by Uncle Alan
It appears Congress has been educated. The recent outpouring of protest against the proposed tight-fisted SOPA and PIPA bills has led to the evaporation of virtually all support for both pieces of legislation. Even co-signers pulled back, finding the law unsupportable in its current form.
The recent outpouring of protest against the proposed tight-fisted SOPA and PIPA bills has led to the evaporation of virtually all support for both pieces of legislation.
Forget the outrageous reality that any member of Congress would co-sponsor a bill before thoroughly reading and understanding it. That’s a battle for another day. Just make note of every “co-sponsor” of either of these bills — whether they ultimately withdrew their support or not. Realize they obviously sponsored a bill they didn’t really understand and that could only be because the bill’s most ardent supporters, those who would most benefit from the bill’s passage, have very deep pockets.
Now you know how easily your Senators and Congressmen can be bought. Vote them out at your first opportunity. It’s your only currency to use against the influence of major corporate supporters.
Right now, focus on the fact that both the House and Senate have pushed their matching antipiracy legislation to the back burner. I consider this as major win. However, keep in mind the bills weren’t “killed.” The Senate and House have only declared that further action on them has been “postponed.”
For some reason (hint above), they still feel a strong need to keep both bills on the table for possible future action. I don’t trust any of them.
Meanwhile, Anonymous, the decentralized Internet agitators credited with creating and driving the Internet-wide “blackout” that brought much-needed attention to the SOPA and PIPA issue, has released a list of their related demands.
I see a lot of great ideas. Some, however, reflect an apparent lack of understanding of the value of intellectual property rights to creators of intellectual property.
Reading through the list, I see a lot of great ideas. Some, however, reflect an apparent lack of understanding of the value of intellectual property rights to creators of intellectual property. I found myself fist-pumping the air and shouting “yeah!” often, but, just about as often, I found myself wincing and muttering, “that’s just wrong-headed.”
It’s obvious to me that Anonymous’ list of demands was created by people who are, mostly, not profitable owners of intellectual rights themselves. They can’t seem to differentiate between a free and open Internet and the role that intellectual property ownership plays in the commercial growth of the market for the arts. A healthy free access to that market for creators and consumers ensures that the mega-corps remain a secondary channel, with influence that is weakening by the day.
I’m not clear from these demands how they could all possibly be met and still ensure that any artist or creator of intellectual property could eat and pay bills to continue creating. Sure – some artists create merely from their passion for art. But a lot of others depend on their art to survive and continue creating.
I’m a solid proponent of freedom of the press. I’m in favor of extending the meaning of “the press” to cover all of the Internet. It’s long overdue. And I’m definitely against SOPA/FIFA. But, I’m also definitely NOT in the “anonymous” column. I’m afraid, if all their demands were met, some would effectively cancel other important protections that help home-based one-person operations out and do more harm than good in the process.
Maybe it would be helpful if I go through the list of Anonymous’ demands and explain my views on each one.
First, we have the preamble, which I appreciate and agree with. Naming their proclamation “Bright, and Clear: The Future of Free Speech,” Anonymous states the overview of their demands, focusing on the goals it hopes to accomplish:
Bright, and Clear: The Future of Free Speech
===============================================
A rallying cry on the occassion of the Web's first mass blackout
As we watch the web go dark today in protest against the SOPA/PIPA censorship bills, let's take a moment and reflect on why this fight is so important. We may have learned that free speech is what makes America great, or instinctively resist attempts at silencing our voices. But these are abstract principles, divorced from the real world and our daily lives.
Free speech is the foundation of a free society. We can have the vote all we want. We can donate money wherever we want. But unless we're able to talk to each other and figure out collectively _what_ we want, those things don't matter.
We believe a healthy society doesn't allow its artists, musicians and other creators to starve. The copyright industry has been justly criticized for abusing the political process in a desperate attempt to maintain its role as a cultural gatekeeper, a business model made obsolete by a digital age of free copies. But the RIAA, MPAA & IFPI deserve our opprobrium for making enormous profits while often leaving the very artists it claims to represent *poorer* than they would be as independents.[1] While the public may have greater access to the few artists deemed sufficiently marketable to gain mass media promotion, fewer and fewer of us are making art and music in our own lives.
It's time we make a stand for a better world - not merely take rearguard actions to preserve a status quo that is _already_ failing us. Accordingly, we present the following list of demands:
I agree. It’s been too long now that mega-corporate media interests still maintain a stranglehold on what we’re offered as consumers of the arts. The power that the Internet grants to all artists and consumers is eroding that grip day by day, thankfully. Keeping access open and easily available to all is definitely a cause worth fighting for.
It’s also not surprising that the large corporate copyright owners would do all they could, utilizing all the financial and legal power they can muster, to defend what they perceive as the theft of the work they sell. They should pay their artists better, absolutely. Their structure will erode entirely if they continue locking creators out. If they ever hope to survive the overwhelming power the Internet grants to consumers and independent artists, they’ll have to make changes and continue changing, to maintain any relevancy they might be able to maintain.
