An IP Environmentalism for Culture and Knowledge? 210
An anonymous reader writes "An article by James Boyle in the FT argues that we are (slowly) moving towards a 'cultural environmentalism' that tries to protect the public domain in the way that the environmental movement tries to protect the natural ecology. Apparently there will be a (free) conference at Stanford on the subject soon, organized by Larry Lessig's Center there."
Opening a can of worms ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, for 'software' in these days of public Internet, the real question is 'Can I maintain the software ? Can I resolve defects, or get them resolved, as they are found'. When the answer to that becomes 'no', the software cannot be used; it gets exploited, and you get eaten by worms and viruses.
Biased random walk (Score:2, Interesting)
It messes with readers, if you end with a preposition.
Please transform the following disputed sentence into a sentence that ends other than with a preposition: "The public domain should be cared about."
The point is that if Congress or the Library thereof announces a study into what the law should be changed to, you'll get the haves (incumbent publishers who want more restriction on speech that competes with theirs) on one side and the have-nots (the unorganized masses and charitable organizations who
Because I like a challenge... (Score:2)
"People should care about the public domain."
Undeleting the agent (Score:2, Informative)
"People should care about the public domain."
You miss. The unstated agent of the sentence "The public domain should be cared about" may have not been "people".
Those who disapprove of preposition stranding [wikipedia.org] in English tend to cite the rewrite rule that transforms the dependent clause (THAT clause preposition) into (preposition WHICH clause) or the question (wh-word vso-inverted-clause preposition) into (preposition wh-word vso-inverted-clause). Rewrite rules such as these do not work so easily in all c
Re:Undeleting the agent (Score:2)
PS No I am not a grammar nazi, I just know english.
Re:Undeleting the agent (Score:2)
What is a patient, and what is a passivized-intransitive?
Re:Undeleting the agent (Score:2)
Did I? That's arguable.
You missed that the AC incorrectly identified the grammatical issue in the first place. The OP terminated his sentence with a conditional--not a preposition--that should have been the openning clause. Reversing them is awkward.
Those who disapprove of preposition stranding in English tend to cite the...
First of all, as much as I care, you may end sentences in prepositions day in and day out. All I care about, as a reader, is clarity--regardless of grammatical construct. I
Re:Biased random walk (Score:3, Funny)
"About the public domain it should be cared."
See how much more naturally that rolls off the tongue?
Back to figuring out the label to which to go I go!
Re:Opening a can of worms ? (Score:2)
Re:Opening a can of worms ? (Score:2)
Well, except maybe the whole declinations of nouns, but that is purely a personal preference.
Re:Opening a can of worms ? (Score:2)
Re:Opening a can of worms ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Going on and on about a dead language and an incorrectly noted grammar violation is also horseshit.
Hugger? (Score:4, Funny)
-matthew
Re:Hugger? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, those who seek to put in place legislation that allows companies to harm the environment, or extend copyright terms, and so forth, are not conservatives, libertarians, nor are they liberals. They are Republicans and Democrats. We may essentially consider the Democrats and Republicans to be one and the same, even if they project the image of being "opponents". They're both financed by the largest corporations and wealthiest few individuals in the US and the world. They have very little incentive to do what's best for the average American.
So when a self-proclaimed "conservative" rags on you about your support for limiting environmental damage or unnecessarily long copyright terms, just remember that he or she is in no way a conservative. In fact, such an individual stands firmly against conservatism.
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
It changes.
Re:Hugger? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
Re:Hugger? (Score:3, Funny)
The People's Judean Front?
Or the Judean People's Front?
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
With what algorithm was that string generated?
My new favorite post! (Score:2)
Keep up the good work, and next time log in!
Re:Hugger? (Score:5, Funny)
Darned free-hugging IPpies.
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
Do I get credited with an "assist" for that humor touch down?
-matthew
Re:Hugger? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whomever explained American football to you needs to try again, slower.
Remember kids, winners don't do sports metaphors.
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
Yeah, bunch of people who want to get stuff for free.
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
Perhaps the ideal hugger.
Re:Hugger? (Score:2)
Re:Hugger? (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry... (Score:2)
Also, look for copies of this conference, released on Disney DVD, to hit store shelves in the fall.
beautiful analogy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this dichotomy a natural progression of such issues or is it truely the way things are.
I know what I believe...and I've picked my side.
