PMO Issues The Order: Canadian DMCA Bill Within Six Weeks
Moore's Response: Stop Talking and Wait For My DMCA
Geist's high profile in the debate ensured his blog postings became headline news, and set the comment streams a-flowing on his and other copyright-related blogs and articles. And for anyone who has followed this debate for even a short time, the general tenor of the comment streams was not surprising. Apparently, Hollywood executives and their lobbyists are massing at the border, preparing for a complete takeover of our once proud country.
I pop in and out of these discussions every now and then, but you can only be called a corporate shill or, even worse, a "lawyer" so many times before you give up.
TV writer and Writers Guild of Canada director Denis McGrath has a terrific post on his blog today. In it he makes a direct address to the comment streams, and to the inflammatory rhetoric that begets them. Read the full posting at the link above, and here are some quotes:
"I think that when it comes to something like "fair dealing" it's a finer slice. I think works should be able to be used for comment, parody, satire -- and limited educational use. But you know, agreements were reached on things like copying for school use in textbooks and things - and I see absolutely no reason to think that "it's too hard to police" is a valid argument why wide-open educational use of copyrighted materials should be expected. I also think it's a bit odious that Educational representatives, most of whom have pensions & tenure -- ie: job security, are arguing against a fair compensation regime for people who are essentially self-employed freelancers with none of those economic cushions."
"It seems to me that if you're an "expert on copyright law," with legions of followers with whom you exhibit great influence, then part of your responsibility comes with truly engaging on the creator side of the equation, and figuring out a stand that you can articulate to your followers that doesn't involve content creators assuming all of the risk in the brave new world going forward. It's not enough to demand. You have to engage on a creator-friendly, not just consumer-friendly solution to the problem."
7 comments:
Hey John. I've been reading the buzz as well. One of your quotes from McGrath is very interesting because it can be slightly rewritten to give the exact opposite meaning and be equally as valid. Perhaps targeting it at someone like Sookman instead of Geist.
voilà;
"It seems to me that if you're an 'expert on copyright law,' with legions of clients with whom you exhibit great influence, then part of your responsibility comes with truly engaging on the consumer side of the equation, and figuring out a stand that you can articulate to your clients that doesn't involve consumers assuming all of the risk in the brave new world going forward. It's not enough to demand. You have to engage on a consumer-friendly, not just creator-friendly solution to the problem."
Where I find the above most applicable is with regard to digital locks, where consumers purchase both devices and content, but control neither. Legal protection for digital locks without reasonable consideration for fair use means that consumers could easily be left on the hook when the media delivery company either closes shop and shuts downs their authentication servers, or installs malicious software which proportion to be a digital lock (eg. sony root kit)
I find it interesting that the author decided to close comments. So much for having an interesting conversation with people towards some form of understanding.
I don't know why some authors feel uncomfortable with the conversation. No commercial enterprise can exist in the long term that ignores their customers. The last posting was an inflamed one upset at someone who wants to pay money to authors, but isn't just going to toss it in the air and hope worthy folks are the ones that scoop it up.
I've never understood the claim that it was people wanting "consumer friendly" laws that started the conversation. Consumers only entered into the debate (and I mean audiences, not 'user' side intermediaries like libraries, educational institutions, etc) when the reforms proposed by copyright-holding intermediaries became unreasonable. To be clear, folks that form the IIPA threw the first stone. All the "consumer friendly" proposals I have seen, even if all added together, barely balance the equation compared to the proposals coming from the extremists on the draconian-copyright side.
Oh, well. The conversation looked promising. Guess we'll have to stay in our own camps, and never learn from each other.
I closed comments because I couldn't participate anymore because I had to work. And because, it's all well trod ground -- the "interesting discussion" went to 57 comments last time.
http://heywriterboy.blogspot.com/2009/09/reader-writes-copyright-conundrum.html
No middle ground, no light.
Jaron Lanier thinks we're in danger of having a culture that only remixes greatest hits from the past. I tend to agree.
I don't think we will ever find "middle ground" until we all realise we are talking about different things entirely.
