Slashdot Mirror
Jonathan Zittrain On The Spiderweb of Copyright Law
Jonathan Zittrain, director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, takes an unusual approach to critiquing copyright in this Legal Affairs article. He explains with an analogy to the bizarre patchwork of United States tax codes a reason that (in the words of one of Zittrain's colleagues) "all the cyberprofs hate copyright." It goes beyond simple indignation that current copyright laws often grant seemingly unfair monopoly powers, and into the tangled minutia of the laws themselves.
Time to scrap the heap of copyright laws and start over (why not begin with what the Constitution says, as a suggestion?). When laws are being created to prevent toddlers from accidentally becoming felons, simply because they want to listen to their teddy bear read them a story, you know things have gotten out of hand.
Look, here at /. we know all about the music (hello, RIAA!), movies (hello, MPAA!) and software (hello, UCITA!) examples. But here is an example that is just absurd. Fix the problem? Please, just gut the laws and start over.
Wait a minute, what am I saying?! Any laws rewritten from scratch nowadays would be far more draconian. Maybe this time they would put in provisions to haul the 3-year-olds off to prison...
What does the government expect? Copyright laws have not been properly developed and then updated independently of the interests of those with influence (read: money) but have instead been accumulated over time by gradual accretion. Is it really any surprise then that they parallel other equally confusing works such as James Joyce's Ulysses, developed in an identical way. Copyright law started out as making some sense for the purpose of protecting an artist's rights while allowing public domain material to say public domain. Now they continuously tinker with it. Rich organisations constantly press for nonsensical and exact new stipulations, and because people try to exploit every loophole at every opportunity because of this they have to introduce even more arbitrary limits:
What bullshit! The thing that makes this even worse is that this isn't unusual: it's just a microcosm of law these days: a series of idiotic and numerically precise restrictions with no justification suffering from excessive detail with every little fucking detail having to be dictated due to the foolhardy allowance given for defence lawyers in exploiting any undefined part of each law.
Bash script for FP whores
Remember, copyright law is given in the constitution. So much like slavery (a similarly bad system), a constitutional amendment will have to occur to rid of us this scourge.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
A new study released by the Gartner Group has revealed that articles about spiderweb copyright laws are slightly more enjoyable than punching yourself repeatedly in the balls. However, the self testes pugilist society has issued a rebuttal. "nad punching is still a growing activity" said one source. "and it appeals to all age groups".
Isn't academia obsessed with credit for ideas? When is the last time a paper was published anonymously? Ideas exist outside of time. This should work against both copyright/patent and academia's obsession with "plaigarism" and keeping track of credit.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Seems like most early posters didn't really read the article. Okay, a summation:
/. ain't for the ignorant, so stop letting yourself be excluded (aka ignored)!
1. Copyright law was never meant to apply to the individual
2. It does now
3. It is way too specific in some areas, but not specific enough in others.
4. It often stifles creativity, but when used correctly, it encourages it.
5. Copyright law is NOT BAD, just our implementation of it.
so... conclusion:
Add some sort of "fee" to our taxes (maybe just on ISPs, more like on everyone) that allows us, as individuals, to use any copyrighted material we want, as long as we don't try to sell it, without robbing the owners of the copyright - cause we are paying them.
I like it...
By the way... read the damn article before posting.
There are too many wealthy vested interests in copyright law that change at this stage is nearly impossible. The interconnectedness of laws and elections and corporations make the changing of the law to include more logic and coherancy is impossible.
The lawyers don't want change even though they see the problems everyday since it will keep more cases out of court and decrease their job opportunities.
The monied corps don't want to change them because the ambiguity helps their cases as they can just throw money at lawyers and the courts in order to win their cases.
The politicians don't want to change them because they are paid well for opposing such changes.
Therefore, the only people who want them changed are people like you and me... The ones who are informed and see the problem. The only thing is that we are a small minority of the voting public.
MMORPG fan-boy? Prove your worth
Microsoft Windows's "Network Neighborhood" feature, for example, is simply a way to swap files. Almost every software application that capitalizes on this central functionality is therefore a Kinko's of sorts, and decreeing all search-and-copy software to be illegal is simply too sweeping a move for a court to make.
