Introduction:
Greetings Internet,
Let me first begin by introducing myself and giving you some background on the history of Technology, Law, and Policy. I am AltF4, but my friends call me Alt. I am a hacker. It is people like me who made the Internet: Technically skilled engineers with a playful spirit of curiosity. We built this place and have the ability to remake it how we wish. It is how we make our living, It is how we live. We continually improve upon our home and we protect it from harm.
The purpose of this essay, if you can call it that, is to tell you that our home is in danger. That it is under attack, and that this conflict has spread in our connected Information Age such that the results will have implications to every aspect of our Free Society.
We, the architects of the Internet, are primarily to blame for not foreseeing this problem. You must understand that the early pioneers had a deep disdain for ordinary politics. It was in their spirit as Engineers that we would build a better place where problems would be solved by good ideas, by working implementations, and by consensus. They saw greed and coercion in the physical world and sought to make a new society in cyberspace.
I can think of no better expression of this sentiment better than the famous "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" by John Perry Barlow, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Please read it in full form here: https://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
Establishing and passing along a Free and Open Internet may be the most significant thing our generation does for our descendants. I do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren that when we had the opportunity to give every human being access to the sum of all human knowledge, to allow all of humanity to participate in one great culture, to empower their selves to overthrow the their old world bonds of tyranny, that we allowed the few and greedy to prevent it.
Where Technology Meets Law:
Where the law meets technology has always been an interesting place to be. By its very nature, technology moves very quickly. In contrast, the law moves remarkably slowly. Creating a system of law such that it can effectively govern issues of high technology is a task in governing that which has not yet been invented. One should expect, therefore, that such laws will have a relatively short shelf life. I would like to talk to you about several such laws and how they have exceeded their welcome, how they are no longer effective, how they no longer apply, and how they are damaging to a Free and Open Internet.
Before delving into these topics in detail, however, I want to spend some time on the notion of "Intellectual Property". You will see, today, many people using this term. You may hear of a team of "Intellectual Property Lawyers", or in congressional bills such as the "PROTECT IP Act". In fact, this term has become so pervasive in some circles that some politicians have even been confused to think "IP Address" (Internet Protocol Address) stands for "Intellectual Property Address" [REFERENCE: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...address-is-intellectual-property-address.ars]
I must dispel this myth for you, as this distinction is essential to everything that . There is no law which allows a person to "own an idea". This is both impossible from a practical sense, and in a legal sense. A piece of intellect cannot be a person or entity's property. Thus the term "Intellectual Property" is nothing more than a poor lie to try and extend powers to the holders of copyrights and patents where this power does not exist.
Property and ownership are concepts which simply are inapplicable to information. A system of rules, of laws, should be in place But this system is not one of ownership.
Ownership requires control. Indeed, ownership is defined by control. For example, I “own” a pen that happens to be next to me right now. I control this pen, it is in my grasp. Other people are not physically capable of using this pen without my permission. It transfers ink onto paper at my whim, and only my whim. I own this pen. It would be wrong of someone to steal this pen from me, because it would deprive my of my ability to make use of the pen.
But contrast this, now, with “owning” a star. There are, in fact, organizations that let you “purchase” a star! And they are mostly laughed at, because one cannot in any way control a star. You cannot prevent others from viewing it, you cannot prevent comets from ramming into it, you cannot prevent black holes from sucking it up. You have just as much claim to “ownership” over any particular star than a goldfish does. The fact that you got scammed into paying $40 for a certificate which says otherwise is irrelevant. In what sense can someone “steal” your star from you? The word is meaningless in this context.
The same is true for ideas. Information cannot be owned, because it cannot be controlled. “Information wants to be Free” is a recurring theme and rallying cry you will hear from proponents of digital civil liberties. It is a phrase to remind you that information cannot be owned, that it cannot be controlled. If information cannot be owned, it can also not be stolen. It can only be copied, which is inherent to the very nature of information. As Cory Doctorow says:
Copyright Law: Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
• To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual
works;
• To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural
works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual
work; and
• In the case of sound recordings,* to perform the work publicly by means of
a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution
and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. [2]
The stated purpose of Copyright (and Patent Law) as described by the US Constitution is:
One point does need to be made perfectly clear. Though the Internet as a whole is one of the most beneficial and significant creations humans have accomplished in ages, that does not necessarily mean that everyone benefits from it equally. New technology is often disruptive to the established and powerful, and as the Internet is a democratizing tool it is no exception. There will be some set of people who make a living today on the basis of copyright who are being disrupted by the Internet. It may be the case that their current methods of business are not sustainable tomorrow.
This is simply how technology works. It is a healthy and normal process that happens with any good new technology. We should not set up a system of laws which bans progress and entrenches the successful today as the successful tomorrow.
What is wrong with Copyright Law:
There are of course many things wrong with copyright law as it is currently implemented. Each of these are enumerated in detail below.
*1) Copyrights of Infinite Duration. It is written into the US Constitution itself that copyrights MUST be of finite duration. That is, after all, the entire purpose behind a copyright. We allow the holder of the copyright to have a government sponsored monopoly on their idea for a short amount of time. During this time, the author will be allowed to profit from their idea exclusively. Then the idea becomes part of the public domain, and anyone can use it.
But obviously holders of copyrights don't want them to expire! They have a government sponsored monopoly. Why would they let it expire?
Well, they're in a bit of a hard spot. That line about copyrights being of finite duration is written into the actual constitution itself. That would mean it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the line! So that's out of the question.
So instead, all they do is extend the duration of copyrights by 20 years... every 20 years.
Look at the time time of copyright duration in the US. It's absurd. Authors do not require 95 years to profit from an idea!
Take a look at the latest copyright extension act: The Mickey Mouse Protection Act., and you'll see exactly what's going on. Big corporations like Disney were about to lose their copyrights on characters created eons ago, and thus about to lose money. So they paid off Washington to allow them to keep it.
What do you think they're going to do in 2018? Sit and watch the copyright expire? No sir! They'll extend it yet again, infinitely.
2) The Evils of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). It is a natural externality of the fact that many software and entertainment companies attempt to sell you packaged up bits (as if it were a manufactured good like a can of corn) that they must also control your computer in ways that you do not wish. It is their business model to sell you bits of information, and then ensure that those bits can only be obtained through them.
It should strike you as obviously and intuitively apparent that this is impossible. If you tell me a secret, you will forever run the risk of me disclosing that secret to others. It is in the very nature of secrets to spread. It would take an extraordinary amount of force and coercion to prevent the knower of a secret from disclosing it. You would have to watch them at all times and physically restrain them from disclosing it if they attempt to.
And this is exactly what DRM is, but in the world of software. DRM is a computer program which runs on your machine, spies on you, and actively prevents you from doing things which would normally be easy and useful to you.
If this sounds like a computer virus to you, you'd be right. In fact, from a technical perspective, DRM often uses the very same techniques that viruses do to hide from detection and removal. This is how they must work, since if it were easy to detect and remove DRM, you would do it. The most famous example of this the Sony BMG Music Rootkit whereby Sony released CDs that when entered into your computer, would infect it with a virus that can never be removed. This virus then even spread into Department of Defense computer networks, and caused quite a scandal.
The most benign cases of DRM consist of examples of "crippleware". This is when a software maker gives you a crippled piece of software that intentionally refuses to perform al of its functions. Only after paying the developer a ransom are you then permitted to use the program fully. However, even in these cases, DRM is dangerous. Since DRM must hide itself from the user, it is an especially attractive target for real viruses. Any vulnerability found in DRM software (which are frequent and common) can be leveraged to take full control of your computer by a malicious person.
But all of that might seem esoteric and far removed for you. Let's try a down-to-earth example to convince you why DRM is unconscionable: Imagine that a law were passed in your country whereby all cars will be required to have a computer chip installed in them which prevents the car from exceeding the speed limit. Speed limit signs will be equipped with radio transmitters that will tell the car chips what the speed limit is, and the car must obey. Furthermore, it is made illegal, with penalties of jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, to remove the chip from your car. This law would be presented as a mechanism for preventing high speed chases.
Such a law would fail for a number of reasons, some technical and some obvious:
1) Your car may then become inoperable off-roads or if your car-chip breaks.
2) Malicious people can change the chips present on traffic signs. it would not be a week before someone put 15mph chips on the highway, and watched as the cars crashed into one another trying to slow down to obey the sign.
3) Criminals will simply ignore the law, remove their car chips, and speed away as normal.
So this law would:
A) Cause your car to intermittently stop working.
B) Provide an avenue for criminals to take control of your car remotely and En Masse.
C) Completely fail at it's stated goal of preventing high speed chases.
This is exactly the same case that we see with computers. DRM technoliogy is deployed on your computer under the guise of preventing unauthorized copying. And if you attempt to remove this DRM, you can be sued and arrested under the DMCA. It is then abundantly clear that it:
A) Causes your computer and/or programs to intermittently stop working. So many games today must connect to an authentication server before they can be played. And when these servers go down (which they do frequently) you are locked out of your game. Think the PSN outage, or Spore, or Assassins Creed 2, or any number of recent games. DRM has caused them to simply stop working.
B) It provides an avenue for malicious people to infect your computer. The Sony BMG Rootkit case is of course the cononical example of this, but there many many others. Example Example
C) DRM has completely failed at its stated goal of preventing unauthorized copying. It's trivial for anyone who wishes to obtain a cracked DRM free copy of essentially any program online through websites such as The Pirate Bay.
But that's not all. You see, unscrupulous companies have taken advantage of the law to not just prevent unauthorized copying, but indeed legally prevent you from doing things which would normally be perfectly free and legal. Let's look again at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, or the DMCA:
It means that it's illegal to circumvent DRM even if you never make copies of copyrighted work. All the copyright holder has to do is make some pushover, easily breakable DRM scheme, and now they have total control over how the user is allowed to use their product. Complete legal control.
This effectively makes it illegal to exercise your Fair Use rights, for example. Say you want to take some clips from a DVD to make a review of it. The law says that you should be able to do this. It is considered "Fair Use". But in order to actually GET the clips, you will have to break the encryption on your DVD to play it on your computer. Thus the copyright owner can sue you for making your review under the DMCA.
Furthermore, it has been deemed illegal not only just to do the circumvention, but also to tell others how to. You can be sued for simply providing a link to a website which instructs someone else how to break DRM.
This is a clear and obvious case of prior restraint on academic freedom. I can speak from first hand experience that it can be a legally dangerous thing to be a security researcher in the area of Network Security and Cryptography. If you point to a Microsoft product and notice a vulnerability which can be used to exploit it, there's a good chance that Microsoft will sue you. (Contrast this with Google, the Internet's White Knight, who will in fact pay you a cash prize for finding vulnerabilities.)
If you happen to be a cryptographer with a well respected university, if you develop research which can be used to defeat DRM schemes, expect to be imprisoned and sued. This happened notably in the case of Dimitry Skylarov. He was a PhD engineering student in Russia who came to the United States to speak at a technical conference about his research in cryptography. Notably, it showed how the encryption used on DVDs was flawed and could be reversed. Before the conference, he was arrested by US agents, held, and eventually released back to Russia after political pressure and exchange of testimony.
This just one example of how Copyright law damages our fundamental rights and the workings of the Internet.
Whatever you do. Do not support DRM, nor the companies that produce it. Protect your rights. Visit the defective by design link at the bottom of this post for more information.
3) The Myth of Originality. One of the most common arguments you will see (in court) in regards to copyright law is an appeal to "originality". That holders of copyrights have something that they invented all of their own, that it is original, unique, and special. Therefore they deserve "protection" of this idea.
This is of course absurd. And not at all representative of the actual creative process. Creativity is derivative. Everything anyone does is not completely original, but rather builds upon the works of others. Sometimes these works are downplayed and called "influences" so as to not seem like they are merely "copying" them. But this is of course the case.
Just look at the Disney Corporation. Disney is one of the largest Copyright abusers around. They guard their copyrights with such an iron grip that they sue anyone for even hinting at using what they consider "theirs". They even went so far as to bribe congress and the supreme court of the United States into extending copyright law just so they wouldn't lose Mickey Mouse. (See: Copyright of Infinite Duration)
But where did they get all of these copyrights? Are they "original", and special? Of course not! Look at just about every Disney work there is. Pocahontas, Hercules, Snow White, etc... Almost all of Disney's works are derivatives of either historical events or The Brothers Grimm.
The Lord of the Rings is a rip off of Richard Wagner's "Ring Cycle". The list goes on and on.
