Having new "rights" doesn't help if you can't actually use them due to DRM... oh, sorry, in Canada's Bill C-11 we have "TPMs" -- which extend manufacturer controls beyond digital. This will make speciality screw drivers currently used to refurbish/recycle computers by non-profit computer recycling depots illegal
"The gatekeepers won't be successful in this effort until they can control software distribution all over the world and outlaw computers which can be modified by the user, and I just can't see this happening in a post-SOPA world, no matter how much the gatekeepers would like to believe that the SOPA backlash was a one-off event caused by "misinformation" and "undemocratic" processes. "
Erm. As per Grumpy, the new improved UEFI is coming, so Microsoft will be able to lock down all our general purpose computers...
Especially as our government is on the verge of passing copyright law that will make circumventing TPMs (aka digital locks or DRM) illegal, even if what you are doing is not otherwise illegal.
Say you want to watch the DVD you just bought on your linux box: no can do.
Or maybe read that Project Gutenberg public domain book. Or perhaps, installing linux on my general purpose computer... if the manufacturer doesn't grant me permission to replace their OS with free software, and if I go ahead and do it, I'd be breaking the law. Yeah, I can see Bill Gates giving me the go ahead...
The moment this law is passed (and since we have a majority government, nothing can stop it) I expect there won't be a device sold in our market that is not riddled with drm/tpm.
This power could very easily be translated into preventing us from accessing independent digital content.
Actually, it does debunk copyright's usefullness from a creator's point of view. Because I have lost something, the importance of which most non-creators will not be able to understand: the right to see the realization of my creative work.
I don't think so. I shouldn't *have* to pirate it.
If many people quietly pirate stuff, the law won't ever change. Every now and again they'll drop the jail on someone just to make an example ... to try and frighten everyone else.
Current copyright law is unreasonable for creators and culture.
This series was made in Canada all those years ago. It's a different country, and the way things work here are not the same as they work there. Other companies I wrote for gave me videos; this one didn't, because it simply wasn't their policy.
This is simply one of the reasons why I've concluded that existing copyright law doesn't serve my interests.
This is perfectly understandable and also eminently reasonable.
Just because it is done legally, these so-called screening procedures constitute assault. Before or after having to be "pornscanned" or grope searched by TSA officers, I certainly wouldn't want to eat with them.
For much the same reason, executioners used to wear hoods.
Yes, it sounds funny when you understand that Twitter is a public forum. The thing to remember is that most of the people in the world are not aware that it is a public forum.
People sit in their private homes and type words on their computers for their friends to read. The same way people not so long ago typed letters that they put into envelopes, stamped and dropped in a mailbox. Just because many people use computers is no guarantee they understand them.
The CRTC just allowed Bell -- Internet backbone carrier + ISP + Cell phone + Satelite TV + media owner ... Canada's national Newspaper -- to buy Canad's biggest TV network CTV.
Of COURSE they don't want NetFlicks.... they want to turn the internet into a single content provider TV network with a "pay here" button
The CRTC should be breaking Bell up not giving them the right to gouge the customers of their wholesale customers, and incidentally drive competition out of business.
It's so hard to argue because the very situation is so unbelievable.
My problem goes the other way... in Canada we are stuck with Political Science Professor Tom Flanagan, a man who was a mentor/campaign manager/chief of staff to the current Prime Minister of Canada. In his role of regular "star commentator" on a news magazine show on the CBC television network, Flanagan called upon your President to assassinate WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange.
Flanagan clearly broke the law in counseling a felony, and followed it up with a threatening email to a woman who complained about it. Although most Canadians are appalled neither the RCMP (our federal police) or local police forces will even bring charges against this man.
Even worse, although the school community is up in arms, the University of Calgary won't even discipline Flanagan, let alone fire him.
Lawrence Lessig is an unquestionably brilliant man. And a year ago I'd have agreed with everything he had to say here. Today I'm more inclined to agree with Nina Paley.
Because today I'm more of a radical extremist (being Canadian and all, it's becoming par for the course as we're currently on the brink of getting stuck with a Canadian DMCA that will makes the original look positively liberal by comparison...)
There's a lot in Mr. Lessig's keynote that is in fact brilliant. Like the insanity of criminalizing creators and children. And zooming in on the simple fact that digital = copies.
