me: yo G
Gilda: hey RT
me: what is shaking?
Gilda: not much, i am looking forward to this week being over
how are you
me: agreed
i'm doing well
but an unfortunate loss in hockey tonight
Gilda: aw that sucks
me: which I am dwelling on a bit, just got back
yeah
oh well
Gilda: you probably know all about this, but just in case:
me: yes
suspense
Gilda: looking for the link...
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/07/canadians-tomorrow-i.html
me: nice no I didn't
and i'm on a facebook group about this issue!
Gilda: yeah i know!
cory doctorow is all over this issue
he blogs about it a lot
me: oh yeah
Gilda: i joined the facebook group too
me: I do read his blog
nice
i knew about prentice's open house
Gilda: ok
me: but not the call in show
Gilda: you should call in for sure!
me: ha you know it
do you have a microphone?
Gilda: built in to my computer
me: or just with your computer
I have some questions to put to you
and it is faster and easier to do with speech
its a discussion
ok screw it
I'll put it in print
ok so I've been reading this book by Posner and Landes
about the economics of IP
I'm interested specifically in copyright
and here are two passages to discuss
Gilda: ok
me: "Given the emphases of the existing scholarly and popular literature concerned with intellectual property, it may come as a surprise to many readers that the economic arguments that we make for intellectual property protection are not based primarily on a belief that without legal protection the incentives to create such property would be inadequate. That belief cannot be defended confidently on the basis of current knowledge." "The concerns we highlight have rather to do with such things as optimal management of existing stocks of intellectual property, congestion externalities, search costs, rent seeking, and transaction costs."
Gilda: whoa
that's a lot to digest
me: "That belief cannot be defended confidently on the basis of current knowledge" - I read that and think, holy shit the emperor has no clothes!
Gilda: yeah it's true
i think they are right
me: I mean is copyright justified on the basis of "congestion externalities, search costs, rent seeking, and transaction costs"
not to my knowledge
but I do think they are right
Gilda: well, i'm not sure what they mean by all that
it's been a few years since econ 101
me: the justification proffered is that it provides a necessary economic incentive
that's the usual refrain
Gilda: i don't think that's true, people create stuff for all kinds of reasons
me: and here they are admitting that that's not borne out by evidence
Gilda: yeah
me: ok here's another
Gilda: ok
me: "Ideally, in deciding how broad or narrow an intellectual property right to recognize, one would want to classify different forms of intellectual property according to the output likely to be produced with and without the recognition of such a right and grant such recognition only to those forms in which output would be seriously suboptimal without it. So in areas of intellectual property where fixed costs were low or other incentives beside the prospect of royalty income were present in force, intellectual property protection would be slight or would even be withheld altogether. Unfortunately, the empirical studies required to make such a classification have never been undertaken; and there is a danger that such a classification could become a political football, with politically favored producers of intellectual property being granted broader rights than others (to some extent this may already be happening)."
in other words
and this I agree with
we should undertake a study of what types of things covered by copyright really need copyright protection to subsist
and for stuff that doesn't need it
Gilda: yeah i agree with taht
me: it shouldn't be covered
so its like being in Platos cave
and what the fuck that's not a sensible position to be in to make sound policy
Gilda: it's true
me: for example
I don't think music needs it
nightly news
or news generally probably doesn't need it
maybe novelists need it
Gilda: but how do you deal with stuff like disney?
me: clothing designers
don't need it
but they want it
Gilda: that rabidly protects their copyright
i think they would probably still make money
even if you could legally copy mickey mouse
me: yeah I pretty much think video as in what we understand as tv and movies doesn't need it
i think advertising should be inserted into those to pay for them
my philosophical approach to this
is broadly
normally if someone wants to get paid for work
we pay them straight up
and even if benefits are felt long after
for example for a construction worker
or an architects building
that will give benefit for a long time
but we don't pay them royalties after they've done the initial work
Gilda: yeah
me: that's got to be a starting point for dealing consistently with how people are compensatede
now in the more abstract
I can anticipate people responding that
"now that major motion picture with excessive product placement has been overly commercialized"
if that isn't false on the face of it
consider that not all art gets made, precisely because of commercial considerations, whether there is copyright or not
for example
a musician puts out an album
there are 10 songs on it
2 are hits
8 are not
out of the 8 that are not
maybe there is a style that the musician, for artistic purposes would like to pursue
but they will consciously make music that is in the template of the commercially successful song
put another way commercial considerations already colour what art is made and what isn't
Gilda: to a certain extent
but not always
me: advertising within art is just another manifestation of this
certainly not always
Gilda: yea
me: just as often a creator doesn't get anything for what they make
and copyright is not helping them with that
but I also don't think copyright is without significant costs to creative freedom
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/arts/music/18dram.html?ex=1326776400&en=cddd16afa0e8ce0b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
that for example
it isn't right
Gilda: yeah
or even people who get in trouble for hacking software
me: and that's just the tip of the iceberg of what is stifled and curbed because of the blunt and blugenoning effect of copyright
Gilda: copyrighted by microsoft
me: yeah especially them
Gilda: that's a form of creative freedom too
me: but you know
I'd be prepared to give copyright a unique kind of protection
because even though it got shoehorned into copyright
-because they lobbied hard to get included
there is an element of functionality
so it is not just art
in fact it isn't really art at all
so its closer to patents
but that say
Gilda: try telling that to a computer programmer!
