Slashdot Mirror
Copyright as Cudgel
kongstad writes "In an issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Siva Vaidhyanathan has some interesting things to say about the concept of Copyright: 'Back in the 20th century, if someone had accused you of copyright infringement, you enjoyed that quaint and now seemingly archaic guarantee of due process. Today, due process is a lot harder to pursue, and the burden of proof increasingly is on those accused of copyright infringement.'" A very good academic look at the recent expansions of copyright law.
Did you know that the man that authored the copyright clause in the U.S. Constitution was the same man who started this nation's first free book lending library?
Any lights going on out there?
The fact of the matter is that our government has been looking for excuses to curtail the freedoms we enjoy for a long time. Why? Well, if its news to you, most politicians make a career out of staying in office. This was something the forefathers never imagined. The constant desire to win the elections leads these politicians to ask for money and the big corporations pony up and cough up the dough. What happens then? Well, poor people like me who can't afford to shell out cash to my congressman gets left out of the political process. Sure, I can vote but if my viewpoints don't come with a dollar figure then they are meaningless. The DMCA is the brain-child of this process we call "democracy" (we should rename it to "big-corp'ocracy").
So why aren't most people doing anything about it? Since they don't know what is going on. The local 10 o'clock news doesn't carry this stuff. Do you want to take a stab at why? Well, most local tv news stations are owned by big corporation and they cannot afford to criticize the DMCA since they can weild it around so freely. Articles like this are good, but what slashdotters don't understand is that there needs to be a concerted effort to write editorials in the papers constantly to make sure that the rest of America sees this for what it is.
Looks like computer science programs will have to move to using exclusively open-source materials, to avoid possible litigation.
Another good reason for open source!
Unfortunately, folks in media studies, art, music, social sciences, humanities, etc. will continue having problems...
But for the past 20 years, the right-wing in America, funded by their deep pocketed friends in Big Business(TM), have mounted a legal, political and social assault against individuals' right to sue. Sometimes they use the moniker "tort reform." Othertimes, they talk about "greedy lawyers" and "runaway lawsuits" that inevitably hurt those poor, small business owners out there that can't afford to defend themselves against the tassel loafer set.
In the real world, it is the small business owner, the independent contrator, the worker and the consumer that gets screwed. When Big Business(TM) infringes upon on traditional rights, we are the ones who need the courts to come to our aid, to make up for the unfair advantage that wealthy campaign-contributing businesses enjoy in the Legislature and with th executive.
In this case, the minions of Big Business(TM) have enacted a law that places the burder of proof on the accused, rather than the accuser. Which perverts the system of checks and balances, and instead turns the full weight of all three branches of government against the little guy.
We are almost all in favor of gutting the DMCA on this site. But let's not forget this broader issue the next time some slick Republican starts carrying on about the need for tort reform, judicial appointments and restrictions on lawsuits.
When Big Business(TM) owns the Congress and the White House, the courts are our only hope don't let them take that away from us, too.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
It's quite simple--remove government-imposed controls, artificial costs, subsidies, and regulations on businesses. When government is no longer allowed to regulate or subsidize business, businesses will realize it's no longer possible or necessary to buy politicians in order to obtain special favors or exemptions from proposed legislation.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
...to copyright law. The difficulties in actually going through due process extends to criminal law as well. More and more cases are brought up under the heading 'Terrorism' simply to avoid Habeus Corpis or any public outcry.
/u
I vote (heh) we do the same with the goverment that we would with a computer with this much kruft:
C:\ Format Washington_D_C:
yes yes yes.
Damn, that would be nice.
Alas, Babylon.
The example is poetry... At one time poets were well paid and could achieve a certain amount of fame and occaisional hefty profits for their work. Nowdays very few poets can "make a living" solely from their art. People still write poems, but the high availability of cheap publishing ensures that they won't make much money at it.
Music is going through the same kind of schism... rock and roll music is a cheap commodity these days, as proven by the big labels that invent bands from thin air dozens of times a year. Distributing music via the internet is shockingly cheap, so naturally the profit motives will be lessened and the artform thinned out.
