Thursday, July 03, 2008

the hidden meanings of free

The famous distinction between types of free in the copyright debate is free as in beer vs. free as in speech. But, as we all test out new business models there are finer distinctions for free, I think.

A while back the excellent Public Radio International show This American Life was involved in a mini-scandal when reps of the show sent please stop e-mails to a number of websites and/or blogs that were offering free copies of the radio show for download. In the hyperbolic way of the Internet, the e-mails became lawyer's letters, or nastygrams, and Ira Glass, the shows self-deprecating host became the leader of some sort of "exhorbitant extortion" attempt to get people to actually pay -- imagine that, pay! -- for the expensive program he helps to create every week. You can read all about that craziness on Boing Boing. Anyway, the scandal turned out to be a bit of panic festival promoted by copyfighters for whatever private reason they had come up with that week. In this posting, Jared Benedict, one of the folks actually involved in the mess, clears up some details. Deep-linking vs. hosting, etc. Okay.

What I find most interesting in this story is a little bit of logic from Jared about TAL's own economic problems. He writes:

"TAL’s rational is that their contract with contributors states they must pay the contributors for each download. This excuse is a little strange considering This American Life writes the contract. Altering future contracts, and making the episodes freely available for downloading/timeshifting is feasable (NPR has done it.) Doing so would increase listenership. An increased listenership would mean TAL gets more money from advertisers underwriters, which can then be used to compensate story contributors. Everyone wins."

So, when your contributors (without whose creativity you would have no show) expect to be paid according to a contract, the solution is to alter the contract. In the end, that must have been what happened, because TAL podcasts are now available completely free.

Now, I get what's being said about increased audience and the increased revenues that can be expected. So, how's that working out for This American Life?

I'm a regular podcast listener of TAL myself, and recently each podcast has begun with a short(ish) donations pitch from Ira Glass. In order to keep the podcast free, he reasons, we're going to need to bug you like this so we can cover costs. They really want to keep these things free -- and why not, since the alternative is that people will take them anyway and then ridicule the show for expecting otherwise. But here's the kicker (quoted from the website pitch for donations):

"It's been a year-and-a-half since we decided to offer our show as a free, weekly podcast, and that's been a crazy, whopping success. But because so many people — sometimes more than half a million — are downloading and streaming our show each week, the Internet bandwidth to distribute the program this way costs $152,000 per year. We want to keep offering This American Life for free. You want us to keep offering the show for free. Our home station, Chicago Public Radio, doesn't need to make money on our podcast, but they can't lose $152,000 a year on it, either...

We'd love to take care of this expense with a flood of little donations from the people who actually listen to our show this way. And of course, if you feel that getting an hour of our show every week is worth more to you than a dollar a year, we'd be grateful for anything else you'd care to contribute. We really want to keep the podcast free."

What began as a problem paying contributors fairly for their work has become a problem paying for bandwidth. To me, that pretty, much sums up the current copyright debate right there. I don't doubt TAL pays its contributors well, whatever their revised contract has to say about downloads. But it saddens me to see the issue of creator pay so completely cleansed from the discussion. Then again, maybe creators have been set free from this petty concern.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention -- I took the $5 in donations I have so far received through my free download offer on The Uninvited Guest, and gave it to TAL for their podcasts. I hope David Sedaris can buy some gum with it.

31 comments:

Infringer said...

It's even sadder when you consider that they should not have to pay anything for distribution. They need only distribute via BitTorrent instead.

What possible value are they getting from hosting it themselves that is worth $152K per year?

John McFetridge said...

"... they should not have to pay anything for distribution."

Does that really seem like it will work in this world in the long term? Not pay anything? To anyone?

It's kind of like the Oklahoma land rush isn't it - first they cleared out those pesky Indians, then they gave it away for free.

Then things tightened up.

Things are tightening up now - it's just a different bunch doing the tightening than you were worried about. Kind of left that back door open for them.

We'll see how this plays out, but it's unlikely anything will be "free."

DGM said...

It's funny how so many people have come to expect stuff for free on the Internet, without factoring in the cost of infrastructure (servers, pipeline, individual PCs or handheld devices). Whoever maintains the hardware expects a paycheque, while the content providers are expected to be happy with the reward of "publicity" for their work. Meanwhile there are line-ups around the block for the new I-phone...

Anyone who posts information online, be it text or audio or video, has to assume that visitors are going to take it without so much as a thank-you. Unless there is some sort of paywall installed (one that is maintained by programmers and IT people who will demand cash money for their time and labour, and rightly so), there is no reason to think that people will voluntarily compensate the webmaster with a donation.

To be fair, however, it is difficult to blame all the folks who just right-clicked and copied Degen's novel and then left, because ten years of free or virtually-free online content has trained web-surfers to act that way. You can only guilt people into paying money when you have face to face communication -- that's how the Catholic church gets their tithes on Sunday. Anonymous log-ins over the internet, however, can be as rude and disrespectful as they want, as your average Youtube comment thread will readily prove. Do you think that members of that mob will voluntarily contribute money out of respect? Not likely.

Infringer said...

Hey, guys! back from a week of camping at the Pinery. Best beaches in Ontario there!

You guys have been pretty busy in all these threads. I'll have to see if I can get around to reading them all. I'll respond to this one now though. It's pretty easy.

JohnMF said: "Does that really seem like it will work in this world in the long term? Not pay anything? To anyone?"

Yes John, absolutely nothing for distribution, ever, to anybody. That is not to say that someone does not have to pay. Using BitTorrent, the cost of distribution is downloaded (just like the data itself) to the person receiving it. That is the great thing about P2P which I guess so many people do not fully appreciate.

