intellectual property

Rick Falkvinge: Creative Commons Torpedoes Copyright Industry Lies

The copyright industry has long repeated the claim to politicians that the copyright monopoly is necessary for any culture to be created at all, to the point where politicians actually believe this nonsense. Actually, their ‘lie’ is divided into two parts:

The first falsehood is that authors, makers, and inventors must be paid for anything to be created at all. This lie is actually rather obscene coming from an industry which has deliberately created structures that make sure 99.99% of musicians never see a single cent in royalties: 99% of good musicians are never signed by a label, and of those who are, 99% never see a cent in royalties. So it’s quite obscene arguing that culture must be paid for, when this very industry makes sure that less than one artist in ten thousand get any money for their art.

The second lie is that the only way for artists to make any money is to give the copyright industry an absolute private governmentally-sanctioned distribution monopoly, the copyright monopoly, that takes precedence over any kind of innovation, technology, and civil liberties. This is an equally obscene lie: all research shows that artists make more money than ever since the advent of file sharing, but the sales-per-copy is down the drain. The fact that the parasitic middlemen are hurting is the best news ever for artists, who get a much larger piece of the pie. Of course, the copyright industry – the parasitic middlemen in question – insist on pretending their interests are aligned with those of the artist, which they never were.

Therefore, in believing these two lies combined, politicians grant this private governmentally-sanctioned monopoly – the copyright monopoly – in the belief that such a harmful monopoly is necessary for culture to exist in society. (Just to illustrate what kind of blatant nonsense this is, all archeological digs have been rich in various expressions of culture. We create as a species because we can’t exist in a society and not express culture – it’s because of our fundamental wiring: not because of a harmful monopoly.)

So what could act as conclusive proof that these lies are, well, lies?

Creative Commons.

In the construct of Creative Commons, you have placed the power over this monopoly with the authors and makers themselves, rather with the parasitic middlemen. And the interesting observation is, that once you do, millions of creators renounce their already-awarded harmful monopolies for a number of reasons – because they make more money that way, because they prefer to create culture that way, or because it’s the moral thing to do.

Once you point out that the actual people who create are renouncing their already-awarded monopolies, and are doing so by the millions – actually, more than an estimated one billion works of art according to the Creative Commons organization – the entire web of lies falls apart.

The copyright monopoly isn’t necessary for culture to exist. It was always tailored to benefit the parasitic middlemen. And these middlemen have tried their damndest to prevent actual artists from seeing any of the money.

Now, you could argue that specific expressions of culture couldn’t exist. You’d be easily disproven – for example, most multimillion-dollar blockbusters make their investment back on opening weekend, far before any digital copy exists as a torrent. Besides, why would you prop up and lock in a specific form of culture with a harmful monopoly, when forms of culture have always evolved with humanity?


Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at falkvinge.net focuses on information policy.

(via TorrentFreak)

Sharing: Culture and the Economy in the Internet Age

This seems like an important book, that deals with current pressing issues about file sharing. It was written by one of the founders of La Quadrature du Net (http://www.laquadrature.net) – an advocacy group defending the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet – Philippe Aigrain. Here’s a bit or two from the introduction which sets the tone refreshingly: a research that has a statement, an oppinion. That’s rare.

File sharing is the act of making a file available to other individuals by putting it on-line, by sending a copy, or by rendering it accessible through a file sharing software. We defend the view that sharing without direct or indirect monetary transaction – or “non-market” sharing – is legitimate. We also claim that sharing is socially and culturally valuable and will play a key role in the future of our culture and the creative economies.

– The non-market sharing of digital works is valuable and must be recognized as a legitimate activity (chapter 3).
– New financing schemes are needed to turn the potential of a many-to-all creative world into a reality (chapter 4). In such an environment, all will have access to works, the right to share them and the technical means to produce new works. Many will build new capabilities in informing others, expressing oneself, and creativity. They will catch the interest of some, and some – more numerous that today – will attract the interest of many.

The book is free for download, and is also an ‘open book’, which means it will be updated frequently online and is open for comments and debate.

(via icommons-si list)

proti sporazumu ACTA

Nekaj misli ob protestu 4.februarja, ki se je zgodil v sloveniji, ter tudi ob vsej javni razpravi, ter globalnem protestu, ki se bo zgodil naslednjo soboto 11. februarja.

ACTA je sporazum, ki skuša urediti kaos, ki je nastal s pojavom medmrežja, s pojavom proste in poceni kopije česarkoli, kar se da digitalizirati.

Medmrežje je čudovito darilo s katerim lahko ljudje, ki nimajo ničesar, nekaj vrednega dobijo, ne da bi pri tem v resnici kdorkoli karkoli izgubili.

Sporazumu ACTA ne nasprotujem zato, ker bi mi preprečeval pretok holivudskih filmov in glasbe ameriških glasbenikov.

Ne nasprotujem mu zato, ker bi mi preprečeval zastonjski dostop do programja kot je Microsoft Windows ali Apple iTunes.

Sporazumu ACTA ne nasprotujem zato, ker bi se hotel okoriščati s kreativnim delom drugih ali ker bi bil kot potrošnik izdelkov velikih producentov zabave okraden možnosti, da pridem do potrošnje na čimcenejši način.