But you see, my point is not to smear artists and claim they are just ripping each other off. My point is to clarify that this IS the creative process. Creativity is taking that which existed before you and improving it, making it your own. Walt Disney was so successful because he added something to those tales he borrowed. Something uniquely his.
But what about today? Today the table has turned. Now the older generation does not want to share. They do not want to allow others to create derivative works based on their ideas. Copyright law specifically prevents the use of copyrighted work for derivative works!
They are destroying the creative process.
Do not allow this. You must fight for the right to allow derivative works. This is not "copying" this is not "stealing". This is simply being an artist.
4) The Economics Scarcity The Incredible Copy Machine: A Hypothetical Situation concerning Scarcity
At the very heart of copyright is an implicit assumption: That information is scarce. Copyright assumes that bits can be packages up and sold in units. The industries that manufacture these things even refer to themselves as "Content Industries". Use of the word "Content" implies a container. Containers that no longer exist. The birth of the Internet and technologies like BitTorrent have eliminated any need for containers like records, tapes, CD's, DVD's, or BluRays. These "Content Industries" would have you believe this is a bad thing, but it is niot. Here I will use a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. I will say the point succinctly here, and then elaborate on why it is true:
The reduction of scarcity in a good is never a bad thing. To the contrary, it is always a positive thing.
Let's examine this not in terms of information, for a moment, but rather speak of physical objects...
Physical objects are scarce. Part of what makes our entire economy function is that fact that physical objects are scarce. Car manufacturers make and sell cars. They are able to charge a lot of money for cars because they are scarce. You cannot find unused, perfectly functioning cars lying around on the side of the road. Hence, you must go to a car dealer to buy a car.
But now let's imagine a new invention: "The Incredible Copy Machine!". It is a wonder of modern science. All you do is point it at something, and it makes you a perfect copy of it. 100% perfect, in every way indistinguishable from the original. (Let's ignore problems about conservation of mass and energy )
What this copy machine has done is removed the scarcity from physical objects such as cars! Anyone can have a car now! And not just any car, but the best car they can find to copy. What would be the reaction this invention would receive?
We could then imagine the car manufacturers revolting! "These copy machines are putting us out of business! They are stealing our cars, and not paying us anything! We must make laws to ban these copying machines!"And they are right in one respect: It would in fact put them out of business.
What good is being a manufacturer of cars in a world with a car-copying device? It would be like being an air-manufacturer. Where you take the raw elements of air and manufacture air yourself, and then try to sell it to people. Nobody would buy your manufactured air, because it is not a scarce good.
You would have to be crazy to be a manufacturer of air, and you would have to be crazy to be a manufacturer of cars in world with car copiers.
So should the copying machines be made illegal, so that car manufacturers can keep their jobs? NO. What the copy machines have done is made the car manufacturers obsolete. They are no longer needed. They have been replaced. And while this might be sad to a car manufacturer, it is a very good thing to everyone else.
What happened to manufacturers of slide rules when the calculator came out? They got put out of business. Should we have banned calculators just so that the slide rule manufacturers could keep their jobs? No.
When a group of people become obsolete, it is because something better has come along to replace them. We should not impede this growth. Indeed, it would be a step backward to do so.
So let's go back to our real-world again. We do have a copy machine! It copies information, and it is called your computer. People have died over access to scarce information. Books used to be incredibly valuable objects, as they possessed information, and books were scarce. It used to be not uncommon for books to be physically chained inside the buildings of wealthy inhabitants, as the information inside the books could be used as tools of enlightenment and ultimate freedom for the serfs. But this is no longer true. Information needs not be scarce. We can make perfect copies of information freely.
And then, the manufacturers of this information (Book publishers, the RIAA, the MPAA) cry out "These copy machines are putting us out of business! They are stealing our information, and not paying us anything! We must make laws to ban these copying machines!"
Should we? Of course not. But that is exactly what is happening today.
You would have to be crazy to be a manufacturer of air. And you would have to be crazy to be a manufacturer of information today.
Instead, don't be a manufacturer who sells information like it were a physical object that were scarce. Information is not scarce. You have to fundamentally change the way you do business. (In ways that have been outlined in this post too numerous to mention individually again here.)
5) Piracy / File Sharing
I am a Pirate, and so are many of you reading this. The following discussion will describe in detail exactly what that means, what the history of Piracy is, why I am proud to be a Pirate, and what needs to be done.
History
Every story has a beginning. The story of Piracy does not begin with Napster, and it does not end with the Pirate Bay. In order to fully understand the arguments that will follow (and the arguments of my opponents), you must see in in the light of proper context. These stories will help you understand exactly what it means to be a Pirate.
Throughout the following stories, I want you to recognize and pay attention to the following patterns:
One: The Phonograph
At the birth of the 20th Century, one of the biggest forms of entertainment in America was Vaudeville. It was an interesting mix of song, dance, animal acts, etc... You might consider it a cross between a concert and a circus.
Vaudeville had a very workable business model. They charged admission. Obviously, in order to enjoy a Vaudeville show, one must be sitting in the stands! And for a very long time this system worked. Many very popular, very creative, and very influential acts came out of Vaudeville.
The a man by the name of Thomas Edison came about and invented a little machine called the Phonograph. It was a machine that allowed the operator to record sound and then later play it back again.
The establishment was now shaken to its core. If you recall, the Vaudeville model revolves around being able to charge admission. With the invention of the Phonograph, people could listen to entertainment in their own homes and never pay the Vaudeville entertainers a dime! Naturally, the entertainment industry fought back against this new disruptive technology and cried out saying that these phonographs would destroy creativity.
One man, John Phillip Souza even made this testimony to Congress in 1906:
Of course the phonograph did not kill creativity, but rather gave birth the the Record Industry. Of course what else should we expect? That Vaudeville remain the predominant form of entertainment for the rest of human history? Of course not, at some point it must come to and end. And so it did.
Two: Hollywood
This story doesn't fit exactly in with the rest in terms of theme, but it's worth telling.
Thomas Edison later went on to creating lots of other important inventions than the phonograph. One of the other things that he did was make patents of lots of new innovative ways to record video. Technically he didn't invent it himself, but it was manufactured in his factories, and marketed in his name: The Vitascope. This was technology that allowed the user to make a movie. They could record video, and then later play sound on top of it.
But one thing that Edison did was keep a very close eye on his patents. Nobody was allowed to use Thomas Edison's patents without his expressed consent, and after giving him a hefty sum of money.
So a group of film Pirates did not like this and thought that they could do much better with Edison's technology but couldn't afford to pay him. So instead they fled to the west coast of the United States and began to make movies illegally using Edison's patents. But America was a very big place in the early 1900's and Edison didn't have much of a way to enforce his legal rights.
These film Pirates went on to settle an entire city based on ripping off Edison's patents and others' ideas to make a profit out of it. The city was named Hollywood. The leader of the film Pirates was named William Fox, who would later found the Fox Film Corporation. (And later, 20th Century Fox)
Three: Pirate Radio
It is now the mid to mid-late 1900's. The established entertainment industry is the Record Industry. They have a workable business model selling plastic disks called Records. They record music and other forms of entertainment onto these disks, an then they sell them out to others.
But then a new technology came along: Radio. Now, technically radio communication was not invented in the mid 1900's, but that's when it became largely commercially viable. Before that time, radios were enormous bulky things that a normal consumer couldn't possibly afford.
At this time, radio stations started popping up. They took music from the record industry and played it over the airwaves.
The Record Industry thought this was just terrible, and that it must be stopped! They called these radio stations "Pirates". And in fact, the term "Pirate Radio" still exists today.
After all, they were "stealing" music created by the Record Industry, playing it over the airwaves, making a profit, and not giving a dime back to the Record Industry. Naturally this disruptive new innovation must be stopped!
But it was not to be that way. Legally speaking, the record industry had every right to shut down these Pirate Radio Stations. But common sense prevailed. A world in which there are radio stations is far preferable to a world in which there is not. The law was amended to allow these stations to exist, and a whole new form of entertainment arose from it.
Four: Cable Television
Music was not the only thing that wound up getting broadcast over the airwaves, but video too. The television was a very popular form of entertainment and of course is still today. But there was a time when in order to watch TV, you had to tune it into a radio signal being broadcast. An entire industry was built around this.
Then a new technology came about: Cable Television. This story is remarkably similar to that of radio stations. People began getting their TV signals not over airwaves, but rather through a wire to their house.
The operators of Cable Television would literally take the signals from radio TV and put it out over the wire (and add their own content, too).
The entertainment industry was furious! Again called these stations "Pirates", and again the term "Pirate Television" remains. The current industry tried desperately to shut down these clearly illegal operators.
But it was not to be. The law was again amended to allow cable television operators to exist. Because a world where cable TV exists is preferable to one where it does not. Even if it means the loss of profits by the establishment. As we all know, cable TV would wind up replacing radio broadcast TV
Five: The VCR
It is now (appropriately) the year 1984, and video entertainment was a boom. The majority of households owned a television and the entertainment industry profited greatly by being able to serve content to these boxes.
But then a new invention came around. Sony Corporation had just spent a lot of money developing the Betamax. For those of not alive in 1984 (I wasn't!) the Betamax was the first form of the VHS tape. It's essentially the same thing, but VHS would later take over, and then be subsequently replaced by DVDs.
What the VCR allowed someone to do was to record video off of a television and later watch it at their own discretion whenever they wanted. Why, this was heresy to the entertainment industry! Someone is trying to sell a device whose sole purpose is to make copies of copyrighted content?!
The then Chairman of the MPAA, Jack Valenti (The Motion Picture Association of America) even made this statement to congress in 1982:
But yet again, common sense prevailed. Not only did the VCR not destroy the American film industry, but it sparked an entirely new industry. Billions of dollars were later made by buying and selling VHS tapes. Creativity flourished, and the "rights" of the copyright holders were correctly and justly ignored.
Six: The United States of America
I saved the best for last. Chronologically, this should go first. But it's most important.
The United States of America was founded as a Pirate nation. During the Industrial revolution, America was able to maintain its progress as much as it did by completely and blatantly ignoring the copyrights and patents of other countries. It was official US policy just to take and "rip off" any patents being used in Europe at the time. That way America could freely industrialize.
This, of course, upset Europe very much. Britain tried in vain to prevent the US from continuing this practice, by passing legislature such as the Iron Act of 1750.
Failing to further prevent America from infringing on their patents and copyrights, European began to call Americans "Jankes", a Dutch phrase meaning "Pirate". Americans would later take this name and mispronounce it into "Yankee".
That's right, the word "Yankee" itself means "Pirate".
Today
So today history again repeats itself. A new technology has risen which completely disrupts the current establishment. This technology is BitTorrent over the Internet. It has revolutionized the way distribution is done. It is democratized, decentralized, and efficient. But the most important aspect of BitTorrent is the mechanics of distribution.
BitTorrent is unique in the respect that it reverses the dynamics of scarcity. Typically, the more demand there is for something, the harder it is to get. Even pure information can be scarce in this respect. For example, if 10 million people all tried to log into the Smashboards at once, the servers would crash. The words on this very page right now are distributed from a single source, and that source can only handle so much weight.
What Bit Torrent does is reverse this. The more demand there is for something, the easier it is to get it. Scarcity for bits has thusly been eliminated. The only reason one cannot obtain a piece of data on the Internet over BitTorrent is because it is so unpopular as to not have anyone sharing it.
But this disrupts the current entertainment industry. They cry foul and label us as "Pirates"! They say that this new Piracy is killing creativity, and that if left unchecked will destroy entertainment completely!
Opportunity and Innovation
But what they don't see is opportunity. It is true that the era of the DVD and the CD is over. What we are seeing is transition into a completely new form of business. It may very well be the case that we see a return to Vaudeville, in a way. We are seeing not just passive media, but Social Media.
You see, one of the important differences between the Vaudeville star and the recording industry star was personal interaction with the fan. In order to be successful on stage, one must be charismatic. In order to be successful on records, you need to sound very well.
Interaction and charisma is already starting to see a rebirth in music and film through places like MySpace.com. Say what you will about the musicians present there, but there is a renaissance of artists popping up through the website. They accomplish this not purely by "sounding good" but by being friends with their fans. Connecting with them through more than just the music.
We see this with artists like Radiohead, Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails), and a whole host of others. What they do is accumulate fans who love them first, and their music second. I personally donate to both of those artists in the form of purchases and other means.
Just as some Vaudeville stars were not able to make the transition to records, some current artists will not be able to transition to the new form of media. This is not, however, the same thing as saying that creativity itself suffers. Not unless you think creativity also suffered from the invention of the phonograph, or the radio, or cable TV, or the VCR.