~Dan
Re:beautiful analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Collective licensing (Score:4, Interesting)
while most of us behave in a contradictory way - 'I want artists to get paid, but I like free downloads'
How about "I want artists to be paid, but I don't want to pay inflated marginal costs for works, nor do I want to be shut out of works completely." Thinking like this is what let collective licensing programs such as those offered by BMI and ASCAP take off, and the EFF has expressed interest in extending collective licensing to other media [eff.org].
Re:Collective licensing (Score:2)
It has the great advantage that you still have a law and body stopping the commercial usage of music too (ASCAP, BMI, etc, also existing to collect royalties from use of music in adverts, nightclubs, etc) - and also allow artists to decline to have their music used to advertise or promote things they disagree with (I know people who have turne
Re:beautiful analogy... (Score:2)
I want artists to get paid, but I like very cheap downloads. I just don't like the RIAA to get in the middle, thank you.
Re:beautiful analogy... (Score:2)
Nor, seeing as I'm downloading a torrent of a TV show right now, are the RIAA the only organisation impacted.
Moving to a culture of voluntary payment, for instance, could be a great step forward, but would require a change in behaviour in our society - one that would probably be positive overall.
Ditto, people taking re
Re:beautiful analogy... (Score:2)
As you said, the "IP ecosystem" is our creation. However, I'd add that the "IP ecosystem" moves and expands at a sustainably exponential rate. Natural ecosystems do not. Which is very important in some "ecosystem management" issues, if we do want to draw the analogy.
Not a good analogy (Score:2)
Typically, the annti copyright and patent movement simply wants the government to get out of the way more by not helping to impose restrictions on what people can copy and immitate.
Re:Not a good analogy (Score:2)
Nice try though.
IP environmentalism. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ahh...I can see it now...
Re:IP environmentalism. (Score:4, Interesting)
Even though an ever-increasing copyright term benefits Disney, it concurrently causes much harm to many other (potentially far more important) fields. Soon enough companies won't want to develop products in the US due to the cost of ensuring that their products don't violate obscure patent or somebody's copyright (in the case of software). A situation like that might have to happen before truly beneficial changes start to occur in the US
Re:IP environmentalism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, million die every day because of pharmaceutical patents, so they wouldn't be far off the mark there.
Cultural environmetalism... (Score:2)
Re:Cultural environmetalism... (Score:2)
I'd argue that it is neither. It's merely pointing out an analagous concept.
However, giving a name--and better yet, one identified as 'all serving'...I'd argue moreso with information than the physical environment... not to mention the association with the altruism of the physical environmentalism--is something that is sure to 'play well in the stix'...and beyond...perhaps we can get high calibre Celebrities on our side, donating time,
Re:Cultural environmetalism... (Score:2)
Right, because people will still make films like the LOTR series for a hundred million or so even when there's no copyright law to protect their investment.
How to find 'Orphans' (Score:2, Insightful)
Publish them and see who sues. Then figure out if they really own the copyright.
---Please, help support your local Bar Association. They're starving on $200K+ a year
Re:How to find 'Orphans' (Score:3, Interesting)
Environmentalism For the Net? (Score:5, Informative)
See section V.
I Like this Analogy (Score:2)
Buzzwords from bad analogy (Score:5, Informative)
This version of "cultural environmentalism" is less about prevention of change or pollution of cultures by "bad" cultural influences and more of an economic fight about who pays and who does for so-called "cultural" properties. Lessig et al have only made use of a positive buzzword.
Its just another example of co-opting a word for its connotations, not its true meaning (like calling every act of violence or non-patriotic idea a "terrorist" threat).
Re:Buzzwords from bad analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
Yours is a very simplistic - ideal definition. I have seen, met, read about every type of ecological environmentalist possible. Many of them may want to prevent human-made changes and remove the effects of humans, but many others support things like putting out forest fires or stopping erosion. Som
Bad definition (Score:2)
That sounds like the definition used by radical authoritarians (i.e. the people currently in power in the USA, who love pollution because it creates scarcity).
All the environmentalists I know simply want to live within the constraints of an ecology capable of reliably supporting human life. They fear
Levels of competition (Score:2)
Environmentalist vs. Wacko (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Environmentalist vs. Wacko (Score:2)
Intelligent activism... (Score:3, Insightful)
I appreciate folks that are willing and able to take the time to work towards reasonable means of managing Intellectual Property (we weren't talking about Internet Protocol, were we?). Without hard-working folks where the rubber meets the road, awareness would be low and reason might actually be lacking.
