Well, well. After some delays and an aborted attempt a few days ago, it appears that the SpaceX "test" flight to get a bit of cargo into orbit and aimed at the International Space Station has worked according to plan -- and we're now a step closer to a private space program (photo from NASA):

The SpaceX folks webcast the whole thing from its website (hopefully, they'll post the video for people to rewatch -- as of right now there's nothing). The White House immediately offered its congratulations for "the potential of a new era in American spaceflight..." powered by the private sector.

This is the second time that SpaceX has gotten this far, but rather than just orbiting the earth a couple times, the current mission goal is to have the Dragon capsule actually dock with the International Space Station (and deliver some food). The actual docking process is a bit complex, apparently, so there are still some worries. However, things certainly seem to be progressing.

And, of course, this is just one of many stepping stones towards actually offering private manned spaceflight, which goes beyond just touching the edges of space, but actually into orbit. Either way, it's an important milestone along the way.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Some Countries Want To Fix TPP... By Making It More Like ACTA

ACTA and TPP have much in common, but the way in which they represents two aspects of the same impulse has never been shown more clearly than here, in this proposal to re-use elements of one in the other:

In an apparent effort to break the deadlock in negotiations for an intellectual property rights (IPR) chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), several countries are proposing that certain provisions in a U.S. proposal be replaced with language from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), according to informed sources.

Sources said that other ACTA signatories involved in the TPP – New Zealand, Australia and Singapore – want to substitute language from the agreement’s criminal offenses section with the proposed U.S. language on criminal enforcement, according to sources in Dallas.

Some of the more "moderate" participating countries have realized that TPP's criminal enforcement provisions are simply disproportionate: the ACTA and the U.S. proposal [for TPP] both would require countries to provide for criminal procedures and penalties at least in cases of "willful" counterfeiting of trademarks and copyright piracy on a "commercial scale."

However, the U.S. proposal contains a much stricter interpretation of what constitutes commercial scale because it would cover significant infringements for both the purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain as well as acts that result in no direct or financial gain.

One source said this provision could criminally punish an individual who has committed a significant act of infringement but does not intend to gain financially from it. IPR industry sources defend this approach as capturing users of file sharing services who do not stand to gain financially by sharing a large amount of pirated content.
That last comment is noteworthy, because it shows that the copyright industries want to punish general users swapping unauthorized copies with criminal sanctions even if there is no money involved. It confirms that these treaties are not really about fighting organized crime, as they are often presented, but truly a war on online sharing itself, where the aim is to put ordinary people behind bars.

To break the deadlock on this issue, the moderate wing of the TPP club is apparently suggesting that the equivalent ACTA provisions should be re-used. It's interesting to see ACTA, which is still being fiercely fought in Europe because of its harsh and unbalanced nature, presented here as a milder option compared to TPP. If nothing else, that negotiating calculus emphasizes just how extreme TPP is.

However, it's also disturbing that ACTA, although not yet in force, is already being taken as the new baseline. Indeed, the article quoted above notes that ACTA's provisions "represent a much higher standard than the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)" - the previous benchmark here.

Moreover, as regards the current "compromise" idea of using ACTA's provisions instead of the US proposals for TPP, an industry source had the following to say:

the U.S. IPR text largely reflects the U.S.-Korea FTA [Free Trade Agreement] and it would be unlikely the U.S. would agree to provisions that are less strict in the area of criminal enforcement.

As far as the US is concerned, it seems, every treaty in this area, whether bilateral (as in the US-Korea FTA) or multilateral (as with ACTA and TPP), is part of a policy ratchet that allows change in only one direction: more. The unspoken assumption that more copyright and more enforcement are always better is one of the key reasons why SOPA failed, ACTA is meeting such resistance, and even TPP is stumbling.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Want More Jobs? Get Rid Of The Patent Trolls

Last fall, after years and years of bickering and fighting, Congress and the President finally got together to pass what they called a "patent reform" bill. While the bill made a few changes to how the patent system works, it almost completely ignored the issue of patent trolling or just how destructive patents are to innovation. Even more ridiculous is that the President insisted that the new bill would create jobs. Perhaps for patent lawyers, but not for many others. Vivek Wadhwa has written up a great piece in the Washington Post noting that if we want job growth, we need to deal with the patent trolls, and most specifically the software patent trolls:

The President is mistaken—at least when it comes to the patent system as it relates to software patents. These patents—and the patent system—aren’t creating innovation, they are inhibiting it and, by extension, job creation. Why? Because the breakthroughs aren’t in the patents, they are in the way ideas are commercialized and marketed. Because of flaws in the patent system and government leaders’ misunderstandings, there is an arms race of sorts happening in the tech industry that is sapping billions out of the economy and crushing technology startups. This system is enriching patent trolls—companies that buy patents in order to extort money from innovators. These trolls are like a modern day mafia. Given this, I argue software patents need to be eliminated or curtailed.

Indeed. But we'll never fix the patent system if the government continues to think that patents themselves are the key to innovation, despite the evidence showing that patents simply don't correlate to actual innovation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Russian Appeals Court Says Popular Social Network vKontakte Is Liable For File Sharing By Users

The Russian social network site vKontakte is often called "The Facebook of Russia," in large part because it looks a lot like Facebook. It's incredibly popular across the Russian-speaking region (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.). However, for years, the entertainment industry has argued that the main reason it's so popular is because it has a built in file sharing feature, which is regularly used for the unauthorized sharing of music files. It's no secret that plenty of unauthorized music gets shared this way -- and we've even seen other file sharing platforms (even those targeted outside of Russian-speaking countries) built on top of vKontakte's system. A court had ruled that the site was liable earlier this year, and now an appeals court has backed that up. The full details aren't entirely clear, as most of the information so far comes from a gloating press release from IFPI. If there are specific activities that vKontakte does to encourage unauthorized sharing that's one thing, but merely having a feature that allows individuals to share files seems like a perfectly legitimate feature. The fact that it's widely used to infringe shouldn't put the blame on the service provider automatically. It would be great to see more details of the ruling to understand the thinking.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Expensive Meals

A nice meal is a nice meal, regardless of the price. But if you want to show off your considerable fortunes, try serving up a few of these ingredients in your next culinary creation. (Maybe if you're a newly-minted billionaire, recently married... and have a penchant for killing your own food?)

If you like really expensive vegetables, forget white asparagus, hop shoots are where it's at. But unless they're specially cultivated, the shoots will turn green and become tough and rope-like. [url]
European white truffles go for thousands of dollars per pound, found by trained dogs (not pigs who will sometimes eat the fungus). Time to start cultivating these in a lab -- or at least a quick DNA test to confirm the species... [url]
About 150 flowers are needed to produce one gram of saffron -- and a lot of human labor. Fortunately, it doesn't take a lot to impart its flavor into foods, but avoid the fake stuff and don't buy ground saffron. [url]
To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If You're In Silicon Valley, Come Talk With Rep. Jason Chaffetz About How We Prevent Another SOPA

As many of you remember from the SOPA debates in Congress, one of the loudest voices speaking out against the bill was Rep. Jason Chaffetz. His repeated admonition in the House Judiciary Committee concerning how ridiculous it was to proceed without hearing from actual technical experts -- i.e., "the nerds" -- got plenty of well-deserved attention (including from Jon Stewart, who wryly noted that the nerds in this case meant "experts"). Rep. Chaffetz will be coming to Silicon Valley on Thursday, May 24th, for a roundtable lunch discussion, put on by the Congressional Internet Caucus, as a part of their excellent 2012 State of the Net West Townhall Series. These free events have been a great way to interact with policy makers, so if you're in Silicon Valley, I highly recommend signing up and stopping by. I'll be there, and as with all of the Congressional Internet Caucus events, I expect plenty of other interesting attendees, and expect a useful and lively discussion with Rep. Chaffetz about how we prevent another SOPA situation, as well as various other issues impacting innovation and technology.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Copyright Extension Undermined Copyright: The Copyright Of Parking (Part I)

What do copyright and parking laws have in common?