Now of course, I'm not suggesting that y'all start firing up windows, but I find this point really intriguing - filesharing using the SMB protocol over port 139 a'la redmond. What (c|w)ould the RIAA do about that ?
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
" Add some sort of "fee" to our taxes (maybe just on ISPs, more like on everyone) that allows us, as individuals, to use any copyrighted material we want, as long as we don't try to sell it, without robbing the owners of the copyright - cause we are paying them."
Unfortunately, though this would be th easiest of solutions to implement, it would never pass...
-ISP's and their users would complain that it's a "tax", and would fight it to the end.
-Artists with big followings (U2, Garth Brooks, Pink Floyd, etc etc) would complain that this method shortchanges them in revenues. Bands and record companies fight it to the end.
We're not going to get rid of copyright, and we're not going to get rid of DRM at this point either. Instead of splitting our energies and efforts, we should be focusing on getting two things done...
-Lobbying Congress with all of our might to have copyright terms reduced to a reasonable exemption. Either a set term, like 20 years, or the lifetime of the artists. No extensions beyond that.
-Pressuring record companies through a campaign of public relations and a music boycott to get an Apple Store-like solution up for all copyrighted music at reasonable rates, like 99 cents a song. And this pressure should not include copyright violations. That destroys any moral credibility we may have.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Girl Scouts who sing "Puff, the Magic Dragon" owe royalties
Oh of course, the record label needs all the money they can get to keep suing kazaa users.
You have 4 ways to protect essentially the same thing.
Copyright
Trademark
Patent
Trade Secret
The rules governing them overlap, contradict and in the case of patent are usually poorly applied(prior art).
Toss in 200 years of technological progress that have reduced difficult or impossible tasks to completely trivial tasks. (Publishing books, reproducing music, etc)
Add in the fact that the laws were originally designed to deal with works that were matters of entertainment or education now deal with pedestrian business tools. (Theres not many businesses that will stop because a copyrighted book is unavailable. Theres quite a few that will stop if the copy protection on their software goes bezerk).
My point is it took a Harvard Law prof. to figure out the system is broke ? The only people its not broke for are the I.P. lawyers and for them its a license to extort money.
They? Who is this mysterious they? Think about what you're saying. You're thinking of some specific people who you feel have abused copyright and proposing a change in the system to punish them. However, your solution would quickly screw over anyone who creates unique material and doesn't get it immediately to market. The result would likely be that the large conglomerates which you're targetting would be the only way an author, an artist, a poet, or a composer could hope to do make a living. Everyone would need a massive advertising splurge to push interest for a month, create the newest fad, and sell all that's possible in the miniscule window of two years.
And that's ignoring the fact that the GPL exists only under the auspices of copyright. You'd destroy that too. Such a proposal as you've made is completely short-sighted.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
This raises an interesting question. turnitin claims to detect plagiarism in essays turned in by students. But those essays are then stored by turnitin in order to detect future plagiarism (of course since we can't track the use of the essay, I have wondered if turnitin isn't feeding the essays out to one of the essay sales sites). If the essay is copyright by the author, this seems to me to be out of the realm of fair use. Perhaps a few students should go after turnitin in the courts.
Why are a group of little girls singing about marijuana in the first place?
How ya like dat?
THEN CAME FILE SWAPPING ON THE NET and the all-purpose computers attached to it. With the right software, individuals could copy digital content perfectly, quickly, and cheaply--and the presence of a (C) symbol did little to deter them from doing so.
In theory, of course, Title 17 applies to everyone. Even the Sony case of 1984 included a token individual defendant, a VCR owner who was the alleged direct infringer. But no one demanded that he pay damages or change his behavior. More recently the Recording Industry Association of America has sought the identities of individuals who use Internet file-trading services and has brought (and settled) suits against college students alleged to be organizing file-swapping circles within their university intranets.
