It's Freedom to Read Week all across this great nation of ours. I encourage everyone out there to read something this week that someone else thinks you shouldn't read. Last time I talked about this important freedom of expression promotion, I recommended Lives of Girls and Women, by Alice Munro, a book that was challenged and removed from school libraries when it was first published.
Today, I recommend No Claim to Mercy: The Controversial Case for Murder Against Robert Baltovich by Toronto writer Derek Finkle. Finkle spent much of last winter and spring in court here in Toronto, defending his right to keep prosecutors from using his research materials for that book in a retrial of Robert Baltovich.
It may seem strange to some that during a week dedicated to access to words, I am recommending a book involved in an instance where I support restricted access to words. Information wants to be free, after all, so who does Derek Finkle think he is keeping his notes and transcripts from the people who want to freely access them? Well, I'm guessing Derek Finkle thinks he's the original creator of those research materials, AND an independent journalist working in a society that values a free and independent press.
Some may call this a gray area, but grayness need not be synonymous with ambiguity. Within the vast gray areas around the current intellectual property debates, there are, and SHOULD BE, clearly defined "no go" zones. Without these necessary and valuable restrictions, we as a society put even more fundamental rights at risk.
I hope you all join me in congratulating Derek Finkle, one of my personal heroes of the information age, on his being awarded the 2008 Freedom to Read Award, for his brave stand in defense of creator rights.
5 comments:
Hey John, I wrote about Freedom to read week as well.
Here are a couple other books I would suggest people read.
CAPTAIN MARVEL comics were taken out of circulation after DC comics accused it of infringing their copyright on superman. Well, I guess one super hero is much like another.
Murder in Samarkand was written by former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The British Government used copyright law to prevent him from including copies in the appendices of the public document he based the book on.
There are of course many more. As more and more people discover how they are personally affected by copyright laws, more and more people are starting to see that the monopoly powers granted through copyright and the increasingly broad interpretation of copyright laws by the courts are just as great, if not a greater, barrier to freedom as government censors.
infringer,
In fact, the 2008 Freedom to Read kit contains a fantastic article by Kimberly Baker about appropriation art, and how abuse of copyright law can shut down freedom of expression.
I would suggest the main difference between the Freedom of Expression Committee and your campaign website is that the FOE people are willing to call out censorship when they see it, in all instances -- and do not excuse either plagiarism or text suppression (it's not censorship; it's just editing, he says) as some sort of necessary follow-on creativity.
They also recognize that when black and white comingle in the gray part of a traditional Venn diagram, it does not mean that necessary and important distinctions can't be made in that section; but rather that it may take a bit more work, thought and intellectual honesty to make them.
"a fantastic article by Kimberly Baker about appropriation art, and how abuse of copyright law can shut down freedom of expression."
Hey John, yes I read that article. Are you aware that what she is talking about is trademark law? Not copyright law. Even more importantly this is an issue with "Official" marks which are even more scandalous then regular trademarks, being available only to governments and covering all conceivable uses of the protected mark. I wrote about the problems with these things myself WRT "Anne of Green Gables". The parody I put up on blogspot deals with these too.
The examples I provided in my previous comment deal specifically with copyright. Both government and corporate.
Regarding censorship, you still are either unwilling or unable to defend this claim. Comments like "(it's not censorship; it's just editing, he says)" strike me as being disguised ad hominum attacks. You do not address my argument at all. Instead you attempt to dismiss the person making the argument (me)
I think we can agree that lines can be drawn in the grey areas. Indeed that is the job of government isn't it? I would also agree with your statement that it takes "...a bit more work, thought and intellectual honesty to make them." But as we are all apt to think and reason differently about the matter, where we would draw the line becomes a somewhat subjective judgement.
(A little bit of intellectual honestly in your own posts (see censorship) would be appreciated as well)
What I find most disagreeable is that the arguments of the copyright maximalists like Sonny Bono, Jack Valenti, and Cliff Richard, who all advocate for perpetual copyright, are received thoughtfully by law makers and others, while the copyright abolitionists are written off as heretics. Neither are reasonable for many reasons, but that both are treated so differently strikes me as evidence that the system is not as unbiased as it should be. Myself, being a minamalist and so necessarily toward the heretic end am similarly dismissed. It does not seem to matter how well thought out or argued my points are, they are simply ignored, as you have demonstrated so well in your own posts.