The short answer: no one takes either very seriously.

According to a recent article in L.A. Magazine, only 10% of parking citations ever get written. Which is to say that 90% of the times that people park illegally, there are no consequences. Those who violate the increasingly strict parking rules in most U.S. cities are more likely to associate a ticket with bad luck or personal hostility against them than with the fact that they broke the law.

In other words, when you get a ticket, you don't feel guilty. You feel victimized. As John Van Horn, the editor of Parking Today, explains, low levels of enforcement undermine the deterrent intent of parking laws. "We break the law often and get away with it. Deep down inside we know that. What makes us mad is getting caught the few times we do. 'Ninety percent of drivers on this street got away scot-free today, but I get the ticket?' That makes us crazy."

Part of what drives us to rage at getting a ticket is that we don't actually believe parking should be illegal in the first place. The freedom to park wherever there's space is deeply ingrained in the American psyche if not the law. The invention of the parking meter in the late 1930's was greeted with near-riots across the country. Editorials railed against the new devices as "illegal," "immoral" and a "perversion." The Alabama state Supreme Court declared meters unconstitutional in 1937, and ordered them removed from Birmingham streets.

"I truly believe that when men and women think about parking, their mental capacity reverts to the reptilian cortex of the brain," says UCLA's Donald Shoup, perhaps the nation's only academic devoted to the study of parking.

A law that is rarely enforced—indeed, which is not cost-effective to enforce except sporadically—is no law at all. Which brings us to copyright.

Overprotective and largely unenforced rules, combined with a deep-rooted sense of entitlement, create an explosive combination. The problem is the same with parking and copyright. As copyright law becomes more strict, and its penalties more byzantine, Americans are less likely to make the effort to follow the rules, or to believe that new forms of technology-enabled copying are immoral in the first place.

We refuse to see our behavior as illegal, even when we know it is. Recent surveys by the Pew Research Center, for example, report that 72 percent of Americans between ages 18 and 29 "do not care whether the music they download onto their computers is copyrighted or not." Rightly or wrongly (if those terms even mean anything anymore in this context), the added penalties, extensions, and limits on copying, along with decreasing rates of successful enforcement, are making it less, not more, likely that Americans will obey the rules.

We are collectively living in a state of cognitive dissonance, uncomfortably embracing two conflicting beliefs at the same time. Copying is illegal. Copying is not wrong.

Where did we get the idea of a right to free content? In large part, from the content producers themselves. An older generation grew up with music, movies and television programs beamed directly to their televisions and transistor radios at no charge. Those consumers can't understand why saving content onto some medium and enjoying it again or later should suddenly transform a strongly-encouraged behavior into a felony.

A younger generation, raised on cheap Internet access, was likewise encouraged to enjoy all manner of copyrighted materials freely and frequently by content providers who wisely chose to rely, as their predecessors did, on advertising and other indirect revenue to pay their costs and generate profits. That's the message of newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks who offer some or even all of their content without a paywall. And the movie industry teases consumers mercilessly with trailers, interviews, and production blogs that show just enough of upcoming movies to make us feel entitled to see the rest, one way or the other, the sooner the better.

Yet when fans enthusiastically encourage others to embrace their preferences by posting clips or copies of popular content to YouTube or by ripping CDs and DVDs to repeat their enjoyment on other devices, they instantly cross the legal line from well-trained consumers to dangerous criminals—even terrorists.

Copyright may be the law, in other words, but it no longer holds any moral authority with most consumers. There's no longer an ethical imperative to obey it or even understand it. Self-enforcement is fading, and the rules are so severe and so frequently violated that effective legal enforcement has become nearly impossible.

It's a meter, and we all know that the meter is rarely checked. Copyright is a law in name only—as obsolete and irrelevant as rules still on the books in some jurisdictions that regulate who can or must wear what kind of clothing.

Next: How making the law stronger makes the law weaker

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge In Grooveshark Lawsuit Orders Blog To 'Preserve' Logs That Had Already Been Deleted

Earlier this month, we noted a problematic attempt by Grooveshark's parent company, Escape Media, to subpoena information on an anonymous commenter on the blog site Digital Music News. As we noted at the time, Universal Music had referenced that comment in its lawsuit against Grooveshark. It seemed bizarre to reference an anonymous comment, especially one that seemed like pure hearsay (it made claims about things Grooveshark employees had done). In the lawsuit between UMG and Grooveshark it seemed completely pointless (and, indeed, Grooveshark has been arguing as much in that particular lawsuit). Yet, at the same time, Grooveshark subpoenaed DMN in an attempt to find out who posted that comment. DMN resisted the subpoena, noting that it discards and overwrites its log files every few days anyway, and these files had been long gone already. It also pointed to California's shield law for journalists and the basic First Amendment protections for anonymous speech.

Unfortunately, the judge has ruled against Digital Music News, and ordered it to produce the information. The judge has indicated that he will not require this information during the appeal that DMN's lawyer indicated they would file... but did require "preservation" of the evidence during that time. Beyond the shield law and First Amendment issues raised here (we'll get to those), this raises a very, very troubling proposition for any website that regularly overwrites its log files. Escape Media had argued that even if DMN overwrote the log files, it should be required to hand over the information on the subpoena just in case the overwritten data was still available and could be recovered.

So, what do you do in this situation? Under the judge's order to "preserve" data that has already been deleted, what is a site to do? Do they have to immediately stop using their existing hardware and set up an entire clone -- hanging onto all of the original hardware for who knows how long, just in case a forensics expert can find a tiny piece of (useless for this case anyway) data that has been overwritten probably a hundred times already? That seems crazy. Paul Levy, from Public Citizen, who is representing DMN on this issue, highlighted many of the issues in his blog post about this:

The imposition of data preservation requirements on a journalist who is not a party to the litigation raises questions apart from the merits of the order. Journalists need to be able to discard data when they no longer have any of their own use for it.  Yes, “the public has a claim to every man’s evidence,” but don’t members of the public who are not involved in litigation have the right to discard information despite the fact that it might turn out to be useful evidence for somebody else’s case?  Does the public have a claim to heroic efforts on every man’s part?  Shouldn’t there be higher standards for subpoenas demanding intrusive searches for discarded data in the hands of third parties?