A Market Signal
One of the biggest things that Piracy is, is a market signal. Piracy is the consumers telling the industry that they need to do better. That the way they have been doing business for the last several decades is no longer sufficient.
For example, there is a clear demand for what many call "The Celestial Jukebox". This mythical device would be as small, trendy, available, and as accessible as an iPod. It would allow the owner to listen to any recorded audio work in history at the touch of a button. And it would allow the owner to donate a small sum of money at their discretion to the artist of the works they just listened to.
This device needn't be a myth, however. It is perfectly possible to make one! What is preventing the Celestial Jukebox from existing is not a problem of engineering, but rather a legal one. Copyright law simply does not allow such a thing to exist.
But a fruitful and workable economy can clearly be seen to be available from the Celestial Jukebox. Artists (especially of the type described above) will easily be able to make lots of money by accumulating fans over the device.
The problem is not that artists won't get paid, no. The problem is that the current established record industry plays no part in that future. The multi-billion dollar industry would be made almost completely obsolete by such a device. And so they fight to ensure that it never exists. Piracy is the fight to ensure that it does.
What Piracy is not
What Piracy is NOT is stealing. This claim that Piracy equates to theft is nothing more than a petty attempt to push aside everything above and simplify this entire topic to a single word.
Stealing is wrong. That much is obvious. Stealing is wrong because it deprives the original owner of something which they would have otherwise possessed. If you went onto my driveway and stole my car, that would be wrong. I would no longer have a car because of it! And that would be harmful to me.
But copying is not stealing. If you went into my driveway and made a copy of my car, I would be in no way damaged. In fact, if such a device existed that would allow copies of cars to be made, I would proudly place my car in my driveway for all to see and copy it! To deny someone something of value when it costs nothing to you is just plain rude. I think we all learned that lesson in Kindergarten, that it is a good thing to share.
Pirates are loyal paying customers. The myth of people downloading mounds of works and never paying a dime for anything is flatly false at worst, and hyperbolic at best. I personally own a huge collection of DVDs, purchased from a brick-and-mortar store. This is not a contradiction, this is the nature of Piracy. We do not want "everything for free". What we want is something better than what we have right now.
How you can get involved
The fight for Piracy has many battlefields. There are matters of law, social opinion, creativity, and technological works.
You can get involved politically by joining your local Pirate Party. Such as the United States Pirate Party, or several in Europe.
There are organizations involved with case law (as opposed to legislation) such a The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the good old ACLU that you can get involved with.
You can get involved socially by being open about who you are as a Pirate. (Such as by making convincing forum posts such as this one!) The media industry itself is the opponent here, so no mainstream media outlet will ever allow our side of the story to be told. Which is why this is all over the Internet, but nowhere on TV! People's opinions matter, and we want every one of them.
Piracy is a technological innovation. If you work in technology, it is important for you to make sure that what you do improves society. Technology is power in the information age. Concentrate your efforts on things that make us as a society more Free, as opposed to less Free.
And if you are an artist, make sure that you embrace and flourish in the information age. This can mean trivial things like interacting with fans on Facebook, it can mean doing drastic things like dropping a label and distributing your music yourself, and it can mean encouraging your fans to become literally involved with your work through remixing and hyperdistribution. Visit places like Creative Commons and let it be known that you are not like the RIAA and MPAA.
6) Case study: Dōjinshi This section is a case study of the Japanese art of Dōjinshi. For those who do not know what it is, Dōjinshi is a genre of Japanese Manga. It can best be described in English as "fan fiction". But there are some very interesting aspects to this community.
What they do is take existing Manga, and remix it. For example, someone might take a popular series and think "I didn't really like the way this ended. I'm going to make my own ending for it." And then they do.
Dōjinshi is creativity in its most pure form. The Japanese artists make no false pretenses about originality like we try to do in America. (see Originality section above) People read other works, they are influenced by them, and they improve them. This system of constant change and improvement is at the heart of creativity.
But what is so notable about Dōjinshi is that is is so wide spread! This is not some small sub-culture with only a few amateurs, no. Dōjinshi artists and fans like to attend conventions, the largest of which is Comiket. Comiket is the largest convention in Japan! It brings over a half a million people over the course of three days. Over half a million. All to share, remix, buy, sell, and improve Manga.
Even more incredible yet, is the fact that Dōjinshi itself is, according to Japanese law, illegal! Yet Japanese officials intentionally turn a blind eye to this, as it is such an ingrained part of the Japanese culture.
Now imagine trying to do this in America! If you tried selling a copy of "The Lion King" with a different ending, you'd get sued by Disney faster than a speeding bullet train.
This is clearly impeding the creative process. Copyright law must be made to include remixing and improving of others' works as part of Fair Use.
Solutions
Each of the above grievances are of course very valid and very specific. Yet they do not address the underlying problems that causes copyright to be inapplicable in today's world. This problem is embedded in the very name: Copyright.
Copyright is a set of laws that regulate the creation of copies. Now, this system used to make sense. Over one hundred years ago, copyright was targeted exactly toward one group: Book publishers. To make a copy in these times implied that one was a large and prosperous corporation with the infrastructure capable of producing copies of books. These publishers, rightly, did not want each other to publish books that was written by one of their authors. It would not be fair if Addison-Wesley took the latest Harper-Collins book and published it as their own without compensating A&W nor the author. So copyright allowed them to prevent this.
Why should we expect this same set of laws designed to regulate 18th century book publishers to adequately apply to 21st century software companies, motion pictures, recorded music, and still books? Furthermore, why do we require that each of these categories (Computer Software, Movies, Music, Books, etc...) have a single set of laws that govern them all? It's nonsense.
What I propose is a set of different laws for each of these categories that regulates commercial distribution appropriately for each set of circumstances. The spirit of the law is similar to the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution license. Where commercial usage is either prevented by default or provided by way of compulsory license. (Depending on the category) In each case, duration is reduced to a number approximately around 10-20 years.
In all cases, the distribution right must be registered and must be clearly indicated on the work. Unregistered works can still be marked as protected (similar to the "registered" and "unregistered" trademark system) and afforded retroactive awards to the author in the event that they become commercially viable when it was not expected to upon creation. (One can imagine a viral YouTube video. The author may not choose to register the video as they did not intend it to be of commercial value. Nonetheless, they ought to be rewarded some compensation from those who profit from the work.)
Works that prove commercially viable after their slated duration are eligible for reregistration, whereby the duration will be extended for an additional amount of time. Perhaps another 5 years or so depending on the category of work. This ensures that any rare works that remain commercially successful after their monopoly expires (which is a small minority) are afforded extra opportunity to accrue wealth to their authors. Meanwhile, the vast majority of works will move forward to the public domain where all uses are unrestricted.
A) Audio Works / Music.
Musicians in the 21st Century are booming, and digital distribution greatly enhances the ability of musicians to reach wide stretches of audiences at almost no cost. Commercial usage of an audio work (IE: A radio station, an Internet radio station, and indeed ad-based websites including file sharing websites) are required to pay a compulsory license in the same way that radio stations already do. The amount is decided by law to be meaningful (to compensate the authors) but not restrictive (which would inhibit the ability of these sites to operate).
A non-profit organization can be established to receive and distribute the funds from these compulsory licenses. Or if it proves technically feasible (which is increasingly likely) direct transfers to artists on the basis of usage on the particular sites. (One can imaging an artist receiving a certain percentage of the license fee on the basis of how many downloads / listens they get)
Non commercial and private uses of audio works are freely permitted. This includes listening to the work, sharing the work with others and remixing the work into a derivative work. All provided that proper attribution to the original is provided.
Duration can be seen in the ballpark of 15 years. Only the most rare of rare works of audio remain commercially viable after such a period. Regulating the work after this point would only serve to restrict freedom.
B) Audiovisual works / Movies.
Similarly, audiovisual works will be covered under something much like the CC-BY-NC license with a two step expiration. For a period of time, say one year perhaps two, commercial distribution is prohibited by those without the distribution right. This allows movie theatres and studios a short monopoly on all distribution. During this time, theaters and disk sales can be fully controlled by the studios.
After this period of time, commercial usage of the work becomes available to purchasers of a compulsory license. This notably includes services such as Netflix. One can imagine that the license fee will be higher than that of purely audio works. Netflix and YouTube should surely pay their fair share toward the studios that create the movies they profit from. But they should not be unjustly prevented from operating as a business at all.
After a period of perhaps 15 years, commercial distribution no longer requires a compulsory license. As always, non-commercial use and sharing of the work is always permitted.
C) Computer Software / Video Games
Duration in software should be much shorter than the other categories of works. 15 or 20 years is an eternity in computer terms. The Internet as we know it has only existed for this long. A more apt duration will be approximately 5 years.
It seems reasonable to bar commercial distribution of software within this duration. Naturally, individual agreements can be arranged on an individual basis. (IE: Steam) Non-commercial use and sharing during this period remains legal.
DRM Clause: Attempts to circumvent this law by technical means shall be illegal. This means that it will be illegal after the distribution duration has expired to try to prevent users from exercising their rights to access, use, and copying of a program by technical means.
Free Software Clause: Those wishing to offer works as Free Software under what would normally be considered a "Copyleft" license, are able to do so. In this case an additional restriction on distribution is added: That any derivative works be made also under the same Free Software license.
D) Written Works / Books.
An appropriate duration for distribution rights to books may be approximately 15 years. During this time, all commercial distribution of hardcopies (IE: Paper books) is prohibited. However, commercial distribution of softcopies (IE: e-books) are permitted under a compulsory license. Thus publishers are not permitted to publish a book they do not posses the right to, however an online service which distributes e-books is allowed to exist. (While simultaneously compensating the original authors adequately)
Exceptions:
Works of Opinion: For works of opinion, it does not make sense to permit derivative works or "remixing". To do so would be to simply falsely misrepresent the opinions of the author in a dishonest way. Thus, works of opinion may be registered as such and thereby only permit verbatim sharing of the work (IE: No derivatives)for as long as the duration lasts.
Fair Use: Existing Copyright Fair Use exceptions will still apply in this new distribution right model. An author is still permitted to freely make use of the work (including derivatives) using the existing guidelines.
Each of these specific points are certainly negotiable, but you can easily see what this vision looks like. Such a system of law would both allow for a Free Culture to thrive and provide monetary compensation to authors suitable for professional work.
Software Patents: A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention. [3]
Patents are meant to be a form of protection for inventors. It essentially says "If you come up with an invention, you can exclude others from using and/or selling this invention". It comes from the line of reasoning that "Well, if anyone could take someone else's invention, and use it as their own, then nobody would bother inventing anything, and we don't want that."
I will describe at length why the patent system as applied to software is irreparably broken, and how it is extraordinarily counter-productive. The only sensible position is Software Patents should be abolished. This is indeed the official position of many major corporations [CITATION-NEEDED], and is the law in many jurisdictions. [EXAMPLES] [CITATION-NEEDED]
1) Registering Patents. Unlike copyrights and trademarks, patents MUST be registered with the US Patent Office in order to be valid. However, this is not a straightforward process (and like all things) has been corrupted by the lawyers who use it.
The language used to describe a patent is absurdly complicated. It is so complicated and lengthy that neither the patent office nor anyone using the patent system can effectively read and understand them. If you dare, you may attempt to read some of them yourself. Go through and read some patents from here. Read one page of a single patent and you'll see what I mean.
Patents are worded with such confusing "legalese", that even absurd items like The Wheel have been successfully patented!
And also keep in mind that if you DO create an invention, and want to see if it is already patented (or if you are just doing business as usual) and want to see if you are currently stepping on someone else's patent, it is virtually impossible. It is hard enough to fully understand ONE patent, let alone having to search through all registered patents. Keep in mind here also that there is no system to search through patents. (other than broad generalizations) It is in practice quite common to be infringing on someone else's (usually IBM's) patents and never even know it, even while actively looking.
2) The Patent system breeds entire leeching corporations. You see, patents need to be registered. If you do not register your invention, then anyone else can! This naturally leads to a system where a company patents something broad and obvious, and patent it as their own. They then hold the invention hostage to an eventual victim until they settle it out of court for a sum of money.
Microsoft and IBM are both notorious for doing this. [5]
Furthermore, since patents are exceedingly difficult to understand (which is intentional) it is commonplace for corporations to sue others for patent infringement where none exists. And the sheer court costs and size of the opposition (and ambiguous nature of patents themselves) forces the defendant into settling out of court. In this way, holders of lots of patents (IBM and Microsoft, namely) are able to blackmail others into paying them money arbitrarily.