Sporazumu nasprotujem zato, ker želim uporabljati medmrežje za mojo lastno kreativnost in kreativnost somišljenikov. Sporazum zavračam, ker uničuje možnost, da gradim na hrbtih preteklih ustvarjalcev – kot so to počeli ustvarjalci pred menoj.

Sporazumu ACTA nasprotujem zato, ker daje moč cenzure in kriminalnega pregona tistih, ki imajo najmanj, tistim, ki imajo največ – mimo sodne oblasti.

Sporazum zavračam, ker se ne prilagaja novim izzivom digitalne dobe, ki nam omogoča, da smo povezani in da napredujemo in kot človeštvo rastemo s še večjo hitrostjo.

Nasprotujem mu, ker ne spodbuja razvoja novih ekonomskih modelov, ki upoštevajo sodobno stanje stvari in informacij, ki želijo biti proste, temveč nas posiljuje s preživelimi načini nadzora in regulacije, ki so delovali v industrijski dobi, danes pa so zastareli in nefunkcionalni.

“Piratke” in “pirati” nas vse v resnici imenujejo tisti, ki jim je žal za vse dolarje in evre, ki bi jih lahko pobrali, če bi lahko zaračunali za vsak prenešen megabit, ki se je prenesel preko medmrežja.

Če je to, da želimo živeti v svetu, ki koristno izrablja možnost proste informacije, ki nas nič ne stane, če želimo svojo ustvarjalnost distribuirati po svetu, zato ker nas kopija nič ne stane in lahko delimo naše znanje z vsem človeštvom, da se z njim upešno okoristi, ker nikogar nič ne stane, ko je neskončnokrat pomnoženo, in na podlagi vsega tega iščemo nove napredne in trajnostne ekonomske modele in ne sprejemamo nasilne adaptacije staromodnih načinov regulacije avtorskih pravic in intelektualne lastnine — če je vse to tisto, kar imenujejo piratstvo, potem bodimo z vsem kreativnim zanosom imenovani pirati!

Kiberpipa o sporazumu ACTA

ACTA je trgovinski sporazum za boj proti ponarejanju, ki je v nastajanju že več let in je v zadnjem času – predvsem pa po podpisu Slovenije – prejel veliko pozornosti predvsem zaradi strahu, da bo omejil svobodo govora na medmrežju. Gre za multilateralni sporazum, ki med drugim predlaga uvajanje novih mednarodnih kriterijev za uveljavljanje avtorskih pravic ter zaščite intelektualne lastnine.

Menimo, da gre pri sporazumu za več nedopustnih postavk, saj ACTA predstavlja ogrožanje zasebnosti, omejevanje inovacij in škodovanje mednarodni trgovini. Samo besedilo sporazuma je nejasno, dogovorjeno je bilo za zaprtimi vrati, večina držav v razvoju pa je bila izključena iz pogajanj.

Sporazum ACTA pomeni resno tveganje posledic zaradi neuravnoteženosti med varovanjem pravic, izhajajočih iz intelektualne lastnine in ohranjanja in varovanja temeljnih človekovih pravic, kot so svoboda izražanja, dostop do informacij in kulturnih dobrin ter pravice do zasebnosti.

Kiberpipa se zavzema za javno razpravo, predvsem pa za jasno zavrnitev sporazuma s strani Evropskega parlamenta. Kiberpipa se pridružuje mnenju La Quadrature du Net, da “je sporazum ACTA nastal skozi pogajanja za zaprtimi vrati namesto skozi demokratično razpravo in s tem zaobšel parlamente in mednarodne organizacije z namenom diktiranja represivne logike, ki jo vsiljujejo zabavne industrije. ACTA, podlaga za zakone kot so SOPA in PIPA, skozi kriminalizacijo prisiljuje medmrežne akterje k nadzoru in cenzuriranju komunikacije na spletu. S tem predstavlja grožnjo svobodi izražanja na medmrežju in ustvarja pravno negotovost za ponudnike interneta in ostala spletna podjetja. V imenu blagovnih znamk in patentov bo zagotovo ovirala dostop do generičnih zdravil v revnih deželah.

Na spletu in v javnosti na tak ali drugačen način že poteka javna razprava, specifično pa pozivamo:

– na javni protest 4. februarja ob 12h na Kongresni trg v Ljubljani
– na okroglo mizo v torek 7. februarja ob 19h v Kiberpipi
– na mednarodni dan protestov proti sporazumu ACTA 11.februarja
– da pišete našim poslancem v EP

pobuda za javno razpravo o sporazumu
http://pobuda-acta.si/

Informacijska pooblaščenka RS o sporazumu ACTA
https://www.ip-rs.si/novice/detajl/informacijski-pooblascenec-o-acta/

E-demokracija & Access Now o sporazumu acta
http://www.e-demokracija.si/no-acta/brosura-o-sporazumu-acta/

Helena Drnovšek Zorko: Zakaj sem podpisala sporazum ACTA
http://metinalista.si/zakaj-sem-podpisala-acta-o/

Analiza sporazuma na Slo-Tech
http://slo-tech.com/novice/t504699/0

Evropski poslanci:
http://www.europarl.si/view/sl/evropski_parlament/slovenski_poslanci_EP_2009_2014.html

Mednarodni protest 11/feb
https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/acta-protest-feb-11