Category: Digital Culture

Copyright is Anti-Civil Liberties?

Y’know, I try to have a calm, productive Monday morning and not let anything rustle my jimmies, and then somebody on Twitter posts an article by Rick Falkvinge. And I CLICK ON IT!  And I know I shouldn’t because everything Falkvinge says is so mind-numbingly stupid that it’s only going to distract me into composing a response in my head when I ought to be focusing on something of greater value.  Okay, my ADD isn’t Falkvinge’s fault, but every time he puts finger to keyboard and presumes to give voice to what passes for thought in his myopic universe, and I stumble upon it, all I can think of is Dan Akroyd doing Point Counterpoint on SNL in the 1970s:  “Rick, you ignorant slut.”  Only I’m not joking.

In his latest offering on Torrentfreak, The Swedish Pirate rallies the troops, reminding them that the war is long, but the cause is just.  Continuing with the theme of Newspeak writ large on Times Square right now, Rick’s premise is that “the copyright monopoly cannot coexist with fundamental civil liberties.” Falkvinge states that he and his myrmidons must keep repeating this message, person by person if need be because “social change for good,” takes time.  Indeed it does, but there is another path Falkvinge and Co. could take — they could always shut up and let the artists champion social justice and civil rights just like they’ve been doing for centuries.

On paper, copyright and civil liberties have coexisted since our nation’s founding.  Of course, many civil liberties themselves have been, and continue to be, hard won against sentiments of racism, sexism, and religious zealotry; but the constancy of copyright’s incentive has played a crucial role in those battles.  When James Baldwin published The Fire Next Time, he couldn’t ride in the front of a bus in the American South, but he still enjoyed the right of copyright, without which his talents may have played no role in the greater effort toward justice.  Harvey Milk would hardly be known today by most Americans were it not for a 2008 motion picture that would not exist without copyright. And these are just two obvious examples.  The truth is that the total volume of free expression produced by creative artists is one of the greatest buffers against social injustice within democratic societies.

In one hand the artist holds the right of free expression, and in the other, he holds copyright.  Wielded together, these tools have done more social good than any politician could ever hope to achieve.  So, to say that copyright cannot coexist with civil liberty is like saying fire cannot coexist with oxygen. Copyright is a civil liberty, and if we destroy it, there is every possibility that the real monopolists win.

On Motivations, TBWAChiat/Day, and “Pirate Square”

There’s been a lot of speculation, including by me, on the question as to why TBWAChait/Day is the agency behind what is being called “Pirate Square” by folks in the artists’ rights community.  And I feel foolish for overlooking the most obvious explanation, which is selling the agency itself.  Ad agencies spend a significant amount of money and internal resources promoting themselves, and in fact the icon of the pirate is  central to the Chiat/Day brand.  On the TBWAChiat/Day website, you will find a button that says “Pirate Culture,” which pops up a screen that features a quote by co-founder Jay Chiat that reads, “It’s better to be the pirate than the Navy.”  This is followed by a bit of cultural identity language stating, Pirates don’t live by rules and conventions, they break them. They seize upon every opportunity, creating their own when none can be found.  That’s why we proudly fly the pirate flag.  Always have.  Always will.

Apropos of what I said in my previous post about the new generation of creative advertisers taking over a stodgy, homogenous industry in the late 60s and early 70s, this common romanticism of the pirate as dashing rebel fits the spirit of those times.  Of course the legacy of that revolution is that, today, every ad agency wants to promote itself as the edgiest, most forward-thinking, rule-breaking, unconventional, and most creative choice in the market. But when everybody’s a rebel, nobody is, and the competition to out-cool the other guy occasionally strains sound, strategic marketing principles.  We see this when, from time to time, award-winning ads do nothing for the brands they’re meant to promote.

So, it’s possible that the scuttlebutt about TBWAChiat/Day doing its part in this campaign pro bono is true, and perhaps the reason is that the pirate itself is such a big part of the agency’s brand.  In fact, the design and color palette of the outdoor and companion website for this campaign is consistent with that of Chiat/Day’s own look — solid blocks of color, a lot of black and white, the same or similar sans serif font.  So, no matter who footed the bill for the space itself, it is not unreasonable to assume that TBWAChiat/Day’s leadership saw this as a perfect opportunity to promote its own brand on Times Square and in a way that would generate tons of free publicity (including from bloggers like me) because they knew full well that they were poking a stick at a bee’s nest.

The pirate as romantic rebel endures despite the fact we know that actual pirates were nothing like their storybook versions; and there is no reason why myth and truth should not coexist.  Jay Chiat was right*, of course, that if you want to say you’re more creative than the other guy, it’s “better to be the pirate than the Navy,” especially in 1968 when the military was involved in one of the most unpopular conflicts in American history.  In 2013, though, the piracy this campaign celebrates could not be less rebellious, edgy, or adventurous.  Anyone who thinks downloading a bunch of Adele tunes for free is a form of social protest or cutting-edge thinking is sorely in need of a real cause.

I may be wrong in this analysis; these things come about in so many different ways; but the coincident link between TWBAChiat/Day’s brand and this campaign is too obvious to ignore. If I’m right, of course, it’s a bit of a calculated risk for the agency.  Pro piracy messages may be popular among consumers between the ages of 12 and 35, but these   views are not necessarily consistent with those of decision-makers at the major brands who hire ad agencies. For instance, I’m pretty sure Chiat/Day’s clients The Grammys or GlaxoSmithKline might have something to say on the subjects of intellectual property and enterprise-scale piracy.