3) Mathematical Algorithms Extremely loose interpretation of the law has lead to allowing patents of software as an "invention". This is incredibly bad, however. Software is an entirely different beast than with physical inventions.
Unlike physical inventions, software systems are inherently built on top of one another. And despite regulations saying that it is not supposed to be allowed, basic algorithms and equations are commonly patented. This creates a nightmare of a situation for software developers. No matter what you do, chances are that IBM has a patent on some subsystem of yours.
A good example of this is LZW Compression. [4] LZW Compression is an algorithm for compressing data down smaller (like when you zip a file). Lots of stuff used this algorithm, including GIF files (which is pronounced with a soft G, btw. Like "Jif Peanut Butter").
It only later came out that this algorithm was patented, and thus the very use of GIF files were restricted and illegal. The holder of the patent could arbitrarily restrict anyone's use of GIF files!
This obvious, flagrant, and excessive case of patent abuse lead to a widespread shun of the GIF filetype, and the creation of the PNG type. (Pronounced "Ping". PNG also stands for "PNG, Not GIF")
For more detailed information on the GIF case, read here.
4) The myth of the 'lone inventor' and how patents are good for the little guy. You will very commonly see arguments like this in courts as well, and it does a good job at tugging at the heart strings of judges.
They paint a hypothetical situation where a lowly, poor, but intelligent man is working in his basement. He then has a wonderful idea for an invention and creates it. This invention is of great utility. It is then argued that this inventor needs to be protected from large corporations trying to use his idea without permission! So he is issued a patent, which saves the day, everyone is happy, and birds sing.
This is quite separate from reality. In reality patents benefit only the large corporations. IBM holds more patents than anyone on the planet. [6] They have so many patents in so many fields that are so vague that no matter what you create, they can sue you for patent infringement.
When a small inventor (especially software developers) comes up with a great new idea, IBM sees it. They then inform you that you are infringing on several of their patents and that they intend to prosecute the offense... unless you sell your patent to them. Faced with a court case that will cost you tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just in court costs, you will give up and sell your patent to them.
Thus IBM is able to accumulate more patents and continue this cycle even more effectively.
Other large companies like Microsoft who also have large numbers of patents get around this by cross-licensing with each other. It essentially says: "I can use your patents if you can use mine." IBM will, of course, only let you cross license if you have a large number of patents. But you don't, so you can't.
So you can see that patents do quite the opposite of "helping out the little guy". The first tip off should be that the patent laws are sponsored (aka: paid for) by IBM, HP, and other big name patent holders. Now why on earth would IBM and Microsoft want a system that is good for the little guy?
They don't. Don't be fooled.
5) Secret Patents and the First to Invent System In theory, Patents are supposed to be registered. Registration is necessary because not everything is Patentable. You cannot, after all, get Patents on things which are so obvious they don't constitute as an invention. The registration process is absolutely essential to how Patents are supposed to work.
A new inventor has to be able to know whether their creation has any Patent conflicts after making it, at least in principle if not in practice.
But this is not the case in reality. When two people have a dispute over the ownership of a Patent in America, it is awarded to whoever can prove that they made the invention first. This makes some intuitive sense.
However, this leads to the practice of “Secret Patents”. A Secret Patent is when a person or corporation makes an invention (or claims to) and keeps proof of its creation, but never registers it. This way, when someone else comes along and infringes on this Patent, they can swoop in and claim prior ownership. Thus snatching the invention away from its rightful creator... unless they pay a licensing fee.
So suppose you are an inventor, for a moment. In today's Patent system, even if you DID search exhaustively through every single registered Patent (which itself is impossible, see above), and even if you COULD determine effectively if any one of those were in conflict with your invention (which is also impossible, see above), you can STILL be sued for Patent infringement. IBM can come out and claim that they proof that they have prior creation of a component to your invention, and that they'll sue you if you don't pay up tens of thousands of dollars.
And remember, that as a lone inventor (or even a small company) you cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars in court costs to defend a Patent. This is how large corporations exploit Patent law to blackmail smaller organizations into paying sums of money.
No due process, no judge, no jury. You are guilty by mere accusation., and must pay up or be sued out of business.
Trademark Law: A trademark or trade mark, identified by the symbols ™ and ®, or mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify that the products and/or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source of origin, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. [1]
A Trademark is intended to prevent confusion amongst consumers when purchasing goods and services. It would be bad for producers and consumers alike if there were two different Gatorades right next to each other in the supermarket.
Trademarks do not need to be registered. A trademark is implicitly assigned to the creator when the item is created. Using the label ™ and ® are also not required when using the name of the item, however failing to do so may reduce significantly any winnings in court. It should also be noted that trademarks do not expire, and last indefinitely. (As long as the holder chooses to re-register)
In general, I do not have a problem with Trademark Law. The purpose is well stated and just, and most of the time the law serves this purpose. We give up a certain amount of freedom in the case of trademark law (IE: The freedom to name your organization anything you like) but this is an acceptable loss, and not one that in good faith in always necessary. There is but one main issue I have with the enforcement of Trademark Law:
Overly Aggressive Enforcement. Trademark infringement is only supposed to be enforceable if there is a legitimate conflict between the names such that it would cause customer confusion. You are, in fact, allowed to use another person's trademark as long as this conflict does not exist.
For example, if there is a small family owned bakery named "The Top Crust" in Florida, it would be trademark infringement to set up a competing bakery right next door with the same name. But it would not be trademark infringement to set up a bakery of the same name in California. This is because the geographic distance is great enough where no real conflict exists. IE: No customers would be confusing the two bakeries for one another due to their distance.
Similarly, you may have geographically close organizations sharing a name (or symbol, etc..) if they are in different enough businesses. For example, you may have a shooting range named "Target" and the well known chain store "Target" close to each other.
In reality, however, organizations attempt to stretch this law as far as possible, trying to shut down or harm other organizations where no legitimate conflict exists. A good example of this is the well known case of the WWF. The World Wildlife Foundation held this name first, and later, the World Wrestling Federation used the name.
Clearly there was no real conflict, or confusion between the two entirely separate groups. I sincerely doubt that the World Wildlife Foundation had hordes of confused wrestling fans showing up at their door. Yet the World Wresting Federation were forced to change their names. This kind of abuse of the system is not acceptable.
I would like to close by reiterating a point that I began with. Governments of the world of flesh and steel have no power over someone like me. I have the ability to do as I please on the Internet without fear. For me, cyberspace will always be Free. But this freedom should be extended to all who wishes to join our culture, and one man does not constitute a culture.
In the information age, your right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, and freedom to participate in your culture are all intrinsically linked to the Internet. Your ability to exercise these rights in the future depends on your ability to access a Free and Open Internet, devoid of censorship and old world coercion.
Thanks for reading!
-AltF4
Suggested Videos, Links, and sources of Inspiration:
1) Steal This Film 2 (part 2) (part 3) (part 4) (part 5) - An extraordinary take on file sharing and how bit torrenting over the internet is the printing press of our age. It interviews professors from well known and respected universities and leaders from well known and respected organizations. An absolute must watch for everyone.
2) Richard Stallman: No Software Patents - Richard Stallman is a legend in the computer world in general. He is one of the original MIT hackers that worked in MIT's AI lab. Richard Stallman is also known for his work in creating the GNU/Linux operating system (aka: Linux) and for founding the Free Software Movement and the Free Software Foundation.
This video is Mr. Stallman giving a guest lecture to a university hall of software developers, warning them of the dangers of software patents, and why they need to be eradicated. An excellent watch.
(Note: There are 11 parts to this video, so I won't link to each explicitly)
3) Piracy Is Good? (part 2) (part 3) (part 4) (part 5) (part 6) (part 7) - A presentation to a hall of TV executives and producers, describing to them what bit torrenting is and why they're dumb for not using it to their advantage. He goes in great detail as to exactly how one can monetize a system where content is "hyper-distributed" through bit torrenting, and how the system is indeed helping them already anyway.
This is an excellent watch, as it is being made from a business/marketing standpoint, and not a technological or moral one. The speaker makes no statements or claims about the morality issues behind file sharing, but rather spends time going in depth as to how to make money from a free information system.
4) The Free Software Foundation - The official movement toward a society with free software. You will find this organization most helpful, and informative. Also, it you will find that it is a portal to many other organizations that involve the fight for free software (or information, more generally)
5) GNU.org - (Specifically this essay) This is a free software project started by Richard Stallman. You may know this project better known as "Linux", essentially. (Though going down the road of defining what is and isn't "Linux" is difficult) Contained within the website, however, are many aspects of the Free Software Movement. I would highly recommend poking around this website. In particular, try going to their "Philosophy" section, where you can find many articles about Free Software, including the one lined above.
6) EFF.org - A non-profit organization dedicated to protecting your rights in the digital world. They fight in court against big businesses to ensure that our rights are not taken away. You can go on here and subscribe to their email newsletter, or just take a look at their recent court victories!
7) DefectiveByDesign.org - An organization rallying against the creation and use of DRM (digital restrictions management). You know when your song magically deletes itself from your iPod after listening to it 5 times? That's DRM. But other more insidious versions of DRM include the famous Sony Rootkit. (A rootkit is a kind of computer virus that cannot ever be deleted)
This website serves as a watchdog for products that contain DRM, and contains instructions, boycotts, and lots of other information revolving around stopping DRM. You can go to this website to get a list of PC games that are infected with Sony's rootkit, so that you make sure you don't get their virus.
8) "Free Culture" - A book written by Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law professor and creator of the Creative Commons organization (and license). This explores copyright law and the philosophy of a Free Culture in great detail. I for one, have not yet read this book, but am right now. (and I mean that)
*entry submitted by Lavos*
9) Cory Doctorow. "Giving it Away" This is a first hand account of why copyrights as we see them today are not necessary for books. Also, a first hand account of how making your books available freely online helps spur physical book sales, and other revenue sources.
Cory can also be seen in such cameo's as in xkcd. (He's actually mentioned quite a bit in XKCD)
10) BREAKING: The Pirate Bay Trial! The Pirate Bay is currently under trial (again) in Sweden. They were able to get a landmark ruling that allowed audio and some video recordings of the trial published freely online. However, it will do you little good unless you can speak Swedish!
Luckily our friends at TorrentFreak have some good translations. I will keep this updated as more information comes daily!
Pre-Trial Press Conference
Trial: Day 1
Trial: Day 2 (Major victory!)
Trial: Day 3 (The dreaded King Kong defense)
Trial: Day 4 (Interrogation)
Trial: Day 5 (Brokep's defense)
Trial: Day 6 (the party)
Trial: Day 7 (Evidence: FAIL)
Trial: Day 8
Trial: Day 9 (The defense begins)
Trial: Day 10 (The prosecution rests)
Pirate Bay Trial Verdict: Guilty
Plus, Wikipedia appears to have a decent page on the subject. That will also likely be very up-to-date.
Long Live The Pirate Bay! Show your support!
11) RiP! A Remix Manifesto. A stunning documentary on the importance of Freeing Culture. This video perfectly encapsulates the spirit of this thread and movement at large. The video includes interviews and clips from many of the most important people in the Free Culture movement today.
12) Tim O'Rielly on Piracy: Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution. This is a very good read from the very well known creator of O'Reilly publishing. O'Reilly is a major book publisher, and more than a credible source of insight.
In this article, he describes how piracy is no threat to him as a book publisher. And even goes to describe how publishing may look in the 21st century. He (as we all do) makes a clear distinction between people who redistribute his works for a profit, and those who merely exchange digital copies of his books. The former, he claims is not a significant threat to him as a book publisher, and the latter is indeed a benefit. Great read.
*if you have any videos online (preferably youtube or similar streaming site) post it, or PM me!*
Sources:
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
[2]: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZW
[5]: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...sy-ibm-filing10-patentsday-in-technology.html
[6]: http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/98024/ibm-grabs-top-spot-in-patent-race.html
[7]: http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2008/11/unlicensed-musi.html
[8]: http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
Greetings Internet,
Let me first begin by introducing myself and giving you some background on the history of Technology, Law, and Policy. I am AltF4, but my friends call me Alt. I am a hacker. It is people like me who made the Internet: Technically skilled engineers with a playful spirit of curiosity. We built this place and have the ability to remake it how we wish. It is how we make our living, It is how we live. We continually improve upon our home and we protect it from harm.
The purpose of this essay, if you can call it that, is to tell you that our home is in danger. That it is under attack, and that this conflict has spread in our connected Information Age such that the results will have implications to every aspect of our Free Society.
