(righteous babe logo courtesy righteous babe records)
I took last week off from blogging and other things. Instead, I went to Grimsby, Ontario and Buffalo, New York, and dedicated myself to approaching the finish line on my next novel (thank you Canada Council for the grant). It was a week spent blissfully not thinking about the copyfight apparently gripping this country.
And now I'm back to the end times -- after reading Michael Geist's column in yesterday's Star, one could be forgiven for assuming the apocalypse of consumer freedom is nigh. Funny, I note the car I own can technically get me up past 200 kilometers an hour; yet if I choose to drive that quickly just about anywhere I'll probably be spending some time in jail. I can't believe this government restricts my freedom so unfairly. What is this, Russia? I mean, I bought the car, didn't I?
Anyhoo, while approaching Buffalo (at a reasonable speed), I tuned into one of their two local NPR stations, WNED, and listened to an excellent interview with local indie rocker ani difranco, founder of one of the USA's oldest and most successful record labels -- righteous babe records. Not only does difranco eschew the corporate music industry (in fact, she sort of started that trend) but she, for the most part, encouraged the bootlegging of her early concerts. difranco recognized that the hard core fans in her relatively small audiences holding up crappy tape recorders were not actually competing for her recorded music earnings. Instead they were acting as free advertising for her, spreading the goodness of difranco around vibrant bohemian communities all over North America, building her audience and in essence selling tickets to her future shows. Righteous Babe is so fond of this bootlegging history, they have recently released a series of live albums called the "official bootleg series." Read the description and see how brilliantly they market the value add of professional recordings. Smart righteous babes.
Listening to the interview, which was recorded before a live audience at San Francisco's City Arts & Lectures series, I had one of those "gawd, I'm old" moments when it was mentioned that difranco's first album was released over twenty years ago. This is an artist who sold her music on cassette tapes, and then CDs. When the interviewer, Rolling Stone magazine's Michael Azerrad, somewhat tentatively asked her what she thought of, as he put it, illegal music downloading I was just crossing the Peace Bridge. Suspended over the Niagara River, I found myself gazing hopefully out across the beautiful blue of Lake Erie and repeating to myself -- "Don't say you don't want to sue your fans. Don't say you don't want to sue your fans."
Sometimes, directed meditation works. The righteous Ms. difranco paused long, sighed hard, and really struggled for an answer. In the end, she managed to point out that however freeing to the average music consumer, illegal downloading had "put Righteous Babe in a bit of a pickle." After all, in their established anti-corporate indie business model difranco's CD sales were used to help subsidize the creation of the less well-known, newer, struggling artists in the RB stable. And with what sounds like the utter collapse of Righteous Babe CD sales, they have not quite figured out how to recover the lost revenue. It should be noted that difranco is a new mother, who wants to spend as much of her time now looking after her child, and not filling concert halls. Where's the RB revenue going to come from?
I don't know the answer, but I thank whatever deity resides in Lake Erie that not every established hipster superstar stops thinking about the real issues behind copyright as soon as she makes it big.
36 comments:
First of all, I want to say I just finished reading "The Uninvited Guest," and if everyone who reads this blog would just read the last third of the book - the stuff in Romania that deals with the secret and not-so-secret police and the effects it has in making the population paranoid and how that effects people - well, it might give some people a different perspective. They might see that YA sci-fi writers aren't the only ones thinking about personal freedom and government intervention.
Anyhoo, what people are probably going to say is that all those other bands on Righteous Babe should just take care of themselves. They don't need an indie record company any more than they need a multi-national record company.
Bands can make their own music and give it away, but I can't imagine why anyone would invest in music these days. And very soon movies. That might change the content and style of available art, but so be it.
Oddly, I kind of agree with Geist, but I wish he'd spell it out more. He uses an awful lot of "may be" a problem under C-61 language.
I realize he has imited space in a newspaper article, but if he could be a little more specific I think it would help.
And, of course, it would almost be nice if he actually said something like, you can't make copies in formats for the other types of players you own because other people can't stop themselves from making the stuff available for anyone in the world to acquire without paying - the same way I can't drive my car at 150 kmh because other people can't handle that - and we all have to make some sacrifices to live in a society. Don't we?
McF,
I always recommend that people read the last third of my book. It really is the best third.
"Kind of" agreeing with Geist is easy these days, because in most instances he is "kind of" on point. Why don't we ask the public "who wants to pay higher taxes?", and see what kind of response we get.
Geist warns us of the dangers to students in C-61:
"It provides that students violate the law when they by-pass digital locks on electronic books in order to copy and paste a paragraph of text for a class assignment."
... as though the copy and paste function of word processing software is the only way for students to engage with a text.
And where will this digitally locked content be, exactly? I've never had a problem copying and pasting from written text -- no lock breaking required.
Wait, didn't Russell say something about the TPM problem in C-61 not being about the content? Who's right, Geist or Russell?
Okay, well, *I* enjoyed the whole book ;) I was thinking about the commenters here and the chances of them reading a whole book that wasn't YA sci-fi, and, well,... okay, it didn't sound right the way I said it. I'm still kind of mourning the loss of Laurent Robert, even if he wasn't living up to potential.
Read the book, people.
I saw Geist on TVO last year making the same complaint about copying and pasting from e-books. Is that really even worthy of comment? THAT'S his problem, students today might have to actually retype a passage the way I did back in the dark ages? Someday I'll gather all you kids around and tell you about writing term papers on a... typewriter (I miss my Smith Corona).
I'm starting to see Russell as the one making more sense - should that scare me?
McF,
I had lunch with an evil American emissary today (sorry J, just kidding... about the American part), and we had a lot to say about Russell. I know he's listening and don't want him to get a big head, but his hard work and argumentation is appreciated in surprising places, even if not everyone agrees with him on everything, or even anything. He's honest and earnest, that's clear.
As to Laurent Robert, I was very excited to see him arrive, and his first goal was a beaut, but he didn't really do much after that and to be frank I thought he was a bit of a... how do you say?... suck on the pitch.
I am a little shocked by how many moves Mo makes in a season. Is this what European clubs do? The new kid is earning his pay, though.
I won't be there on Saturday, so maybe we beer in September or October.
1-1 against New England, not bad. Team looked better than it has in weeks. 9 games to make the playoffs, it's possible.