With the cost of reproduction and distribution now at exactly zero, major costs of publication are eliminated. Promotional costs can also be significantly reduced by taking advantage of various online tools, so that an artist can make a living from only a few dedicated fans.


dgm said: "It's funny how so many people have come to expect stuff for free on the Internet,.... Anyone who posts information online, be it text or audio or video, has to assume that visitors are going to take it without so much as a thank-you."

What dgm misses is that that was the entire premise of the Internet in the first place. It was built explicitly to be a giant distributed copying machine. It is only since commercial interests have become involved that this premise has even come into question. So yeah, if you want to restrict the basic functionality of the Internet, I suppose you will have to do some extra programming like building paywalls. Alternatively don't put them on the Internet in the first place.

"To be fair, however, it is difficult to blame all the folks who just right-clicked and copied Degen's novel and then left, because ten years of free or virtually-free online content has trained web-surfers to act that way. You can only guilt people into paying money when you have face to face communication"

But you are not being fair! Right clicking and taking Degen's Novel has nothing to do with the poor morals that your statement seems to imply. John, posted his novel for free, because he wanted people to have it for free. Why should there be any guilt associated with that? I would also be willing to bet that in addition to the $5 john received via a direct donation, that some of the hard copy sales are a direct result of people downloading and reading some of his novel on line.

I downloaded his novel too. I'm not sure I'll ever get around to reading it, not being a hockey fan, but if I do and I like it, I will more than likely also buy the hardcopy to give as gifts to people I think might appreciate it.

John McFetridge said...

I'm heading to the Pinery on the 20th. Love the beaches, especially the dog beach.

Looks like my shares in Bell are still a good idea. Costs of distribution downloaded to the person receiving - it is too bad that person has some aversion to paying the creator of the work, but oh well, they still pay for the internet connection and the computer, so there's still ways to get money out of them.

So be it.

By the way, so far the evidence shows that long tail thing isn't actually working and the digital world, in fact, much favours the big money blockbuster:

http://www.sivacracy.net/2008/07/does_reallife_data_refute_the.html

That could change, I guess.....

DGM said...

Infringer:

For the record, I did buy a copy of Degen's novel after I made a download. The only reason I didn't make a donation is because for some reason Firefox kept resetting and I got frustrated. Also, I hate reading fiction online. And yes, I would have felt guilty as hell if I had never compensated Degen one way or another -- that's just my moral make-up, for better or worse. Then again, a few months ago I found a copy of Philip Roth's The Counterlife in a stack of books left on the curb near Bloor and Spadina. One man's trash, etc.

I fully understand why the internet was created: information distribution. The problem comes with compensation. People have been taping songs off of the radio for as long as tape recorders have been sold, but the technology of online downloading makes the process so simple and effective, that the only thing the downloader is missing out on is the CD artwork. It's one thing for university professors to share research info on finding a cure for cancer or for discussing fine points of Roman history, but commercial distribution is another matter entirely. Organisations like the RIAA botched the commercial case early on, and now we're at the point where too many people feel justified in getting something for nothing. At a recording conference years ago, Moby told a group of record executives that his teenage nephew had never bought an album: that's the problem. Downloading books is less of an issue because of questions of format, but the general debate remains the same: how does the artist get paid when copies of his/her work can be had for free? What if, for example, I came across a virtually unlimited number of copies of Philip Roth's book stacked on the curb?

As for being fair: I recently had an experience where I lost a collection of original CDs -- I usually kept them in my car, but the case went missing. I told this to my co-worker, and the first thing he did was ask me for a list of artist names and titles. In a half-hour, he found eight of the twelve CDs online, free of charge, and he told me he could download and burn copies for me -- all I had to provide was the CD-Rs. I told him to hold off for the time being, not sure what would have been the prudent course of action (them pesky morals, again). Luckily, a courier found my CD case out in the parking lot and returned them to me the next day. But I could have had two-thirds of my CDs replaced withing four hours of downloading, if I had given my co-worker the go-ahead. For his part, he didn't even think twice about the moral dilemma.

There are simply too many people who expect to get things for free on the web. It's the new paradigm. As a writer, I'm not happy about this. But yes, it is my choice whether or not I post my work on-line, just as it was Degen's choice to post his work for easy download. Artists everywhere have to be careful because even now the rules aren't clear. The last thing anyone should do, however, is rely on the kindness of strangers.

Russell McOrmond said...

"There are simply too many people who expect to get things for free on the web."

Actually, I think the problem is the reverse which is that there aren't enough people offering content for pay on the web.

Where is that "buy me now" button for Copyright?

Then there is the problem with people wanting to be paid "per copy" when that metric doesn't make sense in a world where the marginal cost of reproduction and distribution is zero. I guess as someone who doesn't charge royalties, I don't see the problems that those of you with a tunnel vision on royalties are having.

Infringer said...

"And yes, I would have felt guilty as hell if I had never compensated Degen one way or another "

Even if you never read it, or much of it? John at least put it up with the expectation that most would not pay him. Do you feel guilty when you record TV broadcasts and then skip through the commercials. The sponsors had a reasonable expectation that you'd at least watch their ad. Would you compensate a fanfic author if you read their material?

I don't see the relationship to guilt here. If you like the story, there is a better chance you'll buy the book or recommend it to your friends who will buy the book. It's a marketing tool. If you read it and don't like it, so what. Every download isn't suppose to generate income just like every website advert doesn't generate income.


"I fully understand why the internet was created: information distribution. The problem comes with compensation."

Exactly. And the Internet was never designed with that particular issue in mind!


"It's one thing for university professors to share research info on finding a cure for cancer or for discussing fine points of Roman history, but commercial distribution is another matter entirely."

