Sons of Anarchy Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy

theodp writes "Over at Slate, Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter argues that Google's anti-copyright stance is just a way to devalue content, which is bad for artists and bad for consumers. The screed is Sutter's response to an earlier anti-copyright rant in Slate penned by a lawyer who represents Google and is a Fellow at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute chaired by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that receives funding from Schmidt and Google. 'Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience,' writes Sutter. 'And I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Google are very nice people. But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing. Yet Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit. Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work. People access Kim through Google. And then, when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it's presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It's so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who's the friend of the young everyman. Don't kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource Google can access to create more traffic and more data streams. Unfortunately, those streams are now pristine, digital ones of our work, which all flow into a huge watershed of semi-dirty cash. If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word "parasite."'"

Comments

Sour grapes

[nurb432]

Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people..

Re:Sour grapes

[The Last Gunslinger]

Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola.

For this no-value-added middleman clown to accuse any other operation of being parasitic is the apotheosis of laughable hypocrisy.

Re:Sour grapes

[ATMAvatar]

Devalued content helps the consumer all the way up until the flow of new content stops, and there is no indication that it would, even in a world where all content was distributed for free. I might have more sympathy for the guy if the big content producers didn't also bribe Congress to extend copyright duration to a point where something produced in an average person's lifetime will not enter the public domain until after they're long dead.

Re:Sour grapes

[Jane Q. Public]

"Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people.."

This.

Contrary to what OP and TFA say, the Google-lawyer article wasn't "anti-copyright" at all. It was anti-copyright-ABUSE, and anti-copyright-TROLLING. There is a pretty damned big difference. Leaving off those last parts is disingenuous to the point of lying.

Re:Sour grapes

[Jane Q. Public]

"Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola."

It's not either-or. Many "content creators" are their own publishers, and are responsible for at least as much copyright abuse as publishers-only. (We're looking at you, Disney.)

Re:Sour grapes

[MightyMartian]

Human culture existed for thousands of years before copyright, and during that long expanse there has been no lack of music, drama, prose, poetry, painting and sculpture. Strangely enough "content creators" did make a living.

Re:Sour grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of copyright law, I think, should be whether it is good for 'society' or not. Whether it is good for the content producer, the consumer, or google shouldn't matter quite as much as whether it is good for society as a whole. Would creative people keep producing new and wonderful content it the protection of their efforts were more limited, if their distributors and heirs were less rich? I think yes, because I think artists are internally driven to produce. It would be more difficult for them to produce works beyond a certain scale (where they need mega-millions to do what they want to do), but that might not be a bad thing. Would the big-bucks producers (Hollywood, Bollywood, big studios) keep financing big works if the duration of their protection were more limited? Again, I think so, just that they would need to keep working, rather than relying on the sale of articles out of their library. The effect of copyright law on Google, Hollywood Studios, or even the artists should be secondary to it's effects on creative production. So, short-term protection should be the order of the day imo, not long-term protection.

Re:Sour grapes

[The Last Gunslinger]

You illustrate my point. The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories. And the fact that the company takes creative content (e.g. new stories) and uses their copyrighted character to act them out does not make them creators of content. It makes them thieves.

Show me the independent artist who is being serviced by today's 120-year copyright protections, and I'll show you a BitTorrent user who isn't pirating stuff.

Re:Sour grapes

[dryeo]

And how would going back to a 14+14 year copyright term hurt the average artist? They'd still get paid, just have to produce something new more regularly. Even the one hit wonders would make good money and if they sensibly invest it they still might never need to work.
In your case as a programmer for hire, it would mean that your Boss would be more motivated to keep you around and happy instead of taking your code (for a price) and milking it forever.

Re:Sour grapes

[Jane Q. Public]

"The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories."

Ahem. Yes, they are. They build their own 3D animation studios. They hire their own artists (not up-and-coming talented bands or movie stars) in-house. Disney has almost always done it that way.

Yes, Disney *IS* the creator of that content, not just the publisher. You're splitting hairs that are so fine they're not even visible under a microscope.

Re:Sour grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Disney *IS* the creator of that content, not just the publisher. You're splitting hairs that are so fine they're not even visible under a microscope.

You mean all the stuff they took from the public domain, drew up some vision of the characters and now outright own the whole thing instead of the drawings they made? That kind of creation?

Re:Sour grapes

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm firmly in the "reform copyright" camp. That is, I think copyright is a useful economic tool for promoting creation and distribution of new work, but the current implementation of copyright law is deeply flawed and no longer fit for purpose in most of the western world.

That said, I want to challenge this statement you made, because I think it's too strong:

However, no matter how optimistic you are, what becomes clear is that if copyright dies in a practical sense, you cannot make a living as an artist.

I don't think this is a black/white question, but rather a matter of probability, scale, and variety of options. Many people do make a living in creative industries without really relying on copyright all that much.