Suggesting there is a "middle ground" is based on the belief that you are dealing with two ends of something that is on the same line.
Dear John,
It is clear that the copyright discussion draws extremists from both sides of the spectrum. On one side we have some greedy kids who think that everything should be free, and on the other we have greedy corporations who want to do away with due process via disconnection based on three strike allegations, and control what I can and cannot do with the media I legally purchased.
Most of us weren't even interested in this whole debate until the 2nd group started lobbying for legislation like the DMCA/EUCD and ACTA. That's when the whole PR nightmare started, and people got angry with the whole pro-copyright movement, resulting in e.g. the Pirate Party getting mighty popular.
I think the first thing we need to do as a large middle group, is publicly distantiate ourselves from the extremists on both sides of the spectrum. Perhaps then we can sit around the table to discuss solutions that actually work, and solve the relatively small differences between us.
Something important we artists need to realize that no amount of legislation or technology has EVER had any influence on copyright infringement. Calling for those not only makes us look like fools, but it alienates our fans and customers! DRM, DPI, DNS filtering, etc. is all completely useless when it can be bypassed by children. This is NOT the solution we must be looking for.
Before you can discuss solutions the first thing you must know why people commit copyright infringement or simply do not buy, and which group can be persuaded to buy under which circumstances. Several studies have come up with answers in that regard:
1. The GIMME group mentioned before. This group is hopeless, and you will never see a dime from them, no matter how hard you try. Wasted effort, simple as that; luckily this group is quite small.
2. Not available here. You'd be amazed how many works are not easily available in large parts of the world. The internet can be a huge stimulating factor in providing easy access to your works.
3. Convenience. The main thing that online copyright infringement has over traditional sales is that it's easily accessible and without the added junk. In that regard, http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/pirateddvd1.png is a good example.
4. Competition. There's a huge amount of entertainment out there, and unless you find a good reason for your fans to spend their money on your products, even 0% copyright infringement will not benefit you.
I know many of us hate to have to analyze the market; we are musicians, authors, software engineers, painters, etc. Marketing is for the companies. The big problem is: they're doing a terrible job at the moment! We either need to find new marketing people or start doing it ourselves. There is a growing number of artists who have come up with new business models that are not bothered by "piracy". We need to learn from their examples.
Several studies have come up with answers in that regard:
1. The GIMME group mentioned before. This group is hopeless, and you will never see a dime from them, no matter how hard you try. Wasted effort, simple as that; luckily this group is quite small.
2. Not available here. You'd be amazed how many works are not easily available in large parts of the world. The internet can be a huge stimulating factor in providing easy access to your works.
3. Convenience. The main thing that online copyright infringement has over traditional sales is that it's easily accessible and without the added junk. In that regard, http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/pirateddvd1.png is a good example.
4. Competition. There's a huge amount of entertainment out there, and unless you find a good reason for your fans to spend their money on your products, even 0% copyright infringement will not benefit you.
I think there is one more that you do not mention. It is often ascribed to the gimmie group but is bigger than the gimmie group. John would probably call it the "Stick it to the man" group.
This is the group that feels they have been getting shafted by this whole copyright system. These are in fact the "most of us" you are talking about who really didn't get involved until copyright extensions and DRM became big issues. Many of them have joined the pirate party, and see no issue with downloading because they see the whole system as corrupt to begin with. Most of these people would adopt more honest lives if they ever saw copyright law become reasonable again.
I think there is one more that you do not mention. It is often ascribed to the gimmie group but is bigger than the gimmie group. John would probably call it the "Stick it to the man" group.
You have a point here, this would be the group in favour of civil disobedience in order to display the fallacy of current law. A dangerous position to take, but one born out of frustration perhaps. I would argue though that many of these do in fact choose to disobey the law, because they are either fed up with DRM (group 3) or cannot get (easy) access to certain material (group 2 and partly 3). I believe very few people disobey the law just because they disagree with it; they are usually (severely) disadvantages by the execution of such law.
Post a Comment