Of course, they know the REAL pirates now! Those damn girl scouts singing puff the magic dragon without paying! Those poor artists.. oh wait, those poor record company execs/shareholders! Oh and for those who still think the RIAA are going to sue everyone who ever opened a kazaa client (Hi Mike!)..
The recording industry is not going to sue the tens of thousands of Americans who engage in these practices. But it hopes to make an example of a few users to add teeth to the infringement warnings that file-swapping services send to their customers--and to pressure those services to pressure their customers to stop copying files.
Some (maybe all) people have to pay a small fee every time the get their cable bill which claims to be a 'copyright infringement' fee. The idea here is that some people will copy/record what they watch and therefore the producers of that material must be paid for this infringement. So this assumes that everyone that has cable is breaking the law and so they must pay. So does this mean that if I'm already guilty of the crime I might as well do it, what about innocence before guilt? Does this seam backwards to anyone else?
-Tim Louden
Good question I had wondered, so I looked.
t ml #archiving
... the use does not "materially impair the marketability of the work which is copied."
From their site.
http://www.turnitin.com/static/legal_document.h
Commercial use of a work may still be "fair use" under U.S. Copyright Law
That superficially solid, however by using it to detect plagurism decreases the marketability of the work.
One of the stated purposeses of turnitin.com is to destroy the business of "paper mills" or "digital paper mills". As such these actions likely do decrease the marketability of the work either directly or indirectly.
Plagarism at school is NOT a crime AFAIK.
Copyright infringement IS a crime. Copying works to impair the marketability of the work by the copyright holder is most certainly illegal, and morally wrong.
Oh, really? Well, you're an infringer. You see, you've made a copy of the slashdot article and probably of the main article, too. You didn't get the explicit permission of the copyright holder, either. And maybe you've covered your dirty little crime by clearing your browser's cache, but the fact remains: To have read the article at all, you had to willfully cause to be created a copy of that article.
Ludicrous? Sure. Implicit in the whole idea of how the Net and the Web work? Certainly. In contradiction of "traditional" copyright? Without a doubt.
And before you unload on me, consider that (a) Congress had to add language providing for "emphemeral" copies and (b) the Copyright Cartel fought tooth-and-nail to stop such language from being added.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
So let's try that again, shall we?
Credit isn't a form of control, it's merely a from of aknowledgement of what you have contributed to the public domain.
KFG
Best to have a good grade going in. Be ready to drop the course and avoid the instructor in the future.
OK, so I admit to being a bit of a subversive. But I've also noticed that the instructors most likely to use a service like this are the ones I have the least respect for. (And the ones who'd be most likely to give me a hard time for using a preposition at the end of a sentence. Something up with which they will not put.)
Conversely, corporatization of ideas are the element that copyright law has a problem with, (often precisely because those ideas are now controlled by third parties and not the artist--i.e., recording artists almost never 'own' their works, corporate researchers sometimes have to fight for ownership of ideas they had during their contracts, etc...).
The idea of copyright isn't about 'credit' for ideas, just money for ideas.
The kneejerk reaction, however, ignores the fact that copyright law has evolved because of specific problems and exists in its current form because that is what producers believe they require to turn a profit.
Zittrain touches on this patchwork evolution of copyright with a comarison to tax law:
The original provisions for copyright law have been frequently quoted, because back when they were written they were deemed sufficient to get people to produce content. However, each time the producers (at first authors/composers and later corporations) felt they got screwed they lobbied for an extension.
Examples of this problem / solution approach to law explain many of the changes. For instance, authors in the 1800s frequently were destitute in their later years because their works went out of copyright. Nothing like Sir Walter Scott as your poster boy to get sympathy.
And what about those geniuses who die young before their works become popular (e.g. Stephen Crane). Their heirs were *really* pleased. Can anyone say life plus 50?
Skip to a modern example from the article: look at the rediculous 55 inch TV rule. That's the result of bars competing with cinemaplexes without having to pay royalties for what they showed on huge screens. The resulting (stupid) rule gives a maximum size for a TV screen that does not qualify as competiting with the movies.