Right, but where I get my feathers all ruffled is when the commercial distributors convince our legislators to take away my rights, simply because it will make it easier for the them to extend their business model into the online world.

If you can't adapt the old model to the new world, then either find a new model or stay in the old world. Don't change the rules and take away my rights.


"but the general debate remains the same: how does the artist get paid when copies of his/her work can be had for free?"

I couldn't agree more. But the answer lies in finding a compatible business model, not in over regulating every private use of data. Copyright itself is a business model which must be fully reevaluated.

John McFetridge said...

"Then there is the problem with people wanting to be paid "per copy..."

I thought we went over this? It's paid, "per acquisition." If you want to acquire something and keep it in your possession (even a copy of it), it has value to you.

As Darryl points out, there are costs involved in the distribution/acquisition (even of copies) and they are paid by the person doing the acquiring. The problem is that none of the money collected is passed on to the creator of what is acquired - that money is all kept by the new distributors, which I don't see as any different from old-style distributors (like record labels) keeping all the money.

This isn't a new business model at all. Old style distribution companies worked hard to pay the artists as little as they could get away with, and the new distributors found a way to perfect it and pay them nothing. Good for them, I guess, you can always buy shares...

It does seem like this problem is being solved, though, and all of this will be moot soon enough.

I'll probably never pay anyone for music again, besides my internet connection and whatever hardware I use to play it on. New musicians are giving it away for free and everything already recorded I want to listen to is available on so many legitimate sites I can access it whenever I want.

What I won't have is a large personal collection, but looking at all those LPs I've been dragging from apartment to apartment to house to house over the years, it isn't really a loss for me. I just want to listen to the music.

The movies have become for kids, so I rarely have to worry about that, but even if I was interested there are already plenty of legitimate on-demand sites (and so many more coming) that anyone still using torrent really is just a thief and knows it.

There is some TV for grown-ups, not enough for me to spend money on cable, but once again the on-demand sites will solve my problem in a perfectly legal way without infringing anyone's rights.

By now, anyone still using torrent really is just a thief and knows it.

As before, of course, they'll continue to deny and justify....

Infringer said...

JohnMF, would you be so kind as to differentiate between copy and acquisition?


"The problem is that none of the money collected is passed on to the creator of what is acquired - that money is all kept by the new distributors, which I don't see as any different from old-style distributors (like record labels) keeping all the money."

The money that pays for the distribution, is collected by the ISPs, but they are not the distributors any more than road builders are for physical goods. To ask for any sort of levy on ISPs to compensate artists is akin to asking for road levies to pay for the merchandise that travels over them.

The distributors are the people with the websites or running the P2P software, who are actually supplying the data. Not the ISPs. These distributors are actually quite capable of changing a fee to pay for the data. iTunes, Encyclopedia Britanica, and porn sites, are a few examples of distributors that do.

John McFetridge said...

"The distributors are the people with the websites or running the P2P software, who are actually supplying the data."

I never specified ISPs, that was a conclusion you jumped to.

But yeah, the people that host the websites (like Google, what are their shares at today, are they up again?) and running the P2P software do collect money from both investors and advertisers - then they just keep it. What a great business model. You wouldn't think it was really sustainable, but there you go.

And, the ones we still can't do without, that can't be supported simply by advertising or issueing new IPO's every couple of years, the ISPs and the infrastructure behind them all, that we still pay for. I wonder how much it will cost in twenty years?

Also, I never asked for a levy of any kind - though some would say that the taxes that pay for the road builders are the levy on the merchandise that travels over them (cause wow, that merchandise is taxed at every possible point along its route). This is something that will become much more of an issue as oil becomes too pricey and more roads and transportation systems (roads, rails, you name it) fall into private companies' hands. Oh, the future is exciting!

The difference between a copy and an acquisition seems pretty simple. A copy is a copy but only when you acquire it and have complete access to it does it become yours.

Right now (in another window) I'm listening to music (Black Uhuru, actually) from a legitmate, lisenced site. I don't need to acquire my own copy of the music to enjoy it whenever I want.

Pretty soon I'll have a handheld device (oh, let's call it a "phone") that will plug into speakers (and giant flat screen monitors!) in my car and my house and tiny speakers that go right into my ears. With this "phone" I'll be able to access this stuff whenever I want. My "phone" won't need any memory at all, just access capabilities. I won't need to "acquire" any "copies" at all.

When this becomes easy and affordable everywhere, we'll see what happens to the rest of the gang in your copyright arguments. I have a feeling they will drift away (Dobie Gray, I'll listen to that next - still no need to "copy" it to my own harddrive) rather quickly.

Then, when we are all dependent on these connections.....

Infringer said...

"I never specified ISPs, that was a conclusion you jumped to."

Hmmm, well it was a reasonable jump considering this "Darryl points out, there are costs involved in the distribution/acquisition (even of copies) and they are paid by the person doing the acquiring." What I was pointing out was specifically ISP costs.



"Then, when we are all dependent on these connections....."

Ah, now we venture into the network neutrality debate.

John McFetridge said...

"What I was pointing out was specifically ISP costs."

That's part of the problem for me, though, that so many costs are happily paid - upgrades to the hardware, ISP connections, even software expenses for some people - but for some reason they draw the line at the content.

It's that decision that skews everything in this debate. Why? Why is the content exempt, other than it's possible to not pay for it. When universities argue that actually paying for the content is too much a burden, we don't hear much about the rest of the costs of running the place - the electricity, the computers (sure, educational discounts, but nowhere near free) the internet connections. Why are they different than the content? surely if we sent it out for tender we could get much cheaper professors to do just as good a job.

Yes, the net neutrality debate. Of course, I remember when people thought it would be good for everyone if electricty was provided at cost.