Article in the paper on the weekend about "gridlock economy." Guy has written a book about how patents and copyright are creating gridlock. He makes sense when he talks about drug patents but loses me when all he can say about copyright is a loss of rap music - I don't believe he's really worried about that. I think it's another example of what Russell refers to as people bringing things into a copyright debate where they don't belong, mixing apples and oranges.
Let's hope Geuvara can get the Ruiz guy on the right page....
"Who's right, Geist or Russell?"
Geist is a non-technical lawyer writing for a non-technical audience. I am a geek who manages and keeps internet servers and data secure for a living (and thus my focus on real "digital locks" and not the science fiction kind).
Obviously Geist and I are going to discuss problems with C-61 from a different perspective.
The problems of "digital locks" on content are in addition to the much larger problem with "digital locks" applied to devices. I don't want to be misinterpreted to have suggested I thought locks on content are problem-free.
I'm about to post a clarification to IT World Canada's blog.
Most of the things Geist talks about are effects of the locks on devices, but I'm not sure he knows or is interested in making that differentiation.
Thanks for the note about things said by us techies coming up in conversations. If you ever run into someone who just doesn't get it about why people like me are involved at all, let them know that I'm always willing to sit down and talk (including off the record, where their name never gets mentioned).
Looking forward to some day in the future when all us creators' rights advocated are on the same side of policy debates.
Hey there McF. Back from a great wilderness camping trip in Algonquin. The mud was literally hip deep. Reading John's blog, it is good to see that the mud level is low here now. However now that I'm back I'm sure there is a large barrel JohnD has been saving especially for me.
"And, of course, it would almost be nice if he actually said something like, you can't make copies in formats for the other types of players you own because other people can't stop themselves from making the stuff available for anyone in the world to acquire without paying"
I'd say you might have a point IF restricting such use would actually have the effect of reducing piracy. However as can be seen from the quantity of DVDs and ripped music from DRM'd CDs on the Internet, the content is still out there. As Russell and others have said many times before, these measures ONLY affect the innocent. They do nothing to reduce piracy.
There is no valid justification for restricting what people can do with their own property in the privacy of their own home.
I think a better analogy you should consider, would be since some people using homes for meth labs, therefore the home builders will get to keep the keys to your house even after they sell it to you.
Welcome back. Looks like you got lucky with the weather. Took my boys to Ferris Provincial Park and we were the only ones there! Interestingly, there wasn't even any staff during the week. The sign said they used something called the "honour system," whatever that is ;)
"As Russell and others have said many times before, these measures ONLY affect the innocent. They do nothing to reduce piracy."
It's always difficult to find a balance between the sacrifices people are willing to make in their own lives for other people. I guess if piracy was really reduced by some of these measures, you'd be okay with that small sacrifice, right?
What JohnD keeps asking for is something from the technical side that can accomplish that because it would probably be better to do something than have something forced on us (oh right, that's where we're at).
Because people (corporations, governments) are going to manipulate the "piracy" and supposed inability to stop it for their own benefit.
It's possible the whole concept of "ownership" will change and somehow I don't see it shaking out really well for the little guy.
Your meth lab house example is even more problematic than you think. The powers that police and the courts have been given to sieze property because of (manipulated) media over-reaction and very poor drug laws should be more of a warning.
Creators of content are already dealing with a new definition of "ownership" and as I keep saying, they are the canary in this coalmine. I'm sure people have been paying close attention to how the artists are being treated and see it as an opening of the door to more changes.
We'll see how those changes affect us, but cheaper products and more freedom seem unlikely.
John McFetridge,
"It's always difficult to find a balance between the sacrifices people are willing to make in their own lives for other people. "
I have given up much of the money I would otherwise be able to make in order to be a volunteer to help protect basic human rights in technology law debates like this one. I am willing to sacrifice quite a bit to help other people, and I don't think it would be helpful for us to go down a path of comparing what people are willing to give up to protect the interests of other people.
"What JohnD keeps asking for is something from the technical side that can accomplish that because it would probably be better to do something than have something forced on us"
If only that were true. What he is doing is ignoring the many somethings that have always been offered, and instead wants us to pretend that the world is flat, that water is not wet, and ignore other scientific and technological knowledge.
This afternoon I wrote an article titled What would an “interoperable” or “open source” DRM system look like" where I suggested that the mythical "open" DRM system that copyright holders are looking for, and that some vendors are alleging they can offer, is in fact at best no different than the vendor monopoly system they are now finally fighting to get past (Apple and Macrovision is who they most often site as the "evil empires"). More likely is that the system would be far worse.
At the end of the article I included this statement about the choices that copyright holders have:
"They can make use of digital watermarks and other such identifying information as part of a Technical Information Measure (TIM) (See: Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) and Educational Use of the Internet) as TIM’s don’t reduce interoperability. These TIMs are very useful in copyright enforcement, as they can help in investigations to determine the source of infringements. They can also provide machine readable terms of use, which device manufacturers and software authors can (and most often will) voluntarily honour."
If you don't believe that software authors will honour such TIM's, then read the note from the author of XPDF about PDF encryption. This is the author of a GNU GPL licensed program explaining why this software respects the restrictions encoded in a PDF file. Given this is software where the source code is widely distributed it is an "on your honour" system. Pretty much anyone with basic technical knowledge could disable these restrictions and distribute that to all their friends, but I'm unaware of anyone bothering to do so.
This honour system has shown it works far better than a "legal protection for use controls" regime where the same software authors who would otherwise be able to be helpful to fellow copyright holders are forced to oppose.
It really is up to John and others like him to accept the help the technical community has offered. If he instead decides to support attacks against our ability to author interoperable software (Support C-61, etc), as a "tradeoff" where he will loose anyway (access controls applied to content, and use controls applied to hardware/software, will only harm him in the end), all he can possibly expect from the technical community is opposition.
There is really nothing we can do, as the direction of the discussion is entirely under the control of copyright holders like John D.
"supposed inability to stop it for their own benefit."
The statement is that you can't abuse someone elses technology to stop it, and that it is a social and legal issue and not a technical one. In fact, the statement is that any attempts to abuse technology to try to stop it will in fact only increase the problem.
