Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Over in the 'plex, dj rekluse  posted the following in a thread entitled A Fair(y) Use Tale:

~~~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

Here is a very entertaining, very creative, and very important video.  Freedom of information, and limitations on that freedom, is a central issue to the world right now, and is unfortunately something that is being almost completely overlooked in mainstream awareness.

To me it is obvious that the stranglehold companies like Disney have on copyright law is part of a massive legitimacy meltdown in the media and recording industries, as modern technology continues to outpace these systems that have existed (and were necessary!) for decades.  As Ken has mentioned before, when a system experiences a real legitimacy crisis, it sends out its Inquisitors.  As a result, we can only stand back and watch as the modern-day Inquisitors (e.g. the RIAA) attempt to tighten their grasp, even to the point of filing lawsuits against children and dead people.  I wish i knew when i was a kid that we would all be pirates when we grew up!

This video, composed entirely of Disney clips, is especially pertinent as Disney is arguably the most culpable to the horrendous state of copyright law that we currently find ourselves in (especially ironic, since Walt Disney himself built his empire almost entirely upon the stories and fables found in the Public Domain.)  Each time Mickey Mouse is scheduled to move into the public domain, Disney lobbies for the government to extend copyright law to keep the octogenarian rodent privatized for another couple decades (this has become known by many as “The Mickey Mouse Clause” or “The Mickey Mouse Protection Act” - more information here and here.

As a hip-hop dj, i can really feel the effects of this sort of blatant disregard for fair use in general, the sampling culture in particular.  Gone are the golden days of hip-hop masterpieces like the Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique, which was crafted by stitching together decades of pop-culture relevance into a single album.  Instead we have a system where barely talented moguls like Puff Daddy can rip off an entire song wholesale, add a pre-programmed backbeat, and call it his own–simply because he has the money.  So rather than hearing a single track composed from dozens of different cultural artifacts, mixed and blended into something that is demonstrably novel, the majority of mainstream hip hop culture has sadly devolved from remix culture to rehash culture.  (Thank God for the underground and real sampling pioneers like DJ Shadow….!!!)  These are symptoms in hip hop of a much larger and more hideous epidemic, and the legal system surrounding Intellectual Property Law is directly to blame for institutionalizing the disease.  And as if that wasn't bad enough, we are currently exporting this legalistic fundamentalism into other countries–in order to be accepted into the World Trade Organization, a country must first adopt and enforce America's intellectual property laws.

What would you say an integral response to copyright/fair use would be?  Obviously, a flat green “information is 100% free!” is not the solution–artists, writers, directors, producers, etc. all have the right to pursue Right Livelihood through their own creativity, so some sort of compensatory system is obviously required.  This raises several interesting questions about the nature of “ownership” itself, epecially as it relates to art and ideas–once a piece of art has been created and released into the world, to whom does it ultimately belong?  Surely the artist/s must retain some level of ownership–these things are almost always born from the sweat and tears of individuals, and again, their pursuit of Right Livelihood must never ever come into question.  And yet, tetra-arising with this understanding, there are also dimensions of the artifact/idea which can be seen as belonging to a) the observer/s, and b) the culture.  As the preceding video points out, culture propagates itself by building upon what's come before–little does P Diddy know that he himself is sitting (and shitting) upon the shoulders of giants.  As long as ideas and artifacts continue to be imprisoned by such fundamentalistic privatization–stripped of all subjective and intersubjective depths and reduced to mere quantifiable its, ultimately quarantined from its own cultural significance–how can our global culture continue to surge forward; its waves beating upon the shores of our collective future, slowly eroding the calcified systems of yesterday's obsolescence?  Is there any hope for a new system of intellectual property rights which honors all the necessary perspectives?  If so, do you have any ideas about what it would look like, and what it would take to dismantle the current system, and its 21st century Inquisitors, in order to create a new one?  Or is this something we can expect to change only “funeral by funeral”?

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

The band Negativland gets into copyright trouble all the time, which sucks because they produce a lot of fascinating, thought-provoking and sometimes freakin' hilarious material.  Here's a cool video by them offering another perspective this issue:  Gimme the Mermaid.

And here's Negativland's Mark Hosler on Copyright and Creative Commons.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Corey,

Thanks for raising this issue and asking the question:  ”What would you say an integral response to copyright/fair use would be?”

This is one thorny subject.  As an artist, and as a technology patent holder and intellectual property developer, I have yet to be “exposed” to  the down side of this.  My strong tendency is to side with the artist/IP developer and routinely refuse to accept “copied” merchandise.  This goes for everything.  In the past, I have been pretty virtuous about it and marvel at the ease with which others just skip the ethics and take what they want.

