When I was hob-nobbing with the liberal elite (read: broke young people who for some reason desire a president that knows the national language) I came across that most rare of items (no, not a fair and balanced news report on Fox): a BLACK BLOGGER!!! He goes by the online name "Stone" (why it gotta be about drugs, bruh?), and you should check out his comments on dating across party lines
Viewing entries in
Technological
Read on for a continuation of the copyright discussion with actual solutions!
Before I continue with the solutions, though, here are some more fun quotes from Stallman:
"I don't own any DVDs, I hate the movie companies so much. The movie companies are the enemy of your freedom."
"Telling people to boycott all movies might be extreme, so I tell people, 'Never pay for a movie unless you have a good reason to think it's a thoughtful, intelligent film.' Now, this is almost as good as a boycott."
Let's talk about the DMCA, shall we?
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (read it here). The basic gist of the legislation is to grant publishers much more broad enforcement of copyrights. It makes it illegal to circumvent any "anti-piracy" technology embedded in a product. Not only that, it makes it illegal to describe such tools or link to them.
The DMCA has been abused by several unintended parties including printer companies that embed so-called "copy protection" in their toner cartridges, making it effectively illegal for generic toner cartridges to be used. Even garage-door opener companies are jumping on the DMCA bandwagon to enforce monopolies. Check out anti-DMCA.org for more news and examples of abuse.
By placing so much value on these so-called "copy protections" embedded in works, the DMCA, according to Stallman, basically allows publishers to write their own copyright laws. Don't want people to take advantage of low-cost alternatives? Don't want them to share? Just "embed" some "copy protection" in your product, and bam! The DMCA applies, and anyone even discussing a way around it is a criminal. Hmmmm, I wonder if there's copy protection in The Patriot Act...
Now on to the solutions
Stallman's solution calls for a drastic reduction in the length of copyright protection, as well as varying protection by type of work. As he puts it, "Why pay the same price in freedom to promote different works?"
Here are Stallman's three types of works
1. Functional Works
These include reference materials, educational materials and things like recipes.
2. Works that State a View
These would include opinion editorials, memoirs and scientific papers -- anything that reports on what someone saw, read, heard
3. Artistic Works
These would include fiction and art, generally done for its own purpose.
In terms of copyright protections, Stallman suggests something like 10 years for books and far less for software, maybe three.
His description of the rights assigned to each type was a bit incomplete, but I can imagine there's a table to be filled in. Each row represents a type of work, and then columns describe
a) length of copyright,
b) ability of user to modify and
c) ability of user to distribute.
For Type 1 works (Functional)
a) 3-10 years
b) granted
c) granted
For Type 2 works (Views)
a) 10 years
b) none
c) granted for non-commercial distributions
For Type 3 works (Art)
a) 10 years
b) granted after 10 years
c) granted with timing and rules uncertain
Finally, Stallman took special time to berate the music industry (what he refers to as the music "factory") for trying to make us feel guilty about sharing CDs when the money from CD sales hardly ever reaches an artist. For those who don't know about the indentured servitude style of the music industry, I recommend perusing Downhillbattle.org, especially this page
I'm pretty much on board with a lot of Stallman's ideas here, particularly with regard to music. Without providing a detailed analysis of the music "factory," I can tell you that CD sales do not financially benefit the artists, except in a few cases. These are the artists you see on TV telling you not to share (ahem, Metallica) because they've climbed high enough on the totem pole to actually negotiate with their labels for a piece of the pie.
For all other artists, the CD sales are basically promotional, and any money they get comes from live performances, merchandising and, increasingly, non-music activities like acting, clothing lines and commercial endorsements.
The crazy, revolutionary idea says to effectively give recorded performances away as the promotional expense that they are. This will, in turn, generate greater exposure and a larger fan base for the artist, so when he or she comes touring to your town, you the fan are more likely to buy a t-shirt and ticket to the show!