Do I think we should have folks chaining themselves to filing cabinets, patent office doors, and the like? Well, I don't know... If a fundamental and important issue is getting slammed by a troll or by someone who's only interested in the money - then, maybe it is important to be an activist. OTOH, if one believes that militant behavior is the only way to handle all Intellectual Property issues, then I think over-the-top behavior is not appropriate.
I don't think that burning Hummers is quite the right approach - I think being an active participant in the process to lend intelligence and reason is probably the right approach.
It is good (Score:3, Interesting)
I am pro-DRM in principle, it is obviously not a popular point of view here but this is a public forum and we can be civilized about it (hopefully.) I am pro-DRM in the following sense: I want an ability to create a document (text/music/video/CAD drawing/object code/etc.) that I could trust to be moved around in the world as a limited resource. I could send this document to anyone I wanted (whether money is involved or not is actually irrelevant,) and they couldn't make copies of it, or could make the preset number of copies. I would like the ability to have the document lock itself after certain amount of time has passed or after certain number of viewing/usages whatever. This also could be used for legal documents, and other sensitive data. Basically this would make the document into almost a real thing.
Now, I am still in favour of the discussions on these issues from point of view of public domain rights etc. People are not willing to accept the fact that some producers want their data to be really their data forever. Well, we could implement a standard, that would unlock the DRMed document, that is meant to go to public domain after the copyright period expires.
Say you are buying a CD (for example,) on this CD you have your DRMed files that can be plaid by your CD player. It is possible that the outcome of these discussions would be a standard, which would allow the original buyer to copy this music file a specific number of times onto his/her other CD players/computer/backup/whatever. Maybe there would be a way to make a backup copy, and then make say 2 or 3 copies that could be moved around from your portable MP3 player to your computer HD. When I say 'moved around' I literally mean moved, not just copied. Thus we could satisfy the laws regarding fair-use. On the other hand this file that you have in your possession must become public domain at some point, so the DRM must probably take care of that by unlocking the restriction part of the DRM after the copyright expires.
I think DRM can be actually an incredible tool for real file sharing, not the what they call file 'sharing' today. You could actually share a file but in a sense, in which you could share your CD or your watch. DRM can also be used for protection of sensitive data. But we need discussions about the rights of the public to the public domain, and so DRM could also be the tool that guaranteed the public domain safety by implementing time unlocking mechanisms.
Just a thought.
You raise good points, and yet... (Score:3, Interesting)
You say:
"People are not willing to accept the fact that some producers want their data to be really their data forever. "
But that's backwards. I'd say some people are not willing to accept that fact that they have no legal rig
Re:You raise good points, and yet... (Score:2)
About holding to data forever: just don't release it at all and you can hold on to it forever, I do that all the time, I don't most release stuff that I create, just some of it. The corporations of-course want to release the data and then have the perpetual copyrights, well that is why I think the
On DRM. (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you time limit data? How does data know its expiration date? How does it know whether its author is alive or dead? How does it know whether 95 years have passed since death?
You may go around in circles trying to describe a mechanism, but the fact is that it cannot.
The only reasonable mechanism would be this: If I attempt to copy a piece of data, the system would ask me "is this file copyrighted or does its license permit this operation, yes or no?" I would answer the question honestly to the best of my knowledge. The process would continue or not. This is the only system that respects the sovereignty of individual freedom.
DRM (in essentially any form) violates the basic contract the constitution describes for copyright in the first place: In exchange for growing the public domain we the people grant artists and inventors time-limited monopolies. We the people agree to honor these monopolies, just like we agree to honor every other law. If we don't, we face the music, as we do whenever we commit a crime.
I don't see how anyone can expect software to enforce the law. Or at least, not until software systems can be fair and just and personally responsible. This seems like a huge distance into the future.
Darn, should have proof-read! (Score:2)
This should have read "is the file copyrighted or does its license forbid this operation, yes or no?"
Hehe, otherwise the operation would always be forbidden.
Re:On DRM. (Score:2)
The only reasonable mechanism would be this: If I attempt to copy a piec
Mechanisms Re:On DRM. (Score:2)
> The standard for DRM must include encryption of the actual useful data and the envelope that is more like a program itself that is capable of holding state, securily connect to servers for status updates and such.
