Update:
Kim Weatherall has her perspective on the lecture. (Kim’s a lecturer at my school.)
———————————————————————————————-
I went to a public lecture today, when I really should’ve been at home trying to complete a Property Law assignment due tomorrow (statutory interpretation of the Native Title Act…gah).
But the lecture was definitely worth it. There were 3 speakers, but I only know 2 of them. I have been reading their blogs (and books from 1 of them) for so long, so this is really the first real chance I have of hearing them speak in person.
I think this picture gives a huge clue about 1 of the speaker’s identity. Note the stickers on the Powerbook.
and Joi Ito.
Lessig was brilliant on stage. He absolutely captured the audience’s attention while speaking, and the various video and music clips he used in his presentation were powerful examples of how free culture (free as in freedom, not free as in beer) allows for great creativity and innovation in cultural production.
Central to his theme, is that the ‘rip, mix and share’ culture is one that have been with us since the beginning of human culture, with the only difference now being that the tools we use have changed. Lessig referenced the Grey Album by DJ Dangermouse, a mash up of Jay-z and the Beatles. He also touched on a couple of other examples as well but I can’t remember all of them.
Copyright governs the production of copies. In the analog world, the whole range of activities that we used to do under ‘rip, mix and share’ did not involve the making of copies, or not significantly. Consequently, those activities were not regulated under copyright law, or were exempted under ‘fair use’ provisions.
The problem for us now however, in the digital world, is that any activity that comprises ‘rip, mix and share’, the very activities that we have been doing as part of our human tradition of cultural production, involves the making of copies. That means copyright law automatically expands to include every single action that anyone could take online, most crucially, actions that create new culture.
Thus cultural production has become ‘permissions-based’. You are not allowed to ‘rip, mix and share’, unless you have the permission of the ‘rights’ owner. You are not allowed to sing it, write about it, perform it, play it, synthesize it, etc etc…
Who owns culture?
Joi Ito spoke about the business aspect of Creative Commons. The copyright cartel likes to portray copyfighters as ‘communists’. That cannot be further from the truth.
Joi spoke on the long tail, on how the advent of the internet requires businesses to think differently of how to sell things to people, and what things to sell. Most obviously, branding your customers as ‘thieves’, ‘communists’ and ‘terrorists’ does not help.
Joi mentioned how someone at Amazon told him that 70%(or was it 90%?) of Amazon’s sales came from items that were not stocked in the inventory (i.e. old music, old books etc). This means that the copyright cartel’s method of constantly pushing out manufactured rubbish and hoping at least 1 would become a blockbuster hit in order to make profits can no longer be a workable business model.
It means that in a global market, made possible by the internet and globalisation, millions of small producers can find profits in their niche and one-off products, as long as they have that platform for a global reach. It is those who provide that platform, an arbitrage opportunity if you will, who have reaped the rewards. Companies like Amazon, Google and eBay.
More importantly, Joi stresses that the standard response of the copyright cartel, “every illegal download is a lost sale”, has no basis in fact. He raises the example of fansubbers, who make illegal copies of Japanese anime in order to create subtitles for it in their own native language.
The result is NOT a lost sale, but an exponential increase in awareness and advertising of the anime, not through spending billions of dollars of a marketing budget, but a zer0-cost, word-of-mouth ‘buzz’ created by the hardcore fans themselves. What does this translate to?
[As an aside, I follow this anime called Gundam SEED Destiny religiously. Its all about politics, human complexities, and warring factions fought using giant robots. Tres cool. The most amazing thing is that the episodes available for download online are the most current ones shown in Japan. The anime screens every Saturday, and the subbed episodes would be available for download the following Wednesday. Truly global production in deed.
And what are the positive outcomes of this global 'piracy'? As far as I can tell, Bandai's (the rights owner to Gundam SEED Destiny) revenue stream comes entirely from selling the toys and games associated with the anime. The result is that there is an instant demand, from all over the globe, for Gundam miniature scale robots, videogames, soundtracks, etc etc... without them having to spend a single cent on promotion. If that is not positive, I don't know what is. I have bought 2 mecha models myself... :)]
Joi showed the audience the Narutrix mashup, another powerful example of how fan/customer-created derivative works such as remixes, parodies and satires not only raise awareness of the original work, but are also invaluable works of artistic creation in themselves. To limit, restrict and ultimately destroy the tools that would allow anyone to be an artist would not only be a huge cultural loss, but an economic and business opportunity loss as well.