But Larry lost me when he equated authors and rights holders. If copyright ever had some kind of justification, it would have been in the idea it was a way to compensate the creators in order to promote creation. But in reality, it has never done that well at all. Propping up "the most inefficient property system known to man" isn't about to change that. Chief beneficiaries of copyright law have always been rights holders who don't actually create anything.
A disturbing trend these days seems to be the notion that copyright is somehow supposed to guarantee remuneration. Excuse me? There is a huge difference between holding a legal monopoly on creating copies and a guaranteed income for same. Ridiculous. Remuneration issues ought to fall under contract law if anywhere; the modern corporate idea of copyright entitlement is more a case of corporate welfare.
People in positions of power and authority don't get what is happening. To achieve those positions of power and authority you pretty much have to eat and breathe the system. Changing an entrenched mindset to deal with something truly different is a really big leap.
Now that facebook has given them such great publicity, all they need do is replace "face" with the common name for any other body part. Then they too can trademark it. Down the road they'll be able to sue (or if IP law continues getting more demented) arrest all those trademark infringers using their trademarked name in school playgrounds around the world.
By seriously, why should any company be given any kind of monopoly on a word? Words are part of our common language and a common culture.
I realize many people think this, but it is incorrect. You do not have to be the creator to own the copyright.
Authors have traditionally signed some or all of their rights over to the corporate distributor. When a musical act achieves the 'holy grail' of being signed by one of the big 4, the contract invariably transfers ownership of the copyright from the actual creators to the corporate entity. (Historically the only time this does not happen is when the musical act is very big and very famous. Today the Internet means any artist can hang out an Indie shingle.)
I'm not an IP lawyer so my language may be imprecise, but as I understand it, this legally deems the corporation to be the author.
How do commercial movies work? Or TV series? In many cases a corporation/distributor provides funding and distribution in exchange for all or total ownership of the copyright, but most importantly total control of the collaborative work.
The basic thinking is that the one making the payment owns the thing. Which means many of the actual collaborative creators cannot legally upload content they have creatively contributed to on their own websites without securing permission from the "rights owner".
It is bizarre that corporate entities can exert legal control over the tangible results of human creativity. The only kind of assignment of copyright that should be permitted under law should be licensing for specific terms.
If we were to look at the idea of copyright existing to benefiting the author, 14 years is far too long. Why don't we reduce it to 2 years, since the Internet makes near instantaneous distribution possible.
Paying the creator (or even paying the progeny) for life+70 or whatever is a red herring. It simply spreads the blame. Although creator/descendents are nominally the beneficiary of life+70 (or whatever), it quickly becomes apparent that they receive the least of what's on offer.
First at the trough of royalty is always the distributor. (When you get right down to it, distribution is really what the Movie and Music and Publishing companies brought to the table.)
Next in line are the other parties that have dealt themselves in, including governments, copyright collectives and rights organizations.
The leavings go to the creators/heirs. By this point there is precious little left in the copyright trough, with the lion's share going to creators on the very top of the heap. For most creators, royalties are as much of a myth as an afterlife, and about as difficult to prove.
I'd expect it is even easier to avoid paying progeny than the original artist. And what happens when there are no heirs?
The corporations who extort copyright from creators (in exchange for distribution) do everything in their power to remit as little of the payment due to the creators as possible.
Unlike frail humans who live for only a short while, corporations are immortal. It is in corporate best interests to have nothing ever go into the public domain because the public domain offers competition. Even better for corporate interests is to remove work from the public domain. And the best way to do that is by affixing their own brand to it.
What can we do about it?
As the parent of a U of T student O want to know where I can complain?
Re: Re:
Having new "rights" doesn't help if you can't actually use them due to DRM... oh, sorry, in Canada's Bill C-11 we have "TPMs" -- which extend manufacturer controls beyond digital. This will make speciality screw drivers currently used to refurbish/recycle computers by non-profit computer recycling depots illegal
I'm scared too... Bill C-11 is coming to Canada
"The gatekeepers won't be successful in this effort until they can control software distribution all over the world and outlaw computers which can be modified by the user, and I just can't see this happening in a post-SOPA world, no matter how much the gatekeepers would like to believe that the SOPA backlash was a one-off event caused by "misinformation" and "undemocratic" processes. "
Erm. As per Grumpy, the new improved UEFI is coming, so Microsoft will be able to lock down all our general purpose computers...
Especially as our government is on the verge of passing copyright law that will make circumventing TPMs (aka digital locks or DRM) illegal, even if what you are doing is not otherwise illegal.