And, you know, when your main spokesperson is a professor of "e-commerce" there seem to be some vested interests.

You'll understand, I think, my skepticism at the chances of success of any net neutrality idea. Once the content is easily paid for, this whole debate heads way back out to the fringes where communists and libertarians can duke it out in the obscurity they're so used to.

Too bad, maybe, but you picked your teammates.

Infringer said...

"It's that decision that skews everything in this debate. Why? Why is the content exempt, other than it's possible to not pay for it."


DING. DING. DING. We have a winner!

Seriously though. I think you would find that if there was some magical way to clone your Cisco router or your PC, or even better your friend's new top of the line PC, you would probably find people a lot less willing to pay much for them either.

That is the flaw with treating intangible objects like real property. Read property isn't infinitely replicable. The monopoly granted through copyright also isn't infinitely replicable, but more and more we look at the data the monopoly is protecting as the property rather than any associated special rights.

The other thing which is of limited supply and therefore of real value, (not just because an artificial monopoly produces scarcity) is the creator himself.

Copyright today is a means to finance the creation of works. But it is complicated, indirect, and inefficient.

I think for a great many things it is time to toss out copyright as a business method, and find some alternatives which more directly finance the creation of works.

John McFetridge said...

"I think for a great many things it is time to toss out copyright as a business method, and find some alternatives."

Here's an idea, why don't we find the alternatives first? Then, because they'll be so much better, the other methods will simply fall out of use and quietly go away. No debates, no invasive laws. Just a better method. We have very little need for laws about how to handle your horse when you go downtown.

And by the way, there are all kinds of people today who don't pay for things that are offered for sale. We usually don't tell them that's okay.

I understand the difference between finite objects - if you take mine we both still can't have it - and copies of files - you take mine but we both still have one.

The thing is, we still both have to agree to that.

Or, we don't, I guess, but once you start cutting some people out of the transaction, where does it stop? How can you have any moral ground to stand on when it comes to stuff like debates about net neutrality - people can too easily say, "Well, look, when it suited you, you just ignored half the transaction. Well, now it suits us to ignore you."

That's why I say the artists are the canary in this coal mine and you have no idea the toxic gasses you have let loose.

Of course, as I've said, I really believe all those people who signed Geist's Facebook petition will get all the Alien on their iPods they want and they'll feel they've won something. It won't be the first time something like that has happened and it won't be the last.

Russell McOrmond said...

"As Darryl points out, there are costs involved in the distribution/acquisition"

This is a point of departure, given these costs are minimal at best, and systems to do the accounting are more expensive than the cost to move the bits themself.

While the old-economy telecom giants want to charge us per-byte for this transmission, costs are not per-byte. This is one of the separations between the phone/cable companies and real ISPs -- what 'unit' they want to use for charging for network connections.


Presuming that a surcharge should be added to all distribution mechanisms to compensate creators misses the fact that this is one business model choice, and imposing that choice on the network itself is harmful to all the creators who are using alternative models.

Curious if you have been reading my series of articles: Copyright: locks, levies, lawsuits or licensing? The Part 2: levies may be the most interesting.

"I don't see as any different from old-style distributors (like record labels) keeping all the money."

In the case of the record labels they are making money based on the work done by composers and performers.

In the case of ISPs (different than cable and phone companies) they are making money because people want to communicate with each other -- not because they want to access royalty-based content. Contrary to popular misconception, commercial content is not, never was, and never will be "king" on the Internet. Communications is king, content is not.

I realize that there are many people in the copyright debate that think ISPs and broadcasters are in the same industry, but they aren't. Or at least, they shouldn't be -- companies like Rogers and Bell really aren't proper ISPs at all, and I'm not including them when I make comments about how ISPs should and shouldn't be treated.

In the case of the phone and cable companies, they want to extend their old business models into a new economy -- and these folks should be treated as the phone and broadcast companies that they are.

Russell McOrmond said...

"there are already plenty of legitimate on-demand sites (and so many more coming) that anyone still using torrent really is just a thief and knows it."

There are? Do they fit the "compare apples to apples" criteria that I used in my article?

I only know of DRM-infected sites like iTunes or the sites hosted by the networks which don't qualify as comparable.

Saying that a DRM infected file is the same as a DRM-free file in a standard file format is like saying that an airline ticket is the same thing as a transit pass (both are in the transportation marketplace).

If what I want to do is get from my house to parliament hill, the airline ticket is entirely useless as well as being far more expensive.

Then again, unlike the entertainment industry, the airlines won't try to sell me a ticket from Ottawa to Ottawa, not caring at all that it is not compatible with my travel plans. They also wouldn't try to bully me with "would it be fair" if I was forced to go to Toronto rather than parliament hill.

John McFetridge said...

"This is a point of departure, given these costs are minimal at best."

The costs to each consumer are minimal (for the moment, we'll see in the future) but the total collected is huge.

"Presuming that a surcharge should be added to all distribution mechanisms to compensate creators."

No, this doesn't need to happen at all, and most likely won't. I've now realized that this is something that will get sorted out between the companies involved in a completely new way. The companies certainly share the consumers' desire to deliver the most amount of content for the lowest price (just not free) - again and again and again - everyone involved is fine with the monthly payment model. With this many consumers willing to pay - at least somewhere along the line - and so many companies willing to sell, it'll get worked out. Creators will even be compensated and the creators whose work is accessed the most will get paid the most. If they're smart, they'll buy shares.

Now, people who want to operate outside the system these companies will come up are going to have a tough time, as people outside the mainstream always do. Sometimes the fringe becomes the mainstream - look at vegans - but mostly they get co-opted - again, look at vegans.