Please don't fall for the trap set out by the special interests that claim that you have a choice between copyright abolition and DRM-everywhere. That is self-serving garbage on the part of the DRM-vending snake-oil salesmen, who are anti-competitive hardware/software vendors.
Interesting that you didn't even comment on the extreme evils of meth labs.
Clearly all home owners *MUST* be punished by not being allowed to posses the keys to unlock their own homes given the whole lot of them must be drug pushing baby killers (using the logic/rhetoric that gave us DRM).
Can I take your lack of interest in giving up the keys to your home in order to stop these meth labs as indication you are yourself some sort of drug pushing baby killer (to again use the style of rhetoric that "copyright holders" use against independent software authors :-)
Don't even try to tell me that locking you out of your own home won't reduce meth labs which will simply set up shop elsewhere, you drug pushing baby killer.
Russell,
I think you'd find a lot more sympathy for your portrayal of the innocent theorists for copy freedom if there weren't so many folks advertising themselves as proud drug pushing baby killers. You know, with the hats and the t-shirts and the internet handles and all.
I've said before, I am happy to use the tools given to me so far to protect my copyright and profit from my creativity. It's just that as I do so, I find very little efficacy in the law. Courts rule to allow the elimination of important revenue streams for legal publishers. The cost of following up on infringement and suing is prohibitive to any real compensation, because this is a death by a thousand cuts, not one big assault. Even our well-intentioned collectives are viciously attacked by those who wish to profit from their elimination.
I am all for the use of Technical Information Measures, in fact the use of the copyright symbol on all of my published work is supposed to be a very effective one of those (I know, I know, it doesn't allow the tracking of the text, but re-typed text wouldn't be trackable either).
I would have great confidence in TIMs if I saw even the slightest indication they would be respected. Everyone on the other side of C-61 always mentions that protecting TPMs is pointless because they don't work. And TIMs would?
Here's a question I'm wondering about. TIMs can be used to protect against plagiarism by marking text in time. Would you support legal protection for TIMs if they could also be applied to code? I don't know the answer to my own question. I'm just asking.
I'm sorry Russell -- I see your point about being locked out of your own house, and no I wouldn't accept it. I would actively not accept it by never buying a house that came with such a lock. Instead, I'd work in a community dedicated to offering the market houses without ownerlocks. Neither of these two options involve me breaking into the locked houses anyway and expecting the law to not come after me.
You think I don't see the philosophical differences here, but I do. I just don't accept that you would be without options to follow your own path after C-61. And, I'm saddened that you have not been able to make your philosophical case to the country without aligning yourself with people who wear dumb t-shirts.
I'm flattered to learn that I am determining the direction of the public discussion. I thought that was Michael Geist.
Anyway, when the writ is dropped next week (if not earlier) we all go back to speculation mode.
"Courts rule to allow the elimination of important revenue streams for legal publishers."
I am curious as to what this is in reference to. I'd appreciate some edification if anyone is willing.
"The cost of following up on infringement and suing is prohibitive to any real compensation,"
True enough. But isn't this the way it has always been? Before any reflexive shift of this burden to the public purse we should have a much broader examination of all the alternatives.
"I would have great confidence in TIMs if I saw even the slightest indication they would be respected."
They are certainly no less effective than TPMs. They have been shown to be effective in the past. (I hope we can now count on your "great confidence" in TIMs.) They also have two significant benefits. They directly target the root source of infringement, and they do not infringe any legal use rights.
"Here's a question I'm wondering about. TIMs can be used to protect against plagiarism by marking text in time. Would you support legal protection for TIMs if they could also be applied to code?"
I'm not quite sure what you mean here John. Why can't they be applied to code? I would strongly support legal protection for TIMs as long as they did not themselves embed any personal information, because they would leave my rights intact. I think you would find a lot of people you write off as looking for a free lunch would also support it. Including Geist. Perhaps that is the reasonable compromise.
"I would have great confidence in TIMs if I saw even the slightest indication they would be respected."
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
You can't use the technical communities refusal to respect the spirit or the law around TCM's as any indication of their willingness to respect TIM's. One is a full-frontal assault against their rights and interests, and the other is them just doing the right thing to help fellow creators.
"Everyone on the other side of C-61 always mentions that protecting TPMs is pointless because they don't work. And TIMs would?"
Yes, because this is a social problem, not a technical problem. Trust people, and they will become more trustworthy. Randomly jail innocent people, and they will dedicate their lives to jailbreaking and disrespecting you.
I am surprised that someone who isn't part of the California consensus believes that you can solve social problems with technology, but you seem to have fallen for this trap.
The copyright infringement problem (whether we agree on how prevalent or harmful this issue is) can *ONLY* be solved once everyone involved stops looking for technological solutions to social issues.
"TIMs can be used to protect against plagiarism by marking text in time. Would you support legal protection for TIMs if they could also be applied to code? I don't know the answer to my own question. I'm just asking."
I don't think I understand the question very well, but suspect that http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4946 will provide you with an answer. The idea of having clear licensing terms encoded in XML is something out community has been working on for years, and includes a number of metadata projects within the Creative Commons.
"I just don't accept that you would be without options to follow your own path after C-61."
I realize that you don't understand the impact. I also understand you don't see that the technological measures aspect of C-61 will harm and not help you as well. It is unfortunate that you are in support of a regime which will harm professional writers -- your own folks -- without realizing it, or being willing to more closely listen to those warning you.
This is not about (as the other John suggested) *us* not being willing to give something up in order for *you* to gain something important. It is a matter of *us* not being willing to give something up in order for you also to lose something you appear to want to have taken away.
"And, I'm saddened that you have not been able to make your philosophical case to the country without aligning yourself with people who wear dumb t-shirts."
You have also not been able to make your case without aligning yourself with the real threats and thieves of this debate: folks like the RIAA, Bell, Rogers, Microsoft and Apple.
Just because you believe I am aligned with people, doesn't mean that I aligned myself with them.
Darryl Moore,
John said: Courts rule to allow the elimination of important revenue streams for legal publishers.
Darryl asked: I am curious as to what this is in reference to. I'd appreciate some edification if anyone is willing.
I believe he is talking about the CCH decision, a place where John and I appear to disagree.
What I saw was a now-redundant intermediary trying to abuse misinformation about the law as a cash-grab. It is the same critique I have about the bulk of the educational publishing industry which backwards politicians in our provincial governments/miniseries, boards of education, and university administration are propping up at great expense to the taxpayer and to creators.