The good news is this system is already in place. The people over at FAMlicense.org have taken some of the principles of free software and open source, plus the proven experience of bootlegging in hip hop and applied it to music today. The license (FAM stands for Freedom Access Music) basically allows for the redistribution of music (commercial OR non-commercial) by any consumer so long as they re-issue under the FAM license.
By encouraging people to share music and even financially benefit from their efforts, the FAM license sets up an experiment sure to succeed. Those people who find the best way to package, promote and distribute the music they like will find success, and the music they distribute will generate a larger following. Take the centralized, bloated and ineffecient marketing department at any record label and dispurse it among people on the ground who truly know the market. What you'll find is a bunch of micro-music industry experts getting music to the people in a much more efficient fashion.
I will continue to discuss copyright and related societal and technological issues on this blog. Comments? Questions? Post away.
Oh yeah, I'll probably be in a documentary film about the spread of open source software. Check out The Digital Tipping Point
In the meantime, followup on some of the issues raised at some cool sites below
The Free Software Foundation
The Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia
Copyleft
Creative Commons
On Sunday July 25, I attended the Boston Social Forum and sat in on a presentation by Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement, or what has become known as "open source." Stallman had a lot to say about copyright, so read on to find out how to change the world...
"There is nothing more fundamentally evil than a promise not to share."
These were nearly the first words out of Stallman's mouth as he described the increasingly draconian software licensing terms attached to most commercial software. Anyone who's ever read an "End User License Agreement (EULA" when installing Microsft warez may be familiar with such terms. I always make a point to skim them just to make sure I haven't promised Bill Gates my first born.
The topic that Stallman was discussing was "Copyright and Community." He'd been invited to the Boston Social Forum, a weekend of events, activities, meetings and displays on everything from socially conscious comedy (my thing) to green cars to the war in Iraq .
In the beginning, there was handwriting...
Stallman began by providing the diverse audience with a much-needed primer on the history of copyright itself.
In the beginning, books were the only things you could copy, and if you were one of the few people who could actually read, you were free to make a hand copy -- the only method available at the time. This created a copying system that was relatively open to all (who could read) and required no central location. You could do it at home.
Then came the printing press. This system was open to only a few (who could afford to purchase, maintain and operate the press) and required a central location. The rulers at the time would grant monopoly printing rights to one party in an area as patronage.
According to Stallman, copyright "law" originated to regulate the press industry, and not the individual copying done by hand. In the US Constitution (remember that thing? hasn't been seen much since September 12, 2001) copyright is mentioned as a optional power granted to Congress, and it's goal is positive (rather than restrictive).
See for yourself:
The Congress shall have the Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
First of all, doesn't it feel good to read the actual Constitution, rather than hear a bunch of media industry lawyers manipulate it for their own selfish ends? I hear there are still a few untampered copies lying about here
Second, note the language around copyright. Some important caveats
1. Congress has the power, but like He-Man, is not obligated to use it
2. The purpose of this power is to promote scientific progress and useful arts
3. These powers are for limited times and
4. The powers are supposed to go to authors and inventors
Who Moved My Chee-- I Mean Copyright?
According to Stallman's view, the digital era in which we live puts us back in those ancient times, where copying was open to all and did not require a central location. Your computer is your 21st Century hand.
However, Congress has been giving us "perpetual copyright on the installment plan" by extending copyright protection, magically in tune with the timing that would release Mickey Mouse into the public domain. Check out this table for the current law on copyright duration. Basically, it's now 75 years plus the life of the author!
Here's another great Stallman quote on the extension: "I fail to see how they think that extending copyright on works written in the 1920s will incent those dead authors to write more back then."
The point? Copyright as currently interpreted and enforced by the powers that be no longer works for the people, as it was set out to do in the Constitution.
The solution, why less protection of course
Stay tuned for my next entry where I lay out Richard's vision of how we can reclaim copyright to do what the founders intended, and see how some young musicians and business people are already creating a world very much in line with Stallman's theory...
ciao for now! gotta go tell jokes to drunk people
additional note:
this discussion continues here