Darknet, a ‘Digital Copyright Revolution’: II
p2pnet view P2P:- In The Darknet: A Digital Copyright Revolution in the University of Richmond School of Law’s Journal of Law and Technology (JOLT), Jessica A. Wood proposes a “digital use exception to existing copyright law to provide adequate compensation to authors while promoting technological innovation, and the creation and dissemination of new works”.
“Although seemingly counterintuitive, content producers, publishers, and distributors wishing to profit from their creations must relinquish their control over digital media in order to survive the Darknet era”, she says, going on, “Absent a government-granted monopoly, free market forces will provide adequate incentives to producers to create quality works, and an efficient dissemination infrastructure will evolve.”
But “She’s still using much of the publishing industry terminology such as ‘content’ which makes her ability to escape its clutches some achievement”, says Digital Productions‘ Crosbie Fitch.
He’s researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business models for producers of digital art,saying in the process he, “discovered that copyright is not only an ineffective anachronism, but is unethical and unconstitutional‘.]
Wood, “also falls for one of the more platitudinous pretexts for copyright”, says Fitch continuing >>>
It protects democracy only in the sense that it provides the state with aself-regulating press and one beholden to quell sedition. The press became powerful as an effective oligopoly (and threat to the state) and that enabled it to lobby for the monopolies that made its commerce so much simpler and more lucrative (at the expense of liberty).
She appears to waver as to whether distributed systems are more efficient/economic mechanisms for diffusing information than centralised systems (see [24]), but that’s a forgivable wavering. They are fundamentally more efficient in all respects. Their only shortcoming is in being so much more difficult to understand and develop than centralised or part-centralised systems. Their designs and implementations thus end up being influenced and compromised by antagonistic legislation and a lack of resources.
The best thing of all is that even without her recognition of the difference between intellectual work (expensive) and copies (inexpensive) (caused in large part by her conflation of the two – as evinced by the nefarious concept of ‘content’), she still ends up correctly concluding that neither monopoly nor tax represent ’solutions’, indeed that copyright should be abolished as causing more harm than good. I’d suggest she might also reconsider whether copyright was ever a ’solution’, except to 18th century printers’ commercial interest. The pretext of it being in the public benefit is a sop to the public, for the public certainly weren’t crying out to donate their cultural liberty to the press.
So, Jessica recognises that far from promoting creativity and cultural exchange, copyright actually attempts the opposite, that it is man’s instinctive need to share and build upon his culture that incentivises extreme technological measures to achieve it, overcoming ever more draconian legislation and TPMs. How much better then to abolish copyright (saying goodbye to fat and wealthy publishing cartels) and allow the people to take over the task of free cultural exchange, dissemination and promotion…
And this is where Jessica appeared to peter out.
She reaches the unsatisfying conclusion that despite evident demand we are looking at a future where people will no longer pay for content. Content producers will have to sell something else she suggests.
And that’s because she has brain damage.
The brain damage is (as I pointed out earlier) caused by her adoption and use of ‘content’ in her thinking – the conflation of intellectual work and copies.
She should take a look at the free software industry to help understand that when you neutralise copyright, ‘content’ decomposes back into intellectual work and copies. Once unbound, the copies are sold independently of the intellectual work, and with a free market in both, the copies are so cheap they’re given away for nothing whereas the intellectual work of the software is so expensive that coders are still paid to produce it. Though it must be said, many coders contribute their labour conscientiously, especially to works with primarily community/public benefit. That doesn’t devalue their labour though, and so it doesn’t bring down the market price for software development services. The copies might cost nothing to make, but that doesn’t mean you can pay coders peanuts to develop the software you want developed. Intellectual work remains expensive.
Jessica should thus realise that the future without copyright is a future without the concept of content, but not without culture. Given there are no producers and vendors of containers at monopoly protected prices, there is no market for content nor containers/copies. Without copyright people will not pay for copies (well, not digital ones anyway).
The market for copies has ended.
However, the market for intellectual work continues unabated.
