Slashdot Mirror
When Elephants Dance
One Michael Fraase has written an excellent piece on the battle between the entertainment industry and everyone else titled "When Elephants Dance." Well worth reading, and bookmarking, and referring newbies to in order to get them up to speed in the digital content wars. His solution is right on, too, IMHO.
What I don't get, from reading the article, is: who is the second elephant? The technology companies like Philips or MS?
but they did it too. I was reading an article for my silent film class at lunch today, and it described a court case where for the first time filmmakers were forced to pay an author of a book for putting it on screen (apparently a film company had made an adaptation of 'Ben Hur' without crediting or paying the author of the book). This quote from the article struck me: "There was no copyright law to protect authors and I could, and did, infringe on everything", that was Gene Gauntier, who wrote the unauthorized adaptation of Ben Hur. talk about the pot calling the kettle black in this whole distribution-of-content mess. as soon as the technology shows up, people will infringe on copyrights. it happened in 1912, and it'll happen now.
The demand to restrict the copyright to 14 years is pretty naive.
The Copyright Act of 1790 provided for a 14-year copyright term, renewable for 14 additional years. I remember reading that life expectancy for five-year-olds (a statistic that ignores infant mortality but does include child prodigies) has not increased significantly in the 200-odd years since that act was passed.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The corp is different, it doesn't create. It is just a very large self-perpetuating overhead. At the same time a corporation is a useful way that large projects get financed, allowing the risk and losses to be split. Companies started as ways of financing risky projects such as a ship of trade goods on a single return journey.
Keep the corporate rights holder, after all we want films like LOTR financed, don't we? However, I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of limiting the length of the rights to 14 years.
Ex post facto laws (making laws retroactive) are illegal as per the Constitution.
Although, given the reparations for slavery case, maybe I'm mistaken.
I support the solution that the original author cites, but making them retroactive is gonna be difficult.
Redhawk
What the fuck to the MPAA and RIAA member companies think they're going to do when all computers are encumbered with this new copy-protection technology?
Lucas wants to go 100% digital, from the lens to the screen.
Disney wants to eliminate celluloid from the animation process, most animated features are done largely on computer.
Tell me that all the digital toys the music industry has to play with could be dispensed with in the production of the latest BoyBand video?
So - you're going to take all your creative professionals, encumber the fuck out of their equipment, you'll be increasing your OWN production costs by an order of magnitude - and more since you wont be able to use cheap commodity hardware anymore, because economy of scale will not apply to things that mainstream consumers aren't going to buy zillions of. And who's going to support your encumbered technology? Certainly not the $10/hr MCSE who learned NT and Linux on his homebrew Athalon running pirated software playing pirated MP3s.
Eisner says he's tired of being finessed by the technology industry? I think he's too full of himself. Don't bite the hand that feeds you Mickey.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
... A mandate for Fair Use.
IE something that reads along the lines of "Fair Use rights must be exercisable."
Right now, we have the rights, but the industry is making it so we can't exercise them.
One of the most immediate ways you can help is to stop perpeutating the linguistic fraud.
http://goatee.net/2002/03#_26tu
02.03.26.tu | propaganda (part 3)
Honestly! I had not intended to return to the frustrating
topic of copyright for some time but Michael Eisner's commentary in
the Financial Times has provided an opportune example of the
misleading usage of the "property".
Abe Lincoln and the internet pirates: The great Emancipator's
forthright defence of intellectual property rights holds true
today.
What was that forthright defense? The statement that the restriction
of speech and ideas, "secured to the inventor, for a limited time, the
exclusive use of his invention; and thereby added the fuel of interest
to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and
useful things." I do not disagree with Abe Lincoln, but I do disagree
with Eisner because while he may laud the principle he has distorted
and abused its application. And those of us that get fed-up with
Eisner and his ilk sometimes lash out at the whole artfully
constructed facade. This is a dangerous position for us to be in; as I
wrote two years ago, "... it's difficult to voice this opinion because
the small encroachments of copyright and patent that led to the
present system are largely unseen. It's a creeping heaviness, but to
complain of the invisible weight is thought to be unreasonable."
However, my own reason does begin to fray when presented with a
continued discrepancy between noble principles and unprincipled
action: the perpetual extension of the original 14 year copyright term
, the censoring of research, the theft of authors works via an
underhanded amendment making all recordings works-for-hire, the
acquisition of mp3.com by Universal which then slashed artist pay by
80%, the decreasing costs of producing CDs but the increasing price of
purchase, the debt many artists are saddled with when producing an
album, the likely destruction of small Internet radio feeds, and the
royalties we all pay to the recording industry when we buy a blank
CD-ROM (regardless of its use!). At times, in exasperation, I think
that the likes of Eisner are not capable of honest argument: they
mouth the words, "freedom, author, consumer, innovation", but their
actions call out, "money and power." (In an ironic twist of naming
duplicity, the law that I wrote my senator about a week ago was
introduced this week as the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
Promotion Act!) But I digress, I've said all this before, it'll
probably get worse before it gets better, and my goal is to look at
how Eisner effects his spin.
