corner of the recorded picture. The guy who made the documentary wanted to clear rights for that 4 seconds, and the company who owns the rights to Simpsons demanded $10,000 (for something theoretically free under fair use). He couldn't even think about just using it anyway based on fair use, because the company he was making the documentary for had insured his production. It ment that lawyers would review the production and they would look for (among others) fair use parts, and if they didn't clear rights for those supposedly fair use parts from the copyright holder, they would most certainly never approve the production, because in their opinion it would carry too much of a risk factor.

So there you have it, theory and practice.

"I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California. The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert Fairbank, had produced.

The video was a brilliant collage of film from every period in the twentieth century, all framed around the idea of a 60 Minutes episode. The execution was perfect, down to the sixty-minute stopwatch. The judges loved every minute of it.

When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David Nimmer, perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the nation. He had an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the room of over 250 well-entertained judges.Taking an ominous tone, he began his talk with a question: "Do you know how many federal laws were just violated in this room?""

These are ominous, deep and dark waters that you want to wade through. Get a lawyer, a very good lawyer.

Sera

I should have added in my post, that although i am by no means an expert on the matter, I felt that this was such an important issue and that I should try to find out more about it. Lawrence Lessigs e-book: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf was the best reference I have read and gives a very good overview of the issues at stake. Everyone, and certainly everyone in IT, should read it to be able to accurately inform people not in IT about the real issues.
--finite9

The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing.
It has many similarities to what is described in the article, and I think it is a solution that is best for everyone. Lawrence Lessig, in Free Culture (a great, freely downloadable book on related subjects), calls it a chimera. It is wrong to rob the artists, but it is also wrong for the RIAA to treat their fans as criminals. The solution is in the middle, and I think the collective licensing idea is it.

Retroactively.

After all of Disney's execs had a massive group-orgasm, one of the brighter ones would crawl out from under the sea of cum and realize the implications, ruining the party. They'd have to find each and every living heir to the guy who wrote Cinderella and negotiate the movie rights for the derivative work. For millions and millions. Per heir.

Add Snow White, The Hunchback and even Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill to the mix and you'd be looking at an instant bankruptcy.

After that's done, we could revoke copyrights altogether.

But, first you need to read this book: Lawrence Lessig - Free Culture. You'll love it.

http://www.free-culture.cc/

If it were up to me, this would be required reading for anyone who wishes to participate in a debate about copyright. Seriously, everyone - download (or better yet, buy!) a copy and read it cover to cover.

Relevant book on exactly the post's topic: "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig. See http://www.free-culture.cc/ for more info, and http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf for a free PDF download of the book.

Relevant book on exactly the post's topic: "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig. See http://www.free-culture.cc/ for more info, and http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf for a free PDF download of the book.

Yes, I agree the letter of the law might be with the authors, though it's a bit of a gray area here. My point was that the law has been subverted from the intention of such laws and what Google is doing is exactly what they were intended to promote. It's a shame, especially if the authors win.

As a bit of an aside, I'm wondering if such laws are consitutional. While Eldred v. Ashcroft lost the constitutional fight on the grounds that Congress can only create such laws for a limited time and they are effectively unlimted now, I think the better argument is that Congress is only allowed to create such laws "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Clause 8). If Google is stopped it is a clear demonstration that the laws violate this principle and are therefore unconstitutional. IANAL either, but the principle is quite clear in layman's terms, and even in Eldred the judges hinted to Lessig that he might have a better chance by arguing this over the "effectively unlimited" theory, as he outlines in Free Culture.

Until then, I'd really suggest you not make blanket statements for which you are not logically equipped to back up.

Copyrighted works have value and, in the case of music, it is demostrated value (people pay for it). Because people are obtaining the music without paying for it, against the wishes of the copyright holder, when they would have had to pay for it

Used music purchases are often against the "wishes" of the copyright holder, do not benefit the copyright holder, and deprive the copyright holder 'income'. Copyright law wasn't about protecting holder's incomes, in fact it was really the opposite. Copyright law was designed to force things into the public domain, as the common law at the time allowed for the argument of perpetual copyright. It isn't until recently that there is all this crying over derivative works, insanely long copyright terms and instant copyright of everything without application and without application for extensions. These benefit the corporations, the holders, and do not benefit the people or public in any way. It undermines the public domain and reduces creative possibilities.

Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.

Actually it is a valid argument. If those in favor of stringent copyright laws want to argue in favor of "lost sales" without providing any proof to the matter other than made up numbers, then yes, the otherside can say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."

I'm not against copyright and I do believe that creators deserve protection. But there needs to modifications to take into account current technology, and the lifetime of a copyright needs to be severly reduced to encourage innovation and allow the public domain, and thus the public, to flourish. And, contrary to what people want you to believe, the point of the following line is to LIMIT the term of IP protection: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Copyright law is a by-product of mass media. Mass media was created with Gutenberg's invention of the printing press (actually the invention of typesetting). Lessig's book "Free Culture" tells a bit about the history of copyright law.

I find it very interesting when, from time to time, someone writes a post where he, intentionally or not, mistakes theft with copyright infringement. Copyright infringement has NOTHING to do with theft... they have even two different names, see? Do you think that if it was actually theft they would bother naming it in a different way? So why do you keep mixing the two things togheter? Maybe to make the people think that copying an MP3 is like stealing a CD? Saying lies to people won't help their cause.

Besides... i always hear the RIAA talk about theft... but i never see anyone talk about the HUGE theft that RIAA and friends did to our society. The THEFT of culture! Did you know that copyright, until just a bunch of years ago, was limited to no more than 28 years or so? Did you know that if an author did not renew its copyright after 14 years his work would go into public domain?

28 years was MORE THAN ENOUGH for an author to make a living from his works, actually... 14 years was MORE than enough, but he had the option to renew the copyright and keep making money from it for 14 years more. But this... to RIAA and friends, was not enough, because they want to STEAL money from the work of others. This is the ONLY reason why now the copyright lasts so much. If it was for them Copyright would never expire. They would keep making money forever from the work of long dead authors if they just had a chance. THIS IS THEFT, not a 13 years old who downloads even 10 thousands of MP3s since he would NOT have bought them anyways.

If you want to know more about the THEFT that RIAA and friends did to our society then read this book, it is free: http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

After you read it, come back here and say "sorry" to this kid for have calling him/her a thief.

Now that the Supreme Court has set "active inducement" as the standard for liability, the RIAA is trying to establish a paper trail to use in subsequent trials against these services.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. "We got one of you for this, now we're going to try to prove that everyone else is guilty of it." To be fair though, Grokster were a lot more actively promoting infringement — I'm not convinced any of these other companies are in real danger. Now that the Supreme Court has set a standard, all companies need to do is avoid it.

The overwhelming influence people can have with money is just horrible though — I can never remove the Jesse Jordan case from my memory.

(Incidentally, that link is to an online version of Lessig's Free Culture, which I'd recommend to anyone with even a passing interest in these disputes over copyright, even though probably not directly applicable here.)