| Author: | Benjamin Mako Hill |
|---|---|
| Organization: | MIT Media Lab |
| Contact: | mako@atdot.cc |
| Date: | Friday, 28 Oct 2005 |
Note
Slide 1: Intro Slide
Introduce myself:
Introduce my talk:
Note
4 Minutes elapsed
Note
Slide 2
The reason we are here:
Expression is facilitated and framed by copyright in today's world
Meanwhile, copyright is in crisis
Information:
a quickly growing class of goods, has been transformed itself into a good with zero marginal cost by a series of technologies:
Eben Moglen, "Everyone can have everything everywhere at the same price that anyone can anything."
Control of information is centralized (through copyright) in distribution companies who are finding themselves increasingly irrelevant except perhaps in the creation of celebrity.
And the cost approaches zero every time there is a better compression algorithm, a faster DSL connection, a more efficient copying machine -- er, a more powerful computer -- installed onto our desks.
The results, of course, are obvious: A gap between legal the reality as the people creating the information feel it, the realities as the consumers feel it and, the realities as the distribution companies (and their lobbyists) feel it.
The bottom line seems to be that doing nothing is not an option.
Note
10 minutes elapsed
Note
Slide 3 Copyright
(2 minutes)
Argument courtesy of the Recording Industry Association of American et al.
The self interest of the people making this argument colors these description and the arguments, when examined, seem specious.
I find these arguments unconvincing.
Note
Slide 4 Copyright
(4 minutes)
There are two major groups I can see of people who want to reform copyright.
People who think copyright used to be fine.
They argue for reverting the extensions of copyright.
Examples of this include
These arguments ignore profound technological changes in the way that we create and distribute information.
I find these arguments unconvincing.
Compulsories
Define.
The argument in favor of compulsories is more nuanced.
However, compulsories boil down to both a tax on the Internet and a compromise that stops the suits by allowing the distribution companies to secure their own futures. I don't think it's fair to the independent producers who stand to gain from the presence of a system where being a big boy isn't worth anything.
I find these arguments unconvincing.
Note
16 minutes elapsed
Note
Slide 5 Piracy
The transgressive argument is relatively easy to understand:
We'll keep consuming media until we kick the legs out from under the industry.
Yes: If we ignore them, they will go away eventually.
But: Ignoring them means more than just ignoring them when it comes to fee. It means ignoring them and piracy misses this key element.
As a result, I find the result unconvincing.
Note
Slide 6 Free Software
(2 minutes)
The final alternative is to really ignore the old system that are creating the problem. Basically:
Let's create information and distribute them freely and outside the system.
Let's use voluntary licensing schemes to create communities that allows freedom from all of those above and that, actually work.
As those become compelling, they demonstrate how the old systems are neither necessary nor efficient.
Free Software is the most visible example of a group following this model and it's what I will talk about for the remainder of my time.
Note
20 minutes elapsed
The free software model is an example of an alternative.
Note
Slide 7 Free Software Definition
Free Software was created by Richard Stallman more than 20 years ago. It was a "movement" that aimed to create (or recreate) an era of free sharing where he though he could do what was ethical.
Richard thought that to deprive people of information unnecessary was unjust.
Richard thought that there were four essential freedoms when it came to software:
He later expanded this definition to cover all primarily functional works.
Now, a bit of terminology: "Free software" versus "open source"
It turned out, Richard's model also created really good software. More collaboration made better works. When works are primarily functional, we can make this argument.
These pragmatic benefits became so important that some people tried to create a new movement focus only on the pragmatic benefits and they called that open source. The definitions of "open source" though is identical to the definition of free software.
Note
26 minutes elapsed
Free Software's has been an unqualified success.
Note
30 minutes elapsed
It is radically non-discriminatory and goal oriented
Basically, the only thing it discriminates against is discrimination.
Beyond "do what you like" the only widely used additions within the free software world are:
Goal orientedness.
The Point
FS was a movement toward a goal of freedom. RMS saw it as a social movement. Others saw it as a movement for more efficient business. But it was a movement toward an invariable set of goals.
FS is totally voluntary and can work along side the current system.
FOSS worked by using licenses (the GNU GPL)
The point
One benefit of the free software model is that to succeed, we need only ignore the existing situation.
Free software creates communities, "competing" against proprietary software. But not in a way that even the best business schools train you to compete.
If you want to be condescending, you can call free software "info hippies" but do so remembering that the most powerful social movements were, early on, dismissed using such terms.
We have legal tools to keep us insulated and we have lawyers and law firms which protect them. But all we need to do is ignore the producers.
Note
Slide 8 Beyond Software
Note
35 minutes elapsed
It make sense to try to end on what is most relevant to this community which is primarily non-functional works.
What are the differences:
Most notable among people who have learned from free software and tried to apply it other works is Creative Commons which takes a very incomplete view of the free software movement.
CC sees the success as free software as one based on "private ordering" or licensing. Free software did not succeed because of licenses. It existed before licenses. (software sharing commune)
What standard:
The tricky issues seems to be around commercial use and derivative works.
Perhaps what we can learn from FS is that by setting some definition of freedom, we can begin to build a social movement for real freedom.
So far, programmers and lawyers have been defining freedom for the production of other types of artistic works. You all should start thinking of these issues..