The problem is compounded when it is a journalist that has been subpoenaed.  To what extent does society have any entitlement to make journalists in particular take heroic measures, such as searching the nooks and crannies of their computer equipment for fragments of discarded data?  The judge was sensitive to the fact that our client here is a journalist, telling Escape Media that he was not prepared to allow it to make any general search of Digital Music News’ computers.  But an issue that we may have to pursue on appeal is whether a journalist should ever have to undertake such drastic preservation efforts in aid of a lawsuit in which he is not involved, particularly given the relative unlikelihood that fragments of identifying data remain on his computers somewhere.
Indeed, the problem is broader than just journalists.  Companies often keep log files with respect to server visits (and hosted comments), but there is little business justification for keeping those logs forever; so generally speaking they are discarded after a period of time (EFF's best practices recommendations are worth a look in this regard).  Does the mere act of discarding log files set a company up for the possibility of a demand for forensic examination of the underlying servers, in the hope that some fragment of the data might be recovered?  In this regard, the trial court's order has chilling implications for other California companies, even beyond the issue of journalists. 

Issues of how to preserve the data remain to be decided.  This is not like just leaving one of your file cabinets untouched for a period of time; it is not even as easy as making sure you don't delete any of your email.  Preserving the web site while creating a copy of the underlying servers is a complicated process, requiring the services of a forensic specialist, and the cost could be substantial.  The estimates that we have been given are well into the five figures; but even the cost of several thousand dollars would be an enormous imposition on this small company.

It really is quite a difficult issue, and if the ruling stands, could become a massive headache for any company in California.

Separately, we should not ignore the First Amendment and shield law issues. DMN is not a party in this case, and it's not even clear why this information is needed. Escape/Grooveshark can and should point out that the information contained in the comment is pure hearsay so it shouldn't have to deal with it in the original case. The company has not filed a defamation claim against the commenter and does not appear to have met the high bar required to unveil an anonymous commenter anyway. This is a pretty big concern for any journalist or blogger out there. Being dragged into a third party dispute because someone comments on your site can represent a pretty big problem for a lot of smaller sites.

While Grooveshark's legal fight against the major labels certainly raises some interesting copyright questions, it's disappointing to see them going down this path and potentially creating serious problems not just for Digital Music News, but tons of journalists and websites.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt Threatened With Defamation Suit Over Story On Feds Getting Royalty In Movie From Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer

We recently wrote about a very strange case, in which the US government apparently ended up with a 10% royalty in a soon to be produced Hollywood movie that is being billed as the "prequel" to Passion of the Christ -- the famous Mel Gibson movie that made over $600 million. The details were convoluted, but apparently our reporting on the subject upset someone, as we were sent an email, claiming that our post was defamatory and could cause damages in "the hundreds of millions of dollars," threatening that legal action would be taken if we did not change the post immediately.

In case you missed the original story, it involved a guy by the name of Jorge Vazquez Sanchez, who everyone seems to admit was somehow connected to a Mexican drug cartel. The government specifically charged him with money laundering and extortion. Reporters covering the story, including Guillermo Contreras and Jason Buch at the San Antonio Express-News, refer to Vazquez as a "drug trafficker."

Either way, the extortion claim came from the way he took ownership of a screenplay for Mary, Mother of Christ, which was written by Benedict Fitzgerald, who also wrote the screenplay for Passion.... Fitzgerald, at some point, took out and then defaulted on a business loan for $340,000 with Macri Inc. Because of this, the owner of Macri Inc., Arturo Madrigal, took possession of the screenplay. Some time after this, apparently Vazquez had Madrigal's brother kidnapped in Mexico, and demanded the rights to the screenplay in exchange for his release. Madrigal signed over the rights to the screenplay to Vazquez. Vazquez apparently then was able to sell the screenplay to Proud Mary Entertainment, which was later renamed Aloe Entertainment, in exchange for $1 million (less some fees) and a 10% royalty rate on any profits from the movie. After Vazquez did a plea deal in which he plead guilty and handed over that 10% royalty to the US government, Madrigal hit Vazquez with a separate lawsuit, seeking to regain control of the screenplay that Vazquez had obtained through these questionable means.

As far as we can tell all of the above are undisputed facts. It's what has been reported by others. It's what's in the legal documents. And it's what we reported. Our report focused almost entirely on the oddity of the US government ending up with a 10% royalty interest in a Hollywood movie.

And yet... we received a very threatening email claiming that our post was defamatory. The full email (complete with a series of typos, though minus the odd line breaks) is posted below. The lawyer who sent it claims to represent the producers of the film who purchased the screenplay from Vazquez. This may mean Aloe Entertainment, though the email never names the client. Oddly, the email, while insisting that our post was defamatory, more or less repeats the identical facts as we described them in the original post, and which we are reiterating here. The email does appear to raise two issues:

Our original post referred to Vazquez as a "drug smuggler." This was based on the San Antonio Express-News report that refers to him as a "drug trafficker." Perhaps there is a difference between one and the other, but it does not seem to be one of significance. Either way, the threat email was quite upset that we did not specify that he was merely "acting as a money launderer for a Mexican drug cartel." I will admit that I do not see how this makes a major difference one way or another, but in the interest of accuracy in reporting, we have changed our original reference from "Mexican drug smuggler" to now say "money launderer for a Mexican drug cartel" -- which is how both the federal prosecutors and the lawyer sending the email appear to describe him. Considering that the lawyer claims to represent the production company, however, I still am at a loss as to how this matters. I do not believe our original statement in any way defamed the production company. It was a mere use of a synonym for the original report. But that should only concern Vazquez. It makes no mention of Aloe Entertainment nor any statement about that company.

The threat email says that the headline of our post "implies that the film has drug money in it" and suggests that "the film or its production has drug ties." Except we never said that. We did not state it. We did not imply it. We said nothing of the sort. We explained the same chain of events that we explained above, which noted that the production house bought the screenplay from Vazquez. Nowhere did we suggest that drug money went the other way. So, we were left somewhat baffled by the threat.

Either way, as we often do, we feel that it is reasonable and important to publicize legal threats against us. We sent an email reply to the lawyer in question, noting our general confusion about what he was complaining about, while also noting the small editing change we made for factual accuracy entirely unrelated to his client. I still do not know why the original threat email was sent, as the facts about the client that were stated in the threat email are no different than what we reported. I do wonder how much the producers of the film pay their lawyers to send out such threat emails, but I imagine that is a separate issue for them to deal with on their own.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Tenenbaum Case; Allows Charade To Continue

As we expected, the Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal by Joel Tenenbaum's lawyers to jump straight to the Constitutional questions concerning the ridiculous statutory damages awards for sharing a couple dozen songs. While reports are claiming that the Supreme Court has "upheld the $675,000" damages award, that's slightly misleading. At this point, the court simply refused to hear the appeal. As we pointed out in our post last week, this is really a procedural issue now. A jury had awarded $675,000 and Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the award based on Constitutional reasoning, rather than going through the remittitur process (allowing the record labels to request a new trial). The Appeals court rejected this saying that judges are supposed to avoid the constitutional questions if there's another way.