And this is where Jessica should focus next – the exchange of intellectual work for the money of those who want it produced. Copies are free. Let’s get over that. The only ones interested in selling the manufacture and distribution of copies are going the way of the dinosaur (made redundant by distributed systems and the instantaneous diffusion mechanism it is The Internet’s destiny to become). But the work that people want done, now that always has exchangeable value. Whether it’s a paragraph to put on a shampoo bottle or a three hour long movie, where there’s demand and supply there’s money and production. To say that without a monopoly for publishers no movies will be produced is a failure of imagination. If millions of people want a movie produced they will stump up millions of dollars.
And today the refrain is always “But if people can get it for nothing they won’t even pay a dollar”. And then I say “But we’ve already agreed that they can’t get it for nothing because if the producers don’t get paid they won’t
produce it”.
Copyright causes this brain damage.
I daresay a similar conceptual stumbling block faced the inventor of the jukebox when he tried to convince people it would make money. “But, why will anyone put any money in it when everyone can hear it play for nothing?”
The people interested in the production of intellectual work pay for it to be produced. That the public are consequently at liberty to share and enjoy the product does not prevent this exchange from happening. Only copyright conditions people to believe that if anyone receives value from an intellectual work without paying for it that they are a thief. The fundamental economic principle is that you pay for labour. You do not charge for value extracted; you do not suspend liberty (copyright) and charge for its restoration (license).
“Well done Jessica!” Fitch adds. “Great paper. May you and your words be found credible by those who need their eyes opened to the nakedness of the Emperor’scorruption.”
Click here for what surfer has to say. Also see DarkNets: not tomorrow, but here and now
… and identi.ca
digital use exception – Darknet, a ‘Digital Copyright Revolution’: I, July 19, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 19th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
‘She reaches the unsatisfying conclusion that despite evident demand we are looking at a future where people will no longer pay for content. ‘
honestly, Crosbie, some of us discovered this 10 years ago, and have not paid for content since.
its funny, your analogy of software engineering in the copyright world never dawned on me. To let a paw out of the bag, (sorry, you can’t see the entire cat) I myself am a rather skilled software architect (software developer creates in one language, an architect creates in several), and I get paid rather handsomely for my services, and yet I fear nothing from people ‘copying’ my software. Its inherent nature inhibits copying, because there are alot of physicals involved that would be required to a) get a copy of the software, and b) own the proper hardware to run the software. Yet my company places ‘Copyright 2010 – name of company here‘ on the bottom of each software page, and I always found that kind of ironic. What difference does it make if its copyrighted? Nobody can get a copy anyway. I have the luxury of creating architectural software for the internet, which by itself is almost impossible to copy. Can anyone get a copy of Google? nuff said.
I read a few recent analogies that made perfect sense. The fashion industry does not rely on copyright, nor does the restaurant industry. I realize these are tangible goods, and cannot be digitized, but the concept application is relevant. Fashion copies off one another to create an incredibly diverse and stimulated industry, as well as the restaurant industry. Do you see these industries calling the FBI when someone ‘copies’ their ‘Venus De Milo Manhattan Clam Chowder’, or the most recent Luis Vitton handbag due to alleged lost sales, do you? These are two industries that prove without a doubt they can not just survive, but flourish WITHOUT copyright.
end rant.
stw
July 19th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Yes Surfer, it’s amazing people still don’t understand the difference between being paid to work, and copies being free.
My point about ‘content’ is that the people who use that term are consequently mentally unable to separate the work from the copy, so for them either content (all copies) cost something (and the artist doesn’t starve) or content is illicitly given away for nothing (and the artist starves). For them, the warped logic goes: “If the copies are free then the work must go unpaid”. Duh?
So for me, copyright abolition is not commercial suicide, whereas for those who believe in ‘content’ it is. That’s why when Jessica, who still thinks in terms of ‘content’, concludes that abolition must be the conclusion, despite constituting commercial suicide, it’s a far more remarkable intellectual achievement. She realises that copyright has to go, even though she sees no way for artists to remain out of the gutter (except by selling something else like t-shirts or eyeballs).
And yes, even in the fashion industry, designers are still paid to design new fashions – irrespective of them being copied.
July 19th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
societal forces are based on scarcity of product. In the pre-digital world, this could be controlled by the ‘gate-keepers’ of content to produce artificial scarcity by selling what they want, and keeping everything else off the market. The advent of the internet set many business models on their head. We are not a society that understands infinite goods, because we have never had access to such infinite goods. I never thought of it that way, but you are correct, people are definitely confusing creation and copies.
