CBC on Copyright Censorship
p2pnet.net news view:- The CBC is taking the opportunity this week to do a massive focus on the issue of censorship around the world with no less then 17 of CBC Radio’s regular programs making one or more significant contributions to the project.
I looked through the entire line up which certainly looks extensive. It includes issues of censorship in music, film, journalism and more from all around the world. It is extensive, but it also has one glaring hole which unfortunately, I wasn’t at all surprised to see – copyright as a form of censorship.
As can be seen from the CBC’s line up, it’s an issue that often flies below the radar of most people and the mainstream media.
Copyright as censorship is also distinctive from other forms of censorship in that it can be practiced by governments and corporations equally.
And it is.
Cases in point:
In an effort to keep some of its more controversial documents out of the eyes of junior members and outsiders, the church of Scientology has accused many detractors of copyright infringement when they made serious accusations against the organization.
In the United Kingdom, the government threatened to sue a former ambassador Craig Murray with copyright infringement if he released public documents he’d used to base a book, critical of the government, on. In the UK, like Canada, crown copyright exists on all government documents, and the government can use that copyright to control access to the documents.
In another recent Canadian case involving the “Michelin Man,” Michelin sued the Canadian Auto Workers for a pamphlet they’d distributed which depicted the famous marshmallow-like Bibendum figure about to stomp on the head of a much smaller worker. Michelin won on the charge of copyright infringement.
In yet another case, a fellow named Ric Silver claimed to own copyright of a particular dance step called the electric slide. Many videos on YouTube and other sites where issued with DMCA takedown notices when Mr. Silver discovered the content and decided he didn’t like them.
Leaving aside the validity of being able to claim copyright on a dance step, to order videos removed when there is no financial risk to you simply because you don’t like it, is undeniably censorship.
Likewise, the other examples above are also censorship, and there are many many more which could be brought forward.
Unfortunately, as a society we do not see copyright as a tool to silence those we don’t like. We only appear to see it as a protector if creations, and by extension the creators. Perhaps that’s why there’s such a large and perpetual global movement afoot to extend copyright.
Darryl Moore on Digital Copyright Canada.
Also See:
Reuters – YouTube Anti-Piracy Software Policy Draws Fire, February 19, 2007
recently demanded – Beat the Viacom Dragnet, February 19, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
February 20th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I have read that this is how it all started – in England – copyright as a substitute for censorship.
A search found this (US sites):
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/os2006/view/e_sess/8509
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
Thanks for an excellent post.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
that copyrightlaw is a substitute for censorship/ the old top to bottom communication structures that are needed for censorship, was also pointed out in the post TPB shutdown demonstration speech by Mr. Falkvinge.
http://tpbeng.blogspot.com/2006/06/demonstration-speech-pics.html
February 20th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Copyrights are necessary, our society could not work smoothly without them. Without them, people would not be rewarded for publishing after years of research and hard work. Copyrights are good. However, law is a complex issue and copyright law of yesteryear was not designed with todays replications in mind. A problem today revolves around how quickly we can distribute information internationally, while individual countries have widely different copyright laws. We want to encourage creativity but allow creativity to be rewarded.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:45 am
“our society could not work smoothly without them”, “We want to encourage creativity but allow creativity to be rewarded.”
So, if we can figure out another way to adequately reward the creator
(who is now assuming the additional role of publisher quite easily),
we don’t really need to depend on copyright, right?
If we can do that, then our society will work a lot more smoothly than it is now.
I would not say that the UK hiring 4,500 copyright cops, hard drives being ruined, people getting shot during busts and children being sued is very smooth.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
And let us not forget, many if not most copyright related agreements, whether artist-label contract or lawsuit settlements have a confidentiality clause which prohibits the victims of the labels from speaking their mind on the contract they signed or the agreement that was reached.
Of course, the reason for the confidentiality clause has various purposes: to hide contract violations and infringements, and because the labels are ashamed of the one sided, take it or leave it contracts they push down the throat of up-coming artists, who must sign them because all labels offer the same contracts.
Confidentiality clauses are have built severe damage awards if they are violated by the artist (but not the label). They are part of a shameful business practice that should be (o maybe is) illegal as it violates the freedom of speech right all humans have naturally.
Now we know why artists are reluctant to openly speak about theri reltions with the labels.