The problem is when the record companies buy laws to stave off the decline of their art as a cash cow. There interference merely delays the evolution of the artform and introduces serious questions about art, freedom, and copyrights.
Personally, I realize that record companies have legal grounds for trying to stop music sharing, but I don't believe they'll have much success in doing it. They might have an easier time of it searching for a new business model on which to rebuild the artform...
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
As a graduate student in the biomedical sciences, I wholeheartedly agree with what the article says about professional journals and copyright. It's a racket. You have to publish your work to advance, and the most prestigious scientific journals require you to sign the copyright over to them and pay a fee for each page and figure. Then they have the audacity to charge a subscription fee, as well as take in advertising revenue and sell your name to junk mail lists (yes, there is science spam and junk mail too). You're actually supposed to get permission to use one of your own figures in a talk or other type of publication.
On a brighter note, I was quite pleased last week when I received the first issue of a new journal called The Journal of Biology. This publication aims to be a top rank journal on par with Science and Nature, but follows the "open access" approach. Specifically, there will never be a subscription fee, all content is available online for free, and most importantly, authors retain copyright of their papers. I think this is a huge step in the right direction. Harold Varmus, the former director of the NIH, was a big supporter of open access, and I think the time is ripe for this kind of change. This journal's publisher BioMed Central seems to be leading the way in this direction. Good for them! I hope to be sending lots of papers their way!
-margaret
ps if I posted part of this before, I'm sorry. My hand accidentally bumped the enter key. New keyboard.
I thought at first this would be another piece of guff from a "guru" jumping on a bandwagon. But no, some interesting stuff in the article. Worth reading and looking at the recommended action plans.
.
It seems to me that battles over Intellectual Property Rights are part of the continual struggle for power and influence between Big business and the individual / consumer.
I remember from a discussion with a politics student some 20 years ago that power was defined as the ability to break an agreement/promise with impunity. She thought there were 4 types of power relationship:
Physical: Give me that valuable resource or I cudgel you!
Knowledge/Skill: Do as I say, I'm an expert in this area and I can run rings round you
Positional: I am your line manager and I don't care what I promised, you work for me and don't forget it.
Systemic: You don't even know that you are losing out because I write the rules of the game and there is no mechanism by which you can protest.
The first three powers can be held in check, controlled and balanced to some extent, well enough for us all to get some benefit. The last is more of a threat.
Big Money has always been keen to use systemic power because they can and lest such power be used against them. Setting the terms of trade, aggressive lobbying of government, aggressive use of legal muscle in SLAPP suits(strategic lawsuits against public participation) are all well honed tools.
It is not clear to me that such battles are winnable. In the end Big Money does have more money and any new development will eventually be brought under control. But . . . .
Some have compared the grabbing of IP to the enclosure of common land (dates vary in different countries but it was back in the 18th Century in the UK) but generally land was less productive when held in common. The reverse is true of IP and copyright. When closely held, it produces less wealth for society. The more this is seen to be the case, the less interest Big Whatever will have in pursuing it
Maybe the aim should be to demonstrate the benefits of free sharing of Knowledge. If a country or group of people share IP freely and reap so much benefit then people will start asking why don't we do this too.
Lets have some more seminal Cathedral and Bazaar articles!
They forgot to mention in the Felton section about how he was turning in that paper, because he took part in a contest to break those methoods. A contest RIAA itself started and promoted.
That's some damn important information to leave out.
Except for that, this is a great read.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
You sound as if you feel that people have a fundamental right to control the reproduction and use of their ideas. The more I talk to people about these issues, I get the idea that almost everyone agrees with you. I can't really understand where people come up with this natural right. It's practically assumed.
/.ers have made my argument before. As the copyright term goes from 40 years to 90 years, artists gain something like .5% in projected return on investment. Further increases are even less beneficial. At some duration, the total public benefit is higher if there is unlimited access to the work. Unless there's a persuasive reason for copyright to be natural, then it's simply too damaging to be so long.