"In the case of ISPs (different than cable and phone companies) they are making money because people want to communicate with each other."

I can't imagine there will be any ISPs other than phone and cable companies pretty soon. That's just the way capitalism works, the big and strong survive. Now, phone companies know all about making money off people who want to communicate (my BCE shares take some hits when the company strays from that core business, but as long as they concentrate on profiting from people wanting to communicate, we do just fine, so that's what we'll do) and cable companies know all about making money off people by delivering content - it's a marriage made on Wall Street.

" - these folks should be treated as the phone and broadcast companies that they are."

I'm afraid by your complete disregard of artists, you've given up the chance to say how anyone, "should be treated." By calling yourselves things like, "infringer," and saying stuff about how you'll only give things up when your hands are cold and dead and so on, you've declared your moral stance - and the phone and cable companies - and governments - will treat you accordingly. It's too late to try and claim some moral high ground.

And it's too bad, really, as I've been saying for weeks, you had some good points. Your complete inability to get them across in any proper way will mean that we'll all suffer.

Oh, except thsose people who will profit from "e-commerce." I wonder if anyone's teaching that kind of thing at a university, say maybe in Ottawa......

(oh yeah, the music I'm listening to isn't 'protected' in any way because I'm not downloading it, I'm just listening to it).

Infringer said...

"By calling yourselves things like, "infringer," and saying stuff about how you'll only give things up when your hands are cold and dead and so on, you've declared your moral stance - and the phone and cable companies - and governments - will treat you accordingly. It's too late to try and claim some moral high ground."

Hey I resemble that remark!

Actually I thought I told you about the 'Infringer' handle. It was because of the 'Private Infringer' stories I wrote. I was associating myself with the character. The idea was to show how everybody is an infringer these days. I would apply the infringer label to every individual in the country. Including you! I'm not special

I don't know where the 'cold dead hands' quote come from. Also that last comment was Russell, not me. You may well think I can't claim the moral high ground (though morals are a terribly subjective thing, so I think that is an item of debate) but you are certainly wrong to lump Russell's motives together with mine. Everyone in this debate has different priorities and motives. Grouping someone together with others just so you can heave mud at the the lot of them is a somewhat dishonest debating strategy.

John McFetridge said...

"The idea was to show how everybody is an infringer these days."

Yes, but I do feel that is something that will be "corrected" without having very many of the underlying issues really dealt with.

Some people actually want to be infringers for political or, (yikes) moral reasons that they've thought through, but far, far more are situational infringers that just want the stuff. They can latch onto the political and moral issues, and justify their actions all they want, but if they get their stuff the politics will fall away pretty quickly.

But you know that, you've seen it in so many other situations.

I almost feel like we've been had by people who pulled a quick and easy 'divide and conquor' on us.

Maybe some people were so keen to get to this 'new model' that they threw away the old one and a hole opened up - capitalism has survived around the world because it's the master opportunist, so it's just stepping right in.

I don't know if we could have fought it any better. I do know that artists have, for hundreds of years, known what we're up against.

It's our own fault we weren't better able to communicate the larger consequences to people like you (and Russell, you do have some things in common) but we'll all suffer. There just aren't any benign companies, I'm afraid.

You know that the system that's coming isn't going to be better for most people and that a tiny minority will profit from it in a huge way.

The big problem I see is that the only argument against this stuff is, "But it isn't right." And that's an argument people ignored when it suited them. Maybe they were duped into ignoring it, maybe they were pushed, or maybe, as JohnD says, the walls came down around a big pile of candy and people did what people always do.

Whatever, sure, everyone's motives are different, and I do apologize if it seemed like I was flinging mud - we've had some pretty civilized conversations here and I sure don't want to change the tone.

But now we're getting to the heart of the matter, the respect that JohnD's been going on about.

It doesn't matter who lost the respect first, now that no one has any we can all be disregarded.

I'm not sure why we thought it would ever be any different.

John said...

Are you getting it yet, McF?

You're wrong because you don't understand the complexity of the issues. At the same time, you are required to constantly define the terms you use so's others in the debate can understand them. Really, a definition of acquisition is required now?

When you really want to have some fun, try explaining how the tangibility of the text we produce is in fact different from the intangibility of whatever new format may house it, and that maybe it should be respected. But be prepared -- apparently some people don't own dictionaries, or can't extend abstract thinking beyond video gaming. Also, I hear mud-sling whining on the horizon, so get ready for that as well.

Walking to work this morning I was listening to a This American Life podcast on the problem of "a little knowledge." Ira Glass started the 'cast with a discussion of Modern Jackass magazine, a fictional title he and his friends use to refer to any discussion they may enter into without having first done the necessary work to understand it. At the moment, I'm afraid, the copyright debate in this country, perhaps worldwide, would make for a double-sized special issue of Modern Jackass magazine.

Infringer said...

" Really, a definition of acquisition is required now?"

John, he was trying to make some distinction between 'per acquisition' and 'per copy' and that distinction wasn't clear. So keep your sarcasm in check just a little would ya?


"When you really want to have some fun, try explaining how the tangibility of the text we produce is in fact different from the intangibility of whatever new format may house it"

Yup, that will definitely be a tough one. Trying to explain the tangibility of an intangible item is a little like trying to explain how white black is. But we've already been over this ground so I don't think there is really any need to dig this up again. Let's just agree to disagree here.


"At the moment, I'm afraid, the copyright debate in this country, perhaps worldwide, would make for a double-sized special issue of Modern Jackass magazine."

You are absolutely correct here. That is why forms such as this one, Geist, DCC, and even the facebook group you despise so much are so very important. They do help make people aware of the various issues involved. Sadly I suspect the greatest supply of ignorance comes from large media lobbies themselves who have a very narrow self interest that they are trying to pawn off as a wider social interest.