Yet, its not so simple.  What if a friend buys a book, reads it, and gives it to me?  Or I borrow a cd or dvd?  They own it.  I am borrowing it.  The author, filmaker, musician is not going to get a dime from this under market economy.  What is the difference if a friend burns me a copy of a movie he bought or lends his to me to view?  Murky little difference - either way, the “artist” is stiffed.

There are a bazillion ways that this dilemma plays itself out.  The Disney example of mining the public domain and then claiming (and getting) copyright is a big one.

When you say,  ”Obviously, a flat green “information is 100% free!” is not the solution-artists, writers, directors, producers, etc. all have the right to pursue Right Livelihood through their own creativity, so some sort of compensatory system is obviously required.  This raises several interesting questions about the nature of “ownership” itself, epecially as it relates to art and ideas-once a piece of art has been created and released into the world, to whom does it ultimately belong?  Surely the artist/s must retain some level of ownership-these things are almost always born from the sweat and tears of individuals, and again, their pursuit of Right Livelihood must never ever come into question.”

“so some sort of compensatory system is obviously required …”  Basically, here, you get what you negotiate - and that is only with the initiail producer/publisher/distributor set - everyone else can just copy away to their heart's content as the technology to do so is cheap and readily available.  It suffers from the perception that it is a “small” crime, and the likelihood that you will ever be caught is so slim as to not pose any risk at all.  It has appeal even, a little of “living dangerously” about it, the “rebel shadow” arises.

I have thought about this for years and have never come close to any kind of “start” on a system that would both guarantee compensation AND preclude piracy.

When I first started down the IP trail, I was consumed about becoming rich and famous.  I sweated my patents, the proofs of concept, secrecy, the best lawyers, high-end patent searches etc.  Years went by with no takers on the licensing end, expenses mounted, foreign applications were dropped because they were too spendy to pursue.  My attitude began to change.  My work, though truly, radically, innovative, was still conducted upon the shoulders of giants.  If anyone deserved the big payoff, it was them.  This led me to wonder just what I did own, what was really just mine, that I could claim?  It wasn't much really, just a couple of profoundly simple insights that I had the stubborness to pursue.  Now, finally, after many years, the whole thing is starting to take off - an idea whose time has finally come.  I have been functionally bankrupt for years but just too stubborn to quit. 

Still, the question remains:  what is mine to claim?  I can't throw all the hours I spent in as justification, that was my choice, nor all the money from others as that was their choice.  I think that the IP is really mostly public domain to begin with.

Even a singer/songwriter, the perfect example of individual effort, is still borrowing on the zeitgeist, is still using words, and imagery that are fundamentally of the public domain, is still employing technology developed by faceless others to produce, promote, and present the “art.”  I think that it may be presumptuous to claim “ownership” of the entire product.  It is a thorny subject indeed.  IMO many people get into producing lucrative, plagiarized, copyprotected “art” for purely mercenary reasons (the Puff Daddy path) and, recognizing where the $ comes from, put extraordinary efforts in to tight ass contracts and bullying infringement “protection.”  This leaves the little artsy lambies to be feasted upon by the piratical wolves no matter what the medium.

I am beginning to think that the only solution is for the artist to make as much $ as possible with the “introduction” of the art (the first edition, if you will) and say the hell with the rest as it is basically impossible to police.

As a technology “inventor” I am changing modes from filing patents to a hothouse concept that holds its technology close only revealing it to clientele who are incented to keep it to themselves.  Again, the basic question:  just what is it that we really “own” and why do we want to restrict access to it only to the people who will pay?  There is nothing particularly Integral about that.  Why not, in bliss, just turn the whole idea over to the public domain and rely on the grace of good fortune (or some other such silly idealist feedback) to sustain you in the style to which the Kosmos sees fit?  If one is an effective “artist/inventor/entrepeneur” one is also quite clever about finding a way to get under the $ hose.  Getting all exercised about extracting the maximum and making sure that no one else benefits financially from your work is a huge fucking distraction and will KILL the creative energy sooner or later.  Creativity, after all, serves best when it is a pure gift.

So, I don't have the answer except to counsel relaxing on the whole deal.  The media moguls are going to do what they want no matter what, its the Indies that are exposed.  Indies can choose to submit for the protection or just wing it, hoping for the best.  Besides, people only copy shit that is successful - that makes for good ad copy, “Most pirated band in the SF Bay Area!!!!”

Yer pal,
Michael

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

from http://www.eff.org/share/compensation.php