This is why I said that you would go round and round describing a mechanism... but you and I both know that that a piece of data in an envelope that must contact a third-party for proof that co
Re:Mechanisms Re:On DRM. (Score:2)
Re:It is good (Score:2)
So in other words, my computer system clock just needs to be set 45 years into the future to unlock all drm files? Brilliant! seriously though how does the DRMed file know it's been 32 years or whatever arbitrary date the disney collective has manipulated congress into setting this week? okay it's some server on the internet, now all i need to do is run a packet sniffer load some drmed files
Re:It is good (Score:2)
Re:It is good (Score:2)
We already have a mechanism for this form of trust. It is called a contract. When the recipient agrees to your contract to treat said document as a limited resource then they are obligated to do so under the law. Anything else would be coercion. Coercion is contrary to our inalienable freedom.
The only argument
Re:It is good (Score:2)
Re:It is good (Score:4, Interesting)
You want to take the most efficient information distribution mechanism ever seen, practically an economist's wet dream, and do everything possible to hinder or destroy the features which make it great.
Face it, copyright was designed in an age when corporate muscle and physical copies were REQUIRED in order to distribute information. Now distribution on the same or even greater scale can be achieved on a $50 a month boradband line with bit torrent.
I understand about legal documents and keeping them private, but that's not about DRM, that's about using point to point encryption and only passing it to people you trust. It's not as if you pass your social security documents to random people over the internet, youre sending it to a specific person. Well encryption of emails is NOT drm, it is encryption.
DRM stands for the corporate spun term "digital rights management" which involves some external party controlling the products you bought. It's not document protection like is achieved with pgp encryption.
the whole point of DRM is to exploit the lack of technical knowledge of both consumers and lawmakers to rob them of their god given right to personal property, and to undermine the advancement of the internet and its tremendous promise of greater efficiency just to line your own pockets on an outdated model.
no, It is Not good.
Re:It is good (Score:2)
You want to take the most efficient information distribution mechanism ever seen, practically an economist's wet dream, and do everything possible to hinder or destroy the features which make it great. - this is an emotional response, now think about it. I am not proposing that all materials should have DRM built
Re:It is good (Score:2)
>>but from point of view of authors, this is the age when their work becomes worthless in a matter of minutes, once one copy of their
Re:It is good (Score:2)
Re:It is good (Score:2)
I get the feeling this will be thoroughly shot out of the saddle. I can think of everyday and completely politically neutral examples for why that would never come to be in the way you describe.
example 1: your wife is in labor/kid has a fractured femur/gash on the side of his head and you have to rush to
Re:It is good (Score:2)
Re:It is good (Score:2)
DRM is not a prison as you describe it. Noone is going to take away your right to create your stuff and to use freely available stuff. DRM is about locking down specific files into a managed solution. Hardware and software working together, this is how
Re:It is good (Score:2)
Re:It is good (Score:2)
There you go, more reasons.
Re:It is good (Score:2)
Re:It is good (Score:2)
Re:It is good (Score:2)
But what is to stop someone who really wants your data from getting it? - retrieving data from document does not mean that the document itself can be forged. What we need is an unforgeable legal electronic document. This includes encryption and full DRM.
It wouldn't be worthless
Re:It is good (Score:2)
Secondly, it doesn't matter i
Re:Problem with DRM (Score:2)
For legal documents it would be exactly 100% forgery. The legal document wrapped in a DRM envelope will be viewable, but not the accompanying DRM meta data. This means that a legal document could be secure from forgeries.
Excellent! (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure it will be just as succesful. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going outside to enjoy the unnaturally hot weather we're having this year...
Niche culture (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm afraid... (Score:2)
And all I do is recycle, drive a Prius, and post my music and stuff to the creative commons. What a scourge my type is. Someone has been running a pretty effective smear campaign.
Cheers.
Its not an "ism" (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability to advance and create upon what other humans before us have done.
Intellectual property rights (the ability to say no, you cannot use) had its purpose. But today its really losing ground on the reasons it was created it the first place.
Thats what you are seeing in the efforts to extend them further. Copyright has become a joke in that its limited length terms has in all practicality become a deception of continually extending them into infinity.