So, all this really means at this point is that the process is going to get extended (which certainly works in the RIAA's favor). It seems likely that the judge will now use the remittitur process to lower the award, and the RIAA will (once again) choose to have the case heard again. Eventually, it might be able to make its way up the appeals chain again. Or, Tenenbaum could decide that too much of his life is being wasted on this and just settle (which is what the RIAA is hoping for). So, today's refusal to hear the appeal isn't as big a deal as some are making it out to be, but it sure sucks for the guy who's at the center of this.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

White House Cybersecurity Boss -- Who Argued Against Overhyping Threats -- Resigns

There's been a lot of attention lately on various "cybersecurity" bills making their way through Congress, and the White House's role in the debate has been pretty important. So it's interesting to see that the White House's cybersecurity czar, Howard Schmidt, has announced that he's resigning. While I don't always agree with Schmidt, he was one of the few (perhaps only?) high level government officials talking about online security issues who seemed willing to avoid hyperbole. In fact, he actually hit back against those who kept talking about "cyberwar," saying there was no such thing and it was "a terrible concept." One hopes that his successor, Michael Daniel, will be similarly willing to push back against the rush of hype around "cybersecurity."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Chris Dodd Says MPAA Is On The Wrong Track; We Agree

Over at the Cannes Film Festival, MPAA boss Chris Dodd apparently told Variety that the MPAA is "on the wrong track" when it calls infringement "theft."

"We're in a transformative period with an explosion of technology that's going to need content... We're going to have to be more subtle and consumer-oriented.... We're on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery."

Now, I thought that was kind of interesting, because it appears that the folks who work for Dodd haven't received the memo. The MPAA website is chock full of his minions calling it "theft" every chance they get. There's an entire page supposedly dedicated to "types of content theft." There's a page on "rogue websites," that calls them "havens for theft." There's a link in the footer to a website called FightFilmTheft.org. There's also a link in the footer to the ICE website (you know, the government agency illegally seizing and censoring websites based on no evidence) saying to click the logo "to report IP theft." Then there's the MPAA's "blog," which as of this writing has the word "theft" on the front page a mere fifteen times (and "steal" or "stealing" another three times). So, er, Dodd might want to have a chat with his staffers.

Because, according to Chris Dodd, the MPAA is on the wrong track.

And, for once, I think we actually agree with Chris Dodd. Of course, some of us have been saying this since Dodd's first speech on the job -- which (of course) focused on saying how infringement was "no different" than theft.

There's also some history here. For a while, the industry focused on the word "piracy" to describe infringement. But about three years ago, a movie studio exec made the claim that the industry had "made a mistake" using the word "piracy," because it "glamorized" the practice (of course, Hollywood helped out with the glamorization thanks to some big blockbuster movies starring Johnny Depp...). Practically overnight, the use of "piracy" changed in the industry to "content theft." So, perhaps this is the start of a new phase...

Either way, it certainly doesn't seem like Dodd has really figured out just how disastrous things are going under his "leadership." Much of the story still has him blaming tech companies for stopping SOPA and PIPA. Until he realizes that it was the public the spoke up (and actually helped drag along those tech companies), he's never going to understand what happened, and never going to be able to lead appropriately. Hell, you can even see his dangerous framing in the short statement above. Notice he said they need to be more "subtle." He hasn't realized that their entire policy focus is wrong. He just thinks they're being too brazen about it.

We've asked Dodd (repeatedly, now) to actually come out and talk to the public. I'm sure the folks at Reddit would be happy to set up an AMA. We'd be happy to have him come and chat with our community as well. Yet, he refuses to do so. Instead, he continues to only lobby behind the scenes and blame the wrong parties in public. Things are never going to improve if he keeps on that path. He doesn't need to be "more subtle." He needs to actually understand what that public tried to tell him back in January. Instead, he seems to be sticking his fingers in his ears and taking random guesses.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Former Record Label Exec Ethan Kaplan: Duh, Of Course More File Sharing Leads To More Sales

We recently posted an interesting study talking about how greater file sharing of leaked albums had a specific (if small) causal impact that resulted in higher sales. I thought it was an interesting area of research, though one where a lot more work needs to be done. Following that, however, there was an interesting exchange on Twitter, mainly by former Warner Music exec Ethan Kaplan, who didn't seem to think the concept was controversial at all -- and instead that it was obvious. As he stated:

Let me simplify this answer: YES IT LEADS TO MORE SALES. DEMAND = DEMAND W/ $$$$$$ IF PRODUCT GOOD.

He then expanded on that idea (edited slightly to de-Twitterize):

Simplified further: MUSIC BUSINESS (RECORDED): your product isn't diamonds mined from a secret mythical land.

And beyond broadband/napster/whatever, what hurt you the most is PEOPLE FIGURED THAT OUT. Cynicism caught up with you.

You can see the complete exchange on Storify (embedded below) as per Ethan's command. Ethan, as always, is a perceptive observer (and never afraid to share his opinions) of one of the key reasons why the recording (not music) industry has had so much difficulty over the past few years. The industry was focused on something that they pretended was scarce when it was not -- misunderstanding the supply curve. Add to that, the fact that they misunderstood how file sharing represented pent up demand, and they astoundingly got both sides of the supply-demand curve wrong. It's hard to build a successful business when you do that.

Of course, all of this makes me wonder how Ethan lasted in his role at Warner for as long as he did. It must feel good to be free... Though, I stand by my assertion from 2008, that if Warner had put Ethan in charge, that company would be doing a lot better today.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

US Gov't Thinks Censorship Is Bad, Unless It's Paid For

Aaron DeOliveira sends over an amusing statement summarizing the US government's views towards "censorship" on various issues:

Person: Hey, there are child porn sites everywhere!

Government: We are working on it.

Person: Hey, there's these pro-anorexia sites telling young girls to starve themselves!

Government: W/e. (editor's note for the old people: this means "whatever")

Person: Hey, registered hate groups like the KKK have websites!

Government: Well we can't stop them.

Person: I downloaded a movie from ThePirateBay.

Government: PIRATED MOVIES HARMING NOBODY? Time to censor the Internet!

It may seem quite amazing that the government seems to have a massive blindspot to how copyright conflicts with the First Amendment, but one big difference (of course) is that it's only that last situation that has a group of legacy industry players with strong lobbyist ties to DC pushing for such censorship to protect their outdated business models. And, suddenly, the rest of the chat makes a lot more sense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Recently Techdirt wrote about the heated debate on the subject of whether people should learn to code. We pointed out that some knowledge of that subject could be particularly useful in helping people understand why copyrighting APIs or patenting software is just crazy -- whatever the abstract legal arguments, in practice both make programming much, much harder.

An obvious situation where such practical knowledge could be crucially important is in court cases dealing with software. Rather neatly, the long-running court case between Oracle and Google, where the former is accusing the latter's Android of infringing on its code in various ways, has thrown up a perfect example of this.

It arose in an exchange between Judge Alsup and Oracle's main lawyer, the high-profile David Boies, best known for representing the US Justice Department in the United States v. Microsoft case. Boies claimed that the fact that the jury had decided Google's "rangeCheck" code had copied Oracle's implementation of the same function was evidence that Google was trying to save time. The argument of Boies was that Google consciously copied those few lines from Oracle in order to accelerate development -- and thus to start making money faster through daily activations of phones running its Android operating system.

But Judge Alsup was having none of it:

I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?

This is a perfect example of a judge being able to draw on his personal experience of coding to dismiss what a clever lawyer probably thought was a clever argument.

Contrast this with another judge, talking this time about software patents, as recently reported on Techdirt:

Judge Michel seemed unaware of the depth of the software industry's dissatisfaction with the patent system. He suggested the patent system's critics were relatively marginal figures not representative of the views of the broader technology industry. And he didn't seem to understand the dynamics of the patent arms race currently affecting the software industry.