We, the architects of the Internet, are primarily to blame for not foreseeing this problem. You must understand that the early pioneers had a deep disdain for ordinary politics. It was in their spirit as Engineers that we would build a better place where problems would be solved by good ideas, by working implementations, and by consensus. They saw greed and coercion in the physical world and sought to make a new society in cyberspace.
I can think of no better expression of this sentiment better than the famous "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" by John Perry Barlow, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Please read it in full form here: https://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
This revolution has taken place, but it was folly to think that it would be without conflict. The "weary giants of flesh and steel" have not recognized our independence. Moreover, these giants are not who we thought they would be. We also acknowledge that it was naive to think that this independence could be won by engineering alone. The fight for a Free and Open Internet wages on many fronts today and I hope to recruit you in it.A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace said:Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
...
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.
...
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
Establishing and passing along a Free and Open Internet may be the most significant thing our generation does for our descendants. I do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren that when we had the opportunity to give every human being access to the sum of all human knowledge, to allow all of humanity to participate in one great culture, to empower their selves to overthrow the their old world bonds of tyranny, that we allowed the few and greedy to prevent it.
Where Technology Meets Law:
Where the law meets technology has always been an interesting place to be. By its very nature, technology moves very quickly. In contrast, the law moves remarkably slowly. Creating a system of law such that it can effectively govern issues of high technology is a task in governing that which has not yet been invented. One should expect, therefore, that such laws will have a relatively short shelf life. I would like to talk to you about several such laws and how they have exceeded their welcome, how they are no longer effective, how they no longer apply, and how they are damaging to a Free and Open Internet.
Before delving into these topics in detail, however, I want to spend some time on the notion of "Intellectual Property". You will see, today, many people using this term. You may hear of a team of "Intellectual Property Lawyers", or in congressional bills such as the "PROTECT IP Act". In fact, this term has become so pervasive in some circles that some politicians have even been confused to think "IP Address" (Internet Protocol Address) stands for "Intellectual Property Address" [REFERENCE: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...address-is-intellectual-property-address.ars]
I must dispel this myth for you, as this distinction is essential to everything that . There is no law which allows a person to "own an idea". This is both impossible from a practical sense, and in a legal sense. A piece of intellect cannot be a person or entity's property. Thus the term "Intellectual Property" is nothing more than a poor lie to try and extend powers to the holders of copyrights and patents where this power does not exist.
Property and ownership are concepts which simply are inapplicable to information. A system of rules, of laws, should be in place But this system is not one of ownership.
Ownership requires control. Indeed, ownership is defined by control. For example, I “own” a pen that happens to be next to me right now. I control this pen, it is in my grasp. Other people are not physically capable of using this pen without my permission. It transfers ink onto paper at my whim, and only my whim. I own this pen. It would be wrong of someone to steal this pen from me, because it would deprive my of my ability to make use of the pen.
But contrast this, now, with “owning” a star. There are, in fact, organizations that let you “purchase” a star! And they are mostly laughed at, because one cannot in any way control a star. You cannot prevent others from viewing it, you cannot prevent comets from ramming into it, you cannot prevent black holes from sucking it up. You have just as much claim to “ownership” over any particular star than a goldfish does. The fact that you got scammed into paying $40 for a certificate which says otherwise is irrelevant. In what sense can someone “steal” your star from you? The word is meaningless in this context.
The same is true for ideas. Information cannot be owned, because it cannot be controlled. “Information wants to be Free” is a recurring theme and rallying cry you will hear from proponents of digital civil liberties. It is a phrase to remind you that information cannot be owned, that it cannot be controlled. If information cannot be owned, it can also not be stolen. It can only be copied, which is inherent to the very nature of information. As Cory Doctorow says:
Being easily copied is inherent to the nature of information in the Internet age. If one wishes to make a sane system of law concerning the Internet, it has to accept this fact.Cory Doctorow said:Making bits harder to copy is like making water that's less wet.
Copyright Law: Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
• To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual
works;
• To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural
works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual
work; and
• In the case of sound recordings,* to perform the work publicly by means of
a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution
and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. [2]
The stated purpose of Copyright (and Patent Law) as described by the US Constitution is:
Thus the explicitly stated purpose of copyright law is NOT to ensure that all creators of literary works are compensated monetarily, but rather to promote science and useful arts. This phrasing was not on accident: "To Promote Progress". Copyright is not a "natural right". It is a privilege, a private monopoly, extended to authors and inventors as a "necessary evil" in order to promote progress.US Constitution said:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
One point does need to be made perfectly clear. Though the Internet as a whole is one of the most beneficial and significant creations humans have accomplished in ages, that does not necessarily mean that everyone benefits from it equally. New technology is often disruptive to the established and powerful, and as the Internet is a democratizing tool it is no exception. There will be some set of people who make a living today on the basis of copyright who are being disrupted by the Internet. It may be the case that their current methods of business are not sustainable tomorrow.
This is simply how technology works. It is a healthy and normal process that happens with any good new technology. We should not set up a system of laws which bans progress and entrenches the successful today as the successful tomorrow.
What is wrong with Copyright Law:
There are of course many things wrong with copyright law as it is currently implemented. Each of these are enumerated in detail below.
*1) Copyrights of Infinite Duration. It is written into the US Constitution itself that copyrights MUST be of finite duration. That is, after all, the entire purpose behind a copyright. We allow the holder of the copyright to have a government sponsored monopoly on their idea for a short amount of time. During this time, the author will be allowed to profit from their idea exclusively. Then the idea becomes part of the public domain, and anyone can use it.
But obviously holders of copyrights don't want them to expire! They have a government sponsored monopoly. Why would they let it expire?
Well, they're in a bit of a hard spot. That line about copyrights being of finite duration is written into the actual constitution itself. That would mean it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the line! So that's out of the question.
So instead, all they do is extend the duration of copyrights by 20 years... every 20 years.
Look at the time time of copyright duration in the US. It's absurd. Authors do not require 95 years to profit from an idea!
Take a look at the latest copyright extension act: The Mickey Mouse Protection Act., and you'll see exactly what's going on. Big corporations like Disney were about to lose their copyrights on characters created eons ago, and thus about to lose money. So they paid off Washington to allow them to keep it.
What do you think they're going to do in 2018? Sit and watch the copyright expire? No sir! They'll extend it yet again, infinitely.
2) The Evils of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). It is a natural externality of the fact that many software and entertainment companies attempt to sell you packaged up bits (as if it were a manufactured good like a can of corn) that they must also control your computer in ways that you do not wish. It is their business model to sell you bits of information, and then ensure that those bits can only be obtained through them.
It should strike you as obviously and intuitively apparent that this is impossible. If you tell me a secret, you will forever run the risk of me disclosing that secret to others. It is in the very nature of secrets to spread. It would take an extraordinary amount of force and coercion to prevent the knower of a secret from disclosing it. You would have to watch them at all times and physically restrain them from disclosing it if they attempt to.
And this is exactly what DRM is, but in the world of software. DRM is a computer program which runs on your machine, spies on you, and actively prevents you from doing things which would normally be easy and useful to you.
If this sounds like a computer virus to you, you'd be right. In fact, from a technical perspective, DRM often uses the very same techniques that viruses do to hide from detection and removal. This is how they must work, since if it were easy to detect and remove DRM, you would do it. The most famous example of this the Sony BMG Music Rootkit whereby Sony released CDs that when entered into your computer, would infect it with a virus that can never be removed. This virus then even spread into Department of Defense computer networks, and caused quite a scandal.
The most benign cases of DRM consist of examples of "crippleware". This is when a software maker gives you a crippled piece of software that intentionally refuses to perform al of its functions. Only after paying the developer a ransom are you then permitted to use the program fully. However, even in these cases, DRM is dangerous. Since DRM must hide itself from the user, it is an especially attractive target for real viruses. Any vulnerability found in DRM software (which are frequent and common) can be leveraged to take full control of your computer by a malicious person.
But all of that might seem esoteric and far removed for you. Let's try a down-to-earth example to convince you why DRM is unconscionable: Imagine that a law were passed in your country whereby all cars will be required to have a computer chip installed in them which prevents the car from exceeding the speed limit. Speed limit signs will be equipped with radio transmitters that will tell the car chips what the speed limit is, and the car must obey. Furthermore, it is made illegal, with penalties of jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, to remove the chip from your car. This law would be presented as a mechanism for preventing high speed chases.
Such a law would fail for a number of reasons, some technical and some obvious:
1) Your car may then become inoperable off-roads or if your car-chip breaks.
2) Malicious people can change the chips present on traffic signs. it would not be a week before someone put 15mph chips on the highway, and watched as the cars crashed into one another trying to slow down to obey the sign.
3) Criminals will simply ignore the law, remove their car chips, and speed away as normal.
So this law would:
A) Cause your car to intermittently stop working.
B) Provide an avenue for criminals to take control of your car remotely and En Masse.
C) Completely fail at it's stated goal of preventing high speed chases.
This is exactly the same case that we see with computers. DRM technoliogy is deployed on your computer under the guise of preventing unauthorized copying. And if you attempt to remove this DRM, you can be sued and arrested under the DMCA. It is then abundantly clear that it:
A) Causes your computer and/or programs to intermittently stop working. So many games today must connect to an authentication server before they can be played. And when these servers go down (which they do frequently) you are locked out of your game. Think the PSN outage, or Spore, or Assassins Creed 2, or any number of recent games. DRM has caused them to simply stop working.
B) It provides an avenue for malicious people to infect your computer. The Sony BMG Rootkit case is of course the cononical example of this, but there many many others. Example Example
C) DRM has completely failed at its stated goal of preventing unauthorized copying. It's trivial for anyone who wishes to obtain a cracked DRM free copy of essentially any program online through websites such as The Pirate Bay.
But that's not all. You see, unscrupulous companies have taken advantage of the law to not just prevent unauthorized copying, but indeed legally prevent you from doing things which would normally be perfectly free and legal. Let's look again at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, or the DMCA:
What does this mean?US Law said:No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):
(3) As used in this subsection—
(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
It means that it's illegal to circumvent DRM even if you never make copies of copyrighted work. All the copyright holder has to do is make some pushover, easily breakable DRM scheme, and now they have total control over how the user is allowed to use their product. Complete legal control.
This effectively makes it illegal to exercise your Fair Use rights, for example. Say you want to take some clips from a DVD to make a review of it. The law says that you should be able to do this. It is considered "Fair Use". But in order to actually GET the clips, you will have to break the encryption on your DVD to play it on your computer. Thus the copyright owner can sue you for making your review under the DMCA.
Furthermore, it has been deemed illegal not only just to do the circumvention, but also to tell others how to. You can be sued for simply providing a link to a website which instructs someone else how to break DRM.
This is a clear and obvious case of prior restraint on academic freedom. I can speak from first hand experience that it can be a legally dangerous thing to be a security researcher in the area of Network Security and Cryptography. If you point to a Microsoft product and notice a vulnerability which can be used to exploit it, there's a good chance that Microsoft will sue you. (Contrast this with Google, the Internet's White Knight, who will in fact pay you a cash prize for finding vulnerabilities.)
If you happen to be a cryptographer with a well respected university, if you develop research which can be used to defeat DRM schemes, expect to be imprisoned and sued. This happened notably in the case of Dimitry Skylarov. He was a PhD engineering student in Russia who came to the United States to speak at a technical conference about his research in cryptography. Notably, it showed how the encryption used on DVDs was flawed and could be reversed. Before the conference, he was arrested by US agents, held, and eventually released back to Russia after political pressure and exchange of testimony.
This just one example of how Copyright law damages our fundamental rights and the workings of the Internet.
Whatever you do. Do not support DRM, nor the companies that produce it. Protect your rights. Visit the defective by design link at the bottom of this post for more information.
3) The Myth of Originality. One of the most common arguments you will see (in court) in regards to copyright law is an appeal to "originality". That holders of copyrights have something that they invented all of their own, that it is original, unique, and special. Therefore they deserve "protection" of this idea.
This is of course absurd. And not at all representative of the actual creative process. Creativity is derivative. Everything anyone does is not completely original, but rather builds upon the works of others. Sometimes these works are downplayed and called "influences" so as to not seem like they are merely "copying" them. But this is of course the case.
Just look at the Disney Corporation. Disney is one of the largest Copyright abusers around. They guard their copyrights with such an iron grip that they sue anyone for even hinting at using what they consider "theirs". They even went so far as to bribe congress and the supreme court of the United States into extending copyright law just so they wouldn't lose Mickey Mouse. (See: Copyright of Infinite Duration)
But where did they get all of these copyrights? Are they "original", and special? Of course not! Look at just about every Disney work there is. Pocahontas, Hercules, Snow White, etc... Almost all of Disney's works are derivatives of either historical events or The Brothers Grimm.