Russell McOrmond said...

John McFetridge,

So, when it comes to there being ISPs who are not phone and cable companies, you say "That's just the way capitalism works". You don't believe government intervention to protect a free marketplace, or communication/cultural/etc rights, is possible.

When it comes to how these phone and cable companies will screw over anyone or anything that is source material (an expense) for their business, you think they should be fair and compensate creators. You believe that government intervention to protect creators rights is possible.

Why this double standard?

I think you offer your own answer to your own problem -- and have largely written off any possibility of creators getting paid in the future.


I, on the other hand, will fight for proper "dumb network" providers to exist and be protected (IE: *real* Internet Service Providers), and also fight such that it is the endpoints and not the network which is liable for any copyright issues. This is a more likely way for creators to get compensated -- by having a diversity of businesses at these endpoints, most of which won't be trying to screw you over (even if the minority you bother to pay attention to in the typical "sky is falling" mentality are)

I agree that sites like Google should be paying a fee to copyright holders for things like YouTube which is advertising driven. It may not even need to be a compulsory license for most creators, just as commercial radio works without there needing to be a compulsory license for composers in Canada (just for performers and "makers" who otherwise seemed to want to refuse to license). Notice that my criteria for whether a compulsory license is needed is about whether the creator refuses to license for a socially beneficial activity, not whether potential customers are accessing without paying (See: Copyright: locks, levies, licensing or lawsuits? Part 2: levies)

But it needs to be endpoints in the network who have a choice in what they communicate/etc, and not the network itself or all endpoints, which is liable for these issues. Allow the network to become "smart" (IE: no longer the Internet) and these communications monopolies will dictate to all of us what non-payment we will receive.

And while you are pessimistic and like to toss anti-capitalist rhetoric at us, I see many signs of the right people waking up to the issue. The FCC in the USA and the CRTC in Canada are both engaged in some aspect of the "Net Neutrality" debate which is fundamentally about whether old phone/cable companies can wipe out the "dumb network by design" Internet and replace it with phone/cable services (just with more 'channels').


"I'm afraid by your complete disregard of artists"

I think you got confused. The quote you made was from me, and I have never said anything that should legitimately suggest a disregard (complete or otherwise) of artists.

I'm not sure who you thought the quote was from, or who you think has no regard for artists.


"By calling yourselves...."

You do recognize that you are speaking with a number of different individuals?

You only hurt your position by being too aggressive in trying to pigeon-hole anyone who isn't identical to you as some mistrusted "them".

It is as silly as JohnD's take on the Fair Copyright for Canada facebook group, trying to lump every member into some "I want something for nothing" grouping. The more you lump dissimilar people together, the more your own views will be dismissed out of hand.


Yes, I use the following statement in my email signature:

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!"

I started using it when the Conservative party formed government to remind people who claim to be conservatives that the policies they are proposing with things like C-61 are fundamentally opposed to things they claim are core values.

It is wrong to allow some copyright holders or device manufacturers to base business models on a form of theft. Copyright holders like to toss around the word "theft" when it doesn't apply (IE: copyright infringement is at worse an unauthorized reduction of property value), but seem oblivious to how applying digital locks to tangible property they don't own is a far more appropriate usage.


I like to measure people not my meter stick, but their own. It is just like how I will measure you by your support of policies which take money out of the pockets of authors, not whether you show any sign of caring about the welfare of any other creator community.

Russell McOrmond said...

"But now we're getting to the heart of the matter, the respect that JohnD's been going on about."

Not really. What I see in these threads is a starting of a respectful conversation descending into name calling and false accusations.

You and the other John like to use the word "respect", but then carry on in a way which the people having conversations with you find hard to consider respectful.

I find these threads very informative, and I thank you for participating. I always want to know how intelligent authors (which I consider both John's to be) become pawns in a game controlled by major media companies and hardware manufacturers. I can try to learn what you fear (real or otherwise), and then try to figure out ways to reduce that fear in people who are willing to listen (which I don't expect you to be).

The less fearful fellow creators become, the fewer of them will be pawns in someone elses game.


"Also, I hear mud-sling whining on the horizon, so get ready for that as well."

Actually, I saw it in the same message which this stagement came from. Oh, well ;-)

John McFetridge said...

"... become pawns in a game controlled by major media companies and hardware manufacturers."

That's why I said we've all become victims of the divide and conquor.

The outrage over C-61 was presented in the media (and I pick on that crappy article in the Globe with the 'other' U of O professor too much, but it was quite typical) as a problem of accessing media people already bought - time shifting shows on cable TV and playing DVDs on a number of hardware options - and that's what I think is too bad because that's also being duped by major media companies and hardware manufacturers who will (surprise, surprise) step in and "solve" this problem.

If more media was directed at what are the real issues here, it would be better for all of us.

Now, I'm not anti-capitalist at all - I'm a shareholder after all - and I do believe strongly in government regulation. My wife is a senior policy analyst in the energy field.

I'll fight alongside you against the cable and phone companies, but we'll have to admit that a lot of the people we'll be fighting will be those who signed the Facebook petition because they'll be quite easily bought off and we'll be no closer to keeping "the internet" out of the tight grip of the multinationals than we were before.

Gaining complete "access" is different from "owning," but those pawns will buy into it.

(there's a reason these threads start with lots of people and end up with four)

When it comes to respect, I have a healthy amount for capiltalism and the multinationals. They don't fight fair and they don't like losing.

John McFetridge said...

"Are you getting it yet, McF?

You're wrong because you don't understand the complexity of the issues."