Making P2P Pay Artists Online music distribution is here to stay. And although it presents a challenge to old business models, artists and copyright holders can make a living with these new technologies. Online distribution lowers costs and increases exposure; all that is needed are new ways for music lovers to support and pay the artists they love. Below are short descriptions of several potential payment methods, with links to detailed analyses and examples. To simplify these descriptions, we use an economic metaphor: imagine all the dollars spent on music as a large pie. Until recently, each artist or copyright holder's slice of the pie was defined by the number of copies of physical recordings sold primarily through retail outlets. With the advent of high-quality, low-bandwidth digital recordings, slicing the pie becomes much more interesting - and potentially more rewarding for artists, copyright holders, and consumers alike. The key is finding a new system for music lovers to compensate artists and copyright holders. Voluntary Collective Licensing It sounds obvious: major labels could get together and offer fair, non-discriminatory license terms for their music. This is called ”voluntary collective licensing,” and it has been keeping radio legal and getting songwriters paid for 70 years. It protects stations from lawsuits while collecting payment for the songs they play. The record companies could solve the payment problem tomorrow, without changing any laws. Napster asked them to do it in 2001. Kazaa has also tried to get licenses in the past. Both requests were rejected by the major labels at the time, but it's not too late to start the dialogue. Individual Compulsory Licenses If artists, songwriters, and copyright holders were required to permit online copying in return for government-specified fees, companies could compete to painlessly collect these fees, do the accounting, and remit them to the artists. The payment to each artist need not directly reflect what each consumer pays, as long as the total across all artists and all consumers balances. Anyone could start such an intermediary company. Some companies might charge a flat rate per month, some might charge per song or per bandwidth, some might offer a single lifetime payment. Consumers would have the option to sign up with whichever of these services was most convenient or least intrusive for them. Consumers who don't download music, or don't mind the risk of a lawsuit, would not be required to buy a license. Ad Revenue Sharing Sites like the Internet Underground Music Archive, EMusic.com, and Artistdirect.com provide an online space for fans to listen to music streams, download files, and interact with artists. In the meantime, these fans are viewing advertisements on the site, and the revenues are split between the site and the copyright holders. Like radio, the money that funds the pie comes from advertisers, not consumers. But unlike radio, artists are rewarded directly. And since these sites often host a page for member artists, other payment methods are possible at the same time. IUMA, for example, compensates artists for both ad views and song downloads. P2P Subscriptions P2P software vendors could start charging for their service. Music lovers could pay a flat fee for the software or pay per downloaded song. The funds could be distributed to artists and copyright holders through licensing agreements with studios and labels or through a compulsory license. In 2001, Napster and Bertelsmann AG were considering such a subscription service. Although Napster's legal battles with the recording industry removed it from the playing field, recent attempts at a subscription service (such as Apple's iTunes Music Store) show that consumers are willing to pay for downloaded music. Digital Patronage and Online Tipping Direct contribution from music lovers is a very old form of artist compensation, ranging from a simple passing of the hat to the famed patronage of Florence's Medici family. As content has moved to digital form, so has the form of payment. With an online tip jar such as the Amazon Honor System, artists can ask for donations directly from their websites, in amounts as small as one dollar. Patronage sites such as MusicLink have also emerged, which allow consumers to seek out the musicians and songwriters they'd like to support. Either way, consumers are given an easy, secure method to give directly to the artists they admire. Microrefunds As a twist on online tip jars, Brad Templeton introduced the interesting idea of making “opt-out” the default for paying for copyrighted works. The system, called ”microrefunds,” would collect small fees for each copyrighted work accessed and total them into a monthly bill. Upon reviewing the bill, charges that seemed too high or were for songs the consumer did not enjoy could be revoked. Instead of making a purchasing decision every time they want to hear a song, consumers could review their charges periodically. The billing could fit into a P2P subscription system, or as part of a music service such as the iTunes Music Store. Bandwidth Levies Several people have nominated ISPs as collection points for P2P. Every Internet user gets web access from an ISP, and most have a regular financial relationship with one as well. In exchange for protection from lawsuits, ISPs could sell “licensed” accounts (at an extra charge) to P2P users. Alternatively, they could charge everyone a smaller fee and give their customers blanket protection. The latter model would, however, charge people whether or not they download music. Media Tariffs Another place to generate revenue is on the media that people use to store music, also known as a ”media tariff.” Canada and Germany tax all recordable CDs and then distribute the funds to artists. In the U.S., we have royalty-paid recordable CDs and data CDs. It's difficult to pay artists accurately with this system alone, but other data (statistics from P2P nets, for instance) could be used to make the disbursement of funds more fair. Concerts Tried and true, concerts are a huge source of revenue for musicians. Some, like the Grateful Dead and Phish, have built careers around touring while encouraging fans to tape and trade their music. P2P dovetails into this model nicely, providing a distribution and promotion system for bands who choose to make money on the road. Conclusion There are many options available to make sure that artists receive fair compensation for their creativity. Today, convoluted and outdated copyright law is being used to claim that 60 million Americans are criminals. It's time to look seriously at the alternatives and start a dialogue with Congress to bring copyright law in tune with the digital age. Click here to read more about making P2P legal. Links: - Join EFF - Making P2P Legal - Making P2P Pay Artists - Read more about the Morpheus case - Ask Congress for public hearings on P2P - Full page ad. For a print quality size TIFF please e-mail ren@eff.org?Subject=Print%20Ad">ren@eff.org - Stealing and Sharing by Jessica Litman - http://www.eff.org/share/%0d%0a%0d%0a">Send this page to a friend Media Coverage: - Recording Industry Withdraws Music Sharing Lawsuit (Sept. 24, 2003) - File sharing must be made legal (Sept. 12, 2003) - 'Amnesty' for Music File Sharing Is a Sham (Sept. 10, 2003) - Why the RIAA's “Amnesty” Offer is a Sham (Sept. 9, 2003) - Recording Industry Announces Lawsuits Against Music Sharers (Sept. 8, 2003) - Recording Industry Plans “Amnesty” for Music Sharers (Sept. 5, 2003)