The Lord of the Rings is a rip off of Richard Wagner's "Ring Cycle". The list goes on and on.
But you see, my point is not to smear artists and claim they are just ripping each other off. My point is to clarify that this IS the creative process. Creativity is taking that which existed before you and improving it, making it your own. Walt Disney was so successful because he added something to those tales he borrowed. Something uniquely his.
But what about today? Today the table has turned. Now the older generation does not want to share. They do not want to allow others to create derivative works based on their ideas. Copyright law specifically prevents the use of copyrighted work for derivative works!
They are destroying the creative process.
Do not allow this. You must fight for the right to allow derivative works. This is not "copying" this is not "stealing". This is simply being an artist.
4) The Economics Scarcity The Incredible Copy Machine: A Hypothetical Situation concerning Scarcity
At the very heart of copyright is an implicit assumption: That information is scarce. Copyright assumes that bits can be packages up and sold in units. The industries that manufacture these things even refer to themselves as "Content Industries". Use of the word "Content" implies a container. Containers that no longer exist. The birth of the Internet and technologies like BitTorrent have eliminated any need for containers like records, tapes, CD's, DVD's, or BluRays. These "Content Industries" would have you believe this is a bad thing, but it is niot. Here I will use a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. I will say the point succinctly here, and then elaborate on why it is true:
The reduction of scarcity in a good is never a bad thing. To the contrary, it is always a positive thing.
Let's examine this not in terms of information, for a moment, but rather speak of physical objects...
Physical objects are scarce. Part of what makes our entire economy function is that fact that physical objects are scarce. Car manufacturers make and sell cars. They are able to charge a lot of money for cars because they are scarce. You cannot find unused, perfectly functioning cars lying around on the side of the road. Hence, you must go to a car dealer to buy a car.
But now let's imagine a new invention: "The Incredible Copy Machine!". It is a wonder of modern science. All you do is point it at something, and it makes you a perfect copy of it. 100% perfect, in every way indistinguishable from the original. (Let's ignore problems about conservation of mass and energy )
What this copy machine has done is removed the scarcity from physical objects such as cars! Anyone can have a car now! And not just any car, but the best car they can find to copy. What would be the reaction this invention would receive?
We could then imagine the car manufacturers revolting! "These copy machines are putting us out of business! They are stealing our cars, and not paying us anything! We must make laws to ban these copying machines!"And they are right in one respect: It would in fact put them out of business.
What good is being a manufacturer of cars in a world with a car-copying device? It would be like being an air-manufacturer. Where you take the raw elements of air and manufacture air yourself, and then try to sell it to people. Nobody would buy your manufactured air, because it is not a scarce good.
You would have to be crazy to be a manufacturer of air, and you would have to be crazy to be a manufacturer of cars in world with car copiers.
So should the copying machines be made illegal, so that car manufacturers can keep their jobs? NO. What the copy machines have done is made the car manufacturers obsolete. They are no longer needed. They have been replaced. And while this might be sad to a car manufacturer, it is a very good thing to everyone else.
What happened to manufacturers of slide rules when the calculator came out? They got put out of business. Should we have banned calculators just so that the slide rule manufacturers could keep their jobs? No.
When a group of people become obsolete, it is because something better has come along to replace them. We should not impede this growth. Indeed, it would be a step backward to do so.
So let's go back to our real-world again. We do have a copy machine! It copies information, and it is called your computer. People have died over access to scarce information. Books used to be incredibly valuable objects, as they possessed information, and books were scarce. It used to be not uncommon for books to be physically chained inside the buildings of wealthy inhabitants, as the information inside the books could be used as tools of enlightenment and ultimate freedom for the serfs. But this is no longer true. Information needs not be scarce. We can make perfect copies of information freely.
And then, the manufacturers of this information (Book publishers, the RIAA, the MPAA) cry out "These copy machines are putting us out of business! They are stealing our information, and not paying us anything! We must make laws to ban these copying machines!"
Should we? Of course not. But that is exactly what is happening today.
You would have to be crazy to be a manufacturer of air. And you would have to be crazy to be a manufacturer of information today.
Instead, don't be a manufacturer who sells information like it were a physical object that were scarce. Information is not scarce. You have to fundamentally change the way you do business. (In ways that have been outlined in this post too numerous to mention individually again here.)
5) Piracy / File Sharing
I am a Pirate, and so are many of you reading this. The following discussion will describe in detail exactly what that means, what the history of Piracy is, why I am proud to be a Pirate, and what needs to be done.
History
Every story has a beginning. The story of Piracy does not begin with Napster, and it does not end with the Pirate Bay. In order to fully understand the arguments that will follow (and the arguments of my opponents), you must see in in the light of proper context. These stories will help you understand exactly what it means to be a Pirate.
Throughout the following stories, I want you to recognize and pay attention to the following patterns:
- An established group has a working model for business
- Disruptive Invention and Innovation Occurs
- The establishment resists the innovation
- The establishment either adapts to the innovation and profits, or does not adapt and is replaced
One: The Phonograph
At the birth of the 20th Century, one of the biggest forms of entertainment in America was Vaudeville. It was an interesting mix of song, dance, animal acts, etc... You might consider it a cross between a concert and a circus.
Vaudeville had a very workable business model. They charged admission. Obviously, in order to enjoy a Vaudeville show, one must be sitting in the stands! And for a very long time this system worked. Many very popular, very creative, and very influential acts came out of Vaudeville.
The a man by the name of Thomas Edison came about and invented a little machine called the Phonograph. It was a machine that allowed the operator to record sound and then later play it back again.
The establishment was now shaken to its core. If you recall, the Vaudeville model revolves around being able to charge admission. With the invention of the Phonograph, people could listen to entertainment in their own homes and never pay the Vaudeville entertainers a dime! Naturally, the entertainment industry fought back against this new disruptive technology and cried out saying that these phonographs would destroy creativity.
One man, John Phillip Souza even made this testimony to Congress in 1906:
This is an important quote, and we will return to it again later.John Phillip Souza said:These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.
Of course the phonograph did not kill creativity, but rather gave birth the the Record Industry. Of course what else should we expect? That Vaudeville remain the predominant form of entertainment for the rest of human history? Of course not, at some point it must come to and end. And so it did.
Two: Hollywood
This story doesn't fit exactly in with the rest in terms of theme, but it's worth telling.
Thomas Edison later went on to creating lots of other important inventions than the phonograph. One of the other things that he did was make patents of lots of new innovative ways to record video. Technically he didn't invent it himself, but it was manufactured in his factories, and marketed in his name: The Vitascope. This was technology that allowed the user to make a movie. They could record video, and then later play sound on top of it.
But one thing that Edison did was keep a very close eye on his patents. Nobody was allowed to use Thomas Edison's patents without his expressed consent, and after giving him a hefty sum of money.
So a group of film Pirates did not like this and thought that they could do much better with Edison's technology but couldn't afford to pay him. So instead they fled to the west coast of the United States and began to make movies illegally using Edison's patents. But America was a very big place in the early 1900's and Edison didn't have much of a way to enforce his legal rights.
These film Pirates went on to settle an entire city based on ripping off Edison's patents and others' ideas to make a profit out of it. The city was named Hollywood. The leader of the film Pirates was named William Fox, who would later found the Fox Film Corporation. (And later, 20th Century Fox)
Three: Pirate Radio
It is now the mid to mid-late 1900's. The established entertainment industry is the Record Industry. They have a workable business model selling plastic disks called Records. They record music and other forms of entertainment onto these disks, an then they sell them out to others.
But then a new technology came along: Radio. Now, technically radio communication was not invented in the mid 1900's, but that's when it became largely commercially viable. Before that time, radios were enormous bulky things that a normal consumer couldn't possibly afford.
At this time, radio stations started popping up. They took music from the record industry and played it over the airwaves.
The Record Industry thought this was just terrible, and that it must be stopped! They called these radio stations "Pirates". And in fact, the term "Pirate Radio" still exists today.
After all, they were "stealing" music created by the Record Industry, playing it over the airwaves, making a profit, and not giving a dime back to the Record Industry. Naturally this disruptive new innovation must be stopped!
But it was not to be that way. Legally speaking, the record industry had every right to shut down these Pirate Radio Stations. But common sense prevailed. A world in which there are radio stations is far preferable to a world in which there is not. The law was amended to allow these stations to exist, and a whole new form of entertainment arose from it.
Four: Cable Television
Music was not the only thing that wound up getting broadcast over the airwaves, but video too. The television was a very popular form of entertainment and of course is still today. But there was a time when in order to watch TV, you had to tune it into a radio signal being broadcast. An entire industry was built around this.
Then a new technology came about: Cable Television. This story is remarkably similar to that of radio stations. People began getting their TV signals not over airwaves, but rather through a wire to their house.
The operators of Cable Television would literally take the signals from radio TV and put it out over the wire (and add their own content, too).
The entertainment industry was furious! Again called these stations "Pirates", and again the term "Pirate Television" remains. The current industry tried desperately to shut down these clearly illegal operators.
But it was not to be. The law was again amended to allow cable television operators to exist. Because a world where cable TV exists is preferable to one where it does not. Even if it means the loss of profits by the establishment. As we all know, cable TV would wind up replacing radio broadcast TV
Five: The VCR
It is now (appropriately) the year 1984, and video entertainment was a boom. The majority of households owned a television and the entertainment industry profited greatly by being able to serve content to these boxes.
But then a new invention came around. Sony Corporation had just spent a lot of money developing the Betamax. For those of not alive in 1984 (I wasn't!) the Betamax was the first form of the VHS tape. It's essentially the same thing, but VHS would later take over, and then be subsequently replaced by DVDs.
What the VCR allowed someone to do was to record video off of a television and later watch it at their own discretion whenever they wanted. Why, this was heresy to the entertainment industry! Someone is trying to sell a device whose sole purpose is to make copies of copyrighted content?!
The then Chairman of the MPAA, Jack Valenti (The Motion Picture Association of America) even made this statement to congress in 1982:
And this went to court in the very famous "Sony Betamax" supreme court decision. Universal Studios and Walt Disney Corporation sued the Sony Corporation for selling the Betamax.Jack Valenti said:I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
But yet again, common sense prevailed. Not only did the VCR not destroy the American film industry, but it sparked an entirely new industry. Billions of dollars were later made by buying and selling VHS tapes. Creativity flourished, and the "rights" of the copyright holders were correctly and justly ignored.
Six: The United States of America
I saved the best for last. Chronologically, this should go first. But it's most important.
The United States of America was founded as a Pirate nation. During the Industrial revolution, America was able to maintain its progress as much as it did by completely and blatantly ignoring the copyrights and patents of other countries. It was official US policy just to take and "rip off" any patents being used in Europe at the time. That way America could freely industrialize.
This, of course, upset Europe very much. Britain tried in vain to prevent the US from continuing this practice, by passing legislature such as the Iron Act of 1750.
Failing to further prevent America from infringing on their patents and copyrights, European began to call Americans "Jankes", a Dutch phrase meaning "Pirate". Americans would later take this name and mispronounce it into "Yankee".
That's right, the word "Yankee" itself means "Pirate".
Today
So today history again repeats itself. A new technology has risen which completely disrupts the current establishment. This technology is BitTorrent over the Internet. It has revolutionized the way distribution is done. It is democratized, decentralized, and efficient. But the most important aspect of BitTorrent is the mechanics of distribution.
BitTorrent is unique in the respect that it reverses the dynamics of scarcity. Typically, the more demand there is for something, the harder it is to get. Even pure information can be scarce in this respect. For example, if 10 million people all tried to log into the Smashboards at once, the servers would crash. The words on this very page right now are distributed from a single source, and that source can only handle so much weight.
What Bit Torrent does is reverse this. The more demand there is for something, the easier it is to get it. Scarcity for bits has thusly been eliminated. The only reason one cannot obtain a piece of data on the Internet over BitTorrent is because it is so unpopular as to not have anyone sharing it.
But this disrupts the current entertainment industry. They cry foul and label us as "Pirates"! They say that this new Piracy is killing creativity, and that if left unchecked will destroy entertainment completely!
Opportunity and Innovation
But what they don't see is opportunity. It is true that the era of the DVD and the CD is over. What we are seeing is transition into a completely new form of business. It may very well be the case that we see a return to Vaudeville, in a way. We are seeing not just passive media, but Social Media.
You see, one of the important differences between the Vaudeville star and the recording industry star was personal interaction with the fan. In order to be successful on stage, one must be charismatic. In order to be successful on records, you need to sound very well.