Do you have any appreciation for where I am coming from here John? I'm not asking you to agree with my arguments, but some recognition that my concerns are legitimate (private property rights for example) and some agreement on the parameters of the debate (term of copyright, requirement for registration of copyrights, expanded fair use, etc..) All of this is in fact arbitrary and should be where any debate on the mater goes to. Instead we keep coming back to Titanic with me telling you why it is not censorship and you replying simply 'yes it is'
I rather suspect that you and I will not get far in a debate, mostly because you refuse to believe that there is even anything to argue about. An indication, I suppose, of just how far apart we stand on the issue. I will continue to post comments though so that at least anyone reading your post who either stands somewhere in the middle or has a very open mind will benefit from some other perspectives.
Holy Jebus, nothing is ever good enough for the infringer. I point you to an article you might like, and you respond with a lecture on that very article. Tell me more about how trademarks are different from copyright. I've never heard of this stuff before.
And now I'm supposed to feel some sympathy for you because you tend to be dismissed in this debate? I'm really not sure how you want me to respond to that suggestion. Um, sorry?
Buddy, if I had a responsibility to respond to every half-formed opinion on copyright, I'd get nothing else done in my day. If you can't see how the unpermitted removal of portions of a film is censorship, or that what even the plagiarist accepts as plagiarism is actually plagiarism, then what is the point of any response to you on these subjects. Other people understand these things -- I've checked. But you seem not to. You keep implying this has something to do with my inability to express myself. How much expression do you need?
You do whatever you need to do to feel good about yourself in the public debate. I will assume that means many more comments where you attempt to use my own words to illustrate how I'm not arguing.
"Holy Jebus, nothing is ever good enough for the infringer. I point you to an article you might like, and you respond with a lecture on that very article. Tell me more about how trademarks are different from copyright. I've never heard of this stuff before."
John, you were the one who said incorrectly that the article was about "how abuse of copyright law can shut down freedom of expression." How can you slam me for not using your fuzzy coined terms "text" and "book" correctly, (which you have yet to bother providing reasonable definitions for I might add) and then slam me again because I point out your incorrect usage of two well defined industry standard terms? copyright and trademark.
You sarcastically ask me to tell you the difference since you've "never heard this stuff before". Well, based on your previous comment, it sounds like you haven't.
"And now I'm supposed to feel some sympathy for you because you tend to be dismissed in this debate? I'm really not sure how you want me to respond to that suggestion. Um, sorry?"
No not sorry John. Just admit that you are being dismissive and maybe decide to actually engage in debate.
"Buddy, if I had a responsibility to respond to every half-formed opinion on copyright, I'd get nothing else done in my day."
Well, in fact you do respond to my postings. I'm sorry you see my opinions as half formed. If you bothered to get beyond straight contradiction as a debate strategy you might discover otherwise.
"If you can't see how the unpermitted removal of portions of a film is censorship, or that what even the plagiarist accepts as plagiarism is actually plagiarism,"
Christ John, isn't censorship the act of preventing others from seeing predetermined objectionable material? How is it censorship if no one is actually being denied access to those removed portions? Permitted or unpermitted has nothing to do with it. Nothing is stopping people from renting the unedited version if they want. They are there too. It's called choice John, choice. How do you confuse choice with censorship? I'm completely baffled.
"then what is the point of any response to you on these subjects."
Perhaps your response could be something along the lines of a brief explanation of how this is censorship when no one is ever actually prevented from seeing the 'censored' material. Naaaa, what's the sense in actually supporting your claims anyway? Never mind.
"Other people understand these things -- I've checked. But you seem not to. You keep implying this has something to do with my inability to express myself. How much expression do you need?"
Please John check again. One of us will get a big surprise. If by chance you do find someone who agrees with you, please bring them in and ask them to post here. Perhaps they will make an argument that explains this perspective in a way so that us half formed opinionated folks can understand it.
"You do whatever you need to do to feel good about yourself in the public debate. I will assume that means many more comments where you attempt to use my own words to illustrate how I'm not arguing."
Yeah well, so far you've admitted to being dismissive, and you said quite plainly that if I don't understand your point about censorship before you've actually made any argument then "what is the point of any response to you on these subjects."
How am I doing so far? :-)
Post a Comment