Here above is a picture of Professor Larry Lessig and me. Brilliant speaker. Unfortunately, this is about the closest I would ever get to here, as I don’t think my grades would get me anywhere near Stanford Law School. On an unrelated note, I notice Lessig always has that serious look when taking pictures. I’ve yet to see a picture of him smiling.
And below is a picture of Joi and me. I actually spoke to Joi about James Seng for a bit… hehe hi James! *waves*
PS: I’ll try to get my hands on an accurate transcript of the lecture, or a torrent of the recording. I did speak to Professor Lessig, and he said he would post a torrent up.
21 Comments
thanks for sharing this….a great lecture indeed**
More importantly, Joi stresses that the standard response of the copyright cartel, ?every illegal download is a lost sale?, has no basis in fact. He raises the example of fansubbers, who make illegal copies of Japanese anime in order to create subtitles for it in their own native language.
The result is NOT a lost sale, but an exponential increase in awareness and advertising of the anime, not through spending billions of dollars of a marketing budget, but a zer0-cost, word-of-mouth ?buzz? created by the hardcore fans themselves. What does this translate to?
====
Since when was RIAA and MPAA concerned about lost sale? It was always about control. They want control over their stuff and not hand over control to us. U know how devastating if singers ever realized they can do a better job reaching customers like us directly without going through them?
Brilliant stuff!!!! I’d love to be there….
However i’d really like to find out where they stand on certain issues, ie. direction for the future.
Clearly the old copyright regime cannot be applied to the digital age. However the cookie cutter effects can only be seen in relation to digital media, it works still in relation to the old school tech.
Are we to create a sui generis form of protection? This would result in differing levels of protection for the same work in different formats.
Or are we to broaden fair use provisios when digital media is concerned?
Or more likely is that there would be no change, unless a radical watershed is reached, where the old copyright regime is toppled and what next would be the question.
hmmmm…
Pardon me, but where was this lecture held? I have had a growing interest in piracy and copyright issues as I wrote a dissertation on it before and was surprised to see many of my own thoughts have been backed up by many professors and thinkers alike. I’m sure we’re dawning on a new age sooner rather than later.
why the face like that )&#%*(*#&$
To wannabe
Good article on the lecture - I really appreciate it - youve done a public service announcement and should feel proud.
To Ivan
Why can the traditional form of copyright not be applied in the digital age?
Is it because reproduction of works is so simple, costless and systemised? Does that mean that we have to automatically throw off the law?
I would argue that the law regarding subsistence, licencing, assignment and infringment are as relevant to the digital medium as they to any other medium.
Do not be fooled!
Kazaa is illegal because the software’s architecture did not allow for licences to be passed on works, it authorised infringments of copyright by allowing others to download the peer to peer software.
Grokster will not be decided on the same basis because of the political arguments of Creative Commons & Co amongst other things.
The arguments about reform are not attempts to create a paradigm shift towards a sui generis system - these arguments are being used to condone what is essentially unlawful behaviour.
There are significant rationales behind the copyright regime. Before copyright artists and authors were controlled by publishing houses and kept in a relative state of poverty. Before the 1474 statue of venice inventors would put faults in thier plans so that no one else could copy them. THe birth of plenty only occurred when we could protect the expressions of our thoughts from reproduction and communication to the public.
Do not be so quick to topple a copyright regime in favour of something that will debilitate authors and artists from devoting thier lives to thier arts. They will have to release thier artistic prowess in thier spare time if CC gets thier way.
Joi Ito! I am officially jealous.
ACS: I don’t think the lot of us want to topple a regime, so much as modify it to fit the rapidly changing tech front.
[T]hese arguments are being used to condone what is essentially unlawful behaviour.
True. But is what the CC is asking for really that different? If I’m not wrong, there are several levels of CC licences available, each allowing different levels of distribution/modification/credit. Creators will still be able to fight off infringers if they so desire; but they also have the flexibility of allowing other kinds of reproduction that would otherwise amount to infringement - a feature that, AFAIK, the current regime does not have.
An infringement of a copyright is an infringement, regardless of what the creator wants, no? The only way to avoid infringement is to fall under the defences and exceptions (fair use et al). Plus if the infringing party tried to make money off it, he attracts criminal liability.