For example, most of the work I do is subject to copyright protection, and in some of my roles I would normally transfer the copyright to clients/customers at the end of a job. However, often neither I nor my customers much care about that, because if we're talking about software that is running on their web server or embedded in their device, it has much more practical protection against someone ripping it than copyright affords, and in any case the software would have limited value in isolation so there's not much incentive for others to copy it.

Not everyone in software works on projects where that would be the case, so for others copyright offers a better incentive. But in those cases, other models might also work. I have some hope for the crowd-sourcing idea, as the likes of Kickstarter have already shown that even quite substantial projects staffed by solid industry veterans can pull in a decent amount of funding to match. Potentially there's a lot of middleman removal as a pleasant side effect, all the while still allowing the overall cost of developing a moderately large project to be amortised over many customers (and unlike typical copyright-and-sale business models, potentially allowing different customers to contribute more or less according to their means, so perhaps better satisfying your "democratic model" criteria). I think we need a few more of the bigger projects to actually deliver before drawing too many conclusions here, and of course even the biggest are still orders of magnitude smaller than what copyright-backed industry has achieved, but the early signs look positive from here.

So while I'd agree that the scales proven so far and the odds of success are not as good without copyright as with it, at least for those kinds of creative work where copyright is fundamental to the existing business model anyway, I think it's too strong to say that you can't make a living as an artist without it. What we should be concentrating on is whether more people wind up making more and better work that is ultimately enjoyed by more people with different variations of copyright or other IP frameworks. The idea is to maximise creativity and productivity for the benefit of society as a whole, IMHO.

Re:Sour grapes

[jd2112]

You illustrate my point. The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories. And the fact that the company takes creative content (e.g. new stories) and uses their copyrighted character to act them out does not make them creators of content. It makes them thieves.

If Disney keeps on extending copyright, someday they will run out of public domain material to form the basis of new movies.

Re:Sour grapes

[DrJimbo]

Historically, the arts have been funded by patronage. The commercialization of the arts is a fairly recent phenomenon. Yes, many great artists have died penniless with their genius unrecognized. But that means they created out of love for their art and the need to express their genius not out of a desire for financial renumeration. In addition, original works of art are far more valuable than reproductions. So not only is there an innate desire in true creators to create, there is also an innate desire in others to reward this creation, after the fact. There is joy in the act of creation and there is joy in others when they appreciate what was created. I've been in movie theaters where the audience stood up and gave the movie standing ovation even though none of the creators were there to hear the applause. There is no doubt that at that point in time many people would have paid generously if making a payment was as easy as tapping a button on their phone. Films that moved people would be rewarded.

The notion that patronage does not work is only in the context of a world where the arts have been bastardized and exploited for monetary gain. Of course people who are embedded in the commercialization model will have a difficult time making the transition. This is a feature not a bug. It would be a benefit to have the exploiters weeded out so more genuine creation and genius can flourish. It is insane to for us to give the role of story-teller to Hollywood writers. They are not the people who should be teaching our children about relationships. Sex sells. Violence sells. But these are not the stories and myths we want our children to be raised on. The information we pass on to the next generation should not be based primarily on what is most titillating.

As the cost to copy, store, and transmit information continues to plummet, the commercialization model becomes less and less tenable, requiring draconian measure to give content owners more and more control over all aspects of information transfer and processing. It would require a fascist dictatorship over information.

OTOH, the patronage model becomes easier as information technology advances. It can be fueled by instant micropayments so everyone who chooses to can participate and vote with their wallets. In the long run it is the only sensible approach. But even in the short term, it is the only way I know of to stem the tide of cultural exploitation and destruction that the commercialization of the arts has caused.

Culture belongs to everybody. It is our birthright and it is the lifeblood of our civilization. It is crazy to lock it up tightly due to the fact that the cost of information transfer and storage is getting close to zero. The cost to our society and to our civilization for this lock-up is enormous because we are denying our children and our children's children their birthright. It is a form of cultural and societal suicide. The miracle of life is based on passing genetic information from one generation to the next. Human beings were able to supercharge this passing on of information by creating side-channels: art, language, history, science and the humanities, even religion. Evolution in these side-channel information transfers was staggeringly fast compared to genetic evolution. Stifling this form of evolution is the ultimate triumph of mediocrity over genius.

Re:Sour grapes

[AK Marc]

First, no artist was *ever* forced to go through the big labels.

You sound like the people defending Ticketmaster. There was an act that couldn't get venues or insurance unless they paid the Ticketmaster Tax. They weren't "forced" to use Ticketmaster, they just weren't able to tour without them. I used to go to the UA theater when I was a kid (the theater is long gone, and I think they left the theater owning business) but yes, they would *only* show big label sanctioned movies.

There's a reason why Robert Rodriguez had to sell the rights to the completed movie El Mariachi to get it shown in a theater. The contracts blocked access to anyone but the big labels. I'm sure there were a handfull of theaters that were dollar theaters or the like that could show it, but they don't even if they "can". Instead, it gets bought and re-mastered for millions (for a sub $100k movie), and shows for a loss after making more than 10x the production cost of the movie (mostly lost to "sound" and "marketing").