Interaction and charisma is already starting to see a rebirth in music and film through places like MySpace.com. Say what you will about the musicians present there, but there is a renaissance of artists popping up through the website. They accomplish this not purely by "sounding good" but by being friends with their fans. Connecting with them through more than just the music.
We see this with artists like Radiohead, Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails), and a whole host of others. What they do is accumulate fans who love them first, and their music second. I personally donate to both of those artists in the form of purchases and other means.
Just as some Vaudeville stars were not able to make the transition to records, some current artists will not be able to transition to the new form of media. This is not, however, the same thing as saying that creativity itself suffers. Not unless you think creativity also suffered from the invention of the phonograph, or the radio, or cable TV, or the VCR.
A Market Signal
One of the biggest things that Piracy is, is a market signal. Piracy is the consumers telling the industry that they need to do better. That the way they have been doing business for the last several decades is no longer sufficient.
For example, there is a clear demand for what many call "The Celestial Jukebox". This mythical device would be as small, trendy, available, and as accessible as an iPod. It would allow the owner to listen to any recorded audio work in history at the touch of a button. And it would allow the owner to donate a small sum of money at their discretion to the artist of the works they just listened to.
This device needn't be a myth, however. It is perfectly possible to make one! What is preventing the Celestial Jukebox from existing is not a problem of engineering, but rather a legal one. Copyright law simply does not allow such a thing to exist.
But a fruitful and workable economy can clearly be seen to be available from the Celestial Jukebox. Artists (especially of the type described above) will easily be able to make lots of money by accumulating fans over the device.
The problem is not that artists won't get paid, no. The problem is that the current established record industry plays no part in that future. The multi-billion dollar industry would be made almost completely obsolete by such a device. And so they fight to ensure that it never exists. Piracy is the fight to ensure that it does.
What Piracy is not
What Piracy is NOT is stealing. This claim that Piracy equates to theft is nothing more than a petty attempt to push aside everything above and simplify this entire topic to a single word.
Stealing is wrong. That much is obvious. Stealing is wrong because it deprives the original owner of something which they would have otherwise possessed. If you went onto my driveway and stole my car, that would be wrong. I would no longer have a car because of it! And that would be harmful to me.
But copying is not stealing. If you went into my driveway and made a copy of my car, I would be in no way damaged. In fact, if such a device existed that would allow copies of cars to be made, I would proudly place my car in my driveway for all to see and copy it! To deny someone something of value when it costs nothing to you is just plain rude. I think we all learned that lesson in Kindergarten, that it is a good thing to share.
Pirates are loyal paying customers. The myth of people downloading mounds of works and never paying a dime for anything is flatly false at worst, and hyperbolic at best. I personally own a huge collection of DVDs, purchased from a brick-and-mortar store. This is not a contradiction, this is the nature of Piracy. We do not want "everything for free". What we want is something better than what we have right now.
How you can get involved
The fight for Piracy has many battlefields. There are matters of law, social opinion, creativity, and technological works.
You can get involved politically by joining your local Pirate Party. Such as the United States Pirate Party, or several in Europe.
There are organizations involved with case law (as opposed to legislation) such a The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the good old ACLU that you can get involved with.
You can get involved socially by being open about who you are as a Pirate. (Such as by making convincing forum posts such as this one!) The media industry itself is the opponent here, so no mainstream media outlet will ever allow our side of the story to be told. Which is why this is all over the Internet, but nowhere on TV! People's opinions matter, and we want every one of them.
Piracy is a technological innovation. If you work in technology, it is important for you to make sure that what you do improves society. Technology is power in the information age. Concentrate your efforts on things that make us as a society more Free, as opposed to less Free.
And if you are an artist, make sure that you embrace and flourish in the information age. This can mean trivial things like interacting with fans on Facebook, it can mean doing drastic things like dropping a label and distributing your music yourself, and it can mean encouraging your fans to become literally involved with your work through remixing and hyperdistribution. Visit places like Creative Commons and let it be known that you are not like the RIAA and MPAA.
6) Case study: Dōjinshi This section is a case study of the Japanese art of Dōjinshi. For those who do not know what it is, Dōjinshi is a genre of Japanese Manga. It can best be described in English as "fan fiction". But there are some very interesting aspects to this community.
What they do is take existing Manga, and remix it. For example, someone might take a popular series and think "I didn't really like the way this ended. I'm going to make my own ending for it." And then they do.
Dōjinshi is creativity in its most pure form. The Japanese artists make no false pretenses about originality like we try to do in America. (see Originality section above) People read other works, they are influenced by them, and they improve them. This system of constant change and improvement is at the heart of creativity.
But what is so notable about Dōjinshi is that is is so wide spread! This is not some small sub-culture with only a few amateurs, no. Dōjinshi artists and fans like to attend conventions, the largest of which is Comiket. Comiket is the largest convention in Japan! It brings over a half a million people over the course of three days. Over half a million. All to share, remix, buy, sell, and improve Manga.
Even more incredible yet, is the fact that Dōjinshi itself is, according to Japanese law, illegal! Yet Japanese officials intentionally turn a blind eye to this, as it is such an ingrained part of the Japanese culture.
Now imagine trying to do this in America! If you tried selling a copy of "The Lion King" with a different ending, you'd get sued by Disney faster than a speeding bullet train.
This is clearly impeding the creative process. Copyright law must be made to include remixing and improving of others' works as part of Fair Use.
Solutions
Each of the above grievances are of course very valid and very specific. Yet they do not address the underlying problems that causes copyright to be inapplicable in today's world. This problem is embedded in the very name: Copyright.
Copyright is a set of laws that regulate the creation of copies. Now, this system used to make sense. Over one hundred years ago, copyright was targeted exactly toward one group: Book publishers. To make a copy in these times implied that one was a large and prosperous corporation with the infrastructure capable of producing copies of books. These publishers, rightly, did not want each other to publish books that was written by one of their authors. It would not be fair if Addison-Wesley took the latest Harper-Collins book and published it as their own without compensating A&W nor the author. So copyright allowed them to prevent this.
Why should we expect this same set of laws designed to regulate 18th century book publishers to adequately apply to 21st century software companies, motion pictures, recorded music, and still books? Furthermore, why do we require that each of these categories (Computer Software, Movies, Music, Books, etc...) have a single set of laws that govern them all? It's nonsense.
What I propose is a set of different laws for each of these categories that regulates commercial distribution appropriately for each set of circumstances. The spirit of the law is similar to the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution license. Where commercial usage is either prevented by default or provided by way of compulsory license. (Depending on the category) In each case, duration is reduced to a number approximately around 10-20 years.
In all cases, the distribution right must be registered and must be clearly indicated on the work. Unregistered works can still be marked as protected (similar to the "registered" and "unregistered" trademark system) and afforded retroactive awards to the author in the event that they become commercially viable when it was not expected to upon creation. (One can imagine a viral YouTube video. The author may not choose to register the video as they did not intend it to be of commercial value. Nonetheless, they ought to be rewarded some compensation from those who profit from the work.)
Works that prove commercially viable after their slated duration are eligible for reregistration, whereby the duration will be extended for an additional amount of time. Perhaps another 5 years or so depending on the category of work. This ensures that any rare works that remain commercially successful after their monopoly expires (which is a small minority) are afforded extra opportunity to accrue wealth to their authors. Meanwhile, the vast majority of works will move forward to the public domain where all uses are unrestricted.
A) Audio Works / Music.
Musicians in the 21st Century are booming, and digital distribution greatly enhances the ability of musicians to reach wide stretches of audiences at almost no cost. Commercial usage of an audio work (IE: A radio station, an Internet radio station, and indeed ad-based websites including file sharing websites) are required to pay a compulsory license in the same way that radio stations already do. The amount is decided by law to be meaningful (to compensate the authors) but not restrictive (which would inhibit the ability of these sites to operate).
A non-profit organization can be established to receive and distribute the funds from these compulsory licenses. Or if it proves technically feasible (which is increasingly likely) direct transfers to artists on the basis of usage on the particular sites. (One can imaging an artist receiving a certain percentage of the license fee on the basis of how many downloads / listens they get)
Non commercial and private uses of audio works are freely permitted. This includes listening to the work, sharing the work with others and remixing the work into a derivative work. All provided that proper attribution to the original is provided.
Duration can be seen in the ballpark of 15 years. Only the most rare of rare works of audio remain commercially viable after such a period. Regulating the work after this point would only serve to restrict freedom.
B) Audiovisual works / Movies.
Similarly, audiovisual works will be covered under something much like the CC-BY-NC license with a two step expiration. For a period of time, say one year perhaps two, commercial distribution is prohibited by those without the distribution right. This allows movie theatres and studios a short monopoly on all distribution. During this time, theaters and disk sales can be fully controlled by the studios.
After this period of time, commercial usage of the work becomes available to purchasers of a compulsory license. This notably includes services such as Netflix. One can imagine that the license fee will be higher than that of purely audio works. Netflix and YouTube should surely pay their fair share toward the studios that create the movies they profit from. But they should not be unjustly prevented from operating as a business at all.
After a period of perhaps 15 years, commercial distribution no longer requires a compulsory license. As always, non-commercial use and sharing of the work is always permitted.
C) Computer Software / Video Games
Duration in software should be much shorter than the other categories of works. 15 or 20 years is an eternity in computer terms. The Internet as we know it has only existed for this long. A more apt duration will be approximately 5 years.
It seems reasonable to bar commercial distribution of software within this duration. Naturally, individual agreements can be arranged on an individual basis. (IE: Steam) Non-commercial use and sharing during this period remains legal.
DRM Clause: Attempts to circumvent this law by technical means shall be illegal. This means that it will be illegal after the distribution duration has expired to try to prevent users from exercising their rights to access, use, and copying of a program by technical means.
Free Software Clause: Those wishing to offer works as Free Software under what would normally be considered a "Copyleft" license, are able to do so. In this case an additional restriction on distribution is added: That any derivative works be made also under the same Free Software license.
D) Written Works / Books.
An appropriate duration for distribution rights to books may be approximately 15 years. During this time, all commercial distribution of hardcopies (IE: Paper books) is prohibited. However, commercial distribution of softcopies (IE: e-books) are permitted under a compulsory license. Thus publishers are not permitted to publish a book they do not posses the right to, however an online service which distributes e-books is allowed to exist. (While simultaneously compensating the original authors adequately)
Exceptions:
Works of Opinion: For works of opinion, it does not make sense to permit derivative works or "remixing". To do so would be to simply falsely misrepresent the opinions of the author in a dishonest way. Thus, works of opinion may be registered as such and thereby only permit verbatim sharing of the work (IE: No derivatives)for as long as the duration lasts.
Fair Use: Existing Copyright Fair Use exceptions will still apply in this new distribution right model. An author is still permitted to freely make use of the work (including derivatives) using the existing guidelines.
Each of these specific points are certainly negotiable, but you can easily see what this vision looks like. Such a system of law would both allow for a Free Culture to thrive and provide monetary compensation to authors suitable for professional work.
Software Patents: A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention. [3]
Patents are meant to be a form of protection for inventors. It essentially says "If you come up with an invention, you can exclude others from using and/or selling this invention". It comes from the line of reasoning that "Well, if anyone could take someone else's invention, and use it as their own, then nobody would bother inventing anything, and we don't want that."
I will describe at length why the patent system as applied to software is irreparably broken, and how it is extraordinarily counter-productive. The only sensible position is Software Patents should be abolished. This is indeed the official position of many major corporations [CITATION-NEEDED], and is the law in many jurisdictions. [EXAMPLES] [CITATION-NEEDED]
1) Registering Patents. Unlike copyrights and trademarks, patents MUST be registered with the US Patent Office in order to be valid. However, this is not a straightforward process (and like all things) has been corrupted by the lawyers who use it.
The language used to describe a patent is absurdly complicated. It is so complicated and lengthy that neither the patent office nor anyone using the patent system can effectively read and understand them. If you dare, you may attempt to read some of them yourself. Go through and read some patents from here. Read one page of a single patent and you'll see what I mean.
Patents are worded with such confusing "legalese", that even absurd items like The Wheel have been successfully patented!
And also keep in mind that if you DO create an invention, and want to see if it is already patented (or if you are just doing business as usual) and want to see if you are currently stepping on someone else's patent, it is virtually impossible. It is hard enough to fully understand ONE patent, let alone having to search through all registered patents. Keep in mind here also that there is no system to search through patents. (other than broad generalizations) It is in practice quite common to be infringing on someone else's (usually IBM's) patents and never even know it, even while actively looking.