It's the whole question around Crown Copyright, Open Access, etc, etc and whether the law should allow any alternative method of production, distribution and funding beyond what was necessary in the past when the tools to record/edit/distribute content was excessively expensive.
Yawn... *smile*
"I would strongly support legal protection for TIMs as long as they did not themselves embed any personal information, because they would leave my rights intact."
This is one where we could have an interesting debate. While I separate static tombstone data (What a techie might mean by Rights Management Information) from logs kept by a TCM (IE: when and how long a file was open, etc, which is not TIM information at all), I don't have a problem with tombstone data storing personal information.
The scenarios where this has been claimed to be a problem are interesting. Someone breaks into your computer, copies your purchased content, and then spreads them around. This is then attributed to you, disclosed your personal tastes, etc, etc.
But -- there was a computer break-in -- and as well as this copyrighted content your credit card and any other personal information stored in your computer was also unlawfully copied. Your privacy was already compromised, not because there was copyrighted content on your computer that identified you, but because your computer was compromised and contained quite a bit of private information.
Shortform: I simply don't see the problem with TIMs encoding the identity of the customer of the content.
In fact, I believe that recording personal information is necessary in order to obtain the social response we want. We want people to think of this content as "their copy", and to effectively join in with the creator in keeping distribution limited. We want people "loaning" it to be thinking about if they trust the person they are "loaning" this digital file to as much as they would if they were loaning a physical book, asking if they trust the person that it would be returned (In the case of the intangible, that they will delete it later and not pass on to other friends/etc without your permission).
We want tampering with this information to be considered as socially unacceptable as plagiarism, or smoking in public places, or... Changes in the law aren't as important as changes in public perception/etc.
We could have interesting conversations about the concept of reselling and "first sale" rights for digital content -- and here I may also swing on the side of those who think that first-sale should only apply to physical media and not pure intangibles (ie: "downloads").
We also need to recognize that for digital media we need to digitally encode information. The copyright information that is on one of the first few pages of a book are fine to be human readable in a traditional book, but should also be machine readable when made digital. It is not enough for a copyright holder to say that in the body of a PDF was text in some human language that said that public search engines and public archives should not index/archive the file -- that information must be encoded digitally in a way that is able to be properly interpreted by the relevant software.
All interesting conversations for another thread..
"This is not about (as the other John suggested) *us* not being willing to give something up in order for *you* to gain something important. It is a matter of *us* not being willing to give something up in order for you also to lose something you appear to want to have taken away."
Last night I wrote a beautifully insightful post that brought "us" and "you" together in perfect harmony but blogger ate it.
The gist of it was that the "copyright holders" don't have anywhere near the kind of power that people seem to think. I think this misunderstanding is delibertate (or wonderfully exploited) by "agents" of copyright holders.
It's kind of another, "I have four things in my hand," situation. The four things are; the creator, the distributor, the device manufacturer and the consumer.
The relationship between the creator and the distributor isn't a simple one of manufacture and shipping and it's one that's been worked out over a long, long period of time. It can't simply be replaced by new manufacturing and shipping technology.
Then the "agents" of the creators have a relationship with the device manufacturers and then the device manufactrurers have a relationship with the consumers.
It's possible that the creator and the consumer will gain a much closer relationship without so many middlemen, but my fear is that the issue is being manipulated and exploited so that creators will lose control of their work and consumers will lose "ownership" over what they buy. Certainly part one of that plan is in full effect and part two is on its way.
John M said: It's kind of another, "I have four things in my hand," situation. The four things are; the creator, the distributor, the device manufacturer and the consumer.
In the past I had identified a different 4: creators, non-creator copyright holding intermediaries, so-called "user" intermediaries (libraries, schools, etc), and then audiences.
I think we both agree that copyright "should" be about creators and audiences (and the ways in which these groups are often the same people), but that nearly all the policy discussions have been negotiated settlements between the two sets of intermediaries.
I think that the "DRM" debate adds an additional intermediary which claims to be a creator-side intermediary to creators and a user-side intermediary to audiences, but in the end is really their own special interest group with their own interests that aren't compatible with anyone else.
I think to get at the question about "The relationship between the creator and the distributor" I need to author a separate article. I think many of these conversations fall down on the presumption that those who are suggesting alternatives to existing methods of production, distribution and funding are suggesting we always throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Last evening I subjected myself to red a talk and Q&A with Andrew Keen (author of "The Cult of the Amateur: How the Internet Is Killing Our Culture").
He seemed to be suggesting that if we changed the delivery mechanism from gated newspapers to more open news discussions (the blogosphere, etc), that we by definition need to give up paid professional journalists and editors.
This is the same type of thinking I hear from opponents to FLOSS, with the claim that if you change the business model in any way that suddenly software developers are no longer paid and you can't get quality software. While the experiment is largely done with FLOSS and this assumption was proven wrong, the same is true of other creative works.
In the case of news, I think I prefer when the filtering is done by people that the audience hires rather than on the publication side. And publication is a team effort with both journalists and editors, but that doesn't mean that this team needs to be structured as a "newspaper", or that there is only one way to fund them.
I'm a subscriber to the Hill Times because I like the way the professional editors and journalists there work to deliver me some of the political news I crave. In my ideal world I could pay a news filtering company to create my own daily news feed that hilighted the articles that I wanted to see. I don't think automation with RSS/etc can ever replace human judgement. In fact, I coined the "Power of Peopleware" that P&L Communications previously used in their brochures.
I don't find that a lot of other current news media is of high quality. They seem to be laying off professional journalists and instead hiring yes-men people who can mildly rework special interest press releases. I don't entirely blame the MSM given audiences don't seem to care, and seem just as willing to watch FOX as BBC, or to watch some "Reality Show" instead of a well written drama.
The low-quality crap costs much less to the media companies, and if they can sell the same (or similar) number of eyeballs to advertisers, then they can just claim they are cutting the fat. Disgusting, but what is really to blame for this? Clearly not the Internet or copyright infringement.
Then again -- this is all problems in our cultural industries that has nothing to do with copyright, so may be off-topic here :-)
Russell,
I look forward to your article about new alternatives to existing methods of production, distribution and funding. We're always looking for new ways to make money.
