Slashdot Mirror
An IP Environmentalism for Culture and Knowledge?
An anonymous reader writes "An article by James Boyle in the FT argues that we are (slowly) moving towards a 'cultural environmentalism' that tries to protect the public domain in the way that the environmental movement tries to protect the natural ecology. Apparently there will be a (free) conference at Stanford on the subject soon, organized by Larry Lessig's Center there."
So, what kind of "hugger" does that make me now? An patent-free tree hugger? I just want to know what it is before conservatives start thowing it my way.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I've never thought of it in quite that way... It really is a wonderful analogy... the only difference being that the 'IP-ecosystem' was created by us.
...and indeed both sides of the issue have been polarized in nearly the same ways.... the "whacko environmental extremists" and "evil big business" who will destroy anything in the path towards profit.
Is this dichotomy a natural progression of such issues or is it truely the way things are.
I know what I believe...and I've picked my side.
~Dan
Ahh...I can see it now...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
See section V.
I'm sure they tried very very hard to create a feel-good phrase but "cultural environmentalism" doesn't work. Ecological environmentalism seeks to prevent any human-made effects in ecological systems -- preventing any human-made changes to pristine ecologies and removing the effects of humans from sullied ecologies. The true parallel that could be considered "cultural environmentalism" might include splitting or censoring the internet to prevent the flow of "deleterious" culture from one country to another (just like the USDA tries to regulate the import for foriegn plants and animals). Some of the issues raised by Islamic fundamentalism might be true examples of cultural environmentalism in that they seek to avoid pollution from western cultures. The point is that China and Bin Laden are doing more for true "cultural environmentalism" than are Lessig and crew.
This version of "cultural environmentalism" is less about prevention of change or pollution of cultures by "bad" cultural influences and more of an economic fight about who pays and who does for so-called "cultural" properties. Lessig et al have only made use of a positive buzzword.
Its just another example of co-opting a word for its connotations, not its true meaning (like calling every act of violence or non-patriotic idea a "terrorist" threat).
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
"Ecological environmentalism hasn't exactly been a success story.""
I think you have probably fallen into the trap of thinking that what is currently being fought for encompasses the sum total of all that has ever been fought for. If you look back over the last fifty years and see what practices have changed as a result of environmental activism you'd come to a very different conclusion. We don't continue talking about things that have changed, and naturally so. But it is a mistake to think that things were always the way they are now, or that they had to be this way.
Unsurprisingly, all the major concerns of current environmental activists haven't been resolved satisfactorily. That is precisely why they remain major concerns. Once an issue is mitigated, we move on and take it for granted.
What would the world around right now be like without recycling, emissions standards, vehicle fuel economy standards, regulation of industrial discharges into rivers and oceans, modern sewage treatment facilities, national parklands and reserves, solar wind and hydro power, Energy Star power saving technology on computers and other electronics, regulation on the use of toxic materials in all sorts of things like plastics, cookware, paint etc, and so on.
Tree-hugging wacko is a term used to often and inappropriatly. I'm green, but there are some real nutjobs. There's an interesting book called Green Death by an author who's name escapes me right now. It explores the damage that fanatical environmentalism is doing to developing nations. There's even a quote by the co-founder of Greenpeace saying that the environmentalist movement has really gotten out of hand. All sides have nuts, know yours.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
while most of us behave in a contradictory way - 'I want artists to get paid, but I like free downloads'
How about "I want artists to be paid, but I don't want to pay inflated marginal costs for works, nor do I want to be shut out of works completely." Thinking like this is what let collective licensing programs such as those offered by BMI and ASCAP take off, and the EFF has expressed interest in extending collective licensing to other media.
> The corporations of-course want to release the data and then have the perpetual copyrights, well that is why I think the DRM schemas must have the time copyright time limiters built into them.
How do you time limit data? How does data know its expiration date? How does it know whether its author is alive or dead? How does it know whether 95 years have passed since death?
You may go around in circles trying to describe a mechanism, but the fact is that it cannot.
The only reasonable mechanism would be this: If I attempt to copy a piece of data, the system would ask me "is this file copyrighted or does its license permit this operation, yes or no?" I would answer the question honestly to the best of my knowledge. The process would continue or not. This is the only system that respects the sovereignty of individual freedom.
DRM (in essentially any form) violates the basic contract the constitution describes for copyright in the first place: In exchange for growing the public domain we the people grant artists and inventors time-limited monopolies. We the people agree to honor these monopolies, just like we agree to honor every other law. If we don't, we face the music, as we do whenever we commit a crime.
I don't see how anyone can expect software to enforce the law. Or at least, not until software systems can be fair and just and personally responsible. This seems like a huge distance into the future.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
As an economist I have to say what you are proposing is scary, not just scary scary but truly chilling.
You want to take the most efficient information distribution mechanism ever seen, practically an economist's wet dream, and do everything possible to hinder or destroy the features which make it great.
Face it, copyright was designed in an age when corporate muscle and physical copies were REQUIRED in order to distribute information. Now distribution on the same or even greater scale can be achieved on a $50 a month boradband line with bit torrent.
I understand about legal documents and keeping them private, but that's not about DRM, that's about using point to point encryption and only passing it to people you trust. It's not as if you pass your social security documents to random people over the internet, youre sending it to a specific person. Well encryption of emails is NOT drm, it is encryption.
DRM stands for the corporate spun term "digital rights management" which involves some external party controlling the products you bought. It's not document protection like is achieved with pgp encryption.
the whole point of DRM is to exploit the lack of technical knowledge of both consumers and lawmakers to rob them of their god given right to personal property, and to undermine the advancement of the internet and its tremendous promise of greater efficiency just to line your own pockets on an outdated model.
no, It is Not good.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The constitution of the USA says congress shall have the power to pass laws to promote the science and useful arts through monopoly on ceative works for limited times.
This is not the same as declaring inalinable rigths such as the right to free speech.
It is merely the statement which says the government is "allowed" to do it. Without said statement the bill of rights would naturally override copyright laws and make them unconstitutional in any form.
Many founding fathers remember that copyright laws in england not too long before the rise of the US were designed to do to the people what they ironically are being used to do now, hinder freedom and growth of the press(read now the internet) and freedom of speech and keep the power and money in the hands of the wealthy few (then aristocracy, now the greedy pigs at the **AA and M$FT).
As such, there was a huge debate as to weather copyright should have been allowed at all. after all, during that time england was without copyright laws at all, as i remember from lessig they were all repealed around that time (was it 1709 they were entirely abolished in britain?) and loe and behold people were still publishing works!
So no, copyright is not an "inalienable right". This kind of drek is spouted by the WIPO lobbyists and is entirely false and misleading, and I'm not buying it because I know better.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!