When in reality, with todays technology it is easier to create and market/distribute works within the shorter time length of the original copyright length terms. Yet the length terms are getting longer.
Where did all this IP build up come from?
A: by those who want to constrain us more and more for their benefit, and its not so often the actual creators doing it.. what some call capital-ISM...
Use donations to buy copyrighted works (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully they'll do a better job (Score:2)
New religions traditionally have trouble getting started. Give it some more time. Keep the Faith.
Re:Hopefully they'll do a better job (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you have probably fallen into the trap of thinking that what is currently being fought for encompasses the sum total of all that has ever been fought for. If you look back over the last fifty years and see what practices have changed as a result of environmental activism you'd come to a very different conclusion. We don't continue talking about things that have changed, and naturally so. But it is a mistake to think that things were always the way they are now, or that they had to be this way.
Unsurprisingly, all the major concerns of current environmental activists haven't been resolved satisfactorily. That is precisely why they remain major concerns. Once an issue is mitigated, we move on and take it for granted.
What would the world around right now be like without recycling, emissions standards, vehicle fuel economy standards, regulation of industrial discharges into rivers and oceans, modern sewage treatment facilities, national parklands and reserves, solar wind and hydro power, Energy Star power saving technology on computers and other electronics, regulation on the use of toxic materials in all sorts of things like plastics, cookware, paint etc, and so on.
Re:Hopefully they'll do a better job (Score:2)
Re:Oh No! (Score:2)
Re:Oh No! (Score:2)
And lets not forget that from shooting uranium from weapons, to subsidizing the clear cutting of government owned forests, and to spending billions on superhighways instead of much cheaper mass transit, to subsidizing farm
Re:Oh No! (Score:2)
First off, if you base your argument on an overly broad generalization (like "all you have to do is donate to political campaigns and you can pollute as much as you want"), the argument is bullshit. I have no doubt that some companies get away with that, but your 100%-corruption theory needs some evidence.
Maybe you could argue that the currently the government reduces polution (by limi
Re:Oh No! (Score:2)
There are lots of reasons: Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, etc.
You don't need a police force, atomic weapons, an "elected" leader, and a flag and nationalistic anthem in order to solve problems. There are any number of diverse systems of social organization, economic exchange, and self-regulation society can use instead of government sponsered violence.
Well, back here on Earth, in the year 2006, there are not any
Re:Conflicting Inalienable Rights (Score:3, Informative)
On the one hand, you have copyrights: the notional right of the copyright holder to prevent others from using the ideas that they've put considerable time and effort into discovering. In the US, this is a constitutional right, and from what I understand, it's thus inalienable.
No, copyright protection is not an "inalienable" right in the US, it is a legislated right which Congress could make disappear at any time.
Alienable in so many ways (Score:2)
It's not just Congress. There are lots of ways to make "inalienable" rights disappear -- martial law, for example.
-kgj
Re:Alienable in so many ways (Score:2)
It's not just Congress. There are lots of ways to make "inalienable" rights disappear -- martial law, for example.
Though you are right about the fragility of rights we take for granted it sounds like you are still confused about the difference between an inalienable right and a legislated one. If, for example, Congress were to pass legislation outlawing bumper stickers the courts would strike down the law for violating a right guaranteed by the first amendment. But if, on the other hand, Congress passed a l
Alienable vs. Inalienable (Score:2)
Good points. You're right, I was confused about the matter. Thanks for clarifying.
-kgj
Re:Conflicting Inalienable Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not the same as declaring inalinable rigths such as the right to free speech.
It is merely the statement which says the government is "allowed" to do it. Without said statement the bill of rights would naturally override copyright laws and make them unconstitutional in any form.
Many founding fathers remember that copyright laws in england not too long before the rise of the US were designed to do to the people what they ironically are being used to do now, hinder freedom and growth of the press(read now the internet) and freedom of speech and keep the power and money in the hands of the wealthy few (then aristocracy, now the greedy pigs at the **AA and M$FT).
As such, there was a huge debate as to weather copyright should have been allowed at all. after all, during that time england was without copyright laws at all, as i remember from lessig they were all repealed around that time (was it 1709 they were entirely abolished in britain?) and loe and behold people were still publishing works!
So no, copyright is not an "inalienable right". This kind of drek is spouted by the WIPO lobbyists and is entirely false and misleading, and I'm not buying it because I know better.