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

from http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/

Article from:

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

BTW, since about 2003 in Canada we've been legally allowed to download music from the Internet through P2P services because we pay a surcharge on all recording media which is somehow distributed to artists (I'm not sure how the details work).  The media companies wanted to have the surcharge AND to be able to sue people who download music, but here (unlike in the US) the courts basically said, “No, you can't have that kind of double dipping - since you're already charging everyone for storage media under the assumption that they will be downloading music etc. without paying for it, you can't also sue people for doing so.”  I'm sure the situation is imperfect and could be improved, but it is - hell, just about anything would be - better than the current situation that exists in America.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

from http://www.37signals.com/

Sex, Drugs and Updating Your Blog describes how some small-scale recording artists are succeeding on the web. One interesting bit mentions the “pay what you can policy” used by Jane Siberry. The result: People wind up paying more than they would at iTunes.

The Canadian folk-pop singer Jane Siberry has a clever system: she has a “pay what you can” policy with her downloadable songs, so fans can download them free — but her site also shows the average price her customers have paid for each track. This subtly creates a community standard, a generalized awareness of how much people think each track is really worth. The result? The average price is as much as $1.30 a track, more than her fans would pay at iTunes.

Choose an option and you see stats on what other customers chose:

Her store provides an open letter that explains the policy:

Like many, I’m restless and impatient with living in a world where people are made to feel like shoplifters rather than intelligent peoples with a good sense of balance. I want to treat people the way I’d like to be treated. ‘Dumbing UP’ (as opposed to ‘dumbing down’)….You decide what feels right to your gut. If you download for free, perhaps you’ll buy an extra CD at an indie band’s concert. Or if you don’t go with your gut feeling, you might sleep poorly, wake up grumpy, put your shoes on backwards and fall over. Whatever. You’ll know what to do…This is not a guilt trip. Feel no pressure. The most important thing is that the music flow out to where it could bring enjoyment. And THAT is the best thing you could give me.

The current pricing statistics listed at the site:
18% Gift from Artist
18% Standard
05% Pay Now
58% Pay Later

Avg Price/Song $1.17
07% Paid Below Suggested
80% Paid At Suggested
14% Paid Above Suggested

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

see also The Brave New World of Free Fiction

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Here's something from http://www.commondreams.org to throw into the stew:

The new documentary “War Made Easy” isn’t just a searing critique of how administrations over the past 40 years have manipulated the media to build support for war. The 72-minute film is a media provocation itself - a challenge to federal copyright laws.

Based on a 2005 book by Bay Area media critic Norman Solomon and narrated by actor Sean Penn, roughly 90 percent of “War Made Easy” consists of archival news footage from major television networks that would cost a ton of money to license - if the filmmakers had paid for all of it; they bought only about 60 percent from distributors.

The filmmakers say they are protected under the “fair use” provision of federal copyright law, a measure that is being tested in ways unimagined when it was codified 30 years ago.

The film arrives at a time when some major media companies are rethinking the value of their copyrighted material and how much of it they’re willing to share with videomakers and documentarians like Solomon. While media giant Viacom is suing the online video-sharing site YouTube and its parent company Google for hosting clips to which Viacom holds copyright, other media companies are slowly loosening their hold as the gatekeepers of information.

Over the past few weeks, CNN, ABC and NBC have announced they will allow footage of the presidential debates that they broadcast to be used on other media platforms under certain conditions. For example, NBC requests that debate footage not be used for commercial purposes, that the network’s moderators or journalists not be used in campaign advertising and that its logo be prominently displayed when a clip is used.

But while some of those provisions sound similar to what’s in federal copyright law, what is fair use remains the subject of debate.

“The similarities in all this is that we’re all feeling our way in the digital era in the area of fair use,” said Patrick Ross, executive director of the newly formed Copyright Alliance, a Washington trade group whose supporters include movie studios, television networks and artists interested in preserving copyright protection.

The networks’ decisions “are fantastic for anybody who has anything to say about the presidential race,” said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at the Center for the Internet and Society at Stanford University. “What you’re going to see in this election cycle is an explosion of people expressing themselves in different ways using video. This is going to get more people participating in the process.”