"If software is less dependent on patents, fine then. Let software use patents less as they choose," Michel said. "If other industries are terribly dependent on patents, then let's not wreck the system just because software people are unhappy."

No one who has tried to code in any depth could dismiss the problems caused by software patents so glibly -- it would be hard, for example, to imagine Judge Alsup saying this.

Learning to code certainly isn't a panacea, nor is it relevant for everyone. But for those professionals who must make important decisions about software -- judges, for example -- a basic programming literacy is indispensable. As it is, the tech industry must count itself lucky that the Oracle vs. Google case seems to have ended up in front of one of the few judges qualified to decide it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

The comment that won for "most insightful" this week actually scored twice as high as any other comment (in either category). So, step on up, John Fenderson. People thought your short comment, in response to Canadian politician Dean Del Mastro's nonsensical claim that "format shifting" legally purchased content was the equivalent of stealing shoes if you bought socks. Fenderson decided to fix the analogy:

Ripping a CD to your iPod is like buying a pair of socks then wanting to wear them with one of your other pairs of shoes.

With analogies that actually make sense like that, you'll never be elected to the Canadian Parliament, John.

While the comment that came in second was way, way behind in votes, the second, third, fourth and fifth comment all scored remarkably close to one another, so I think we're just going to post them all and use up my "editor's choice" slots with the overall audience favorites. First up was an Anonymous Coward, responding to a statement by the MPAA applauding the censorship of The Pirate Bay, claiming that "The court verdict found that The Pirate Bay is predominantly devoted to illegal activities with more than 90% of all content infringing on copyright." This AC had a question about the stats:

I want to know how the court found that a site that doesn't host any content had 90% of its content devoted to infringing.

Next up was Ed C. responding to my "crazy" suggestion that perhaps copyright reform should be (*gasp*!) based on "actual evidence and understanding of basic economics rather than faith." Ed suggested I had perhaps set my sights too low by thinking that just copyright reform should use such a system:

The same should be said about all policies. But that's just not how government works.

Next up, was Pjerky discussing the ridiculousness of the TPP agreement being completely secret:

Personally I think that any law/rule that is secret or is negotiated in secret should be automatically considered illegal. The same with any legal interpretations. There is no way anyone that is subject to a law can possibly follow a law they don't even know the details of or if it exists. The same with interpretations of the law.

And you shouldn't be subject to any law that you or someone that can represent you (outside of big businesses and the government itself) can have any input on. It just doesn't make any sense to require that of anyone.

You wouldn't do this at a company. Create a rule that you expect all your employees to follow, but never tell them what it is and even have secret interpretations of it. You would get sued in very short order and possibly be shut down depending on the severity of the case.

There are so many inequities and possibilities for discrimination that no one in their right mind would allow this in the business world. So why allow it in the government world?

And, finally, we've got Jay hoping that someone can talk some sense in the MPAA, after they put out a statement cheering on censorship if that censorship protected their business model:

Can someone please tell the MPAA that Avengers just made over $1 billion dollars in about two weeks? Can someone tell them that when someone looks at the Youtube, it made others want to watch it even more?

Can someone tell the MPAA that censorship does not work nor is it what movie goers want? Can someone please tell them to get it through their skull that the more they fight the people, the harder the backlash and the more out of touch they become?

Can someone tell the MPAA that they are not the morality police, nor does anyone want them to be? Can someone tell the MPAA that we've noticed their problems in other countries and how this is only about control? Something that they will never have on the internet?

Can someone tell the MPAA that they have yet to invent anything but more ways to piss people off? Can someone tell the MPAA that they don't invent movies, merely leech off of them? Can someone tell the MPAA that their significance in the movie distribution process is going the way of the dodo and no one is going to tolerate it much longer?

Finally, can someone PLEASE tell the MPAA to F*** OFF!?

Moving on to the funny side, the winner was Liz with her comment in response to the suggestion that we switch from calling works whose copyright holder can't be found "orphan works" to "hostage works." Liz summed up the visual:

For some reason I just got a mental image of Oliver Twist holding up his bowl and saying, "Please sir, may I enter the public domain?"

Coming in second was an Anonymous Coward, responding to the news about the convoluted story that involved a plea bargain deal between the US government and a money launderer, which resulted in the US government getting a 10% royalty cut on any profits from an upcoming Hollywood film:

Don't they know that no movie makes a profit? Haven't they been following Hollywood accounting?

Moving on to editor's choice, we've got an Anonymous Coward responding to the story of how parts of Toy Story 2 were saved, following an accidental deletion of a key hard drive because one woman on the team had made a copy to her home computer:

Shame on this horrible woman for making an illegal backup of this movie. By doing so, she cost so many workers over a year of salary for restoring it, all for her own selfish greed. Pathetic. When will these freetards think of the workers and the customers?

And we'll close it out with two separate comments on the story of the ongoing dispute between sculptor Frank Gaylord, who is seeking about $3 million from the US government, because he's claiming his copyright was infringed on a US Postal Service stamp showing a photograph of the Korean War Memorial, which he helped design. First up, we had Torg highlight all the "harm" done:

This seems reasonable to me. Can you imagine how many sales of this statue Gaylord must have lost due to the wide distribution of those stamps? I heard he only managed to sell one of it!

And, finally, khory popped in with a suggestion on how to resolve the whole mess:

If this guy still controls the rights for the statue, and is using it for commercial purposes, then we should be charging him rent for the public space that his statue is occupying. That's prime real estate his work is occupying, so back rent could be as much as, oh.... about $3 million. Isn't that a coincidence.

If he objects then we can return the statue to him. We'll gladly deliver it to his house. From a helicopter. While still several hundred feet above- nobody said we had to land first before hitting the release switch..

Now that's the kind of creative problem-solving we like to see around here...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

This week's favorites post comes from Marietje Schaake, a Member of the EU Parliament, who has been called "Europe's most wired politician."

When Mike asked me to write a post about my favorite Techdirt posts of the past week, I was honored. Techdirt is one of the main blogs I read everyday to keep me informed about information law and policy developments. The Techdirt contributors focus on a number of areas of my work. That was the same this week.

ACTA & TPP
I met Mike about a month ago, when I hosted a hearing about ACTA in the European Parliament (EP). Mike was one of 12 speakers who explained the dangers of ACTA, which I consider a misguided agreement, and presented his research 'The Sky is Rising'. Although several commentators have already declared ACTA to be dead, I still see a lot of lobby efforts trying to get approval. The article, "Time To Realize That The Obama Administration Doesn't Even Have The Authority To Commit The US To ACTA Or TPP", also shows the way in which lobbying continues, if not for ACTA, then now for TPP. This post highlights how the ACTA negotiators tried everything possible to circumvent the democratic process. If ACTA doesn't bind the US, then why would Europe ratify a binding agreement and bend over backwards to get to that point?

There were a few posts about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Although this agreement does not concern Europe directly, it will have global ramifications. The lack of transparency sets an undesirable precedent that treaties which are mostly enforcement treaties are increasingly classified as international trade agreements, thereby allowing negotiators to discuss the enforcement measures in secret, without democratic oversight. Rep. Darrell Issa was able to give some insight into the negotiations by posting a leaked version of the agreement online.