As for journalism, the radical in me says we are merely accepting the fact that all journalism is advocacy journalism and throwing out the false idea of objectivity.
The ability to choose only the news I want from soucres I want leads to a whole bunch of community/cultural issues which I'd say we're in the early days of and will be a huge challenge to us in the near future. This debate, in fact, has already demonstrated to me how isolated ideology can be and how the online world can often make it worse. With any luck, it's a stage towards making it better, but as you say, the cultural stuff is for another discussion.
Back on topic for a moment, when you say, "I think that the "DRM" debate adds an additional intermediary which claims to be a creator-side intermediary to creators and a user-side intermediary to audiences, but in the end is really their own special interest group with their own interests that aren't compatible with anyone else," I think you're right and I think that's the key.
So, what to do?
"I look forward to your article about new alternatives to existing methods of production, distribution and funding. We're always looking for new ways to make money."
The most important thing I can say on business models is to repeat what I've been told so many times: don't try to ensure that everyone who has access to your work pays for it, but ensure that everyone who wants to pay for it has access. Part of that is to stop being distracted by the backward-facing "some copyright is good, more is better" and to instead look for markets which have thus far not been filled. As potential customers increasingly move away from traditional media, there are many new unfilled markets.
"As for journalism, the radical in me says we are merely accepting the fact that all journalism is advocacy journalism and throwing out the false idea of objectivity."
Why do we somehow have to accept that this idea is false?
I guess I believe it is a matter of it being a trait that is asked for by the right employer. The problem (as you have identified many times already) with media paid for by commercials is that sensationalism and theatre sells more eyeballs than facts and objectivity.
The question then becomes -- are there enough of us that are willing to pay for good objective journalists to earn the good ones a good living?
Many of the articles I find most interesting in The Hill Times are also made available on their website. Sure, I can get a head start with the delivery the day before, but the reality is that I tend to read the articles over a weeks time anyway so the timing isn't as important to me.
It is important to me that the Hill Times keeps going, and that banner advertisements on their website don't take over. It's worth the $179/year for me to get that. I'd pay the same if I didn't receive paper, although I would want a PDF delivered to me that isn't multi-column so that it reads better on my eBook reader (AKA: My OLPC XO).
"The ability to choose only the news I want from soucres I want leads to a whole bunch of community/cultural issues which I'd say we're in the early days of"
I agree that this can lead to problems, but I don't see a good way around it. Back in the days when media was expensive you had (well, we still have) media concentration issues. In order to get around media concentration we move into a situation where audiences are given a wide variety of choices, and the obvious is found that we don't make the same choices.
If the most prolific people who participate in JohnD's forum listed out the media they enjoyed we would likely already find very little overlap.
The only newspaper I subscribe to (meaning, pay directly for rather than read where it is paid for by advertisers) is the Hill Times.
I only read articles from the other "Ottawa" dailies or various technology media (Including ITBusiness/ITWorldCanada who I blog for) when someone sends me a link to their website (advertisers are customers, not me).
I get alerts from CBC to Ottawa related articles on their site (some public money, but much of this is advertisers as customers).
I watch a lot of CPAC (Including downloading video-on-demand shows which I watch on my XO while on the bus/etc), and I religiously watch CTV's Question Period on Sundays.
I really wish I cold subscribe to specific television shows directly from the source, as we really don't watch enough television to justify our cable package. The problem is that the bundles are so F'd up such that the stuff we do want to watch is all over the "dial". That's a lot of misdirected money in our mind, where the artists/reporters/etc that we have no interested in are effectively taking money out of the pockets of creators we are interested in.
At some point I'll find that alternative channels provide me "good enough" service, and I'll drop our cable service. That will mean less money to shows I'd like to pay for, but who have thus far not given me an alternative channel to pay.
(I know, I know -- repeating things said already -- I really don't believe infringement is a significant factor compared to distributors not offering the right channel for people to pay! I believe infringement is morally wrong, but not an important economic indicator.)
"I think you're right and I think that's the key. So, what to do?"
I do the only thing I know how, which is to spend an unreasonable amount of time trying to alert people to this problem.
JohnD turned out to be right about some benefit from a bill being tabled. Unlike him I'm glad it will die on the order paper, but attempting to decipher it has allowed me to better understand the differences between what the WIPO treaties actually say and what the DMCA/C-61 said. These differences weren't as obvious to me back in the days of deciphering the Liberal C-60.
"don't try to ensure that everyone who has access to your work pays for it, but ensure that everyone who wants to pay for it has access."
Sounds good and would certainly appeal to artists. The thing is, though, access only kicks in after the work is complete, so the idea is restricted to work that can be completed with no - or very little - capital investment.
That investment requires those middle-men.
Maybe someday there'll be another way to raise the venture capital required. Until then, even people at the forefront of this kind of thing - like Cory Doctorow for example (he still gets advances from his publisher) - start out with the old method and are sticking with it. Even people who start out with some new online method pretty much always use it as a springboard to working with traditional methods.
It's probably true that making the work available to everyone increases the number of people who are willing to pay for it, but as long as people are accepting advances the companies paying those advances have a vested interest and will continue to want "protection" for their investment(wow, that was awkard).
Maybe more companies will do like Tor and and not demand total control of the work - most artists don't have the kind of leverage to get that deal, though.
As for me, I can't bring myself to spend the money on cable. The packages just don't work for me. I guess I miss out on a few shows I might otherwise enjoy (there's my sacrifice), but for the most part I can buy or rent the DVDs of the ones I want.
"That investment requires those middle-men."
Where you say "those", I will suggest "some". I'm not against all middle-men, or think that services to creators (including financial services) are unnecessary, but that the middle-men shouldn't be in control
What I said about "don't try to ensure that everyone who has access to your work pays for it, but ensure that everyone who wants to pay for it has access." also applies to those middle-men. If the only way they will fund you is to try to control every use of a work, then they will eventually be bankrupt anyway. I'm not that worried about them, I'm worried about the creators.
If one set of service providers for creators go out of business, we need to ensure there are new set of service providers to fill the needs.
Cory Doctorow has never tried to control every use of his works, and was one of the many people who I heard the "don't try to ensure that everyone who has access to your work pays for it, but ensure that everyone who wants to pay for it has access" comment from.