After seeing how debate clips turned up on YouTube and blogs - and were mashed up into parodies - “the networks realized that you can either work with people or you can fight them,” said Jason Schultz, an attorney specializing in intellectual property law at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

“This also shows the power of popular marketing on the Internet. How word-of-mouth spread online is being recognized as a legitimate marketing tool,” Schultz said.

But the networks’ generosity with political debate coverage doesn’t extend to their entertainment content, where the big money is made.

Recently, unaired pilot episodes of new series like NBC’s remake of “Bionic Woman” and CW’s “The Reaper” found their way online through several video-sharing sites. Some in the television industry whispered that the networks had intentionally leaked the episodes to generate buzz for their new shows before they premiered on TV. Networks representatives vehemently deny doing so.

An ABC executive said his network wouldn’t leak a show online because it wouldn’t want to risk losing any viewers who might tune into the show’s broadcast premiere. The network, like others, doles out bits of its entertainment programming on its online site and on other platforms with the goal of luring audiences to its broadcasts - where ratings are measured and advertising dollars are made.

“I look at (sampling content for free online) in the same way that I see Coca-Cola sampling its product,” said Michael Benson, executive vice president of advertising, marketing and promotion at ABC Entertainment. “You give people a taste. You don’t give them a whole six-pack.”

Political programming is a different, less profitable, beast. Most presidential debates don’t draw the audience that a network entertainment show does - even for the show’s repeats.

Free content is being pitched as a civic offering, as CNN announced May 7: “The presidential debates are an integral part of our system of government, in which the American people have the opportunity to make informed choices about who will serve them. We believe this is good for the country and good for the electoral process.”

In recent weeks, other networks - including NBC and ABC - have changed their policies to allow use of footage from the presidential debates. NBC’s policy went into effect after last week’s AFL-CIO debate in Chicago, which was broadcast on MSNBC.

Getting the networks to release their debate footage is a rare example of bipartisan media organizing; liberal organizations like MoveOn.org and conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin joined forces to pressure the networks.

“We know that people are going to do it. This just legitimizes it,” said Mike Krempasky, a conservative who founded RedStateblogs.com.

But industry advocate Ross doesn’t think this will lead to the networks releasing more entertainment programs online.

“You don’t see NBC-Universal releasing ‘The Bourne Ultimatum’ for free online because there is still a tremendous amount of value in that,” Ross said. “I’m not clear how much value there is in a political debate as the campaign wears on.”

Solomon, a media critic who has written 12 books, was dubious about the value of the debate footage, which he described as containing “an overdose of rhetoric and fogging language. What we are sharing with the public are the political equivalent of cooked books,” he said.

Even so, not every network is on board with sharing. CBS, which isn’t scheduled to broadcast a presidential debate until December, declined to comment on its plans. Fox News has no plans to offer unlimited use of its debate content.

“That, to me, is giving up too much control to somebody who didn’t create the content and who can then turn around and monetize it,” said Chris Silvestri, vice president of legal and business affairs at Fox News.

Silvestri hadn’t seen Solomon’s film, which uses content from Fox and the other major networks, nor had any other network representatives that were contacted. The question of whether to pursue legal action against a documentary “is always tricky in a fair-use case,” Silvestri said. If just a few seconds of clips are used in a larger, “transformative” way, as the law states, then that’s generally OK.

“But if more than that are used, that’s when it gets harder. Do you fight the fight? Or do you let something like this go? Every case is different,” he said. He invites documentarians to use whatever they think they can, “but they’d better be prepared to defend what they use in court.”

The financial considerations of fair-use law can be even murkier.

While “War Made Easy” was made by a nonprofit company, federal law prohibits the use of copyrighted material for commercial purposes. The film’s national theatrical premiere will be Aug. 24 at the Roxie Cinema in San Francisco.

“The film is definitely a challenge to the fair-use laws,” said “War Made Easy” producer and co-writer Loretta Alper. “But we think we are on solid legal ground. This is criticism, and you can’t do criticism without showing what you’re criticizing.”

And there’s plenty of criticism in “War Made Easy.” It includes the 1968 clip of a commentary by iconic CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, a piece long-lauded for turning public opinion against the Vietnam War.

But it also shows a CBS news segment from 1965 when Cronkite accompanied U.S armed service personnel in Vietnam on a bombing mission near Da Nang. After his in-flight description of how the plane detonated its bombs on those below, Cronkite steps out of the plane, turns to a crew member and says, “Well, Colonel, it’s a great way to go to war.”

Some in audience groaned at the scene at a recent screening of the film at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland.

Solomon describes Cronkite’s comment as part of a continuing legacy of the media “idolizing” the military during war. “You need to have the clips to show that in a continuum,” Solomon said.

And after a lifetime as a print journalist and author, Solomon has discovered “the visceral thrill” of video. Provided there are no lawsuits involved.

© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Let's throw Copyleft into this integral stew.  From the Copyleft Wikipedia article:

~~~~~

Copyleft is a play on the word copyright and is the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions.

Copyleft is a form of licensing and may be used to modify copyrights for works such as computer software, documents, music, and art. In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme. A widely used and originating copyleft license is the GNU General Public License (GPL). Similar licenses are available through Creative Commons - called Share-alike.

Copyleft may also be characterized as a copyright licensing scheme in which an author surrenders some but not all rights under copyright law. Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain (where no copyright restrictions are imposed), copyleft allows an author to impose some but not all copyright restrictions on those who want to engage in activities that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Under copyleft, copyright infringement may be avoided if the would-be infringer perpetuates the same copyleft scheme. For this reason copyleft licenses are also known as reciprocal licenses.

~~~~~

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Fairshare is another interesting scheme for making sure artists are compensated for their work, while fostering creativity and availability of creative works:

FairShare is an idea for a voluntary investment-based patronage system to replace patents and copyright while still insuring that artists are fairly compensated. It was designed by Freenet creator Ian Clarke, Steven Starr and Rob Kramer in response to allegations that artists would not receive adaquate compensation for their work without enforceable copyrights.

In the FairShare system, the investor/patrons would provide venture capital. Clarke envisions that 45% of the money invested in a given artist would go directly to that artist, while another 45% would be given to previous investors. The remaining 10% would be kept by the maintainers of each FairShare service company.

In some ways this model is similar to a pyramid scheme, but Clarke counters that a vital difference is that nobody would be promised a return on their investment. He argues that regardless of any profits, each patron would have the satisfaction of knowing that they supported an artist whose work they appreciate. Also, earlier investors would profit more, thus rewarding them for investing in artists before they became more popular. The early investors would serve a similar role to studios' talent scouts.

[edit] See also

• Open Music Model
• Copynorms
• Share-alike
• Copyleft
• Copyright-free
• Creative Commons
• Public domain
• File sharing

• Peer-to-peer

• Anti-copyright
• Gift economy

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Check out this Wikipedia article on the Creative Commons project.  From the article:

~~~~~

Aim

The Creative Commons licenses enable copyright holders to grant some or all of their rights to the public while retaining others through a variety of licensing and contract schemes including dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms. The intention is to avoid the problems current copyright laws create for the sharing of information.