Bear in mind each badly written novel generally takes at least a year to write and then several months for a team of people to edit, and each dirivitive pop CD takes about 6 months to write plus several months for a team of people to produce, and we all know about the effort put into each lousy movie. People (and corporations) don't want to see that effort go down the drain, and with profit margins being low in the various content creation industry, they'll fight like dogs for even more draconian rules unless they can be convinced relaxing the rules will help them.
The publishing ogliarchy exists, ironically enough, because people don't like to waste their time listening to garbage. The industry offers people certain (minimal) guarantees, so most people listen to them. That, not money, is what gives them their clout. If we rewrote the law, lawmakers would listen to them out of the because they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Thus, without addressing producer's concerns, we'd have to write *more* draconian laws
I'd say salvation would come from addressing these concerns more then viva la revolucion style burning of the old laws. For instance, listening to my brother's downloaded music has pushed me towards buying CDs I wouldn't otherwise have known about. That is something content producers need to know before we get rational copyright law: Sharing can help them.
Of course, since I'm writting this on a Mac, I have to add that salvation will come from the Apple Music store, just to gloat.
IANAL, just an english major with an emphasis in publishing.
Zittrain proves to be yet another intelligent person who can't see past the "we must have copyright or there will be no creativity" fallacy. It's really a shame. Yes, even the founding fathers fucked up on that one, although they at least limited it to 14+14 years, which was acceptable. Had they really had foresight, they would have stuck "Congress shall make no law establishing a monopoly - temporary or permanent - on any creation, artistic or technical" in the First Amendment. Yes, no patents, no copyrights. People will still get off their asses and make stuff. We did it before the advent of intellectual "property" monopolies and we'd still do it once those monopolies are abolished. Bottom line: get rid of copyright (yes, all of it, erase Title 17) and people will still paint pictures, record music, make movies, books, television shows, and software. In fact, since the size of the public domain will increase a million-fold overnight, there will be a lot more to use in order to create such things. And jack valenti should be left asking "do you want fries with that?"
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
If you want to trade music freely,
trade free music, protected by a free
license.
That's all..
All you complaining about not being able to share
commercial documents, don't understand the value
of work and the rules of business.
NOW what you could do is to build campaign against
the buying of commercial art. With competiting free art.
This is the only reasonable path. The one adopted by the people of the free software.
You can adopt it too and design free art,
that can be freely shared.
Now stop whining and act: buy, or design!
--
You shall not sell my precious intellectual property. And I mean it.
Traditional copyright only had lawsuits seizing profits from infringers and giving them to authors. No profit, no infringement.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"In the absence of tough copyright controls, investors may decide not to underwrite a $200 million blockbuster film because copying of the final product may unduly reduce their expected profit. But the cost of making no change at all must also be soberly assessed because the Internet offers such a staggering potential for the rapid transformation and evolution of ideas-a veritable Jazz Age of creation enabled by technology. "
indeed. Copyright was created to encourage innovation, fair enough..
Sadly, a great deal of the most hotly-disputed 'intellectual' property in these cases (films and hit records, above all) is at best derivative or, worse, utterly formulaic.
I wonder how much money major studios pay out for remaking foreign-language films. It would be interesting to see how it compares to the gigantic values they attach to their own drivel in DMCA cases.
Making a good film does not require 200 million dollars. Nor does making a good album. Consider how much of a big film's budget is spent on marketing it (tv adverts still aren't cheap..). Huge budgets can only do so much for a bad script, or bad actors. As a wise man once said, you cannot polish a turd. No matter how shiny, it remains a turd.
Widespread enablement of individual and collective productivity has worked marvels in software (GNU/Linux/BSD's/etc). Hopefully it is only a matter of time before we start to see genuinely great works of cinema that have grown in a distributed way from a community of individuals sharing ideas and techniques, enabled by cheap technology. Animation might be a fertile ground for this sort of thing.
It is possible that the discipline innate in coding helps to facilitate good project management even in groups separated by thousands of miles who seldom or never meet in person, and that this kind of project model might be less productive in an artistic context, but it would be interesting to see. I quite like the idea of open-source movies..