I don't see why. To my reading, the framers have included copyright provisions in the Constitution as a means of solving the Tragedy of the Commons. That is, they seemed to desire to maximize common good, rather than recognize a natural right. If there was a fundamental right to control the use of your art, I can't imagine why it wouldn't last indefinitely. This could not possibly maximize common good. It would give artists a miniscule increase in projected revenue from their artwork. This would not inspire the creation of better/more artwork.
Why is copyright a natural right? I just don't get it.
Anyway. A million
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
- Cut copyright terms down to 20 years, the same as patents. This puts a vast amount of out-of-print content in the public domain, which will help to bootstrap the broadband revolution. Just think of all those old TV shows waiting to be downloaded.
It's not really a big-ticket item for the content owners, but it's just what's needed to sell all that broadband hardware. And in the end, it will probably be a win for the movie industry; once all that broadband bandwidth is in place, they'll have a new distribution channel.
- Restrict technical controls on content. If you can't prevent some act under copyright law, you can't protect it by technical means either. This prohibits controls which restrict resale, skipping commercials, etc.
- Restrict end-user license agreements. Again, if an act can't be prohibited under copyright law, an EULA can't prohibit it either. No benchmarking restrictions, resale restrictions, etc.
- No protection on broadcast content. If it goes out over the public airwaves, technical protection measures are prohibited. Protected content has to go out over the Internet, cable, or purchased spectrum like DirectTV or MMDS. Anybody can build a PVR, and yes, it can skip commercials.
That's a strong starting point. It's not unrealistic in the current political climate, either.I've already written to my senators and rep about various copyright bills as they have come up. When I get a reply from them (usually a couple months later at least), it's always a form letter stating that it's essential that we do whatever is necessary to protect copyrights. The American Way of Life(TM) depends on it! So, I see that it's pointless to try to reason with them. For every letter I send them, there's a dozen corporations handing them thousands of dollars for their next campaign. Who do you think they listen to?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You first proposal attempts to reduce benefit of current law for an act under the already existing current law.
Laws are not permitted to be retroactive, if they take something away from you. Such a law is called Ex Pos Facto -- "after the fact".
This is the same reason that, if you spit on the sidewalk, and they enact a law against that, they can not come arrest you for breaking the law for an act which occurred before the law passed.
The nominal effect of this is that reducing the terms of copyright protection will only have an effect on works copyroghted after the change to the law. Prior copyright terms can not be reduced.
In fact, this is the basis for the challenge to the copyright extension act of 1998: by extending the term of the copyright 20 years on works copyrighted before the act became law, the public has been robbed Ex Pos Facto.
This works because the copyright protection granted works is made *in trade* for the disclosure of the copyrighted information.
I expect that there is room for challenge for the patent reform act of 1996, which changed patents from 17 years from date of issue to 20 years from date of filing, and grandfathered patents filed but not issued at the time of enactment in law to the later of 20 years from date of filing or 17 years from date of issue. Technically, they are only permitted to take grant date into account on legal reform affecting such patents: the act of filing the patent was the inventor entering into a contract with the public to obtain protection for a limited term in exchange for disclosure to the public.
What it boils down to is that rewriting a contract without the consent of both parties is illegal. In the copyright extension act case, the argument is that it was done without the consent of the public.
Effectively, the only way a term can be shortened for a copyright or patent, once the agreement has been entered into, is through the exercise by government of The Right Of Emminent Domain: basically, by siezing the property in the name of the public.
I'm not adverse to a shortening of terms and siezure of property granted under the pervious terms as a means of making the terms retroactive; however, you should be aware that that's what you are advocating, if your plan is to be workable at all.
-- Terry
.. was the use of copyright by Scientology (the criminal nut-cult that L. Ron Hubbard started) to punish a critic who was trying to bring their criminal activities to the attention of a federal judge. Read all about it at freehenson.da.ru.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."