Category: Copyright

Think File Sharing is Sticking it to The Man? Really?

puppetshareBack in the Napster days, I had an assistant named Greg, who remains one of the sweetest guys I’ve ever been lucky enough to call a friend. I remember giving him a hard time one afternoon when I realized he was using the file sharing app to download music.  With a slightly self-aware grin he said to me, “Yeah, but you gotta stick it to The Man,” to which I replied, “Greg, if I can teach you anything, it’s that Mick Jagger is not The Man.”

Of course, many of us know the history of events that unfolded since that time, and I would certainly be among those who say that mistakes made by the recording industry were profoundly unhelpful in the process of migrating entertainment into the digital age.  But that doesn’t entirely explain or excuse the dysfunction which still blinds “file sharers” to the fact that the people being harmed by piracy are indeed the artists and the skilled workers who support those artists.

I spent nearly 20 years providing freelance, creative services in the often bizarre and obfuscating lingo of corporate communications, which is to say I’ve listened to a lot of bullshit.  And when it comes to the various ways people talk about digital copyright infringement, the amount of bullshit is of Augean proportions.  First clue:  when corporate agents describe something that’s really very simple in terms that make it sound visionary, you’re wading knee-deep into it. Thankfully, independent musician David Lowery has brought a bulldozer to the party called The Trichordist.

Lowery of the bands Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker, co-founded this artists’ rights blog, which has a solid track record for getting to the point.  For instance, this week, the site posted a list of 50 major advertisers who have ads appearing on websites whose sole enterprise is unlicensed access to entertainment media (i.e. “dedicated to infringement”).  Aside from the fact that it’s just plain surreal to see Tom Waits “sponsored” by an ad for WeightWatchers, it takes about half a caffeinated brain cell to recognize that the entire business model is what we normally call wrong.  I know this is a word that makes many digital age millennials uncomfortable, but that’s just too bad because this is big boy school, and Professor Lowery is saying something very serious, but also very easy to understand. This is about large, American corporations supporting and legitimizing the exploitation of American workers.

I’ll say it again without equivocation. These sites are in the business of exploiting workers. Period. Don’t let’s get distracted by the fact that copies of files don’t cost anything to produce or distribute or that you think WMG is evil or you don’t like the RIAA.  That’s all that bullshit again, and it has nothing to do with the way in which these sites generate revenue. All that “free” media represent hours or years or even decades of labor, either by one person or by hundreds of people. This labor is very often done for compensation that is paid incrementally after the work is complete — sometimes years after in the case of, say, a screenwriter whose residuals over a decade might represent a portion of her income.

Fortunately, The Trichordist has bulldozed past the moral ambiguity of the user, the self-serving and vague politics of the Web industry, and the functional roadblocks of the technologists right to the money that goes into the pockets of the exploiters. It’s AT&T, it’s Ford, it’s American Express, it’s CitiBank, and so on. This is a B2B problem. Money from American businesses is supporting offshore, illegal operations that exploit American workers in other businesses.  It really doesn’t get more basic than that.

I know my friend at The Cynical Musician would agree that exploiting labor without permission or compensation is what we call slavery, so if we buy fair-trade goods or think twice about who assembles our iPods, we shouldn’t pat ourselves on the backs if we’re also regular users of these sites. The techno-utopians will say, “There are always winners and losers through transformation.” That’s fine, I guess, but then let’s stop all the prattle about new models, shall we? There’s nothing new about theft or exploitation; they are as old as human history and they reek, whether the tools of the exploiters are guns, whips, or keyboards. Moreover, the end-game in this trend is a dilution of the value of the individual voice of the creator, who will (and we’ve already seen this happen) become more dependent on corporate patronage to make a living.  That means art whose primary purpose is to support a brand, which is a functional, if not a legal, limit on free speech.

I would challenge the defender of “file sharing” to read the list on The Trichordist site and convince himself that by downloading unlicensed media he’s “sticking it to The Man.” The truth is the ardent file sharer is a corporate puppet that has no idea which companies are pulling its strings.

Paying Attention to the Echo Chamber at CES Copyright Panel Discussion

“The Pirate Bay is speech.” This is a quote from one of the gurus perched on the mountaintop of techno-utopianism, John Perry Barlow, who appeared yesterday as a member of a panel discussion held at CES2013 in Las Vegas.

The subject of the discussion was “A pro-artist/pro-innovation approach to copyright,” although the panel did not include anyone representing any counterpoint from contemporary artists, and the conversation was typically vague on what exactly these folks mean by “innovation.” According to moderator Declan McCullugh, a reporter for CNet, an invitation to join the panel was declined by the MPAA; and I suppose that could be considered an effort toward balance, although I think it’s a little like saying, “We’re here to talk auto manufacturing, and the president of Ford doesn’t want to be a straw man, so we didn’t bother to invite any of a zillion other people who make a living actually building cars.” To his credit, McCullugh was mildly deprecating about the one-sided, anti-copyright love fest he was hosting — there’s not much to moderate when everyone agrees with one another — but that doesn’t mean the discussion failed to reveal anything of interest.