But, they will also naturally want more for themselves now, that being the nature of most larger corporate entities with stockholders to satisfy, so many of them will probably continue to buck modern technology all along the way.
Still, the mega-corps clearly went overboard trying to push their SOPA/FIFA junk down our throats and we need to remain vigilant in resisting their obviously desperate attempts.
* We call on national legislatures to not only reject ACTA efforts to globalize the American intellectual property regime, but to abolish the WIPO.
OK. I’ll admit I had to look both of these up, to see what they were for sure. I’d heard of WIPO, but ACTA was new to me. They both might be new to you, too.
ACTA is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a voluntary measure that would better establish a framework for worldwide action against counterfeit goods and copyright infringement on the Internet. WIPO is The World Intellectual Property Organization, one of the 17 specialized agencies of the United Nations, created in 1967 “to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world”.
These two groups have also taken positions that overstep their bounds. My problem is that we need some form of protection for the rights of intellectual property holders. Without it, less artists would be supported and their contributions to the enjoyment and understanding of our lives would diminish because what they do is harder to monetized.
A better goal here, it seems to me, would be to dismantle the giants or remove their chokehold on the gateway completely – and the Internet’s already clearly doing that on its own, over time.
* We demand the elimination of the DMCA's registration requirement for qualification under the "safe harbor" provision. It's absurd that a website owner needs to mail in a form and pay a $100+ fee to the government to register a contact for copyright violations. A web page at a standard location (a la robots.txt) should suffice.
I would love to see this. It’s far too similar to the Better Business Bureau’s peer pressure extortion for my taste.
* We expect courts to apply penalties just as severe to rightsholders who issue abusive takedown notices as those applied to copyright violators.
I could get behind this, on its merit alone. It should be the right of anyone accused of copyright violation to counter-sue the rights holder if those rights are not ultimately upheld.
* No more Jammie Thomases. Any penalties for copyright infringement must be sane and reasonable and not based unsubstantiated, outlandish claims of harm.
Jammie Thomas is a Minnesota woman found liable for copyright infringement because she uploaded 24 songs to the Web in 2010. Although the original judgment against Thomas was lowered from a stupidly outrageious $1.5 million to $54,000, a deep study of the case reveals a lot of questions about the actual value of any actual loss that might have been sustained as a result of her actions. But – who defines “sane and reasonable” here?
* The Department of Justice must begin an anti-trust investigation into the copyright industry, with a specific focus on collusion between rightsholders and ISPs in monitoring Internet users, and payola and cross ownership with mass media.
I seriously doubt any collusion would be found. I don’t think ISPs necessarily liked the legislation. I can’t imagine one liking it. They could have been strong-armed by the very nature of the law itself, thinking if they don’t back it and it passes, they’ll look like supporters of piracy and make themselves targets. Otherwise, it’s not a bad demand – I just doubt it would be fruitful.
* We demand an end to sales of radio frequencies into private hands.
We hold that spectrum is a form of speech - it rightly belongs to the
people and is not the government's to auction off to begin with.
OK, but I’m a little confused. I thought this was all about Internet free speech. I don’t think we’d do well with totally uncontrolled frequencies. Chaos could ensue, with tiny stations overstomping bigger and vice-versa until only the owners of the strongest transmitters controlled the airwaves – unless, of course, everyone’s online and no one’s listening to radio anyway. Then it might be ok to turn the spectrum of frequencies over to everyone, CB-style, and see what boils up.
* We demand that ISPs stop interfering with file sharing via BitTorrent or any other protocol.
I don’t support sharing of any copyrighted information without permission of the holder of the copyright. I do know these sites facilitated other file sharing. But, I also know they are favorites among the commercial product traders. I don’t think it should be the ISP’s job to interfere with any activity on their services, however. They should be service providers, pure and simple, not law enforcement.
* We recognize a right of total ownership, not merely licensing, of products we have purchased and a right to tinker and modify them as we see fit. The Library of Congress should not be determining the acceptable boundaries of technology.
This takes me back to my point about copyright ownership. Why would people invest millions in creating software and physical products if someone else can take that invention, add one simple change, and claim it as their own, too? I’m not sure I see the incentive to create anything practical if there is no profit in it. We could seriously hurt future development of important products and services with this “total ownership” idea.
This one seems more likely a matter for the market itself to resolve. If a competitor has a similar product and allows public tinkering, which is their choice, then it could have a sales advantage over the other product. Some would play better in the open market while others would remain profitable only if controlled. Doesn’t the creator of the product control it? Isn’t it adding another layer of oppression to say you must do anything with your product that you created, including forbidding others to copy it or use it in other creations, if you wish something different?
* We reject the principle of contributory infringement entirely. While there may be bad uses, there is no bad code.
All right. I see no problem with that. It’s usually an extremely “grey” area anyway.
* We expect legislators and judges to make efforts to educate themselves about the technologies they oversee, and to call on and respect the opinions of technical experts when necessary. The Internet makes nerds of us all.