In asserting the importance of physical and intellectual property
rights in a democracy, Lincoln echoed the views of 17th-century
thinkers such as John Locke, whose phrase "life, liberty and
property" inspired the Founding Fathers.
Sorry Mr. Eisner, our Founding Fathers did not equate these limited
monopolies on thought to "property." They approached this topic with
care and concern: a limited monopoly (a detriment) balanced against a
requirement to "promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts"
(a benefit). Evidence of that care can be found in our Declaration of
Independence in which Jefferson wrote of, "Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness."
It is as American as the apple pie that one may not take off a
neighbour's kitchen ledge.
But ideas are not apple pies. They are more like recipes that can be
exchanged between friends and improved upon: "why fight over a slice
of pie when through cooperation we can double its size?!"
In sum, despite the article's cogent analysis of the problem (including the media companies' true goal of eliminating the personal computer, which I brought up a few weeks ago), none of the proposed solutions will do a thing about it, and I submit they would only make matters worse.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
His solution is the whole problem. It does not see copyrights as the seed of a vine who'se growth will never stop nickeling and diming freedoms to death untill it is cut off at the root. That's what got us here to begin with. As long as our society accepts that it's morally OK to derive value by restricting the copying practices of others we have doomed ourselves to follow a flawed concept that will always threaten freedom - corporations or not.
I guess that the director can only go into business for himself. No company can own the copyright, so he has to use his personal budget for funding the film. If it flops, he has to declare personal bankruptcy, instead of letting some corporation absorb the hit. How is this supposed to make things better?
I agree with the rest of the article. It's the first time I've seen this stated so well. I'm just curious about how he expects this last point to work.
ps: He should run the Demoroniser over his MS-Word documents before publishing them to the web!
Free unix account: freeshell.org
If you read this through you will see how history repeats itself ....
During the early 1800's the rich plantation masters were so close to the rich industrialists that many people wondered how in the heck could people who had so many financial ties become so divided and eventually financed opposite sides of a civil war.
The answer is this, in order for the plantation masters to get control of their slaves - they also had to control and regulate industries that relied on a mobile and skilled work force. (the industrialists) Those who didn't see this thought that the slave states could peacefully get along with the free states - they were idiots.
Today the copyright industries, in order to get control of their copyrights, must regulate the computer and information technology industries that are carrying the economy. Some people also think that the solution is some sort of compromise, but they just don't understand that deriving value by restricting the copying practices of others is immoral and will never go away till we cut the problem off at the root - copyrights. This belief is very harmfull, because the longer we wait, the more costly it's going to be to cut the problem off at the root.
Moral-based copyrights are an extraordinarily bad idea. Fortunately no one had been so stupid as to come up with them when the Copyright Clause was established. (in fact, virtually no one had copyrights then either -- the first law having been enacted less than a century prior)
The U.S. has a far superior utilitarian model. Essentially, it permits copyrights to be established if, and only to the extent that, they serve a public good. Moral rights are backwards, in that they promote the interests of the author as an end unto themselves. However, the genius of the framers was that authors should best be treated rather like cattle. (it's worth noting here that for several years I supported myself entirely as an artist)
A dairy farmer is not interested in the well-being of his animals. He doesn't care if they're happy. He cares about milk yield and quality. If pampering the cows will produce sufficient quantities of good milk that it is worthwhile to do so, he will. If not, he won't. Thus the lack of solid gold cowbells.
Likewise, where the public interest in having a body of works that is freely usable in all possible ways, and that concerns as many subjects as the human mind can imagine is served, copyright makes sense. Creating copyright to provide for artists is stupid -- it harms the public interest, and the public doesn't get anything out of it. Creating copyright to encourage artists so as to increase the number of distinct but comprehensible works, and limiting it so as to permit free use, is far better.
If your intentions are to help artists, you'll do the former. (unless you really think about it, and remember that artists are members of the public too, and rely on existing works constantly) If your intentions are to help the public, you'll do the latter.
Copyright's fine -- in moderation, and for the right aims. This is not a concept that meshes with the silly nonsense about moral rights, however. The author of the linked article is using about the worst means possible to try to serve a public interest, and it'll backfire spectacularly.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This would be a terrible idea to enact. As soon as this law was enacted, we'd have massive suits by content holders that it was a "taking". Either the government would have to overturn the law or it would have to "justly compensate" each and every holder of any copyright of any value. Bleh.