2) The Patent system breeds entire leeching corporations. You see, patents need to be registered. If you do not register your invention, then anyone else can! This naturally leads to a system where a company patents something broad and obvious, and patent it as their own. They then hold the invention hostage to an eventual victim until they settle it out of court for a sum of money.
Microsoft and IBM are both notorious for doing this. [5]
Furthermore, since patents are exceedingly difficult to understand (which is intentional) it is commonplace for corporations to sue others for patent infringement where none exists. And the sheer court costs and size of the opposition (and ambiguous nature of patents themselves) forces the defendant into settling out of court. In this way, holders of lots of patents (IBM and Microsoft, namely) are able to blackmail others into paying them money arbitrarily.
3) Mathematical Algorithms Extremely loose interpretation of the law has lead to allowing patents of software as an "invention". This is incredibly bad, however. Software is an entirely different beast than with physical inventions.
Unlike physical inventions, software systems are inherently built on top of one another. And despite regulations saying that it is not supposed to be allowed, basic algorithms and equations are commonly patented. This creates a nightmare of a situation for software developers. No matter what you do, chances are that IBM has a patent on some subsystem of yours.
A good example of this is LZW Compression. [4] LZW Compression is an algorithm for compressing data down smaller (like when you zip a file). Lots of stuff used this algorithm, including GIF files (which is pronounced with a soft G, btw. Like "Jif Peanut Butter").
It only later came out that this algorithm was patented, and thus the very use of GIF files were restricted and illegal. The holder of the patent could arbitrarily restrict anyone's use of GIF files!
This obvious, flagrant, and excessive case of patent abuse lead to a widespread shun of the GIF filetype, and the creation of the PNG type. (Pronounced "Ping". PNG also stands for "PNG, Not GIF")
For more detailed information on the GIF case, read here.
4) The myth of the 'lone inventor' and how patents are good for the little guy. You will very commonly see arguments like this in courts as well, and it does a good job at tugging at the heart strings of judges.
They paint a hypothetical situation where a lowly, poor, but intelligent man is working in his basement. He then has a wonderful idea for an invention and creates it. This invention is of great utility. It is then argued that this inventor needs to be protected from large corporations trying to use his idea without permission! So he is issued a patent, which saves the day, everyone is happy, and birds sing.
This is quite separate from reality. In reality patents benefit only the large corporations. IBM holds more patents than anyone on the planet. [6] They have so many patents in so many fields that are so vague that no matter what you create, they can sue you for patent infringement.
When a small inventor (especially software developers) comes up with a great new idea, IBM sees it. They then inform you that you are infringing on several of their patents and that they intend to prosecute the offense... unless you sell your patent to them. Faced with a court case that will cost you tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just in court costs, you will give up and sell your patent to them.
Thus IBM is able to accumulate more patents and continue this cycle even more effectively.
Other large companies like Microsoft who also have large numbers of patents get around this by cross-licensing with each other. It essentially says: "I can use your patents if you can use mine." IBM will, of course, only let you cross license if you have a large number of patents. But you don't, so you can't.
So you can see that patents do quite the opposite of "helping out the little guy". The first tip off should be that the patent laws are sponsored (aka: paid for) by IBM, HP, and other big name patent holders. Now why on earth would IBM and Microsoft want a system that is good for the little guy?
They don't. Don't be fooled.
5) Secret Patents and the First to Invent System In theory, Patents are supposed to be registered. Registration is necessary because not everything is Patentable. You cannot, after all, get Patents on things which are so obvious they don't constitute as an invention. The registration process is absolutely essential to how Patents are supposed to work.
A new inventor has to be able to know whether their creation has any Patent conflicts after making it, at least in principle if not in practice.
But this is not the case in reality. When two people have a dispute over the ownership of a Patent in America, it is awarded to whoever can prove that they made the invention first. This makes some intuitive sense.
However, this leads to the practice of “Secret Patents”. A Secret Patent is when a person or corporation makes an invention (or claims to) and keeps proof of its creation, but never registers it. This way, when someone else comes along and infringes on this Patent, they can swoop in and claim prior ownership. Thus snatching the invention away from its rightful creator... unless they pay a licensing fee.
So suppose you are an inventor, for a moment. In today's Patent system, even if you DID search exhaustively through every single registered Patent (which itself is impossible, see above), and even if you COULD determine effectively if any one of those were in conflict with your invention (which is also impossible, see above), you can STILL be sued for Patent infringement. IBM can come out and claim that they proof that they have prior creation of a component to your invention, and that they'll sue you if you don't pay up tens of thousands of dollars.
And remember, that as a lone inventor (or even a small company) you cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars in court costs to defend a Patent. This is how large corporations exploit Patent law to blackmail smaller organizations into paying sums of money.
No due process, no judge, no jury. You are guilty by mere accusation., and must pay up or be sued out of business.
Trademark Law: A trademark or trade mark, identified by the symbols ™ and ®, or mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify that the products and/or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source of origin, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. [1]
A Trademark is intended to prevent confusion amongst consumers when purchasing goods and services. It would be bad for producers and consumers alike if there were two different Gatorades right next to each other in the supermarket.
Trademarks do not need to be registered. A trademark is implicitly assigned to the creator when the item is created. Using the label ™ and ® are also not required when using the name of the item, however failing to do so may reduce significantly any winnings in court. It should also be noted that trademarks do not expire, and last indefinitely. (As long as the holder chooses to re-register)
In general, I do not have a problem with Trademark Law. The purpose is well stated and just, and most of the time the law serves this purpose. We give up a certain amount of freedom in the case of trademark law (IE: The freedom to name your organization anything you like) but this is an acceptable loss, and not one that in good faith in always necessary. There is but one main issue I have with the enforcement of Trademark Law:
Overly Aggressive Enforcement. Trademark infringement is only supposed to be enforceable if there is a legitimate conflict between the names such that it would cause customer confusion. You are, in fact, allowed to use another person's trademark as long as this conflict does not exist.
For example, if there is a small family owned bakery named "The Top Crust" in Florida, it would be trademark infringement to set up a competing bakery right next door with the same name. But it would not be trademark infringement to set up a bakery of the same name in California. This is because the geographic distance is great enough where no real conflict exists. IE: No customers would be confusing the two bakeries for one another due to their distance.
Similarly, you may have geographically close organizations sharing a name (or symbol, etc..) if they are in different enough businesses. For example, you may have a shooting range named "Target" and the well known chain store "Target" close to each other.
In reality, however, organizations attempt to stretch this law as far as possible, trying to shut down or harm other organizations where no legitimate conflict exists. A good example of this is the well known case of the WWF. The World Wildlife Foundation held this name first, and later, the World Wrestling Federation used the name.
Clearly there was no real conflict, or confusion between the two entirely separate groups. I sincerely doubt that the World Wildlife Foundation had hordes of confused wrestling fans showing up at their door. Yet the World Wresting Federation were forced to change their names. This kind of abuse of the system is not acceptable.
I would like to close by reiterating a point that I began with. Governments of the world of flesh and steel have no power over someone like me. I have the ability to do as I please on the Internet without fear. For me, cyberspace will always be Free. But this freedom should be extended to all who wishes to join our culture, and one man does not constitute a culture.
In the information age, your right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, and freedom to participate in your culture are all intrinsically linked to the Internet. Your ability to exercise these rights in the future depends on your ability to access a Free and Open Internet, devoid of censorship and old world coercion.
Thanks for reading!
-AltF4
Suggested Videos, Links, and sources of Inspiration:
1) Steal This Film 2 (part 2) (part 3) (part 4) (part 5) - An extraordinary take on file sharing and how bit torrenting over the internet is the printing press of our age. It interviews professors from well known and respected universities and leaders from well known and respected organizations. An absolute must watch for everyone.
2) Richard Stallman: No Software Patents - Richard Stallman is a legend in the computer world in general. He is one of the original MIT hackers that worked in MIT's AI lab. Richard Stallman is also known for his work in creating the GNU/Linux operating system (aka: Linux) and for founding the Free Software Movement and the Free Software Foundation.
This video is Mr. Stallman giving a guest lecture to a university hall of software developers, warning them of the dangers of software patents, and why they need to be eradicated. An excellent watch.
(Note: There are 11 parts to this video, so I won't link to each explicitly)
3) Piracy Is Good? (part 2) (part 3) (part 4) (part 5) (part 6) (part 7) - A presentation to a hall of TV executives and producers, describing to them what bit torrenting is and why they're dumb for not using it to their advantage. He goes in great detail as to exactly how one can monetize a system where content is "hyper-distributed" through bit torrenting, and how the system is indeed helping them already anyway.
This is an excellent watch, as it is being made from a business/marketing standpoint, and not a technological or moral one. The speaker makes no statements or claims about the morality issues behind file sharing, but rather spends time going in depth as to how to make money from a free information system.
4) The Free Software Foundation - The official movement toward a society with free software. You will find this organization most helpful, and informative. Also, it you will find that it is a portal to many other organizations that involve the fight for free software (or information, more generally)
5) GNU.org - (Specifically this essay) This is a free software project started by Richard Stallman. You may know this project better known as "Linux", essentially. (Though going down the road of defining what is and isn't "Linux" is difficult) Contained within the website, however, are many aspects of the Free Software Movement. I would highly recommend poking around this website. In particular, try going to their "Philosophy" section, where you can find many articles about Free Software, including the one lined above.
6) EFF.org - A non-profit organization dedicated to protecting your rights in the digital world. They fight in court against big businesses to ensure that our rights are not taken away. You can go on here and subscribe to their email newsletter, or just take a look at their recent court victories!
7) DefectiveByDesign.org - An organization rallying against the creation and use of DRM (digital restrictions management). You know when your song magically deletes itself from your iPod after listening to it 5 times? That's DRM. But other more insidious versions of DRM include the famous Sony Rootkit. (A rootkit is a kind of computer virus that cannot ever be deleted)
This website serves as a watchdog for products that contain DRM, and contains instructions, boycotts, and lots of other information revolving around stopping DRM. You can go to this website to get a list of PC games that are infected with Sony's rootkit, so that you make sure you don't get their virus.
8) "Free Culture" - A book written by Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law professor and creator of the Creative Commons organization (and license). This explores copyright law and the philosophy of a Free Culture in great detail. I for one, have not yet read this book, but am right now. (and I mean that)
*entry submitted by Lavos*
9) Cory Doctorow. "Giving it Away" This is a first hand account of why copyrights as we see them today are not necessary for books. Also, a first hand account of how making your books available freely online helps spur physical book sales, and other revenue sources.
Cory can also be seen in such cameo's as in xkcd. (He's actually mentioned quite a bit in XKCD)
10) BREAKING: The Pirate Bay Trial! The Pirate Bay is currently under trial (again) in Sweden. They were able to get a landmark ruling that allowed audio and some video recordings of the trial published freely online. However, it will do you little good unless you can speak Swedish!
Luckily our friends at TorrentFreak have some good translations. I will keep this updated as more information comes daily!
Pre-Trial Press Conference
Trial: Day 1
Trial: Day 2 (Major victory!)
Trial: Day 3 (The dreaded King Kong defense)
Trial: Day 4 (Interrogation)
Trial: Day 5 (Brokep's defense)
Trial: Day 6 (the party)
Trial: Day 7 (Evidence: FAIL)
Trial: Day 8
Trial: Day 9 (The defense begins)
Trial: Day 10 (The prosecution rests)
Pirate Bay Trial Verdict: Guilty
Plus, Wikipedia appears to have a decent page on the subject. That will also likely be very up-to-date.
Long Live The Pirate Bay! Show your support!
11) RiP! A Remix Manifesto. A stunning documentary on the importance of Freeing Culture. This video perfectly encapsulates the spirit of this thread and movement at large. The video includes interviews and clips from many of the most important people in the Free Culture movement today.
12) Tim O'Rielly on Piracy: Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution. This is a very good read from the very well known creator of O'Reilly publishing. O'Reilly is a major book publisher, and more than a credible source of insight.
In this article, he describes how piracy is no threat to him as a book publisher. And even goes to describe how publishing may look in the 21st century. He (as we all do) makes a clear distinction between people who redistribute his works for a profit, and those who merely exchange digital copies of his books. The former, he claims is not a significant threat to him as a book publisher, and the latter is indeed a benefit. Great read.
*if you have any videos online (preferably youtube or similar streaming site) post it, or PM me!*
Sources:
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
[2]: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZW
[5]: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...sy-ibm-filing10-patentsday-in-technology.html
[6]: http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/98024/ibm-grabs-top-spot-in-patent-race.html
[7]: http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2008/11/unlicensed-musi.html
[8]: http://www.riaa.com/faq.php