An interesting, critical, and honest essay on copyright by Orson Scott Card. It is particularly of note, because Card relies on copyright to make his living; his insight on the motivation of large corporations in protecting "creator's rights" is funny, in a causing-crying-on-the-inside kind of way. If you strip out all the reason, and leave the rant and maniacal laughter portion of it, you'll be left with my take on it.
The RIAA wants to sue anyone who is sharing a significant number of copyrighted songs on their machine. They've started. As is mentioned in this article, some people are not even aware they're committing a crime; KaZaA's interface and commercial availability make it seem to be some form of subscription service; it's certainly not unthinkable. If stopping file trading, and raising public awareness was their goal, one would think they'd be more interested in pursuing solutions, instead of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, while treating potential customers and allies as criminals. While a few groups strike back a the organizations that seek to dictate what we can hear or see, and how we can do it. But by and large, while the RIAA and Hollywood studios author the next "filesharing as theft" meme, and add more and more broad definitions of ownership and property, and what accounts for damage against them in an already legally oppressive environment, the public myself included is sitting in stunned silence.
What is wrong with this picture? We are on the brink of a new world, with new definitions of things, and how to interact with them. We should be exploring the myriad of ways that we can personally control media, and share it with others. Though I'm not a fan of the end product, Evolution Control Committee's Rocked by Rape is an impressive, artistic commentary, combining of the overly present media in our lives, and the effect that it seeks to have on each and every one of us. But the distribution of that commentary is seen as "infringing" by the source of the samples. Is it fair legal use? As parody, it should be. As each of the samples is short than 3 seconds, it should be left alone as well (obligatory IANAL insert).
Meanwhile, radio has been overtaken by a monopoly -- the purportedly public airwaves have been leased and bought out, dominated by Clearchannel, a single ruling company who now has control over most of what is available to hear for free on the radio. Along comes internet radio, offering nearly unlimited alternative channels to anyone with an internet connection. Finally, with the advent of a new broadcast medium, choice is returned. Do Clearchannel and the RIAA want their long-ago established two-man flim-flam scam to lose its only-act-in-(any)-town effectiveness? It seems unlikely.
SCO wants money for intellectual property rights to UNIX, and have invented a new "IP license" to Unix, so even if a user is not using any SCO UNIX on their linux boxen, they are paying for the IP-rights to use a UNIX-style OS on their machine. Or is that right anymore? SCO changes their professed motivation at least once a week, so I don't know if the above is true anymore.
The RIAA wants to sue anyone who is sharing a significant number of copyrighted songs on their machine. They've started. As is mentioned in this article, some people are not even aware they're committing a crime; KaZaA's interface and commercial availability make it seem to be some form of subscription service; it's certainly not unthinkable. If stopping file trading, and raising public awareness was their goal, one would think they'd be more interested in pursuing solutions, instead of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, while treating potential customers and allies as criminals. While a few groups strike back a the organizations that seek to dictate what we can hear or see, and how we can do it. But by and large, while the RIAA and Hollywood studios author the next "filesharing as theft" meme, and add more and more broad definitions of ownership and property, and what accounts for damage against them in an already legally oppressive environment, the public myself included is sitting in stunned silence.
What is wrong with this picture? We are on the brink of a new world, with new definitions of things, and how to interact with them. We should be exploring the myriad of ways that we can personally control media, and share it with others. Though I'm not a fan of the end product, Evolution Control Committee's Rocked by Rape is an impressive, artistic commentary, combining of the overly present media in our lives, and the effect that it seeks to have on each and every one of us. But the distribution of that commentary is seen as "infringing" by the source of the samples. Is it fair legal use? As parody, it should be. As each of the samples is short than 3 seconds, it should be left alone as well (obligatory IANAL insert).
Meanwhile, radio has been overtaken by a monopoly -- the purportedly public airwaves have been leased and bought out, dominated by Clearchannel, a single ruling company who now has control over most of what is available to hear for free on the radio. Along comes internet radio, offering nearly unlimited alternative channels to anyone with an internet connection. Finally, with the advent of a new broadcast medium, choice is returned. Do Clearchannel and the RIAA want their long-ago established two-man flim-flam scam to lose its only-act-in-(any)-town effectiveness? It seems unlikely.
SCO wants money for intellectual property rights to UNIX, and have invented a new "IP license" to Unix, so even if a user is not using any SCO UNIX on their linux boxen, they are paying for the IP-rights to use a UNIX-style OS on their machine. Or is that right anymore? SCO changes their professed motivation at least once a week, so I don't know if the above is true anymore.
Comments
Post a Comment