Copyright reform
One of the reasons I enjoy reading Techdirt is the realistic outlook on intellectual property rights. We should be critical of industry statistics and figures, which aim to strengthen copyrights further. I am a supporter of rewarding and incentivizing creators of cultural, artistic or literary content. Arts and culture are essential in open societies. A strong culture develops when we can all build on these works and use them for enjoyment, study or invention. The internet offers a great platform for cultural diversity, because it democratizes the cultural process, instead of leaving some gatekeepers in charge to decide which works are mass-marketable. It is also possible to bring content to users at a lower price, as long as there are no disrupting measures in the way.

Artists and inventors are realizing you don't necessarily need copyright to create works. Crowdfunding through services like Kickstarter (see "Biggest Kickstarter Project Ever Surpasses $10 Million; Cuts Off Funding") or Sellaband is becoming increasingly popular and leading to many success stories where the production of creative works is pre-funded by fans.

Of course, copyright is a useful tool to monetize created works, but it is not the reason works are made in the first place. However, copyright as it is currently enacted can threaten the open internet. As economist Dean Barker suggests, copyright is an antiquated relic that has no place in the digital age. Bear in mind the principles of the law were developed at the time of the printing press. We live in a different world today, and if we do not reform copyright, it risks losing legitimacy all together.

Copyright has benefited certain monopoly stakeholders since its inception, and those who benefitted are now lobbying fiercely to keep the old laws in place as they protect their business models. The downside is that this is to the detriment of society and the development of the internet. Online enforcement will most likely infringe on internet users' fundamental rights, as demonstrated by the Pirate Pay Bittorrent disruptor.

What politicians do not hear enough is that there is little relationship between stricter IP laws and innovation or economic growth. European politicians should also take note that spending on entertainment products and services is increasing, such as demonstrated by the record income of European cinemas and the record production of European films. In the end, even the American copyright office will circumvent rules that do not make sense in the real world.

Europe
The Pirate Party is quickly gaining popularity with this message. The party is currently being rewarded by voters in Germany for campaigning for copyright reform, transparency and many other necessary and important political changes, which have been enabled by the internet. My party in the Netherlands (D66) covers these issues well on both the national and the EU levels.

Currently there are many cases relating to copyright and the internet under way in European courts, and almost all raise a significant amount of controversy. Some have even called the judge, who deals with many of the anti-piracy issues in The Netherlands, corrupt. It appears that he and one of the main lawyers of the entertainment industry offer classes together teaching IP enforcement. Although calling this corrupt is a little unfair, I do agree with Mike that there is a conflict of interests here. No wonder this lawyer and his colleagues usually take their anti-piracy cases to the The Hague court.

On the other hand, a Finnish court displayed common sense and understanding of the open internet when it ruled that the owner of a WiFi network is not liable for copyright infringements by other users. It does send a signal however, that this case has been brought to court at all. Was it intended to set a precedent, whereby all European WiFi operators would feel the need to filter traffic?

Domain name seizures and blocking
The Finnish case is an exception to the general trend. For example, the US government seized two Spanish domains. In the current proceedings, the government claims it can "forfeit a domain without showing any crime actually happened. Instead, all they need to do is vaguely assert that someone, somewhere may have possibly violated a law somehow using the domain in the process -- but they never have to actually prove anyone violated the specific law." Mike rightly points out that this reasoning means that any website, including search engines, could be seized, since almost all information exchange online infringes copyright in one way or another.

Blocking and seizing domain names is supported by the movie industry, as shown in this article. According to the MPAA, blocking websites is good for consumers. I disagree strongly with the MPAA on this point and would like to point out that some great online services have been developed which compete very well with websites such as The Pirate Bay. Rights holders (whether artists or corporations) need to figure out how to monetize their works in the new digital environment. Computer nerds at IT companies are currently leading the way. Blocking has great collateral damage, which needs to be taken into consideration as well.

In the European Parliament I serve on the committee for Foreign Affairs. I’m currently drafting the report on Digital Freedom in the EU’s Foreign Policy. The post titled, "If You Meet A Censor, Ask Why They Haven't Become Moral Degenerates Themselves", makes a valid point with respect to blocking information which is deemed bad for society. If blocking becomes a mainstream method in the US or EU, it undermines our credibility in speaking to other countries about the way in which they block websites where an undesired (political) message is shared. We risk a slippery slope!

Cyber Security
Are we being attacked and spied upon via ICT networks, and should we increase public finances and resources to combat this threat? I have been trying to find good, independent and verifiable information or research to answer this question. Unfortunately, I have not found it. Most of the numbers and statistics about a security threat are compiled by companies who sell security software. As the post "Fearmongering About Cyberwar And Cybersecurity Is Working: American Public Very, Very Afraid" says, these tactics seem to be working for those companies.

Education
It is great news that Harvard and MIT will be offering courses virtually through EdX. In the committee for Culture & Education of the EP, I have been advocating to extend the European Open Data Strategy to include educational and research institutions. The initiative by the Boston-based American universities is a great step in opening up education for all.

Finally, the piece titled, "Something Is Wrong When A Judge Needs 350 Pages To Decide If A College's Digital Archives Are Fair Use", was interesting from several perspectives. First, I consider the fair use doctrine to be better for the digital age than the current, rigid, European system. In this case the judge gives a favorable ruling for uses of works in education, which in my view is right. However, I find it most interesting that the judge rejects the self-regulatory "Classroom Guidelines." In my work in the EP I have also warned that these types of regulations are often not desirable and can be used to circumvent the democratic process and infringe on fundamental rights.

You can get in touch with me via Twitter (@marietjed66) or via my website: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

In discussions about artists like Amanda Palmer using Kickstarter, plenty of people continue to insist that their success was made possible by their traditional industry backgrounds. We've already gone over lots of reasons why this is silly, most notably the fact that such artists do a lot of work and certainly don't coast on anything. But it also usually ignores the artists themselves, who more often than not clearly say that they are going it alone because traditional structures were holding them back. The fact that creators who have received some amount of benefit from labels/studios/publishers decide to move on anyway, and then see their careers grow, doesn't say less about platforms like Kickstarter, it says even more.

This sentiment is not limited to music, or to independent creators. Kickstarter is getting a lot of attention, and that's bound to attract bigger and bigger names. The latest, sent in by jtomic, is a feature film called The Canyons which involves some pretty serious Hollywood talent. The script is written by Bret Easton Ellis (author of American Psycho) and directed by Paul Schrader (as in, the guy who wrote Taxi Driver and the screenplay for Raging Bull). Ellis, Schrader and the producer are putting up a bunch of the money themselves and turning to Kickstarter for the rest—all because they want to escape the confines of Hollywood:

The film is a collaborative effort stewarded by former Lionsgate producer Braxton Pope as a response to the changing landscape of the film industry. Pope, Ellis and Schrader are partly financing the film themselves through Pope’s new company Sodium Fox in order to maintain complete creative control of the distinct source material. According to Schrader, “We all experienced the frustrations of financing and institutional censorship. But now, with advances in digital photography and distribution, we can tell a story in the manner we choose. Movies are changing and we’re changing with it.”

