opinion

Opinion editorial.

Not Wrong.

Help The Law See.You landed on this page because you didn't do anything wrong.

So, breathe.  Sit up straight :-).  You're fine.

You didn't do anything wrong.

You copied something.  Maybe it was a song, or a video, or some text.  All you did was make a copy of it.  You didn't steal anything, you didn't take false credit, you didn't intercept or dilute money that belongs to someone else.  All you did was copy.  You took part in a ritual as old as the human race: the act of sharing a piece of culture or information.

Some people may try to make you feel bad about what you did.  They'll tell you that by copying something, you took money out of the pocket of an artist (but you know you didn't — in fact, you probably helped the artist by spreading their work).  They'll call it "piracy", as though making copies of things is somehow like board a ship on the high seas, stealing its cargo, and doing who-knows-what with the crew.  They'll tell you that what you did is analogous to counterfeiting money (it's not).  They might claim to you that the whole purpose of copyright is to supposed to be to provide artists with a stable income, even though that's not why copyright was invented, copyright is not how most artists earn their livings anyway, and overall it probably does more harm to artists than it does good.

When these people tell you you've done something wrong, they're asking you to help support a myth, but you're under no obligation to go along.  In fact, we'd appreciate it if you'd point them to this page.

So don't buy it.

We don't mean "don't buy the song", of course.  You should absolutely buy the song (or movie, or CD or DVD) if you want to — though if you really want to support the artist, it's often more efficient to just send them money, because that way there's no monopoly-based organization in the middle skimming most of your support away (naturally, if you feel the intermediary is doing good work, then support them too; many publishers are providing a valuable service).  It might be that the copying you did, or contemplated doing, is illegal in the country where you did it — a lot of countries have laws against copying.  We encourage you to obey the laws in your jurisdiction.  We just mean don't buy the argument.  Don't give those laws authority over your emotions.  If you've copied something, don't feel guilty.  You didn't do anything wrong.

There are many practical and philosophical reasons for obeying a law you don't agree with, but there is never a reason to feel guilty about breaking a law you don't agree with.  If you broke a law against copying publicly-available data, and someone's trying to make you feel bad about that, then send them here, or at least ask them to make a rigorous case for what they're claiming.

Can they justify the position that humans shouldn't be allowed to share culture freely?  If they're saying that the economic concerns for artists are so great as to trump the serious civil liberties concerns with this position, do they have actual numbers to back that up?  Have they talked to the artists who have been hurt by copyright restrictions?  The translators who couldn't translate because the law wouldn't allow them to?  The teachers who couldn't teach the material they needed?  The publishers and distributors who couldn't bring great books and films to audiences?

Copying is not wrong, and you didn't do anything wrong.  So don't feel bad — just spread the word.

Tags: 

Let the Money in the Door: Opportunity in the Case of an Independent Artist

Flying dollar signs.Leonard Kirke is an author, blogger, and video artist based in Ohio. A believer in the ideals of Free Culture, he releases all of his work into the public domain via CC0, and is currently at work on a fantasy novel, the first in a series, aimed at children and young adults. His blog The Vertigo of Freedom can be found at leonardkirke.wordpress.com.  He is also a regular contributor to the surreal multimedia art project known as The Jeremy Kellerman Advice Hour Archive, which can be found on YouTube, Blogger, and the Internet Archive.

Many stories surrounding the debate over copyright today are focused on purely corporate affairs: film studios cracking down on illegal file-sharing, fair use being trampled on Youtube, record labels hunting down cover bands, and the efforts of lobbyists to pass far-reaching anti-copyright infringement legislation, such as SOPA earlier this year, that threaten internet freedom.

Recently, however, a story has been making the rounds online via social media that is certain to draw both the sympathy and righteous indignation of struggling independent artists everywhere. The story, and the following built by the man at the center of it, highlights some of the popular, often-unquestioned assumptions about the supposed inherent justice of copyright law.

As recounted in a post on his Tumblr account, the story begins back in 2008 when freelance artist Max Hancock, who often works under the pseudonym Kouotsu, created both a 2-D and 3-D character model design for a robot girl as part of an assignment while he was in art school and posted it to the popular site DeviantArt.

He goes on to explain, "I failed to put my name/info on the image though, so it has been spread around the internet and some people have modeled it without my permission (just for the record you don’t have to sign something for it to be protected by copyright). They usually find out who made it later and gladly credit me. So I don’t mind!"

That is, he adds, "Until someone tries to sell it."

Tags: 

The Future of Creative Commons: Examining defenses of the NC and ND clauses

This guest editorial by Kira of Students for Free Culture makes a powerful argument that the hoped-for "drag the center in our direction" effect of the non-free-culture licenses offered by Creative Commons isn't working, and that a different approach is needed.  We felt Kira's points were compelling enough to be worth airing -- they're the right questions, at least, and one heartening sign is that (as noted in the editorial's first link) Creative Commons has started helping people distinguish free licenses from non-free ones, with their “Approved for Free Cultural Works“ seal and their freedom-displaying license chooser.  The question Kira raises now is, is continuing to offer the non-free licenses the best way to advance Creative Commons' mission?

Creative Commons licenses arranged all in a row.

A few weeks ago, Students for Free Culture published a detailed and thoroughly cited post calling for the retirement of proprietary license options in Creative Commons 4.0. Already the story has been picked up by Techdirt and Slashdot and it has spurred lots of heated debate around the value of the NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND) licenses to Creative Commons and to rightsholders, but not a lot of discussion has been framed around the official mission and vision of Creative Commons.

Creative Commons has responded to the post stating that adopters of NC and ND licenses "may eventually migrate to more open licenses once exposed to the benefits that accompany sharing," maintaining that these licenses have been a strategic measure to approach that goal. The name Creative Commons itself highlights the aim of enabling a network of ideas and expressions that are commonly shared and owned or, as we usually call it, the commons. To be very explicit, one need not look any further than Creative Commons' mission statement (added emphasis) to see that this is what they work for:

Creative Commons develops, supports, and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation.

 

Our vision is nothing less than realizing the full potential of the Internet — universal access to research and education, full participation in culture — to drive a new era of development, growth, and productivity.

The NC and ND clauses are non-free/proprietary because they retain a commercial and/or creative monopoly on the work. Legally protected monopolies by any other name are still incompatible with the commons and undermine commonality. There is no question as to the purpose of Creative Commons or the definition of free cultural works. What Students for Free Culture has offered is not primarily a critique of proprietary licenses, but a critique of Creative Commons' tactics in providing them. The idea that the non-free licenses "may eventually migrate to more open licenses once exposed to the benefits that accompany sharing" is a reasonable one, but one that deserves careful reflection after a decade of taking that approach.

Tags: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - opinion