Yes! Absolutely, Yes! I whole-heartedly agree with this demand and feel there need be no further discussion. They need to do it or we vote them out on that basis alone.
* All research receiving any public funding, directly or indirectly, must be placed in the public domain upon publication.
I could get behind this, if “any public funding, directly or indirectly” was better defined. Does “any” include donations to private foundations? I realize these can be tax-deductible but, not always. And that whole “indirectly” thing can get really hairy when it comes to proving a case in court. Otherwise, it might be just as good cutting the tax deduction for certain donations to foundations that fund research projects with potential commercial applications, making it clear that tax-deductible dollars that produce any works or research much result in public domain publication of said work? Just need more clarity here and it could be a meaningful demand worth meeting.
* For the sake of innovation and competitiveness, the US Patent & Trade Office must immediately cease issuing software and business method patents, and declare all such existing patents null and void. We unequivocally reject any patents on mathematical formulas and genes or other naturally-occurring substances (human or otherwise).
I’m not sure how this would help ensure innovation if applied to creations other than business methods. Software, it seems, is like a book. It needs protection of some form, to ensure that programmers are properly compensated for the effort of their creation of code that is unique to them. I’ve never been in favor of business processes themselves being patentable. And – I thought it was already nearly impossible to patent anything naturally occurring that couldn’t be synthesized. This one gets half a clap.
* Copyright and patent terms must be reduced to reasonable lengths (two and five years from the time of creation, respectively). Works should only be eligible for the length of protection in the effect when created - the continuing extension of terms to protect Disney's ownership of Mickey Mouse must cease.
No, no and no. Here I stand up for the creator of intellectual property. Creators have rights, too, or the arts won’t grow. I see a novel or play, poem or blog post as an asset of the person who created it. Creators should be able to release their works through any open channel available to them without interference from major corporations who would rather control everything. But, what those creators build is no different in my eyes than a home built by a carpenter.
Once created and copyrighted, even intellectual property should become tangible property and property owners have rights. Two and five years from the time of creation is unreasonable. Novels can take longer to create than Anonymous’ proposed copyright would protect them following their completion. I liked the old 28 years renewable once for another 28 years, before the “new” copyright law came into effect that bases copyright on the lifetime of the creator. But, copyright must be long enough to enable artists and writers and creators of all kinds to build a body of work that continues to generate revenue that increases as the body of work grows.
A lot of artists starve at first because they haven’t yet built up a solid portfolio of works pulling in royalties, performance fees, or other compensation. Those royalty and performance fees, over time, build a career and ensure us that we have full-time working artists and creators developing more for us to enjoy. Yank away their copyright protection so soon, and a lot more will continue to starve. Less will want to even bother.
* We recognize a broad right of "fair use" as essential to a vibrant and creative culture. We will remix, sample, mash up, translate, perform, parody and otherwise create derivative works as we see fit.
Again I have to give a partial clap for this one. Fair use is already clearly defined and has been for a long while. You can’t simply “recognize a broad right” and expect that right to extend into the courts without changing the law as it stands. You have to be very careful when it comes to “sampling, mashing up, translating, performing, remixing or otherwise” other people’s copyrighted works. Work to change these laws and broaden fair use – yes. Simply declaring a different standard isn’t good enough, I’m afraid.
* Courts must accord bloggers the same rights as mainstream reporters. The right to a free press originally meant a literal, physical printing press - not membership in some government sanctioned elite. Blogs are the modern day digital equivalent.
Yes, yes yes! The courts, other media, public officials – everyone working with the public, all need to realize that bloggers are media. Now. Good or bad, blogs are just digital printing presses carrying a message that can be seen by more people than you would ever imagine, almost everywhere, instantly. Free and available to everyone with a message to send.
A blogger is just as privileged and protected by the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and of the press as any other journalist. They’re often considerably less hampered by corporate self interests and, more often than not, they’re also unreasonably tenacious in digging out the truth we need to know. This should be encouraged as it is this kind of open, accessible, instant, widespread communication that makes it much harder for administrations and mega-corps conglomerate interest groups to attack our other rights and freedoms without us knowing about it. Right on! Solid!
And that was how the list ended. Except for this wrap-up and call-to-arms:
We call upon all freedom loving Internauts to join us. We further call upon our legislators, bureaucrats and the media & telecommunications industries to immediately begin implementing our demands. The future of free speech is bright, and clear - either stand with us or get out of the way.
I’m a freedom-loving Internaut, but I can’t join. Yet.
With some further clarification, I could get behind Anonymous’ list of demands. As it stands, there are a lot of great ideas and suggestions in them. Unfortunately, there is also too much potential for harm in the opposite direction in some.
I won’t stand in the way of Anonymous’ efforts to push this agenda. But I won’t help, either. I’d rather see something more balanced crafted, so creativity continues to be rewarded and the control of the mega-conglomerates is further eroded at the same time.
These are almost it, but almost is still not good enough.
”