Say you want to watch the DVD you just bought on your linux box: no can do.
Or maybe read that Project Gutenberg public domain book. Or perhaps, installing linux on my general purpose computer... if the manufacturer doesn't grant me permission to replace their OS with free software, and if I go ahead and do it, I'd be breaking the law. Yeah, I can see Bill Gates giving me the go ahead...
The moment this law is passed (and since we have a majority government, nothing can stop it) I expect there won't be a device sold in our market that is not riddled with drm/tpm.
This power could very easily be translated into preventing us from accessing independent digital content.
Re: She got paid...
Actually, it does debunk copyright's usefullness from a creator's point of view. Because I have lost something, the importance of which most non-creators will not be able to understand: the right to see the realization of my creative work.
Re: Pirate it!
Is piracy the answer?
I don't think so. I shouldn't *have* to pirate it.
If many people quietly pirate stuff, the law won't ever change. Every now and again they'll drop the jail on someone just to make an example ... to try and frighten everyone else.
Current copyright law is unreasonable for creators and culture.
No Lie
Thanks for running this, Mike.
This series was made in Canada all those years ago. It's a different country, and the way things work here are not the same as they work there. Other companies I wrote for gave me videos; this one didn't, because it simply wasn't their policy.
This is simply one of the reasons why I've concluded that existing copyright law doesn't serve my interests.
Nero Wolfe was careful who he broke bread with....
This is perfectly understandable and also eminently reasonable.
Just because it is done legally, these so-called screening procedures constitute assault. Before or after having to be "pornscanned" or grope searched by TSA officers, I certainly wouldn't want to eat with them.
For much the same reason, executioners used to wear hoods.
it's all relative
Yes, it sounds funny when you understand that Twitter is a public forum. The thing to remember is that most of the people in the world are not aware that it is a public forum.
People sit in their private homes and type words on their computers for their friends to read. The same way people not so long ago typed letters that they put into envelopes, stamped and dropped in a mailbox. Just because many people use computers is no guarantee they understand them.
It's all about control
The CRTC just allowed Bell -- Internet backbone carrier + ISP + Cell phone + Satelite TV + media owner ... Canada's national Newspaper -- to buy Canad's biggest TV network CTV.
Of COURSE they don't want NetFlicks.... they want to turn the internet into a single content provider TV network with a "pay here" button
The CRTC should be breaking Bell up not giving them the right to gouge the customers of their wholesale customers, and incidentally drive competition out of business.
It's so hard to argue because the very situation is so unbelievable.
Canadians, write letters to your MPs etc.
http://stopusagebasedbilling.wordpress.com/
We have the opposite problem
My problem goes the other way... in Canada we are stuck with Political Science Professor Tom Flanagan, a man who was a mentor/campaign manager/chief of staff to the current Prime Minister of Canada. In his role of regular "star commentator" on a news magazine show on the CBC television network, Flanagan called upon your President to assassinate WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange.
If you watch the clip, it is pretty clear he didn't understand that this wasn't appropriate:
http://whoacanada.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/unspeakable-tom-flanagan-and-wikileaks/
Flanagan clearly broke the law in counseling a felony, and followed it up with a threatening email to a woman who complained about it. Although most Canadians are appalled neither the RCMP (our federal police) or local police forces will even bring charges against this man.
Even worse, although the school community is up in arms, the University of Calgary won't even discipline Flanagan, let alone fire him.
Please sign the petition asking for: Dr. Tom Flanagan’s immediate expulsion from the University of Calgary.
Criminal Spending ... corruption or stupidity?
Didn't anyone ever tell them that when government collects money it's supposed to go into government coffers rather than corporate coffers?
I simply don't understand why any government would assume the unpaid job of collection agent for a corporate entity.
Re: No surprise.
And that's inconsistent because...?
As the CC website or @lessig will tell you, CC licenses are not instead of copyright law, they work within copyright law.
dumping it altogether is better than reform
Lawrence Lessig is an unquestionably brilliant man. And a year ago I'd have agreed with everything he had to say here. Today I'm more inclined to agree with Nina Paley.
Because today I'm more of a radical extremist (being Canadian and all, it's becoming par for the course as we're currently on the brink of getting stuck with a Canadian DMCA that will makes the original look positively liberal by comparison...)