The full panel included:

  • John Perry Barlow – Co-Founder , Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF
  • Wilson Holmes – Co-Director , Fight for the Future
  • Mike Masnick – CEO and Founder , TechDirt
  • Hank Shocklee – Founder and CEO, Shocklee Entertainment
  • Gigi Sohn – Co-Founder and President, Public Knowledge
  • (And surprise panelist) Derek Khanna

Of course, had the panel included an independent filmmaker, a small record label producer, a photographer, or an independent musician, the conversation might have been forced to settle down from its lofty heights and overused talking points poking “the content industry” into the nuts and bolts of everyday realities faced by middle and working-class creators. But the petty challenges of middle-class individuals seem to be of little concern to these folks, who believe they’re on a mission to bring about a brave new world. Gigi Sohn stated that any kind of new anti-piracy legislation, were it to dare raise its head in the post-SOPA landscape of net snipers like Public Knowledge, ought to be “grounded in reality.” It’s hard not to laugh at this in light of the fear-mongering exaggerations promoted by her organization and others about SOPA, but beyond that, reality is by definition something different from the the Internet. As such, I’m grateful to Barlow for making one of the few declarative statements that gets right to the reality underlying much of the noise on these issues.

We could set aside all the nit-picky squabbling over dollars lost and earned by big corporations, all the petty complaints about occasional, improper takedowns, all of Lawrence Lessig’s celebration of remix culture and Derek Khanna’s vague references to innovation, and make a decision as a society as to whether or not Barlow’s statement, “The Pirate Bay is speech,” is correct.

Taking a conservative point of view, law is what we as a society agree is immutable (e.g. murder will probably remain illegal), and anything beyond that is up for discussion and maybe shouldn’t be law. Before we could have a discussion about a new approach to copyright, then, we’d have to decide what, if anything, is immutable. Either Barlow is right that an enterprise like The Pirate Bay, which (let’s not mince words) makes its revenues by exploiting the works and investments of other people, is protected by free speech, or he’s wrong. This is a decision the next generation, one that is used to getting entertainment media for free, has to make; and I believe that if they make the expedient decision that Barlow is right, that they and their kids will pay dearly in the future. And the price could be more than the loss of creative culture.

I think it’s safe to say that, before we were on the Internet, before everything could become sharable data, that nobody would rationally have argued that selling bootleg CDs out of a car trunk would be an act protected by free speech. That being the case, the philosophical/legal question is, “What’s really changed?” The techno-utopian says we have to expand our definition of speech on the grounds that, in the digital age, it is all too easy to chill speech; but they fail to acknowledge that they’re standing on a theoretical peak with slippery slopes on all sides. If we define everything as speech, then it’s true that any restrictions of any kind in the digital world can be said to chill speech. The slippery slope in the other direction, though, is that if the business of The Pirate Bay really is speech, then so is a site or a link that promotes human trafficking. As a matter of pure reason, what’s the difference? In real life, both enterprises involve the exploitation of actual human beings (albeit one more grave than the other); but in cyberspace, both enterprises are just benign data, right? Either we will choose to define boundaries going forward, or we will not; and I am not alone in believing the consequences of that decision will become very real within a couple of decades.

Techno-utopians like the ones on yesterday’s panel like to refer to the horrors of a grandmother having her video taken down, either purposely or by accident, from YouTube and then imply that each of these anomalous incidents moves us one step closer toward authoritarian rule. In response to the comparatively benign deprivation of having a video removed from the Web, these folks would have us hyper-extend speech to the inclusion of real physical and economic harm. As I have argued before, this is like legalizing homicide in order to make sure no one is ever again wrongfully sent to death row. If we can negotiate the gravity of such flaws in our legal framework, surely we can get past a few wrongful yet survivable takedowns on the web.

Ostensibly, this panel discussion was about a copyright system that’s good for artists and innovators; but Barlow’s foundational statement puts the artists, who historically test the power of free speech to profound cultural effect, on par with common thieves who dilute both the cultural and economic value of the works they steal. And the implications could be far more serious than what happens to music and movies. To quote Chris Ruen from his new book Freeloading, in which he unknowingly echoes the name of this blog: “But behind free content’s superficial illusion of more lies a long-term reality of less. Sooner or later, it is something we all have to pay for.” Looking beyond the Web’s ability to expand sharing of entertainment media, I believe that price could be something far more dear than money.