You appear to be falling for the trap I warned about, which is to believe that either you have *THIS* set of services available to creators, or you have *NO* set of services available to creators. I simply don't understand why anyone would think this.
I have to ask this: Why in a world where copyright holders are alleging their greatest problem is that they are not getting paid should I be forced to "sacrifice" accessing content (and paying for it) by policies promoted by these same copyright holders. Does this make sense to you? It sure doesn't make sense to me.
I know some people think I'm blaming the victim, but in most cases I see copyright holders making choices that make it harder for me to pay them, and then try to blame/punish me when I don't pay them and feel forced to invest my money elsewhere.
"You appear to be falling for the trap I warned about, which is to believe that either you have *THIS* set of services available to creators, or you have *NO* set of services available to creators. I simply don't understand why anyone would think this."
No, I don't feel that way at all.
For some time now I've seen two (or more) systems in operation (or developing) - some creators choosing one system and others choosing a different one. Same for the middle-men, some are getting on board and some aren't. It's really only the beginning, we'll see how how it goes.
The problem, the reason there's an issue, is that (some) consumers are treating every method as the same one and ignoring (some would say not respecting) the choices of the creators or the middle-men. Maybe those creators are making bad choices - it should still be their choice to make and no one else should "correct" them by acquiring their work in a way it's not offered.
I guess it's good people are showing such a willingness to acquire the work, but I still think the way they're going about it is problematic.
So far, for most creators who have a choice, the traditional one offered by the middle-men is still the best. Not many creators have given up on it completely. Usually it's because of the investment, the advance. There's some room to negotiate, but not all that much. I had a heck of a time convincing my US publisher to even allow excerpts from my novel to be in non-paying webzines. When I signed the contract - and took the advance - I pretty much had to accept their terms or not take the deal. That may change.
I think pretty soon we'll both have the option to just watch the TV shows we want without subscribing to cable packages. We may even be able to subscribe to individual shows or movies - sort of paying the advance ourselves, but so far people are very reluctant to pay in advance like that and so middle-men are necessary.
We'll see.....
"The problem, the reason there's an issue, is that (some) consumers are treating every method as the same one and ignoring (some would say not respecting) the choices of the creators or the middle-men."
Part of why we appear to be on opposite sides of the debate is because we see the problem differently.
I see it as: Some copyright holders, largely non-creator copyright holding intermediaries, fearing changes in the marketplace are trying to change the laws and communications infrastructure to disadvantage or completely outlaw alternatives that might otherwise be chosen by creators.
As JohnD has said, we disagree on who "threw the first stone" (NII happened long before Napster, so I'm right :-), as well as the seriousness of each of the problems
- While I believe infringement is morally wrong, I simply don't see the economic harm alleged. The decline I see in revenues are primarily perfectly legal changes in the marketplace/audiences/etc.
- While JohnD may agree with me that citizen control over communications technology is important, he doesn't see the current bill or the other policies promoted as really being all that bad or important. He sees the infringement problem as massive, and seems to actually believe the IDC/etc studies.
"That investment requires those middle-men."
... I could have quoted your later comment about how most creators have kept with traditional distribution, which I could debate but really isn't the point.
The point is this: Just because you feel you require those middle men does not mean you should feel obligated to agree with them on policy proposals. What is good for those middle men isn't necessarily what is good for creators.
All I'm trying to do is protect a full spectrum of methods of production, distribution and funding against a small number of special interests (and their allies) who want to use the law and technology to reduce that spectrum.
My critique of PWAC and the CCC isn't that their members often choose methods of production, distribution and funding that are different than my own choices, but that their political influence is in support of those which seek to disadvantage or outright outlaw my choices.
If all choices are left on the table, then we can have a nice friendly discussion about which we each think is "best" for each of us, but nobody is imposing choices on others.
It is simply wrong to suggest that the only way your favourite choice can be protected is if you remove choices from me.
Russell and McF, I've enjoyed the conversation so far and I strongly agree which a great deal of what Russell says.
However twice now he has said "I believe infringement is morally wrong" without any qualifiers, and I have to ask, Russell, do you agree with that statement as it stands, unqualified in any way?
Since copyright is an artificial monopoly and the term and breadth are entirely arbitrary, unqualified support for the statement above would in fact be saying that you support the law simply because it is the law irregardless of whether the law is just or not.
I think there are may instances where copyright infringement is morally justified. Many of the examples on my website DeathByCopyright are works convicted in court of copyright infringement. Most should not be considered so, but none-the-less they are. Are all the artists I have presented behaving immorally in creating their works?
Do you not also believe that there is an immorality associated with restricting access to works for too long or too narrowly?
Sorry it's a little off topic, but I just have to ask these questions because the above statement which you've made twice now, make the issue of copyright infringement sound so black and white. (Just like those pushing C-61 do) When really there are infinite shades of gray. I know you see the shades of gray, so these black and white statements confuse me.
"I believe infringement is morally wrong"
You are right to say that such a statement needs qualifiers, and that the above is a shortform.
What we don't have is a short way to say that I believe it is morally wrong to infringe the right described in the UN UDHR article 27(2) as "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author", appropriately balanced with other rights such as 27(1) cultural rights, article 17 property rights, article 19 communications rights, etc.
("such as" means it is is inclusive to those rights, not exclusive)
Even after that long paragraph we can have an even longer conversation about what constitutes "moral and material interests", and there we will find further ways that different people see these ideas differently. For instance, where I see material interests I read "if money is made by anyone, then the copryight holder gets a say in this". I don't read it to mean "the government should impose a specific set of business models onto its citizens".
Copyright law is simply societies current draft of clarifying this idea into a set of rules, and is (and should be) subject to change over time. I suspect that a majority of Canadians who are aware of current proposals would agree that we are diverging from what was articulated in the UN UDHR.
...and without unqualified shortforms, each of our articles would become books.
Thanks Russell. I figured as much. I just needed clarification. At least now no one can call you a hypocrite when you appear to contradict this statement in the future in the context of one of the qualifications.
Section 27(2) is most definitely being promoted beyond its intent and at the significant expense of 27(1)
"The point is this: Just because you feel you require those middle men does not mean you should feel obligated to agree with them on policy proposals. What is good for those middle men isn't necessarily what is good for creators."