There's a lot in Mr. Lessig's keynote that is in fact brilliant. Like the insanity of criminalizing creators and children. And zooming in on the simple fact that digital = copies.
But Larry lost me when he equated authors and rights holders. If copyright ever had some kind of justification, it would have been in the idea it was a way to compensate the creators in order to promote creation. But in reality, it has never done that well at all. Propping up "the most inefficient property system known to man" isn't about to change that. Chief beneficiaries of copyright law have always been rights holders who don't actually create anything.
A disturbing trend these days seems to be the notion that copyright is somehow supposed to guarantee remuneration. Excuse me? There is a huge difference between holding a legal monopoly on creating copies and a guaranteed income for same. Ridiculous. Remuneration issues ought to fall under contract law if anywhere; the modern corporate idea of copyright entitlement is more a case of corporate welfare.
Excellent article Mr. Masnick
People in positions of power and authority don't get what is happening. To achieve those positions of power and authority you pretty much have to eat and breathe the system. Changing an entrenched mindset to deal with something truly different is a really big leap.
if we're going to allow trademarks...
... they should only be for made up words.
Granting a monopoly on words in common usage is not good.
Especially when you consider that some words have more than one meaning.
Fantasy writers make up names all the time. If you want to own a word, make up your own, don't steal mine.
Re: The scary thing is...
Oh yeah. FacePorn couldn't have bought the publicity Facebook gave them.
And what's up with Facebook trying to lay claim to the word "book?"
After all, Facebook is many things, but "book" is not one of them.
there ARE other body parts
Now that facebook has given them such great publicity, all they need do is replace "face" with the common name for any other body part. Then they too can trademark it. Down the road they'll be able to sue (or if IP law continues getting more demented) arrest all those trademark infringers using their trademarked name in school playgrounds around the world.
By seriously, why should any company be given any kind of monopoly on a word? Words are part of our common language and a common culture.
Re: the real issue
I realize many people think this, but it is incorrect. You do not have to be the creator to own the copyright.
Authors have traditionally signed some or all of their rights over to the corporate distributor. When a musical act achieves the 'holy grail' of being signed by one of the big 4, the contract invariably transfers ownership of the copyright from the actual creators to the corporate entity. (Historically the only time this does not happen is when the musical act is very big and very famous. Today the Internet means any artist can hang out an Indie shingle.)
I'm not an IP lawyer so my language may be imprecise, but as I understand it, this legally deems the corporation to be the author.
How do commercial movies work? Or TV series? In many cases a corporation/distributor provides funding and distribution in exchange for all or total ownership of the copyright, but most importantly total control of the collaborative work.
The basic thinking is that the one making the payment owns the thing. Which means many of the actual collaborative creators cannot legally upload content they have creatively contributed to on their own websites without securing permission from the "rights owner".
It is bizarre that corporate entities can exert legal control over the tangible results of human creativity. The only kind of assignment of copyright that should be permitted under law should be licensing for specific terms.
If we were to look at the idea of copyright existing to benefiting the author, 14 years is far too long. Why don't we reduce it to 2 years, since the Internet makes near instantaneous distribution possible.
the real issue
Paying the creator (or even paying the progeny) for life+70 or whatever is a red herring. It simply spreads the blame. Although creator/descendents are nominally the beneficiary of life+70 (or whatever), it quickly becomes apparent that they receive the least of what's on offer.
First at the trough of royalty is always the distributor. (When you get right down to it, distribution is really what the Movie and Music and Publishing companies brought to the table.)
Next in line are the other parties that have dealt themselves in, including governments, copyright collectives and rights organizations.
The leavings go to the creators/heirs. By this point there is precious little left in the copyright trough, with the lion's share going to creators on the very top of the heap. For most creators, royalties are as much of a myth as an afterlife, and about as difficult to prove.
I'd expect it is even easier to avoid paying progeny than the original artist. And what happens when there are no heirs?
The corporations who extort copyright from creators (in exchange for distribution) do everything in their power to remit as little of the payment due to the creators as possible.
Unlike frail humans who live for only a short while, corporations are immortal. It is in corporate best interests to have nothing ever go into the public domain because the public domain offers competition. Even better for corporate interests is to remove work from the public domain. And the best way to do that is by affixing their own brand to it.
seems greed never sleeps
The first time I heard Bette Midler was when she covered The Andrews Sisters... oddly enough, sounding very alike.
This is beyond bizarre.
Didn't somebody once say something about first killing all the lawyers...?