Why I Copyfight
The Internet is a system for efficiently making copies between computers. Whereas a conversation in your kitchen involves mere perturbations of air by noise, the same conversation on the net involves making thousands of copies. Every time you press a key, the keypress is copied several times on your computer, then copied into your modem, then copied onto a series of routers, thence (often) to a server, which may make hundreds of copies both ephemeral and long-term, and then to the other party(ies) to the conversation, where dozens more copies might be made.Copyright law valorizes copying as a rare and noteworthy event. On the Internet, copying is automatic, massive, instantaneous, free, and constant. Clip a Dilbert cartoon and stick it on your office door and you're not violating copyright. Take a picture of your office door and put it on your homepage so that the same co-workers can see it, and you've violated copyright law, and since copyright law treats copying as such a rarified activity, it assesses penalties that run to the hundreds of thousands of dollars for each act of infringement.
There's a word for all the stuff we do with creative works — all the conversing, retelling, singing, acting out, drawing, and thinking: we call it culture.
Culture's old. It's older than copyright.
the latest
latest episodes
Right, but the Internet's a baby compared to culture and copyright. Doesn't this have a big impact on your argument? Are the copying norms of the Internet applicable to other media? Should they be?
Not sure I understand. You have copyrights yourself.
Numbers TX0005296554, TX0006843485, TX0006520299, TX0005689952, TX0005747821, TX0005916528, TX0006198324, V3513D729, and V3509D233, according to the US Copyright Office.
Are you suggesting you should not have those copyrights? That no one should respect them? I'm missing something here.
I'm not trying to be clever here - but if copyrights are archaic anachronisms that mean nothing, how do creatives protect their creations so that they can (among other things) get paid for their efforts?
I will grant you that current copyright law would make technical copyright thieves of us all, but it seems you're dismissing the entire concept of protecting the property rights of creatives.
On the ironic tip, I cannot help but note the statement on the bottom of this very page:
Wigwam Jones,
Simply put, there's a huge difference between wanting to get rid of copyright law and wanting to reform it. People like myself and, from what I've read of his work, Cory, would rather see better copyright laws than no copyright laws. Copyright needs to change to address the realities of what it means to make a copy in an age where your average 14-year-old carries around a camera and audio recording device that double as a distribution platform (also known as cellphones) in his or her pocket.
It's safe to say that our current copyright laws, ideologically established in the 1700s, are in no shape to deal effectively with modern technology. Things like Creative Commons are a good step in the right direction, granting *everyone* some rights when it comes to using content while still allowing those who, say, want to publish a copy of Cory's essay at a profit, the ability to negotiate with the copyright holder for those extra rights not freely given. Reform, not revolution; copyright law can still be saved.
I don't think he's advocating the complete abolition of copyright, I think he's arguing that there needs to be a major rethinking on how copyright law is written and enforced. As someone who makes a living off of intellectual property, I'm sure he's very aware of the damage counterfeit or unlicensed publishing of his books could do, but he's also aware that the distribution of BoingBoing articles with attribution will most likely result in increased traffic to BoingBoing and possibly more purchases of his book. He's not saying they're worthless, he's saying that they're broken. I don't think this is a binary discussion or issue; there are options like the restructuring of copyright law. Holding a copyright does not invalidate his arguments for changes. If anything, it suggests that he's speaking from a position of knowledge and experience. His point is that copyright law does not make a distinction between you setting up a printing press and manufacturing thousands of copies of his books and selling them to bookstores, and pressing ctrl+c, ctrl+v on your desktop thousands of times.
@ #3 and #4
If that is correct, then I agree with both of you and with Mr. Doctorow. I wasn't sure because he said:
I am not clear on how to parse that statement and the ones that come after it; it almost seems he is dissing the 'Creative Commons' style copyright agreements that BoingBoing (and myself on Flickr) use.
If not, then I clearly misunderstood the gist of the article, and I appreciate the enlightenment.
And more power to you, Cory. It's articles like this that I send to people who have no idea about copyright & the internet. Keep 'em coming!