Strange Theater at the CATO Institute

“To keep up even a worthwhile tradition means vitiating the idea behind it which must necessarily be in a constant state of evolution: it is mad to try to express new feelings in a “mummified” form.”
– Alfred Jarry –

Legal expert and blogger Terry Hart and I had the chance to meet in DC this week, and we were discussing the likelihood that, although copyright is dispos’d in brawl ridiculous on the virtual battlefields of cyberspace, that most people neither know nor likely care much about the subject. This is probably a good thing as there are more serious matters at hand. Still, one of the reasons I personally do pay attention to this digital-age donnybrook is that, beyond concern for the rights of creators, the future of culture, and the economics of the creative industries, my sense is that there are some strange, ideological forces at play.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post asking whether or not conservatives and libertarians are eager to take up copyright reform under the umbrella agenda of small government.  My post was in response to a somewhat haphazard brief, published and then retracted by the Republican Study Committee.  And last week, the libertarian Cato Institute hosted what I can only describe as a piece of absurdist theater entitled Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess, so named for the book edited by Jerry Brito and co-authored by Tom W. Bell, who were the featured speakers

As usual, I’ll direct you to Terry’s blog for legal analysis of the presentation but offer my take from a broad perspective. The premise is that copyright law has expanded beyond it’s original intent (translation: an example of big government), and the conclusion proposed is that copyright law ought to revert back to its status of 1790 (translation: strict constitutionalism).  So, as a purely academic exercise, I get why this stage play might seem attractive to libertarians or conservatives; but as we contemplate taking these proposals seriously in the real world, we run headlong into some peculiar hypocrisies and contradictions.  Libertarians and conservatives looking to weaken the notion that intellectual property is property? Or even stranger, the same groups suddenly emphasizing the “public good” over the individual?

Now, I personally have come to reject most political labels, which seems only rational when liberals classify me as a conservative, and conservatives as a bleeding heart liberal.  But no matter what ideological alliance is being claimed, I’m always concerned when anyone makes a case that any law ought to remain static as of the 18th century.  I believe there is an inherent danger, somewhere between impractical and barbaric, to propose living too strictly according the gospels of ancient men. (Just look what happens when people try to cherry-pick the Old Testament for political purposes.) Hence other than selling a book (and no it doesn’t seem to be available through Creative Commons license), it’s a little hard to fathom what in any practical sense Brito and Bell are proposing with regard to “re-balancing” copyright.  There may be a rational conversation to be had about the present system and duration of terms, but Mr. Bell’s loftily presented assertion that it’s obvious we should simply erase 200 years of jurisprudence and reset the clock to a time before mass publication of books even existed doesn’t exactly have the ring of balance to my ear. On the other hand, I might be game for resetting the letter of the law to 1790, if we are willing to restore remedies from the same period.  I mean, who doesn’t want to bring back dueling or good old-fashioned belaboring one’s ideological foe with a cudgel? Or the word cudgel, for that matter?

Most of us recognize that technological innovation is a primary reason why copyright, not to mention quite a few other laws, has grown and evolved since the world was new. In the case of copyright, of course, technologies have created new media the framers could not have imagined, as well as new ways to consume media and new ways to steal media. Yet, Brito and Bell seem to want to ignore these and other realities and regress the law as an ideological principle to a time when the U.S. population, including slaves, was roughly 3.9 million. That’s about one million fewer people than visit just The Pirate Bay on a daily basis to enable mass copyright infringement. Shift this same academic argument about half a click toward the subject of patent protections, and I suspect that any conservative or libertarian support for the larger rationale will quickly vanish. And that’s part of what was so bizarre about the presentation — the fact that Brito and Bell seem to be weaving a very narrow and serpentine path through conservative and libertarian values, not to mention running smack into conflict with the preachings of Ayn Rand from a stage built partly in her honor.

Brito himself invoked the name of Rand, and all I could imagine was the smoky old tart choking on his assertion that copyright is not based in any kind of natural right of the individual.  By choosing to interpret the clause on copyright “To promote the progress of science and useful arts…” in the most collectivist sense, Brito and Bell would earn themselves an indignant tongue-lashing from Ms. Rand were she alive to hear them.  After all, even a half-stoned teenager forced to skim the novel Atlas Shrugged would be able to glean that Rand placed value solely on the individual’s absolute, natural right to exploit for profit any type of product of his own mind without restriction of any kind ever. She reviled the notion of performing work “for the common good,” even voluntarily; and she defined those who would profit from the work of others, either by design or by circumstance, as “looters.”  Hence, in the digital age, Rand would see the rise of “looters” among torrent sites, the users of these sites, Google, advertisers, payment processors, etc.  So, it’s odd enough to hear collectivist proposals about any property right at the Cato Institute, but it’s even more bizarre that these academic proposals would supersede a pragmatic discussion about the unmitigated expansion of “looting” in our times.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that so many tech bloggers are swooning over the assertions of  Brito and Bell.  Those who aren’t working directly for the Internet industry have culturally bought into the premise that copyright stifles innovation and new business, so they’re thrilled to hear anyone propose rolling back copyright until it’s all but irrelevant.  Of course, I have yet to hear any “new business” concepts whose aims are actually stifled by copyright. Instead, we continue to hear the same kind of vague predictions that we’ve been hearing since Web 1.0, when investors were lulled into launching start-ups that had no foreseeable revenue stream. Hence, without real data on real businesses being held back, I have no idea what’s conservative about this basis for a discussion about copyright reform.