This way Americans might feel the copyright system is more fair than many obviously feel it is now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
At this website They have shockwave games for the kids to play!
Help the weasel (how ironic!) protect the city from pirates and pirated software and prevent the deep freeze!
The funniest point is that there is no goal to the game at all, you keep going until you lose. So you do your best to protect the city from pirated software and software pirates, but eventually, you will lose and the pirates take over.
How true! To bad the BSA can't take their own advice!
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
The Founding Fathers did not just come up with copyright as a "great idea" to increase innovation. They did so as a solution to some common problems of those days.
The first problem was publishing of books. Few could afford to distribute information (publishers), and it was not worthwhile to publish a book, if all the competing publishers could just sell the same book as well.
This is the well known problem, and not really relevant these days - when distribution of information is a non-issue.
Another problem copyright solved is still relevant today. At the time, there was a profession of very hard and lengthy work - that of drawing maps. Map Makers worked for long periods of times to create accurate maps of many regions. Such boring and expensive tasks would only be done well for a promise of profit.
What map makers did - was sign NDA's and sell their maps under them. This meant that the spread of information was limited, never went public and inspired no new works.
Thus, copyright was created as a protected way to distribute information more openly. Its actually the openness and extra usability of copyrighted information that was so great at the time.
These days, copyrights have deteriorated into laws that are almost as bad as NDA'd distribution of information for map-like (software) products, and much worse for every-day information (books, etc.)
In summary, my point is that if you cancel copyright, the spread of information will be again limited by NDA's (you won't really outlaw those, will you?) rather than copyright. In the case of good copyright laws, this is much, much worse.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is simply an enumeration of some of the powers granted to the Legislative Branch. In other words, it simply is a grant to the Congress of the power to pass a Copyright Act -- it does not require one. This is a point long-settled by the Supreme Court -- there is no right of an author, under the Constitution or otherwise, to any exclusive rights in Copyright, unless and until the Congress says so.
Yes I think I do deserve a cookie.
It isn't a twisted analysis.
Group A provides a service, Group B wishes to provide another service. Group B must violate the copyright of Group A to do so.
Either Group B should not be permitted to do this, or they should do so in a way that does not infringe on the IP of Group A.
It did not create "intellectual property", a highly offensive misnomer, it created a temporary loan from the public domain, to which all ideas belong once expressed.
Nonsense, the common law treated Copyright as intangible personal property since the adoption of the Statute of Anne, long before there was a United States or a United States Constitution. There are no significant differences between
Perhaps copyright should simply be abolished. Yes, that would take an amendment, but overturning extentions would only take simple legislation. Too bad the greedy profiteers who oppose it own congress. We need to vote the bums out!
Abolishment of Copyright clearly does not require an amendment to the Constitution -- nothing in the Constitution guarantees any author the right to the monopoly described in Article I, Section 8 -- the power to grant or deny Copyright is within the sound discretion of the Congress. An interesting question of whether the abolishment would constitute a "taking," however remains -- if the Congress took Disney's rights to its films, perhaps Disney would have rights under eminent domain to the value of the asset at the time of the taking.
Such speculations are pointless, for this will never happen, and so we needn't really spend too much time counting Angels on the head of the pin.
From the majority of posts here, everyone seems to have forgotten that copyright laws were designed to protect the authors and creators NOT the "copyright owners" or (the new oxymoron for the 21st century) "intellectual property owners."
All of the squealing on behalf of the poor creators and authors and how file sharing is hurting them is misguided drivel. If it's available on the commercial market, the author has already sold their right to the work.
The copyright should end once the author has lost control of the work -- as in virtually every recording contract existing today.
The laws were designed to protect the authors -- not the publishers. The RIAA is the publishers. The software companies are the publishers. None of the creators owns their rights any longer.
Therefore, most of this discussion is so far off base that it is all irrelevant.
I know, this will get a flamebait modifier, but I don't care. Copyright has been twisted so severely that even those who are staunchly defending it are still arguing against the basic principle upon which the copyright laws were founded.
All the legal antics miss the real point. It's the authors, dammit. In today's system, they get screwed, regardless.