Yeah, you aren't "forced" to go through a big label, but you'll never get your movie shown in the US unless you sell the rights to them or pay them millions for approval.

Non sequitur

[Stellian]

It's so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who's the friend of the young everyman. Don't kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource

That may all be true, but that does not change the fact that Sutter is also part of the establishment and also looking at viewers as a revenue stream. Google vs Hollywood are two bears fighting over a beehive, and we are the bees. Pick your side carefully, when the fight is over someone eats the honey and it's not you or me.

Interesting open book on the opposite side

[amaurea]

This book argues quite convincingly, based on current and historical examples, that copyrights and patents are a net negative to society.

Doesn't pass the laugh test

[Frater 219]

But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives.

You never use a search engine while writing? They're awfully handy for fact-checking, looking up sources, and so on.

But I suppose those sorts of activities are not required these days ....

Disruption works when evolution fails.

[Fringe]

The problem is Disney. The last Copyright Extension Act increased copyrights to 120 years. The original U.S. copyright length, in the Copyright Act of 1790, was for 14 years with the potential for one renewal for another 14, and only if the author was still alive.

Corporations have taken over copyright, and it's not currently fixable due to their power. We can destroy copyright and then rebuild more easily than we can wrestle the monied interests into compromise.

Google is a problem for both sides, but that isn't a bad thing... having two enemies duke it out, weakening each other without impacting you, is a good thing.

Re:Disruption works when evolution fails.

[Immerman]

Not necessarily - if I could download content from 14 years ago free and clear of legal encumbrance, then I'd probably watch a lot more old content, it's not like modern content has improved dramatically, and there's no shortage of old classics I've never gotten around to watching, thus reducing the temptation to pirate anything. Of course that only makes the problem worse for the media giants - their problem is not specifically piracy, but that I'm not paying for their new content. And for that I can only say that until they start offering a quality product at a reasonable price I won't be buying much regardless.

Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon?

[casings]

Allow me to post the wikipedia article you were too lazy to search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

In 1994, he was arrested by German police for trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers. He was held in custody for a month, released and arrested again on additional hacking charges shortly afterwards. He was eventually convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud, 10 counts of data espionage, and an assortment of other charges. He received a two-year suspended sentence – because he was under age at the time the crimes were committed.[29] The judge in the case said the court viewed his actions as "youthful foolishness."[30]
In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com (de) and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.[31] The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump[32] and Schmitz cashed out, making a profit of €1.5 million. One commentator suggested that Schmitz may have been ignorant of the legal ramifications of what he had done, since insider trading was not made a crime in Germany until 1995,[29] and until 2002 prosecutors also had to prove the accused had criminal intent.[33]
Schmitz moved to Thailand to avoid investigation[12] where he was subsequently arrested on behalf of German authorities.[30] In response, he allegedly pretended to kill himself online, posting a message on his website that from now on he wished to be known as "His Royal Highness King Kimble the First, Ruler of the Kimpire".[30][34] He was deported back to Germany where he pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and, after five months in jail awaiting trial, again received a suspended sentence (of 20 months).[33] After avoiding a prison sentence for a second time, he left Germany and moved to Hong Kong in late 2003.[12]

Re:Uhhh... no

[ThatAblaze]

Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work.

This is hilarious, coming from a guy who writes a TV show about a gang of convicted felons who make millions of dollars in illegal revenue selling guns. You would think he of all people might be a little sympathetic to the idea of people stepping outside the law to provide a service when there is enough demand to do so.

Proof the Google Gives a s**t

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content?

Yes! That is why they walked away from China.

Now let's talk about those lost Dr. Who episodes. Or would you rather address the copyright that every orchestra applies to their redition of a Mozart tune.

Re:The problem is ads, not downloading

[BronsCon]

Yes, because YouTube searches for content to steal. Right.

Actually...

Wrong. If it's on YouTube, it's there because someone, somewhere, uploaded it to YouTube and, in doing so, certified that they had the right to do so and agreed to allow YouTube to attach ads to it. That person, the one who uploaded the content they had no right to upload the content, who had no right to agree to allow ads to be attached to it, is the one who is in the wrong; they are the one Kurt Sutter should be pissed at, not Google, who provides a service that allows people to upload their own content. YouTube works on trust, and that trust has been violated, but Google has kept up their end of things; if you see your content on YouTube and you did not authorize its presence there, Google will remove it, but you have to make them aware of it, first.

Re:what? youre a cluless cunt

[ShieldW0lf]

google contributes nothing good to society and freeloads off of all content creators period

I like my Nexus 5. I'm new around here, and I find it very helpful finding my way around the city. I hitchhiked all the way across the continent a few months ago, and Google Maps helped me find my way.

What did YOU contribute?

Re:what? youre a cluless cunt

[DexterIsADog]

Actually Google didn't create the Nexus. It pretty much copied much of the iPhone's look and feel. Then it hired some company in Taiwan to make it.

Google copied from some other company, and then hired an Asian company to manufacture it?

Those bastards! That's *Apple's* business model!