Hi all - regarding the copyright conversation: Julian speaks to a statement about the brokenness of copyright. If you have access to Project Muse, you might be interested in my essay 'Relinquish Intellectual Property', in the vein of what's being discussed here: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/new_literary_history/v033/33.2samuels.html
I was disappointed in the visit & talk of Richard Stallmann here last year, but only because of my own obsessions - he knew nothing about humanities issues. Certainly on the pure tech angles he's a splendid anarchist and might be called an advocate for Slow Technology (to avoid all the fettering ideas of ownership). With thanks for this list, on which I usually only lurk........ Lisa ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lisa Samuels Associate Professor of English The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland 1142 New Zealand Tel 64 9 373 7599 ext 87092 Fax 64 9 373 7429 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Ada_list Digest, Vol 77, Issue 10 Send Ada_list mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/ada_list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ada_list digest..." ADA list Digest Version Today's Topics: 1. Re: copyright: do we have an opinion? (Julian Oliver) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:42:44 +0200 From: Julian Oliver <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ada_list] copyright: do we have an opinion? To: adam hyde <[email protected]> Cc: ada list <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ..on Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 06:00:29PM +0200, adam hyde wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 15:31 +0200, Julian Oliver wrote: > > > > > > > so i really dont think this marriage of copyright to attribution or > > > cultural development holds. In fact, I would say that copyright has > > > killed attribution in many ways as copyright attributes credit to the > > > people that pay for the work. Who holds the copyright for Walt Disney > > > films? Certainly not the creators, but the Disney Corporation... > > > > I think you're mixing the license with the concept here. Copyright licenses, > > like people, come in many shapes, sizes and dispositions. There are > > pro-culture > > copyright licenses, like that Lawrence Lessig and Richard Stallman have > > created, > > and then others, like those that give the RIAA federal rights to carry > > submachineguns and fly black helicopters. > > I would not describe the GPL etc as pro-culture licenses. They are > necessary hacks to a system whose default position is to stop the flow > of information. That is the default position for copyright licenses but > it is also the inherent rationale of copyright. So I dont agree with > either the ideal of copyright or its legal manifestation. I don't agree that copyright seeks to "stop the flow of information". If an author makes something and chooses to give it away after that, allowing others to remix, share and hack at, then where's the problem with (their) copying rights? It's a win all round. Their work is still under their copyright, they made it and that can't be un-done. To abolish copying rights entirely would be to abandon the basic tenet that the author of a work has rights to that work, including being able to contest that s/he made it at all. Without author-defined, legally-recognised copying rights I sincerely doubt there would be a culture of contribution such that Free Software projects like Firefox, Linux, BSD, (Flossmanuals) or Apache could exist, let alone art in an aggressive mass-market culture industry. It's all about reward, whether that be social, academic/historic or economic. 300 years ago, before the Berne Convention, it was a very different kettle of lawyers.. Acknowledgment of authorship is the most basic of copying rights (Berne). That's where copyright begins. The various copyright licenses - from the Creative Commons to those you see in the picture theatres - are just legal figures symptomatic of creators protecting against what they see to be abuse, while allowing for them to gain from their efforts, in a supposedly free market. In other words, it would greatly restrict creators' freedom to remove their right to determine how their work is copied. Is the problem you have actually with the Authorship rather than copying rights? > However back to the hacks..., each of these systems (CC / GNU licenses) > is also necessarily stopping the flow of information because there is > very limited scope for license interoperability. Until recently CC did > not themselves understand how their own licenses were interoperable. So > information cannot even flow between 'open licenses'. > > This is ridiculous. It's just something that needs to be ironed out. The CC copyright licenses, which I don't like very much, are just super young and it shows at times like these. Regardless of some 'free culture' licenses not being interoperable at times, each license expresses a distinct need - they would not have been created in the first place. This is a freedom and a diversity I appreciate. Just like I don't want there to be an end to authors' copyrights, I don't want there to be a single license for all culture. Both ideas are equally destructive, IMO. Hack or not, the GPL has proven to work in the interests of technical cultures worldwide, it's propelled the growth of Free Software, helped distribute vast amounts of technical information for all to see and protected the knowledge of countless thousands of programmers from exploitation by very big businesses. It is, in other words, a license to copy that has culture and freedom in its interest. Here's a slightly extreme rant on this topic, written yesterday, by an active open-source software developer: http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html > These licenses are not 'pro-culture' they are (somewhat clumsy) hacks to > a faulty system. Hmm, I don't understand what people mean when they talk about The Copyright System. What system? All that there is a default legal figure that the author has the rights to determine how their work is copied, a naturally assigned right, after which point there are a ton of licenses they can choose from. Some of those license are culturally destructive and some of them not. > shall we open the floor to others? ;) Hehe, indeedy. I suppose most Ada'ers are sleeping around about now. Julian > > > > > As far as i see it, its hard to say copyright is pro-culture. You can > > > say culture hasn't completely died under copyright. I would agree with > > > this. But it hasn't helped. > > > > Copyright is just a concept, and there's nothing wrong with the concept in > > itself IMHO.. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright can be pro-culture - it's just that /most/ copyright is > > > > broken, > > > > perverted by the 'free' market - exploited to the contrary. > > > > > > > > > However, regardless of my beliefs, the position of saying copyright is > > > > > broken is more provocative and might encourage more people to think > > > > > about it than taking a position on the wording of legislation. > > > > > > > > It may do that, yep, as long as people are educated as to the options > > > > otherwise. > > > > As it stands I come across a lot of people that claim there is only > > > > Copyright > > > > (aka RIAA style) and Public Domain, which reflects a gross lack of > > > > education on > > > > the topic.. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 11:28 +0200, Julian Oliver wrote: > > > > > > ..on Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:44:23PM +0200, adam hyde wrote: > > > > > > > hey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the copyright issue ... > > > > > > > rp > > > > > > > i think it would be a good opportunity to provoke people to > > > > > > > think about > > > > > > > copyright - to release a statement way outside of the arguments > > > > > > > of this > > > > > > > debate, and go for the throat. in my mind that is a statement > > > > > > > outlining > > > > > > > that we think the current debate is ridiculous because copyright > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > broken and useless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, perhaps the position to take, and one that might provoke > > > > > > > people to > > > > > > > think and might also catch some news-space, is to tell people > > > > > > > that we > > > > > > > dont want copyright at all... > > > > > > > > > > > > Hrmm.. as you (very) well know there is nothing wrong with > > > > > > copyright in itself, > > > > > > in fact copyright can't be avoided. Since the 1886 Berne convention > > > > > > it's been a > > > > > > naturally assigned right at the point of creating something: you > > > > > > can't > > > > > > not-have-made something you've already made. It's the terms of > > > > > > which that are > > > > > > later defined and it's here that problems propogate.. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are socially destructive forms of copyright and socially > > > > > > creative forms of > > > > > > copyright. The GPL is very much a copyright license as are all the > > > > > > creative > > > > > > commons licenses (as you know), both of which were created to be > > > > > > productive at > > > > > > the user level. > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference between socially destructive copyright (no right to > > > > > > remix / no > > > > > > right to learn from / what you buy is not yours to share) and > > > > > > socially > > > > > > productive/creative copyright (right to remix, modify, distribute) > > > > > > needs to be > > > > > > emphasised. > > > > > > > > > > > > To these ends I think one of the terms that really needs to be > > > > > > squashed is > > > > > > 'CopyLeft'; it implies that Creative Commons and the GPL are somehow > > > > > > 'anti-copyright' which is far from the case. This confuses people > > > > > > greatly and > > > > > > only serves to undermine any real education on positive, albeit > > > > > > reformist, > > > > > > directions in policy that benefit the public in general. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 14:46 +1200, Douglas Bagnall wrote: > > > > > > > > hello list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have probably heard of fuss over "section 92a", a proposed > > > > > > > > amendment > > > > > > > > to copyright law that would allow for your internet connection > > > > > > > > to be cut > > > > > > > > when someone says you are using it piratically. It got passed > > > > > > > > as law, > > > > > > > > put on hold, thrown out, and is now perhaps fighting its way > > > > > > > > back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Throughout all of this ADA has had no position. It seems to me > > > > > > > > that we > > > > > > > > share considerable membership (that's you list subscribers) > > > > > > > > with the > > > > > > > > Creative Freedom Foundation who led the battle against section > > > > > > > > 92 -- but > > > > > > > > we probably also share members with APRA and SPADA who > > > > > > > > supported the > > > > > > > > proposal. So if we do take a position, it is not immediately > > > > > > > > clear what > > > > > > > > it should be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The CFF and its opponents are being terribly pragmatic and > > > > > > > > tactical in > > > > > > > > what they call for. They are fighting over what the actual law > > > > > > > > will look > > > > > > > > like, letter by letter. Personally I'm in favour of a far more > > > > > > > > anarchic > > > > > > > > situation than anything the CFF dares advocate. I understand > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > reasons, of course, but it makes me wonder: if ADA expresses an > > > > > > > > official > > > > > > > > opinion, should it be unashamedly fringe? Should put out press > > > > > > > > releases > > > > > > > > like they did manifestos 100 years ago? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably nothing will come of this. I'm just curious as to > > > > > > > > whether ADA > > > > > > > > members want their trust to be making statements on stuff like > > > > > > > > this, and > > > > > > > > if so, what they want said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Ada_list mailing list > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Adam Hyde > > > > > > > Founder FLOSS Manuals > > > > > > > German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563 > > > > > > > Email : [email protected] > > > > > > > irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Free manuals for free software" > > > > > > > http://www.flossmanuals.net/about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Ada_list mailing list > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Adam Hyde > > > > > Founder FLOSS Manuals > > > > > German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563 > > > > > Email : [email protected] > > > > > irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals > > > > > > > > > > "Free manuals for free software" > > > > > http://www.flossmanuals.net/about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Ada_list mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ > > > > > > > -- > > > Adam Hyde > > > Founder FLOSS Manuals > > > German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563 > > > Email : [email protected] > > > irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals > > > > > > "Free manuals for free software" > > > http://www.flossmanuals.net/about > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ada_list mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ > > > -- > Adam Hyde > Founder FLOSS Manuals > German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563 > Email : [email protected] > irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals > > "Free manuals for free software" > http://www.flossmanuals.net/about > -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Madrid, Spain currently: Madrid, Spain about: http://julianoliver.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/ada_list End of Ada_list Digest, Vol 77, Issue 10 **************************************** _______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