We all know this. I don't know about software writers or other stuff, but in the arts, we all know this. We've had long battles with the middle-men and worked out the best deal we could. It's far from perfect, but it took a long time to get even here and it's a daily struggle to maintain this.
Now, I have no idea what got us into this mess, so I'll just agree with you. Thing is, I don't care how we got into it, I'd just like to find a way out.
One thing that would help is if those artists that made what you feel is the right choice of methods got a lot more support and those that choose the wrong method got a lot less.
(this would really only be an interim step to a better system, but a boycott really does speak louder than anything else)
There's a huge (huge, freakin' huge!) amount of stuff online now that is available in the method you want. Not very much of it gets accessed.
It may be true, though, that the old-style financing and disrtibution method is a factor in the content that gets produced and only through that method can the kind of content that the vast majority of people want get produced.
Maybe it won't always be that way, and maybe it doesn't have to be, but right now that's the way it is. I'm not sure there's anything stopping people from trying to produce and market in another method.
So, creators can make better choices about how their material is offered and consumers can make better choices about what they access.
Like I said, cable TV is not offered in a way I think is right, so I don't have it. I'm about the only person I know, though, who doesn't, so I understand the cable companies think they're doing a great job.
To bring this back to the original post, the problem for Righteous Babe Records is that not enough consumers are willing to pay their bands for music. The bands need the money, so they'll sign with a big record label that will lobby governments for bad laws in order to maintain a monopoly and in return they'll toss the bands a few cents.
If enough consumers would just toss the bands on Righteous Babe a few cents, and spend a little less on the big label acts, it would help a lot.
"(this would really only be an interim step to a better system, but a boycott really does speak louder than anything else)"
Practical problem: the current statistical methodologies used to allege massive harm due to copyright infringement does not differentiate between infringement, competition and boycotts.
Any boycott will simply backfire politically as incumbent creator and non-creator copyright holders allege that any downturn in revenue can be solely blamed on infringing activities. This unsubstantiated allegation is what is used to justify these drastic changes to the laws which govern technology and what business models will be supported, made impractical, or prohibited.
If this were a normal business where failure and competition was allowed by policy, then boycotts would work well. This is not a normal business at all!
Example:
"There's a huge (huge, freakin' huge!) amount of stuff online now that is available in the method you want. Not very much of it gets accessed."
What objective criteria did you use to make that evaluation? Or did you, like nearly every study I've seen on the alleged harm from copyright infringement, simply invent key factors from nowhere?
"I'm not sure there's anything stopping people from trying to produce and market in another method."
I'm curious if you are following the same copyright debate I am, or just the one you think that is going on?
I'm involved in the copyright debate that focuses around "technological measures", which includes DRM (access controls on content, use controls on software/devices) and technology mandates (government mandated use controls on software/devices, such as the "broadcast flag", which prohibit FLOSS).
Article: Predictable positions from subset of stakeholders at Brussels telecommunication/copyright event.
These are entirely about controlling the tools which form the means of production and distribution in the knowledge economy -- in other words, it is entirely about "stopping people from trying to produce and market in another method"
JohnD doesn't think this issue is important. Obviously I disagree and consider all the actual "Copyright" issues, as important as they are to me, to pale in comparison to this primary issue.
BTW: While some of the artists from righteous babe records seem to have tracks in compilations, the music from that label is not on eMusic.com (The #2 online music store, and the #1 DRM-free store).
I see some samples on their site of music, encoded in Windows Media. I'm not sure if I'm circumventing any DRM while listening to them (that doesn't tend to be displayed with the software I use), but I know I'm using software that violates software patents.
If I were one of those people who boycotted artists who forced me to circumvent the law in order to access their music, then think I'd have to be boycotting these folks.
Seems we are still back to the question I asked in: Where is that "buy me now" button for Copyright?
I doubt if I asked whether they would guarantee me there were no TMs infecting their CDs that they could tell me. That said, I don't want CDs -- I want legal downloads, preferably part of my existing eMusic package.
I asked this question of Anthem, the label for Rush, and never received a response from my multiple queries. So.. even though I was excited after the concert.. I didn't buy any of their recent music as it wasn't clearly offered to me in a format I could use.
"Any boycott will simply backfire politically as incumbent creator and non-creator copyright holders allege that any downturn in revenue can be solely blamed on infringing activities."
No, I mean a complete boycott - stop accessing the material and stop blogging about it and stop talking about it. Completely ignore it.
Right now the numbers show that the 'long tail' isn't panning out (yet) and that the online community has simply made the few blockbusters even more popular.
Everytime I see examples given of the "copyright issue" people are talking about huge Hollywood movies or network TV shows. If we could get past those, I think it would help get past this issue.
I don't watch many movies or much TV or listen to much new music so most o fmy examples are books and there are about a million "blog novels" online you can access anytime without any restrictions.
It's true, I haven't looked into much music, but people are always telling me about some new band (sadly, they almost always turn out to be cheap indie bands that sound like mid-60's garage which I'm not into) giving away their stuff.
I even made a trailer for my novel and put it on my website. I could have made a short narrative film, a documentary, a long-form, anything and I could have given it away without restrictions, couldn't I?
I saw RUSH in concert at the Montreal Forum in 1977, the Farewell to Kings tour and I liked their song, "Closer to the Heart," so I bought the album (it got scratched to crap, wish I'd had a backup). But when I got older and realized the words were:
"And the men who hold high places,
Must be the ones who start,
to mould a new reality..."
I thought, hey, wait a minte, it has to start from the people, from the citizens on up. The "men who hold high places," are the politicians and CEO's of these multinationals, that's not who we look to for change. And then the song says;
"Philosphers and ploughmen,
Each must know his part."
Well, that's right out. That would be saying, Russell, you're a techie, you have to know your part in all this, don't you start talking policy, that's for the philosophers.
So then I found out the Anthem company was named for the Ayn Rand novel and I had a look at her (I was a teenager, it's forgivable). There's a long speech in Fountainhead about the supremacy of "the creator," and how the creator must be in total control of what he creates and forget "the public" they have no say (it's about architecture, a particularly arrogant form of creation, but wrong, nonetheless).
Confusing. Well, maybe we should leave it to the philosophers and get back to our ploughs... oh, that makes me think of Elton John, I think I still have that album).