The whole point of the CC licence is to maintain a similar level of protection for artists, while at the same time giving them some flexibility in how they deal with their work. Again, they’re not out to destroy the copyright regime (which I think is good); they’re just trying to make it flexible enough so we’ll hopefully have fewer situations where giant corporations are suing grandmothers and 12-year-olds.
Whether or not it’ll work is another matter entirely, but just as it’s unfair to topple an entire regime, isn’t it equally unfair to refuse to consider potential alternatives?
*Disclaimer: I know jack about copyright law apart from my quick browse through of Halsbury’s. If I’ve screwed up somewhere please feel free to point at me and laugh.
Justin, it was in Melbourne, Australia. http://www.deakinlectures.com/program/m13.php?ref=full
Wannabe, what prospective future was offered for conventional media, like the ABC?
E@L
E@L:
As far as I can tell, the Federal Government seems to be cutting the budge of ABC and SBS. Which makes it all the more crucial that we do not restrict technologies which allow anyone and everyone to create their own media and content.
I personally believe that empowering individuals is a better way of fighting copyright cartels rather than state-provision of media.
Maybe the Federal Government doesn’t see why it should be funding a broadcaster that many accuse of being pro-Labor. That said, I wish Singapore has something like New Inventors. Wonder how many Singaporeans are closet inventors.
ACS: i’ll post up a short essay i did on issue of copyrights per se. Unfortunately i did not have the time to include patents and trademarks in.
Perhaps i misrepresented myself on this issue. I’m not saying that copyrights cannot be applied to the digital age, but as of now, the regime is ill suited to the digital age. Of course i’m speaking from the perspective of UK law. The US has been quick to introduce new legislation to tackle the problem, however these measure have often proved to be over inclusive (?), and thus erodes the rights of end users for the protection of (very often big companies/cartels) producers.
For me the conundrum facing IPRs would be to effective tweak the existing regime to better cope with changes, but still keeping a balanced playing field.
Do not misunderstand me, piracy IS piracy, however legitimate use of media have been significantly whittled down over the years, and this has to be restored.
http://ivan.ivanandxia.com/history/2005-05-09/is-copy-right/
It’s up minus the footnotes and biblio… too lazy to edit it before posting.
comments are more than welcome, i’d be doing a dissertation on it next year… so all feedback will be greatly appreciated.
Unfortunately i might not be able to respond as i’m 1 wk away from my exams However you are more than welcome to start a war/debate/discussion there.
Meh?
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/05/09/0427220.shtml?tid=188
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/05/10/205226.shtml?tid=123&tid=188&tid=4
hey
let me know about these things next time. Although given that the property assignment was due the next day i might not have gone for this one.
there’s an abortion debate on at 6:30pm today if you’re interested.
TO Ray
Sorry I am going to have to correct one thing.
The CC is vastly different from sui generis copyright reform.
The CC licence is in essence and effect a legal permission to infringe certain rights. Because of the operation of the Copyright Act this permission excludes any right to damages or relief so long as the conduct falls within the parameters of the licence.
THe actual terms of the copyright act mean that excercising rights in the copyright of another person with permission does not constitute an infringement.
Hence CC, like the open source licence (Which is probably the conceptual basis of CC) is legal, valid and most importantly - does not require reform of the copyright Act - in fact it relies on the Act.
ACS:
I might add a disclaimer, if CC come under statutory footing (ie. enshrined in statute), it might and can be construed as a baby step towards a sui generis form of protection.
Erm abortion debate? how was it?
ACS:
You were supposed to laugh =P.
Thanks though, that cleared a few errant assumptions I’d made.
Ivan:
There is no real reason that CC should go under statute - it works on the basis of the existing law. Anyway, it is unlikely that CC would be enshrined because it is merely an example of the infinite possibilities (and I mean infinite) of licencing available to every copyright owner.
I could put in a bit that says
“(1)You may only reproduce this work if you deliver a goat to the foot of Mount Olympus”
ACS: i totally agree! i’m just adding a what if, i don’t have much faith in proper legislative reforms, as such i’m inclined to allow a margin of stupidity where it actually is provided for under statute.
Gundam Seen and Destiny are 2 great animes.
*bows to learned intellectual prop lawyers*
you guys have just convinced me to take IP as a module now. sounds interesting.