I would love to get paid in perpetuity for software I develop, that is just not the case, therefore I continue to create, regardless of copyright.
July 19th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“I read a few recent analogies that made perfect sense. The fashion industry does not rely on copyright, nor does the restaurant industry. I realize these are tangible goods, and cannot be digitized, but the concept application is relevant. Fashion copies off one another to create an incredibly diverse and stimulated industry, as well as the restaurant industry. Do you see these industries calling the FBI when someone ‘copies’ their ‘Venus De Milo Manhattan Clam Chowder’, or the most recent Luis Vitton handbag due to alleged lost sales, do you? These are two industries that prove without a doubt they can not just survive, but flourish WITHOUT copyright.”
Actually, the fashion industry HAS been pushing for having copyright protection extended to their designs. It’s already been implemented in the EU;
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/030915.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071224/111114.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080215/135455266.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090429/1400084696.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100309/0205138477.shtml
Louis Vuitton has been actively suing anyone that they can find making or selling fake LV products, mentioning LV’s name or doing anything else that they don’t like. They normally use trademark infringement claims, but it seems obvious that they’d happily use copyright infringement claims if they could;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vitton#Counterfeiting
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080425/114126947.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090202/0231323605.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090831/1600056056.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100215/0147258162.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1241398366.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/03134810002.shtml
There have also been efforts to copyright food;
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/1531482481.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090920/0226476245.shtml
Just because an industry has been thriving without copyrights doesn’t mean that the creators in that industry wouldn’t love to be able to block competition.
July 19th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
“I read a few recent analogies that made perfect sense. The fashion industry does not rely on copyright, nor does the restaurant industry. I realize these are tangible goods, and cannot be digitized, but the concept application is relevant. Fashion copies off one another to create an incredibly diverse and stimulated industry, as well as the restaurant industry. Do you see these industries calling the FBI when someone ‘copies’ their ‘Venus De Milo Manhattan Clam Chowder’, or the most recent Luis Vitton handbag due to alleged lost sales, do you? These are two industries that prove without a doubt they can not just survive, but flourish WITHOUT copyright.”
Actually, the fashion industry HAS been pushing for having copyright protection extended to their designs. It’s already been implemented in the EU.
Louis Vuitton has been actively suing anyone that they can find making or selling fake LV products, mentioning LV’s name or doing anything else that they don’t like. They normally use trademark infringement claims, but it seems obvious that they’d happily use copyright infringement claims if they could.
There have also been efforts to copyright food.
Just because an industry has been thriving without copyrights doesn’t mean that the creators in that industry wouldn’t love to be able to block competition.
(Note: I originally posted Techdirt links as reference for all of the above, but apparently that qualifies as spam/trolling here, so you’ll just have to do your own searching).
July 19th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
ARGH! Stupid system. I reloaded the page and my first comment did NOT show up, now it does…
July 19th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
@RW,
I realize both industries are fighting for the same monopolies the entertainment kartels abuse, all I was suggesting is that these particular industries are doing fine without copyright. This was to counter-point the MAFIAA assholes that copyright is not required. According to Ms. Woods, copyright was designed for 18th century printers, not multi-billion dollar studios that can distribute their movies digitally for little or no overhead.
July 19th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Yep, the big, three hundred year old lie about copyright is that it’s in the author’s and the public’s best interest, when actually it’s in the publisher’s and state’s interest (in wealth & power respectively).
Here’s the respective TechDirt link: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/11055510215.shtml
Far too many covet the grant of a monopoly – except the have-nots, those denied their natural liberty.
The trouble is, if monopolies are being handed out like candy, everyone has to go for them in order to have any chance of surviving (qv patent madness). That’s why they have to be abolished – no-one should have them. Try a fricking free market instead, where everyone competes on merit rather than how well they nobble their Congressmen.
July 19th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
@ RW: ‘ARGH! Stupid system’
Spam catcher Akismet automatically puts posts with two or more urls on hold. That’s so people can go into “but apparently that qualifies as spam/trolling here” mode.
I clear these as soon as I see them. But since I don’t spend all day in the admin section, that doesn’t happen instantly.
Luckily, not many people post streams of links.
Cheers!