Oh, I'm wrong about a lot of things. Looks like Hakan Sukur isn't coming here afterall. Too bad, we sure need someone who can put the ball in the net.

What I may or may not be wrong about here is what the issue is for MOST people and how they'll be bought off.

Damn that history degree (even if it is from that jumped up night school, Concordia, as my wife likes to call it). So many people fighting the good fight only to be shocked, shocked! when the outcome is so different than they'd imagined it would be.

Even though it was exactly the same as it was last time and the time before, and...

Russell McOrmond said...

"If more media was directed at what are the real issues here, it would be better for all of us."

I agree with the words, but as the threads hosted by John here prove there is no consensus even among us creators what the real issues are.

Journalists are largely just reporting what they see, which is a big debate where the government is spinning that it is about stopping infringement and giving people the right to time/device shift as if they weren't able to before.

Bill C-61 doesn't do anything to reduce copyright infringement or increase respect for the rights and interests of creators. If anything, it will cause more infringement and far less respect given more activities which should be outside of copyright would be added.


I think the time/device shifting additions to section 29 of the act are dishonest, given all they do is change the default given they are overwritten by contracts and technical measures. This too will mean less time/device shifting will be allowed, given it was an activity that nobody would sue about before -- but now anyone with a contract or technical measure in hand will feel free to sue.


But that was the spin of the government to distract people about the more relevant and controversial aspects of the bill, and that was simply relayed by the mainstream media. Not all reporters fell for the government's trap, but many did.


"because they'll be quite easily bought off"

Agreed, and that includes people on all sides of the debate -- including many of the "creator" groups who have been bought-off by collective societies.

But only part of the problems we face (and it is "we", even if you want to label me a "them") is because the multinationals don't fight fair and they don't like losing.

A very big part of it is that creators are extremely divided on this issue, and thus are incapable of speaking with one voice. Look how many times you have quoted something from me and claimed that I had no respect for artists.

Look at how many times you have suggested we are somehow immoral because we have moved into new methods of production, distribution and funding that harness new media --- without personally finding jobs for every single person that was dependant on any older media job that was being replaced.

That is simply not a reasonable suggestion, but I've read it in the comments to this forum many times now.

I think railing about the existance of new media is ridiculous. The only policy debate that is possible is the question of who will control the new technology, not whether it is possible to go back in time and never invent it.

As I've been saying since 2001, the two choices are: average citizens (some which are allies, some which are not) or the device manufacturers/multinationals (pretty much all of which are opponents to your interests).


"So many people fighting the good fight only to be shocked, shocked! when the outcome is so different than they'd imagined it would be."

We agree that there may be shock, but may disagree on who may be the most shocked. I look at what groups like the CCC are asking for in this policy discussion, and worry for the sake of their own members that they might actually get what they are asking for. If we are unlucky we may all find out just how bad for independent creators their policy suggestions will be.

John McFetridge said...

"Look at how many times you have suggested we are somehow immoral because we have moved into new methods of production, distribution and funding that harness new media."

I thought I was pretty clear, the problem was moving to this new method of distribution without even asking the people who created the stuff that was being distributed.

We all know new methods are coming. I'd like one example where citizens have won out on ownership of something over the long term. Where the victory has been more than Pyrric.

Sure, we have the CRTC and the FCC which represent citizens but the new methods simply sidestepepd that and the argument is quite right: the public must control the finite public aiirways, but the infinite transfer of information across the internet doesn't need to be centrally controlled (though there's still that pesky access to it, and oh yeah, the costs are minimal, I know, I know...)

If anything, we're moving in the opposite direction. We now have highways owned by private companies. This is going to be a tough tide to turn.

"But that was the spin of the government to distract people about the more relevant and controversial aspects of the bill, and that was simply relayed by the mainstream media. Not all reporters fell for the government's trap, but many did."

Now, I'm no conspiracy nut, but I know a long term plan being implemented one step at a time when I see one and that's what we have here.

Look, if people are dumb enough to BUY iPods to begin with, they'll be easily bought off, we agree on that.

So how do we get past this? How do we try and keep some control in the hands of average citizens when most of them can't even be bothered to vote? When we know they'll be bought off so easily? When almost all citizens would rather have some corrupt entity handle things than have to do it themselves.

If we think medicinal marijuana is a significant step forward in the normalizing of drug laws, I guess we're satisfied with some very small steps indeed, but this whole "fight" may be over long before we ever get to the next step.

"We agree that there may be shock, but may disagree on who may be the most shocked."

I guess we do, because I think it will be "everybody."

John said...

I'd be more than happy to see gadgets and their use removed from copyright and given their own section under the law. I certainly never invited them into a discussion about my rights to the text I create, but they sure do creep back in there a lot.

I'm a very traditional writer, writing in a traditional writer's blog about fairly traditional writer concerns... and now what are we talking about? Major telecoms, iPods and ISPs.

And this happens to just about every one of these comment threads. It would probably happen to the literary postings as well, except no-one but McF and my silent (but amused) friends bother with those ones.

I know that C-61 complicates all this further, and I'm sure we'll all have a lot to say about that in front of a committee in Ottawa if it gets to that stage -- but who made these damn linkages between the content and the technology in the first place? Who started yapping on about the content side of copyright being too restrictive for the information age? Who started creeping software and tech concerns ever closer to my rights? Who doesn't want to differentiate between text and technology?

Not me.

Russell McOrmond said...

"I thought I was pretty clear, the problem was moving to this new method of distribution without even asking the people who created the stuff that was being distributed."

Either you are talking about contracting problems with media companies (IE: how freelance journalists are being screwed over), or you are talking about copyright infringement.

I disagree with both of these activities. I also believe that the author choosing to move to newer distribution mechanisms on their own is often a good solution to both.