Long ago, storytellers used to wander from camp to camp. Some of them had excellent memories and could remember tens of thousands of lines. Such stories were told & retold without "credit".
Likewise with music, folk music was traded without "credit", recognized as a common wealth. Many classical composers used folk tunes as a basis for their work.
Copyright and the monetization of the energies of the masses to benefit a few seems to be a very modern disease in the long view. No one could argue that it guarantees higher quality. The energies of the masses that built the pyramids has now become entrapped for an endless array of pyramid schemes.
Some call it culture, but from another POV it's the ripoff of natural culture and its replacement with a culture of artifice.
Such things are not inevitable survivors in the long scheme of things.
nfrtntly, Cry's ds bt cpyrghts r ls brkn. Cry blvs tht DRM shld b ntrly rmvd frm vrythng, nd tht flshrng shld b 100% lgl. Thr r mjr prblms wth wdly vlbl flshrng. Cry lks t tlk bt "tkng phtgrphs f Dlbrt crtn" bcs vryn wll gr wth hs lvl-hdd pprch, bt *fndmntlly* h's nt tlkng bt phtgrphs f Dlbrt crtns. H's rlly tlkng bt flshrng - tkng th sftwr, vds, flms, bks, tlvsn shws crtd t grt xpns, nd mkng thm 100% fr. Cntnt crtrs hv t bg thr cnsmrs t tp thm. Whn y stp nd thnk bt th WD vrty f sftwr prdcts n th mrkt (xpnsv sftwr wth fw srs, nxpnsv sftwr wth mllns f srs, tc, tc), y qckly rlz tht th sftwr ndstry (s wll s th mv ndstry) wll b rylly scrwd f cpyrghts wr "rfrmd" ccrdng t Cry's ds.
Cry ds pt hs wrk t n th ntrnt fr fr (shwng tht h ds pt hs mny whr hs mth s), bt th prblm s tht fr bks n th ntrnt sn't cmprbl t fr mvs nd sftwr n th ntrnt. Cmprng th tw r gnrlzng frm bks ("t wrks fr my bks, why nt fr mvs/sftwr?") s fndmntlly flwd strtng pnt. Ppl wnt bks n tngbl frm. ht rdng bks n cmptr scrn, nd knw lt f thr ppl d, t. Ths mns tht physcl bk s bttr thn dgtl bk. Bcs f ths gp, t crts n ncntv t by th physcl bk. Bt, fr mvs nd sftwr, th dgtl cntnt *S* th nly frm f th cntnt. thnk Cry lks t gnr th dstnctn.
Cry mght rg tht th mvs nd sftwr s lrdy t thr n th ntrnt t PrtBy, bt th vry fct tht prcy s gnrlly vwd s nlwfl ls hlps t stgmtz t (tht mks th rl prchsd cpy mr vlbl n ppl's mnds thn th prtd vrsn) nd mks t mr dffclt t gt ( knw lts nd lts f ppl wh wld jmp t th chnc t dwnld "fr" sftwr ff th ntrnt f thy knw bt t, bt thy rn't tch-svy ngh). Ths tw thngs hlp kp th dgtl md ndstrs lv. We in the industry need to make sure copyright laws are not "reformed" along the lines that Cory proposes, otherwise, we're screwed.
In the future, I actually plan to take a more active role in countering Cory's arguments about copyright, because this is a fight we literally can't afford to lose.
@Brit, a curious point you have about software...
In fact, it turns out that software thrives in a DRM-less world of filesharing. I'm talking, of course, about FOSS - software that, while protected by copyright, has only the lightest restrictions on copying.
The Firefox web browser that you may well be using, the LAMP stack that a lot of websites run on, the Ubuntu CD that somebody handed you. All of those, and many more, are free to copy, free to fileshare (as well as free to modify and remix, should you feel so inclined). These are full-featured programs, frameworks or entire operating systems, available for free, arising from the Internet. By some metrics (bugs/KLOC), they're objectively higher-quality than the corresponding software from traditional software houses.