They expand on this in the video, which includes some excellent comments from all three creators. Pope talks about how the Hollywood process encourages "groupthink" and makes it hard for a film to stay true to the artists' vision. Schrader and Ellis both compare the current revolution in film to that of a hundred years ago when the medium was in its infancy, and are clearly excited about the prospect of making a film without notes from meddlesome studio execs.

There are some pretty cool funding tiers too, many of which are unsurprisingly sold out. The cast itself is being largely crowdsourced through an online audition platform, netting undiscovered talent from around the world, and anyone who pledges at least $10 gets to vote on finalists. For $500, Ellis and Pope offered to watch your short film and share their honest reactions (with links) to their followers on Twitter & Facebook (all 10 slots for that one are already sold out). For $1,500 they'll do the same with a feature-length film. For $5,000, Ellis reviews your novel (again, sold out) or Schrader gives you notes on your script (a few left at time of writing). One lucky backer has already snagged the single $10,000 "De Niro's Money Package", which comes with a money clip autographed by Robert De Niro and given to Schrader on the set of Taxi Driver.

So there can be absolutely no doubt that these guys are using their momentum from the traditional Hollywood system to make this project possible—but I'm at a loss as to how that says anything good about Hollywood. I doubt any of these creators had any real need to finance a film themselves, but they saw a growing opportunity to go directly to their fans and make movies the way they really want to make them, and they jumped on it. That's not coasting on the past—it's embracing the future.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Does Fair Use Fit Into The Critique Of Copyright?

Here is Part II of our excerpt from Chapter 1 of Reframing Fair Use by Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, which is our May selection for the Techdirt Book Club. You can read Part I here. We'll have another excerpt soon, and will be scheduling the author chat in the near future.

Fair use was in eclipse for decades, with judges, lawyers, legal scholars, and creators unsure of its interpretation and convinced of its unreliability. Since the late 1990s, fair use has returned to the scene, and has become a sturdy tool for a wide range of creators and users. This transformation has been remarkable; we discuss it in detail in Chapter 5, and provide highlights here.

It happened in part because of changing scholarship. A generation of legal scholars has developed arguments for fair use as they have analyzed copyright’s effect on cultural expression. At the same time, cultural studies scholars have showcased the relevance of fair use to their work, which often involves analyzing popular culture. Teachers and scholars are beginning to take up the fair use banner, publicly using their rights and encouraging their students to do the same.

Settled, established communities of creators, administrators and users—filmmakers, teachers of English and visual art, librarians, makers of open course ware, poets, and dance archivists--have identified fair use as a necessary tool for them to use to achieve their missions. They have turned to the sturdy tool of consensus interpretation, by making codes of best practices in fair use through their professional associations.

Members of these communities have become active advocates for fair use. Their organizations and representatives have appeared before the Copyright Office to testify about the way that the DMCA, which makes illegal the breaking of encryption on DVDs, limits their ability to employ fair use in their work.

Remix artists of all kinds, working online, have come to adopt the claim of fair use as an anti-corporate banner. They trade information on fair use in conferences and conventions. When they receive takedown notices on YouTube, they issue counter-takedown notices and explain why their uses are fair. Remixers have also gone before the Copyright Office to protest the way that the DMCA impedes their creations, which are often socially critical.

New businesses have flourished employing fair use, and their trade associations have supported them. Google, the Consumer Electronics Association, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association have all advocated for fair use. Legal and professional services for communities of practice, such as lawyers and web developers, have built their fair use expertise to serve their clients better.

Think tanks and advocacy organizations have promoted fair use. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the American Civil Liberties Union, Duke University’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain and the Stanford Fair Use Project have all taken action on fair use. Between the scholars, the creators, artists, and organizations, fair use is emerging out of a twilight existence where, for decades, it had lived. During those decades, many professionals and especially professionals in the corporate media environment—whether broadcast journalism, cable documentary, or newspapers—routinely and extensively employed fair use. But if you weren’t a professional, you might not even have heard of it. That has changed.

The goals of various actors in this resurgence of fair use differ. Some simply want to assert their rights to be able to improve their work, lower their costs and start or grow new businesses. Some want to expand the sphere of freedom of expression, so that copyrighted culture does not become off-limits for new work. Some believe that an expansion of fair use rights is imperative both to keep fair use as copyright policy is tinkered with, and to maintain the crucial principle of balance between owners’ rights and the society’s investment in new cultural creation. Some believe that fair use, exercised to the maximum, will provide concrete experience of the limitations of today’s copyright law, and point to more effective change. They all share a common understanding that individual and community action simply to assert their rights has an immediate and long-range effect on markets and policy.

The resurgence of fair use, the topic of this book, forms part of a much greater discourse in the U.S. and world-wide, critiquing the most stifling, confining features of copyright practice today. That discourse is variously called copyright reform, copyfighting, the copyleft, and cultural/creative/intellectual commons, depending on your angle of entry. Some people call it a movement, though it still lacks evidence of broad social mobilization (as Patrick Burkart has noted for music). The people in this discourse share an acute awareness that copyright policy and practice are tilted unfairly toward ownership rights, in a way that prejudices the health and growth of culture. This broader discourse is evident in many ways, besides the efforts to make fair use more useable: proposals for formal copyright reform; efforts to create copyright-light or copyright-free zones or to expand the public domain; and civil disobedience.

Some propose copyright reform to shrink the monopoly claims of owners. Veteran legal scholar Pamela Samuelson has proposed reconceptualizing copyright law from a blank slate. She imagines a simpler, shorter copyright law, grounded in principles rather than the “obese Frankenstein monster” it has become through stakeholder pressure and endless tinkering. Neil Netanel has proposed a range of tweaks to pull back the extent of copyright protection, such as limiting copyright length and dropping protection against the preparation of derivative work, so that less licensing is needed. Lawrence Lessig also has argued for simplifying and minimizing copyright protection for owners.

Some people offer suggestions to improve the efficiency of licensing, which today is messy, clumsy, and frustrating. Prof. David Lange, for instance, proposed increased use of statutory (or compulsory) licensing schemes, such those that allow today for the retransmission of TV signals by cable and satellite systems. Others have suggested new voluntary digital platforms through which users could make “micro-payments,” tiny payments for each individual access to copyrighted material offered commercially. Legal scholar William Fisher has proposed a voluntary collective administration system, akin to those that today enable public performances and broadcasts of music, and to collect licensing payments through Internet service providers and distribute them to copyright owners and artists whose material is used online. Some copyright owners, including the Association of Commercial Stock Images Licensors, are even toying with how to restructure their own licensing schemes, to eliminate archaisms such as regional rights in a transnational Internet age.

The ideas and projects all respond to the real problem that copyright law now fits ever more poorly the way people are actually making culture. They may well take some time to become useful, though. The big stumbling block both to fundamental copyright reform and to licensing reform is that large copyright holders—key stakeholders in any change in licensing schemes—are not able to agree on what they would like to do. They do not know what business models will be most relevant in a few years, so living with a lumbering, archaic licensing system with a lot of holes in it looks better to them than change that might have unanticipated downsides. As major stakeholders in any legislative reform, they will stall, derail or rewrite legislation in the same unbalanced direction as today, until their interests shift with shifting business models. As major actors in licensing, they will collaborate on new methods of licensing when they understand how emerging business models favor their interests.