But I'm not sure why the above two problems are being included in discussions where there is disagreement on public policy between creators who have chosen to harness new media, and creators who fear new media and wish things stayed the same as they were during (insert heyday of given production/distribution/funding method).

It is like we personally made the choice for the world to continue to spin and time to move forward, rather than just being people who chose to embrace (and yes, sometimes promote) changes already happening.

"I'd like one example where citizens have won out on ownership of something over the long term."


My wife and I own our house, my wife owns her car (I don't drive), etc. We may just be 'leasing' the plot of land with some oddball relationship with the municipality, but most home-owners don't even notice or care about this.

The alternative to this ownership would be ... what? Some form of government owned buildings which we would pay taxes on to be allowed to live in? No thanks.

Please clarify your question, as this might be an interesting rabbit-hole to jump into.

"We now have highways owned by private companies. This is going to be a tough tide to turn."

On the communications side, I'm not so convinced. It just takes education and political will, and the more the phone/cable companies fight progress the more visible the problem will be.

When I write about this topic I always reference the transition that happened with Ontario Hydro being split into generation and distribution. Generation was made into a free market between a number of competitors (the incumbent being just one), and distribution was a fully public owned/controlled entity. This is the appropriate model for communications where "genration" (services such as broadcasting, voice, ISP transit, etc) is in a competative private sector, and "distribution" (those wires above and below public and private property which we paid for anyway) be entirely public sector owned/controlled.

It is a minor policy change when you look at it. The incumbents will fight it, but they really aren't that relevant in the big picture if only "we the people" bothered to get politically engaged.

Then, of course, we have the same problem we do in copyright -- some old-economy creator groups (ACTRA comes to mind) really seem to want the Internet to go away and think that all communications should be government mandated to be just like broadcasting. It is this type of rhetoric which the phone/cable companies are latching onto, claiming that granting them full control over the wires will not only protect the salaries of actors, but heck -- stop child pornography and terrorism as well.

Yawn... pawn...

"Look, if people are dumb enough to BUY iPods to begin with, they'll be easily bought off, we agree on that."

I'm not a fan of "buyer beware" being the answer to everything, especially when most people aren't adequately informed.

It is interesting to have watched the iPhone G3 launch via the TWIT network. In fact, they did an around-the-clock coverage from Thursday afternoon to Friday afternoon on TWIT Live as Apple stores opened across the globe (I only rubber-necked this coverage for a short time).

Many of these folks are Apple fanboys that just love the technology.

Quite often they have said that the iPhone is only useful once you jailbreak it (IE: unlock it so that it is under owner control), and expect more than a third of iPhone owners to do this. They actually believe when Steve Jobs tries to claim that it is music labels, movie/tv studios and cell phone carriers that "force" them to lock down the iPhone/etc.

These are some pretty bright technical folks, and they will spread some pretty nasty words for the major labels/studios and the phone companies (wireless or otherwise) over DRM/etc. But for whatever reason, they blindly trust Apple.

And yes, some of these folks are even FLOSS developers -- people from my tribe.

All I know that I can do is continue to speak out on the issues, and have people aware of what an unlocked device and phone carrier is and looks like. That way when it becomes obvious to them that they have been duped by Apple, that they will know they still have choices.

It's amusing how many people who hate Microsoft because they think it is an evil empire are Apple devotees. Apple has far better brainwashing, but the business model of customer lock-in and remote-control is pretty much the same. Microsoft is just more successful on the desktop, and Apple is more successful for mobile computing.

I think there is a big difference between people being confused and inadvertently letting "some corrupt entity handle things" for that confused individual, and setting up structures which impose it. As much as I don't like the choices that many fellow Canadians have made for their elected representatives on parliament hill, I still strongly defend Canada having a democratic system of government.

And as many people are duped into "buying" hardware which locks them out of what they own, I will still fight any attempt to provide legal protection for these immoral foreign locks (where the term "theft" is far more appropriate than copyright infringement).

"I guess we do, because I think it will be "everybody." "

Unfortunately we don't live in a science fiction book where we can watch different choices happen in parallel universes, and then once we determine which turned out the best to move there.

That would be great -- being able to test our hypothesis would make many of these run-on conversations far easier to deal with.

Russell McOrmond said...

JohnD: "I'm a very traditional writer, writing in a traditional writer's blog about fairly traditional writer concerns... and now what are we talking about? Major telecoms, iPods and ISPs."

If you want to only talk about issues facing traditional writers, then we can do so.

The article we were responding to was about a Public Radio show which people who thought they were funding through donations felt upset were being only made available on-demand in DRM-infected pay-per-file ways.

I don't see how that relates to your issues as a traditional writer, so you can help explain that if you wish.

I do know how it relates to my issues, given that DRM is involved.

We are both Canadian citizens and Canadian taxpayers paying money to a Canadian public broadcaster, so believe it is within both our rights to comment on them.

I don't know how these Public Radio shows are funded, but we can talk about that issue in general. I am a firm believer than publicly funded programming should, wherever possible and taking a transition period into consideration, be publicly licensed. I don't believe we should continue to put so much money into CBC only for them to DRM-infect the results of that funding.

Fortunately, CBC as a corporation is moving in the right direction. I am quite impressed with their website and their DRM-free standards-based "podcasting" (audio blogging).

We have oddball situations where there are composers of older theme songs loosing their cool over programming being made royalty-free with worldwide distribution (as the CBC should increasingly be doing), but that is to be expected during the transition. CBC seems to be doing the right thing on that, which is replacing these types of themesongs with ones they can purchase outright and thus use in programming using a wide variety of licensing models (some of which will be royalty-free).

Is that more on-topic for you?