Were I to meet Jay Chiat today, I’d have to “push back,” as the account execs like to say, and suggest that when it comes to creative thinking, it is indeed better to mirror the cunning of the mythological pirate; but when it comes to making ethical or pragmatic choices in the real world, it’s sometimes okay to be the Navy.

*See follow-up article regarding the origin of this quote.

More Than 3Dimensions

WrenchOwnership is the subject of “On the Media’s” recent broadcast from WNYC, and the show’s producers talked to a variety of voices about the ever-shifting tensions between intellectual property rights and disruptive technologies.  One segment featured a conversation with Chris Anderson, CEO of 3D Robotics, and the theme was a familiar one — the inevitable disruption of manufacturing by 3D printing technology coupled with a preemptive criticism of federal regulation that would seek to mitigate said disruption as a protectionist move among traditional manufacturers.  Before this technology is anywhere near wide distribution, its proponents are already anticipating the kind of legal constraints that might naturally ensue, and they’re getting their message out early — namely that 3D printing is the next revolution in a DIY, permission-free lifestyle, and it will be great for all of us if lawmakers don’t mess it up.  But to what extent is this conversation purely academic?  In fact, host Bob Garfield’s example of printing a wrench is itself and indication as to why 3D printing may not be quite so universally disruptive, or at least not in the way many proponents assume.

Start with the premise that I bet I’m not the only one who has gone through at least a dozen or so ink jet printers in my life so far, and we all know why.  Because the printers are made to retail pretty cheaply in order to lock us into buying toner cartridges that are still quite expensive.  Over twenty years of desktop printing, and the price of a black toner cartridge is still $30 to $40 at Staples.

So now, it’s the future, and I have my 3D printer, which had to retail for maybe $500 or less in order to achieve market penetration; and I’m ready to print myself a new crescent wrench, something that has already been done by various printer advocates and entrepreneurs.  If black toner is $30, how much will it cost for, I don’t know, 30oz of whatever MagicGoo has been invented to enable printing a wrench that has enough structural integrity to truly fulfill its purpose (i.e. not break)? It’s going to have to be really cheap and really good (two things that often don’t coincide) in order to compete with the steel-alloy, nickel-plated Craftsman I can buy for about $30 and comes with a lifetime guarantee.  And of course my 3D printer better be a lot more reliable than my 2D printers have been because I’m sure many of us have lost whole days fighting with these delicate, cantankerous beasts, which is right around the time we give up and buy a new one.  Meanwhile, I’ve got bolts on the kids’ swing set that remain unbolted because my printer jammed half-way through making my stupid wrench, and my wife is telling me I’m an idiot for not going to the hardware store two hours ago. So, a lot more than downloading software and owning a printer has to align for this entire prospect to be superior to the current wrench acquisition paradigm that is neither cumbersome nor cost-prohibitive.  And that’s just a wrench.

Take something a little more complicated but still low-tech like a brake caliper, which has several components and retails for my car for about $60. In its present form, the caliper (like so many products) represents mining, petroleum production, rubber harvesting, commodities markets, international trade, shipping (which is protected by the US Navy), machining, assembly,  testing, and regulatory safety standards. And still, the part is only twenty dollars more than a black toner cartridge. But as this is a moving part complete with spring, I can’t just build it as one piece out of nothing but MagicGoo. Hence, are we envisioning a future in which individual consumers have affordable access to raw materials like copper, metal alloys, rubber, etc. all in some form that can be extruded through the 3D printer?  If so, that’s a pretty massive shift in the global supply chain; but even if the day comes when I can precision-print each component, I still have to assemble the caliper by hand (presumably with tools I’ve also printed), which brings us to another matter. . . . Guess what none of us has anymore — auto insurance.  Car parts are just one example of products that come with a liability chain, and I’m betting there isn’t going to be an underwriter willing to insure drivers who make and assemble their own parts.  By contrast the calipers on all our cars have a supply chain that can be traced, which provides a) relative assurance in reliability; b) absolves us consumers of personal liability; and c) provides insight into systemic problems when something does fail.

Just glancing across my rather cluttered desk at the moment, I recognize products that contain gold, silver, copper, silicone, steel, aluminum, rubber, and cotton, all assembled in very specific combinations either by hand or by robot.  In fact, the complexity of systems that put these things at my fingertips belies their affordability. Hence, my immediate instinct is that many of these preemptive policy statements by 3D printing champions make for very interesting conversation and TED Talks, but still belong in the realm of the academic.  A holistic contemplation of 3D printer disruption, taking into account what a pain in the ass common ink printers have been so far, shows it will take a lot more than building an object that looks like a product for the thing to actually be that product.

Technologists and inventors are supposed to dream big; it’s part of their job description. And the prospect of 3D printing to produce new products or new methods of certain types of production in the arts, in food, even potentially in housing, are very intriguing, but to proclaim imminent disruption across the entire manufacturing sector seems a tad premature. And the policy messages start to sound a little like people arguing for revised traffic laws in anticipation of that day we all have jet packs. All that said, I’d be very eager to use a 3D printer to print out new 2D printers and especially those damnable toner cartridges.