Far from being "royally screwed", as you so politely and gently phrase your point, the software industry in fact benefits from the easy, quick and reliable copying that Internet provides, producing more and better software than could ever be put together under a traditional, non-Internet regime.
Brit,
Your account is suspended for the time being.
@Antinuous, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? I disagreed with the post I responded to, but it seemed to be a reasonable post none the less. Unless there was something else I didn't see?
Cory I think your commitment to freedom through building dialog on copyright is outstanding. I want my grandchildren to enjoy a rich heritage in freely enjoying the public trust of creative works.
Culture as we have known it is dramatically changing, and thus the laws that govern it must so be adjusted.
Congratulations on your marriage!
Wigwam Jones @2, there's neither irony nor contradiction in what you're seeing. Cory believes copyright law is broken, and is being taken in the wrong direction, but that's not the same thing as thinking no one should own the products of their own effort.
He's made that clear many times, in Boing Boing and elsewhere.
Cory doesn't want a world in which some enthusiastic teenager can be fined tens of thousands of dollars for making a copy of his text, but that doesn't mean he wants a film studio ripping off his work, or some shady "educational materials" producer tossing his short stories into a shovelware high-school reader, without payment or permission.
Brit @8: Your account is back for the time being. You should not regard that as a guarantee of anything.
We? Who's this "we" you're talking about? I work in the digital media industry too. Naturally, I know lots of other people who work in it as well. A small number of them share what I take to be your views. Most don't.You're mistaking Cory describing how things do work, for him describing how things should work. The ease of making copies is a real thing. Any reasonable approach to copyright has to deal with that.
In the meantime, you should learn more about the corporate rights grabs Cory's been fighting. Human culture has always made art by modifying earlier versions. What an artist does is creative, but it isn't singular. He or she is always using tropes and techniques picked up from other artists. The history of art isn't a series of single individual discrete statements. It's a conversation.
The big entertainment conglomerates hate having stuff out there that isn't owned. It's disturbingly similar to the historical insistance of various ruling classes that there be no land without its owner. You might think they have an argument, right up to the point where you realize that what they actually mean is that single private owners should possess the land that's been village commons since time immemorial, and that the owners they have in mind are themselves.
Disney's a great example of this. They've thrown a lot of money and effort into getting copyright periods extended beyond the owners' lifetimes. It's not because they have a soft spot for creators; it's because their corporate structure hates the idea of Steamboat Willie or Winnie the Pooh going out of copyright. The punchline is that if copyrights had lasted that long when Walt Disney was making his early cartoons, he could never have made them, because Grimms' Fairy Tales would have still been in copyright.
My first impulse is to ask whether you're a flack for the RIAA, or an artist who's trying to find an excuse for avoiding an unfinished project.Whoever you are, I suggest you find out more about Cory's actual opinions, and the actual status of copyright/trademark/intellectual property fights, before you waste any more time countering arguments he hasn't made.
Dead wrong -- unless you work for one of the big entertainment conglomerates, and by "literally can't afford" you mean "we won't be able to hold on to an unchanging business model in a rapidly changing world while maintaining our accustomed profits."If you're anyone else, this is a fight you can't afford to continue, and literally cannot win. Easy copying is a genie that won't go back into the bottle. If you insist on fighting against copying, instead of trying to come up with workable systems that reward creators for their work, all you're going to wind up with is a two-tier system of (1.) "legal" art and culture, where the definition of "legal" is driven by big entertainment outfits; and (2.) "illegal" art, which will still exist, but which cannot enrich its creators, and will not be protected by law.
I would prefer to live in a world of workable laws, reasonably enforced, than in one where the basic laws are unrealistic and unworkable. In the latter, the side with the biggest legal budget wins -- and in 4,999 out of 5,000 cases, that isn't going to be the artist.
Sabik @10, Antinous had good reasons for doing that.
Well, drat. The largely disemvowelled but otherwise restored version of Brit's comment never reappeared. Let me try this again ...