"Right now the numbers show that..."
Which numbers are those? What methodology were they using? Did the methodology presume the answer when it asked the question (IE: the use of commercial radio and soundscan record sales as a proxy for the popularity of music)?
All I can do is be an example of what I'd like others to do. Except for a few exceptions, I don't access the content of creators who aren't willing to offer it in a way that is reasonable to me. I suggest the same to everyone else, and am one of the first in any thread to disagree with those who think they are "sticking it to the man" by infringing copyright. That is about as logical to me as saying you are "sticking it to the government" by voting for the candidate put forward by the governing party.
While I do it, I don't think it will help the situation. The authors need to learn why people are choosing not to access their content. This mythical "invisible hand" of the market only works if the market is conveying information, and in the case of copyright there isn't adequate communication. The statistics are nearly all wrong, meaning that the information that copyright receivers are receiving is suggesting backward responses.
On to the more fun stuff..
When I blogged Rush, Ayn Rand, and the “Conservative” party’s copyright bill I found it interesting that the following was what started the comment I received:
"Libertarianism, especially in its extremist form Objectivism (which Neil Peart has since distanced himself from), have little to do with modern conservatism."
I find it awesome that the lyrics of these songs can cause us to think of important social issues and lead into philosophical debate.
I think that the fact that this type of content was embedded within the lyrics for metal/hard-rock music suggests a very different thing than promoting "Each must know his part". It is often claimed that philosophers listen to classical music, not hard rock.
Any way to get as many people as possible thinking about bigger ideas is great by me! I know that I sure didn't know my place, and have spent a lot more time in recent years thinking about the law than Internet/security technology (where my training and work experience is).
One of my favourite songs, beyond 2112, is a song called "The Trees" which reminds me far too much about many political issues -- where the outcome of some political battles is that everyone loses. I often worry that this is what will happen in the Copyright debate, especially if we continue to go down the 'negotiated settlement' path rather than a reasoned policy approach.
Are there ways to instead get together to better understand each others perspective, and then have an unbiased third party come up with a reasonable policy from this knowledge? Sounds like the "Royal Commission" that Christopher Moore once suggested, and that I supported.
BTW: I'm planning on downloading a reading of Ayn Rand's Anthem in the near future from eMusic. I don't expect I will agree with the political philosophy it suggests, but that by listening to it I will better appreciate some of the other ideas out there. I wouldn't have thought to do that either if it were not for Rush.
I think those who think that music is pure-entertainment are missing out on a lot of the deeper aspects and impacts of music.
"(I)am one of the first in any thread to disagree with those who think they are "sticking it to the man" by infringing copyright."
But you do see how long those comment trails are and what a tiny, tiny minority you're in, right?
I don't know what to do about that. I can't help but feel the people who think they're, "sticking it to the man," are being used. Just like the other extreme, people claiming to be losing all kinds of money are being used.
Yes, I see I'm in a minority. It has become socially acceptable to talk about infringement of music, movies, television, and BSA member software. How much of an influence this attitude change is I don't know, and clearly we can have a long conversation on what socially changed to get us here (Back to my "where is the buy me now button" stuff).
As to the latter part of your message, all I can say is: Yup, people are being used and I don't know what to do about it beyond what I'm doing now.
I may be wrong (I hope not), but part of why I spend more time with people who think of themselves as authors first and audience second, rather than those who see themselves the other way around, is that they may be more likely to open their eyes and get how they are being used. Those who write/create/etc tend to also be people who read and think as well.
The general public? From what I can tell (unscientifically!) they believe that their oil-driven lifestyles can last forever, and think that Canada finally adopting a Green Tax Shift is a bad idea. As long as they get cheap energy today, they could care less about their children's future.
*sigh*
Then again, that might be because the book we are listening to right now as the US election is underway and Canada's is about to start is Dude, Where's My Country?
"The general public? From what I can tell (unscientifically!) they believe that their oil-driven lifestyles can last forever, and think that Canada finally adopting a Green Tax Shift is a bad idea. As long as they get cheap energy today, they could care less about their children's future."
And so this is the toughest thing about lack of regulation and citizen control of anything. I love it in theory, but I'd like to see more evidence of it working in SOMEthing.
As I've said, the copyright "debate" is very similar to what I see in almost everything else, this desire for something cheap today and no care about where it leads - or what effect it has on anyone else.
It's a tough one, all right.
"As I've said, the copyright 'debate' is very similar to what I see in almost everything else, this desire for something cheap today and no care about where it leads - or what effect it has on anyone else."
You may be right to believe that there are a large number of people in the general public (and in Fair Copyright for Canada discussion groups) and other such people who see the debate like this.
Far too much of what I hear from "Educational Institutions", the provincial Ministries and other such folks sure sound like that. The fact that they are all happy about institutional exceptions proves to me they don't have the public interest in mind. The fact that they refuse to solve their own alleged financial problems by moving to Open Access suggests to me these institutional arguments are largely bogus...
This isn't for the most part what I've seen in the local Ottawa chapter meetings and discussions, but I will concede that this may be an Ottawa thing.
For me the debate is about what is actually happening in law as well as national and multinational policy discussions, which has nothing to do with the above at all. It's about incumbent intermediaries fearing citizens being able to fully participate in culture, and doing what they can to take the tools that would otherwise allow that participation away from citizens.
We could get into a debate about whether this is about money or power, but many of the things you worry about (there no longer being professional writers, journalists, etc) are precisely the same things I'm worried about. I just see a different threat to these things as being greater.
"I just see a different threat to these things as being greater."
Well, maybe we also agree that everyone seems to playing their part exactly as scripted.
This reminds me of our former minister of education talking about, "creating a crisis," that he could then "solve."
The responses to things like C-61 are so predictable and so consistent on all sides that by now we certainly have a good idea of what won't work.
But if it's power or money that will win out then that's too bad, but also predictable and consistent.
I guess I don't see things as predictable. Some of the industries, yes, but what I saw from fellow creators in 2001/2002 threw me for a loop. To be honest, it still does -- creator groups promoting policies which seem to me to be harmful to the members of those same groups.
It's just too bad that in a debate that is alleged to be about protecting creators from disrespecting their rights that it comes down to policies that will leave creators with less power, less money and less respect.
Post a Comment