Another part of this broad copyright critique is a range of efforts to expand copyright-free and copyright-light zones, discussed by David Bollier and James Boyle. People in this arena often invoke the phrases “the public domain,” “open access,” and “Creative Commons.” Projects such as open source software (collaboratively created and freely offered software), open source (free and accessible to all) academic and scientific journals and databases, and OpenCourseWare (freely available curriculum materials) offer such alternative zones. The various Creative Commons licenses contribute to this alternative zone by offering a way for creators to give their work away more easily, although with conditions, by labelling it appropriately.

These efforts have indeed created significant copyright-light zones, as well as creating enormous enthusiasm for a more flexible copyright policy. They work well for people who want to give their work away and share it without economic reward. A pool of noncommercial works now exists, but it is tiny compared with the field of copyrighted and often-commercial work. Viacom and News Corp will continue to copyright their holdings and treat them as assets. The existence of copyright- light zones, however large, does not address the frequent need that people have to access mass commercial culture to make new cultural expression.

Finally, copyright critique is seen in opposition and resistance, such as giddy, open flouting of copyright law by “culture jammers,” pranksters and appropriation artists. Burkart describes this work as part of the incipient and still-inchoate cyberliberties social movement, taking up “the politics of symbolic action,” typically “weapons of the weak.” These people and groups—Negativeland, the Yes Men, Adbusters magazine and others—position themselves on the margins of official culture, and see themselves as reclaiming culture one image or gesture at a time. They also see themselves as challenging the terms of long and strong copyright. Ironically, many times the uses they make of copyrighted material are actually completely legal fair uses.

This broad and diverse discourse calling for changes in long and strong copyright thus has many faces and approaches, each with opportunities and limitations. They add up to a broad public awareness of trouble around long and strong copyright. Within this discourse, efforts to make fair use more useable stand out because they can be done now, by people in many walks of life; they can be publicized and celebrated, thus spreading the word; and because using this right expands its range of uses.

Fair use is not necessarily a popular phrase for all in this broader collection of copyright critics. Some regard it as hopelessly compromised because of technologies such as encryption, which override a user’s will to excerpt. Some believe that exemptions such as fair use are good but that fair use is too murky or unclear to be a helpful exemption. Some believe that fair use partakes too much of the status quo, and that another copyright-free world is possible. One way that concern is expressed is to argue that it is too limited a doctrine, and that we need to reach beyond it to accomplish our goals.

In fact, under the current interpretation, fair use does apply in a wide variety of situations. They range from making copies of TV programs on our DVRs to creating digitally annotated critical texts to making an archive of the worst music videos ever to making relevant curriculum digitally available to students. Fair use has evolved, having different functions at different moments in U.S. history. Today it has an ever-growing importance and value within copyright, as a primary vehicle to restore copyright to its constitutional purpose, and the transformativeness standard assists in creating that value. Fair use is like a muscle; unused, it atrophies and exercise makes it grow. Its future is open; vigorous exercise will not break fair use.

Fair use will continue to be important, no matter what the success of other aspects of long and strong copyright protests and proposals. Even if we could wave a magic wand and execute reform of copyright policy that rolls back some of the longest, strongest terms in copyright policy, fair use would still be an important tool to free up recent culture for referencing in new work. Even if licensing were much easier than it is today, it would never address all the needs people have for use of copyrighted material. Even if copyright-light zones vastly expanded, the need to access the copyrighted material existing outside those zones without permission or payment would still remain. Sometimes people need to use materials that the copyright owner simply will not license to them. Fair use will be important to anyone working in the cultural mainstream. Culture jamming can be fun, although some culture jammers are actually just employing their fair use rights without knowing it. But most creators, teachers, learners and sharers of information don’t see themselves as criminals or pirates, and don’t want to.

Reclaiming fair use plays a particular and powerful role in the broader range of activities that evidence the poor fit between today's copyright policy and today's creative practices. In a world where the public domain has shrunk drastically, it creates a highly valuable, contextually defined, “floating” public domain. The assertion of fair use is part of a larger project of reclaiming the full meaning of copyright policy—not merely protection for owners but the nurturing of creativity, learning, expression. Asserting fair use rights and defending the rights of others to use them is a crucial part of constructing saner copyright policy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

One Area Where China Should Definitely Stop Ripping Off The West: Copyright Law

When it comes to ACTA and TPP, China is the elephant in the room -- or maybe that should be the dragon in the room. For without China's participation, these treaties designed to reduce counterfeiting will have little effect. And despite rather desperate optimism on the part of some that China will rush to sign up, its comments so far suggest otherwise.

A crucial factor here is China's own copyright framework, since this will inevitably color its perception of the terms of any treaty that it might sign. That makes the outcome of a planned third revision of its copyright laws highly pertinent to the fate of treaties like ACTA and TPP. A paper reviewing the current proposals, written by Hong Xue, Director of the Institute for Internet Policy & Law at Beijing Normal University, provides some valuable insights into the likely evolution of China's copyright law. Unfortunately, the signs are not good:

the Draft fails to review several misconceptions, such as "the more the better" (more copyright protection and enforcement, the better economic growth and social development), "one size fits all" and "modeling on US law" (on draconic enforcement rather than general and robust limitations and exceptions). It is unfortunately that China, the largest country by both population and Internet users, despite its fast-growing economy, seems keeping on the old track and missing the opportunities to revamp its Copyright Law in the new century.

In the area of limitations and exceptions, the latest draft makes things worse than today's rules: According to the [current] Copyright Law, anyone may use a work for personal study, research and appreciation. The Draft, however, restrict the scope of private use to "making one copy of a work for personal study and research." It is annoying to exclude from the private use personal "appreciation", which is inherently hard to distinct from personal study and research, particularly on the Internet. It is even more worrisome to restrict private use to reproduction of a work. Under the Copyright Law, use of a work may include reproduction, translation, adaptation (such as remix or sampling), as far as the use is private. The Draft, however, only allows for reproduction and restricts to one copy.
That's crazy at a time when more and more people are using digital content in new ways that include precisely these things like remixing, sampling and adapting.

There's also bad news on the DRM front, which seems closely modeled on the US DMCA:

The biggest defect in this regard is that the Draft fails to address whether technological measures may be circumvented for the specified circumstances of limitations and exceptions to rights. For example, it is unclear under the Draft whether a user may circumvent a copy-protection measure on a work so as to make a single copy of work for personal study or research.

That's clearly a crucial issue. If circumvention is not allowed, then once again DRM can effectively take away what few rights users are granted in this area.

Finally, China also appears to be following the US in bringing in harsher copyright enforcement and disproportionate damages:

Copyright enforcement is tremendously enhanced under the Draft. Regarding civil remedies, damages could be several times of licensing fees if right holder’s actual loss and infringer’s illegal gains cannot be determined.

All-in-all, it looks like China has learned nothing from the West's mistakes. Instead, it seems to have taken the misguided view that if the West did it, China must do the same to "catch up". As the paper quoted above emphasizes, this is only a draft, and can still be modified. But based on what it already contains and the fact that organizing resistance against new laws in China is not the easiest of tasks, it looks increasingly likely that China too will be entering a period of copyright maximalism, with all the negative consequences for the Chinese public -- and possibly the world -- that this implies.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story