>Y'r mstkng Cry dscrbng hw thngs d wrk, fr hm dscrbng hw thngs shld wrk. Th s f mkng cps s rl thng. ny rsnbl pprch t cpyrght hs t dl wth tht.
Cry's rgmnts mplctly jstfy flshrng. H tlks bt "cltr" nd th rght t shr, bt dsn't spcfclly sy "flshrng". thnk t's prtty clr frm th cntxt, thgh, tht flshrng shld b ntrly lgl. (Hw wld "flshrng" nt fll ndr th mbrll f "shrng"?) s lng s ppl rn't mkng prft ff f th rtst's wrk, t's ll ky. n thr wrds, h thnks cpyrght shld gv th rtst xclsv rghts t sll hs prdct. Wht ths mns s tht flshrng (bcs t nvlvs n prft) shld b ntrly lgl. 'v sd ths n BngBng svrl tms, nd 'v ls ntcd tht Cry nvr dns t. f y wld lk m t g bck nt Cry's ld psts, 'm sr cld crt prtty clr cs tht Cry s rgng fr th lglty f flshrng.
>My frst mpls s t sk whthr y'r flck fr th R, r n rtst wh's tryng t fnd n xcs fr vdng n nfnshd prjct.
dn't thnk thr's t mch mystry. 'm n ndpndnt vd gm dvlpr, nd hv ddlns tht flly ntnd t kp.
Bt gttng bck t Cry's vws: ctlly gr wth hm n bt 70% f hs stff. Cpyrghts xtndd d-nfntm r rdcls. ( ctlly thnk 14-yr cpyrght s fn, bt wrk n vry fst mvng ndstry, t.) Prvntng ppl frm tkng pctrs f bldngs ndr "cpyrght" s rdcls. Sr, thr's plnty f wys cmpns r wrkng t mxmz thr cpyrghts, bt rjct bth th pstn f ths cmpns nd Cry's vws. fnd thm bth t b t xtrm. Th fct tht gr wth hm n 70% f hs cpyrght cmplnts dsn't mn tht gr wth hm n th thr 30%, thgh. thnk Cry's vws g t fr. t wld b nc f cld spprt Cry n gd cnscnc. nfrtntly, fl lk 'm bng ttckd frm bth sds by tw grps wth xtrm vws.
>n th mntm, y shld lrn mr bt th crprt rghts grbs Cry's bn fghtng... Th bg ntrtnmnt cnglmrts ht hvng stff t thr tht sn't wnd. t's dstrbngly smlr t th hstrcl nsstnc f vrs rlng clsss tht thr b n lnd wtht ts wnr...
Lk sd - tw grps wth vws tht r t xtrm. Pntng t th sns f n sd sn't gng t mk m lv th 'cpyfght'. f Cry cld mdrt hs pstn bt, thn cld ctlly spprt hm.
ls hp tht cld hv chnc t ctlly spk-t bt whr thnk Cry gs wrng, nd lt ppl knw tht vryn s nt n grmnt wth hm (vn th ppl wh rn't wrkng fr th R r mgcrps).
I'm sorry, Brit, but I think you're still barking up the wrong tree.
Have you considered starting a weblog of your own about it? You could say whatever you want there, when you want to say it, which might be a better option for you in the long run.In a "career" of making semi-controversial arguments, I have noticed that people always head right to possible contradictions of behavior and speech, no matter how obscure or specious. (i.e. you once did something that you argue against, therefore you're argument cannot be valid). After that, it's right on to spelling and grammar mistakes, and judgments of character.
But I guess that's what makes arguments controversial; they define the ordinary boundaries of folks' logical consideration. It is much easier for them to continue in their tried-and-true logical path if the confrontation is deemed irrelevant on its face.
So little discussion of substance, so many logical invalidations! As for me, "It's highly unorthodox; but I'll allow it!"
(plus: my own, slightly materialist 2 cents - http://www.brutepress.com/Home/ithe-brutalitariani/a-bit-of-thought-work-on-intellectual-property - and personal trumpet)