On the other hand, saying that new copyrights last for only 14 years is not a taking, as a thing not yet created has no value. I think I could accept the tragic loss of public domain we've suffered, if I knew for sure it was a temporary aberration.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Corporations are legal persons, not citizens. There is a difference. Citizens can vote. Corporations cannot. Citizens can get drivers licenses. Corporations cannot. Citizens can hold public office. Corporations cannot.
Lest you think I'm sticking up for corporations, let me assure you that I am not. Citizens can be tried for crimes. Corporations cannot. That last point is crucial. Microsoft is not being tried for any felony.
But the article you pointed me two has one very gross error amid its wealth of information. It tried to distinguish between the oppression of government and the oppression of corporations. They are one and the same. The East India Company, Massachusetts Bay Company, etc., were all chartered corporations. That meant that the power they wielded came directly from the British government. When independence was gained from the the British government, the corporations instantly ceased to have any power over the former colonists.
If you rebel against corporations but ignore the government, you are accomplishing nothing. The only power they have over you is derived from the government. The RIAA and MCAA is not legislating any law. Congress is doing that. It is only because the people of the United States have elected spineless cowards and money grubbing opportunists that we face this current problem.
If Disney and Sony suddenly disappeared tomorrow, our legal rights regarding digital content would still be in jeapardy. Stomp out Disney and another corporation will take its place. But if you take away the power of Congress to control your rights, then they won't have that power to sell to the highest bidder.
I fear any government, of any political persuasion, that is so large that it has to power to tell what I can or cannot do with my CDs.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
LOTR paid back the whole series in the first few weeks the first movie was out. Everything to do with DVDs, product licenses, and so forth, not to mention the other 2/3 of the movies, is profit. As far as whether bootlegs are concerned, they'd made back their investment nicely before the bootlegs were even available.
Having the copyright on the movies (and images from them) expire after 14 years is plenty long enough, provided that studios acquire a modicum of taste and try not to make movies that are obviously bad. Moving movies is a major risk only because they don't weed out movies which are not worth making, and because they sometimes throw a huge budget at a movie which has a limited appeal and should be done for what people will pay to see it (since the diehards who will see such a movie won't care much that the budget was low).
Prohibiting corporations from holding copyrights wouldn't be so big a problem; you just let the artists retain the copyright, but finance them (and provide camera teams and such) for a license, with terms depending on what they want. Corporations don't create anything, but it's not like a corporation is founded with pre-existing works, which it then makes all of its money by licensing.
The real issue, though, is what person gets the copyright for something collaborative like LOTR, if corporations can't hold copyrights. It would be like trying to get a non-GPL license to Linux: you contact every single person who did anything on the project and try to figure out what's going on. The editors own the particular cut, but the images in the cut are owned by the animators and camera crews (with the lighting owned by someone diffierent), but all of the acting in the images in the cut is owned by the actors, who also own the voices, except that the audio splicing is owned by the sound editors...
In any case, the ownership of copyrights by corporations isn't much of a problem, if the copyright term isn't related to the lifetime of the original owner. Make it 14 years for any work, regardless of whether it was created by an individual or by a group collectively assigning copyright to a corporation.
Granted, the Content Cartel control most of the "traditional" media. But they worry about the Net precisely because it is so huge and so (potentially) shatteringly effective at getting a message out without the traditional media. They fear that the Net will give birth to a spark, an episode, a movement they cannot foresee and cannot control.
Stop worrying about how we get the "traditional" media to cover this. Stop trying to figure out how to "get our message out" in all the ways that have been tried before. Get out and educate, whatever way you can... and make the Net part of it.
If we get enough people talking about it, the fight will spill over into the nightly news. And then we win.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
All these fights over copyrights and laws are distracting us from the real problem, which is staring us in the face:
If information products can be shared for free via the net, it will be very difficult for the creators to make a profit. And that means that there won't be many people making new music, movies, books and other information goods.
I think most people, deep down inside, understand this, but they don't like the consequences. They try to think of ways that artists could make money, like selling T shirts, or by private donations, but these can produce only tiny revenues. Or people distract themselves by demonizing the record companies, or the MPAA, or Hilary Rosen. It's more fun to hiss at a villain than to try to do something about the train that's bearing down on you.
We are heading for a very bad situation. The tremendous production we have enjoyed of information goods is mortally threatened. I don't claim to know the solution, but I don't pretend the problem doesn't exist.
Please, pull your heads out of the sand, and face the issue squarely. The problem is not the Hollings bill or the DMCA or the record companies. The problem is that the net may make it impossible to make money producing information goods. That's going to have a huge impact on society in the next few years, probably a very bad one no matter what the outcome. Let's face this reality squarely.