The project provides several free licenses that copyright owners can use when releasing their works on the Web. It also provides RDF/XML metadata that describes the license and the work, making it easier to automatically process and locate licensed works. Creative Commons also provides a “Founders' Copyright”^[1] contract, intended to re-create the effects of the original U.S. Copyright created by the founders of the U.S. Constitution.

All these efforts, and more, are done to counter the effects of what Creative Commons considers to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive permission culture. In the words of Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons and former Chairman of the Board, it is “a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past”.^[2] Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these restrictions.^[3][4]

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

I'm continuing to study the Creative Commons licensing schemes, and two I find particularly interesting are the Founder's Copyright, in which you retain full copyright protection for 14 or 28 years, after which point the material becomes fully public domain (this is closer to the way copyright originally worked), and the Developing Nations copyright:

Developing Nations

The Developing Nations license allows you to invite a wide range of royalty-free uses of your work in developing nations while retaining your full copyright in the developed world. For the detailed terms, see the Commons Deed and Legal Code below.

The Developing Nations license allows, for the first time, any copyright holder in the world to participate first-hand in reforming global information policy. The fact is that most of the world's population is simply priced out of developed nations' publishing output. To authors, that means an untapped readership. To economists, it means “deadweight loss.” To human rights advocates and educators, it is a tragedy. The Developing Nations license is designed to address all three concerns.

Read more about the history of the Developing Nations license.

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

~~~~~

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

The following is from http://creativecommons.org/:

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Cross-posted from a kindred thread on the 'plex.

Corey, although I was interested in this subject before, and had been exposed to such issues in the past - through my interest in netagivland, the open source movement, posts and blogs by Rommel, etc., this thread did much to spark my current semi-obsession with the subject.  Thanks for that.  :)  I believe it is one of the most important issues of our times.

I've veered off on fascinating tangents (as reflected by various posts on this thread) and in particular the use of Creative Commons licensing schemes.  Under CC you - the owner of any copyrighted work - can choose to give up some Arthur/adastra says:[quote]Corey, I've been interested in this subject before, and been exposed to these issues in the past - through my interest in netagivland, the open source movement, posts and blogs by Rommel, etc., but this thread has helped to spark my current semi-obsession with the subject - thanks for that.  [:D]  I believe it is one of the most important issues of our times.

I've been reading up on various aspects of this topic, in particular the use of Creative Commons licensing schemes.  Under CC you - the owner of any copyrighted work - can choose to give up some rights to your work (hence the phrase ”some rights reserved”).  For example, you can specify that you automatically allow unlimited copying of the work, as long as it is copied in unchanged form and you are attributed authorship.  Or you can explicitly allow people to modify the work, as long as they allow other people down the line to modify the resulting work (“share alike”).  You can forbid use of the work for commercial purposes, or allow that.  (My understanding is that CC licenses are non-exclusive, meaning you can have a non-commercial general license and also use your work commercially or negotiate a commercial contract with someone.)  These practices enrich the media landscape for all of us.

Just last night I found out - by watching the entertaining and informative short videos at the Creative Commons website - that in the United States, the creator is automatically the copyright holder of their work the moment they make or record it (I had assumed that some process had to be gone through to establish such ownership).

This is very cool.  It means that the instant someone writes or records something, they own that work with full copyright protection; and if they register under CC (a quick and simple process) - can choose to retain/relinquish various rights as suits their purposes and intentions.

Since you have been following these issues for some time, Corey, I'm wondering what you think about the CC scheme?  Do you feel that CC licensing - which is evidently growing in leaps and bounds - will force change in the way copyright is handled in general?  That is, if large numbers of people are consciously choosing to relinquish certain rights in ways that are much more flexible and permissive than the practices of the powerful corporate content providers currently in “inquisition mode,” might this cause a sea change in the way the whole system operates?   Founder's Copyright - in which people voluntarily retain copyright for 14 years and then release it into the public domain (in other words, the way copyright originally functioned) - is another infectious idea which might shift the playing field if it is widely adopted.

Also, how does I-I collectively feel - or what is the diversity of opinions - on CC licensing schemes with regards to integral material?  Do you know of any integral authors who are using CC or Founder's Copyright for their material?  Has there been any speculation on licensing AQAL Journal, the What Is Integral? PDF, or other basic material under CC?

I'm specifically asking Corey these questions, but of course I'm interested in what others have to say as well.

curiously,
arthur

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

The Fair Use Network looks like a great source of information on how fair use actually works (for those who really want to get into it).  From their main page:

~~~

Why the Fair Use Network?

How much can you borrow, quote or copy from someone else's work? What happens if you get a “cease and desist” letter from a copyright owner? These and many other questions make “intellectual property,” or “IP,” law, a mass of confusion for artists, scholars, journalists, bloggers, and everyone else who contributes to culture and political debate.

The Fair Use Network was created because of the many questions that artists, writers, and others have about “IP” issues. Whether you are trying to understand your own copyright or trademark rights, or are a “user” of materials created by others, the information here will help you understand the system — and especially its free-expression safeguards.

If you have received a “cease and desist” letter from a copyright or trademark owner, or a notice from your Internet service provider about a “takedown” letter, you'll also find useful information on this site.

~~~

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

There are directories of work licenced under Creative Commons, as well as a way to search for such material using search engines like google (to find out more about how the latter works, click here).

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

see also Content Industries: Open or Disintermediated
             I Can't Stop Thinking! #6: Coins of the Realm Part Two

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Let's hear it for Radiohead!  I just read in an Ubuntu forums thread that they are letting fans decide what to pay to download their latest album:

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Dude, you read it in a forum? It's been all over the news for the past week :)

I agree that it's a cool move…

Pelle

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Pelle: Dude, you read it in a forum? It's been all over the news for the past week :)

~~~

hehehe - I am almost never exposed to conventional radio or TV, and don't tend to peruse general news sites…meanwhile, in another part of the kosmos:

Great news from Boing Boing:

Rucker's Postsingular is a free, CC download!

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

from Boing Boing…avast!

Indie film producer thanks pirates for downloading his movie

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Finding a balance between Fair Use and Copy Rights seems like a really difficult balancing act.

On one hand, an artist needs to make a living, on the other music has always evolved hiearchically.  Trying to copyright the lower rungs of the ladder is just ridiculous.


What is really needed here is a new business model.

Digg ran a story a couple weeks ago, about Vinyl making a comeback.  http://digg.com/music/Vinyl_May_Be_Final_Nail_in_CD_s_Coffin

You get the huge cover art, the warm sound of analog, and a coupon letting you download the mp3 version of the record for free.  I can really see this business model taking off someday.




In the end, any model that doesn't incorporate the creative participation of fans and other musicians just won't cut it.  Culture is not something you can monopolize.

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Eugene: In the end, any model that doesn't incorporate the creative participation of fans and other musicians just won't cut it.  Culture is not something you can monopolize.

Right, and approaches to this issue have to accommodate new technologies and the way people use them.  Speaking of vinyl…



spiral out,
arthur

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

History really does repeat itself.

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

History doesn't repeat, but it sure rhymes an awful lot!  :P

Liz sent me a link to a great 19 minute talk by Larry Lessig on this subject, which I highly recommend:

Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law

Re: Integral Approach to Copyright/Fair Use?

Piercing the peer-to-peer myths: an examination of the Canadian experience

Canada is in the midst of a contentious copyright reform with advocates for stronger copyright protection maintaining that the Internet has led to widespread infringement that has harmed the economic interests of Canadian artists. The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) has emerged as the leading proponent of copyright reform, claiming that peer–to–peer file sharing has led to billions in lost sales in Canada.

This article examines CRIA’s claims by conducting an analysis of industry figures. It concludes that loss claims have been greatly exaggerated and challenges the contention that recent sales declines are primarily attributable to file–sharing activities. Moreover, the article assesses the financial impact of declining sales on Canadian artists, concluding that revenue collected through a private copying levy system already adequately compensates Canadian artists for the private copying that occurs on peer–to–peer networks.