me: said
Gilda: it's about the art and elegance of the design of the software
but anyway, that's a digression
me: I think open source will eventually kill microsoft and those types of companies
Gilda: yeah for sure
i don't use microsoft programs anymore!
me: yeah like they have contests called "obscure c" which is who can code the most cockamami way - so ok art in some sense
good for you
the van public library is off office
they use open office
Gilda: yeah, i noticed that
i use the mac version of open office
me: nice
like I can't see how that can't win out
even through microsofts protestations
I emailed provincial government
in the government works department
(well its called something different at the provincal level)
and the federal government works department
and ubc
all urging them to switch to free open source software
right now its maybe a bit of a critical mass
Gilda: yeah, definitely
me: some cited compatibility - like a lot of the stuff is using microsoft at the moment
Gilda: as soon as major institutions start adopting open source it will be the death knell for windows
no matter how flashy the latest version is
me: but it can't be justified paying for that stuff when we can get the same functionality for free
yeah
and that will be awesome
cause right now its pretty close to a tax we are paying, as tax payers, to microsoft
they have such saturation
Gilda: yeah
me: but I digress
Gilda: so, what should they do about music and novels and such
me: music no
concerts
t shirt sales
product endorsement to pick up the slake
slack
and hold on a moment
Gilda: well and i think enforcing music copyright laws is so impossible these days
me: yes
but also
the thing we don't really know
Gilda: it's possible but it leads to such horrendous violations of privacy
me: the gigantic X factor
Gilda: suspense...
me: is how that will play out
for instance let's say right now
1/1000 musicians "make it big"
however that is defined
if there is no copyright
perhaps there will not be the same degree of idol worship
and it will be more a case of 25/1000 making it reasonably big
on top of that if they get to do "covers" which they can make transformative uses
perhaps the quality of the music will be better
Gilda: yeah
me: and the net benefit to the artists and the public is there
Gilda: i think, though, that there is a case to be made for a short period of copyright
me: fuck that
Gilda: if there is a robustly protected
me: sorry, that just came out
Gilda: fair use right
[smile]
me: like you said it isn't practical
Gilda: because i think one of the biggest problems right now is that there is little to no recognition of fair use
me: i don't want other people, copyright holder's hiring online detective companies - which they do
to look at my machine
and monitor me
Gilda: yeah me either
me: ok my disagreement with copyright is a little bit more fundamental than yours
but I think we can have some torts around this
like attribution
Gilda: but it's not the artists but the record companies that are monitoring you
me: so an author has a right to be associated with their work
and you can't impersonate them and say it was yours
Gilda: yes, and they should have the right to say who copies their work
me: the artists will do it too
Gilda: for a limited period
not the record companies
me: " they should have the right to say who copies their work" that I disagree with
they don't own it
Gilda: well
maybe i should rephrase that
me: I don't own the words I've used here
but under the law I do
its absurd
Gilda: yeah copyright does lead to absurd results
me: yo for sure I am more contrarian than others on this
so perhaps I seem more strident
Gilda: no i think it's awesome
me: but I really think it needs a justification which it doesn't have, at least not adequately
Gilda: contrarians are great
with the exception of christopher hitchens
me: ha, ok
Gilda: yeah
what are your thoughts on creative commons licenses
me: obviously it is toward and improvement of what we have
and I like Lessig a lot
I'm impressed with what he's done on this
but its still kind of going for the mcnuggets on this
because the only way to enforce a creative commons licence is through copyright
you need copyright as a backbone for creative commons to work
and look for sure
lessig is well intentioned, and probably smart
in that cc is the more feasible thing he could come up with
the copyright lobby in the
and before that term extention to life plus 70
Gilda: yeah that's insane
me: meaning he's up against a significant force
so in recognition of what was open to him
sure it is in the right direction
but in
the lobby hasn't gotten its way yet
Gilda: YET
me: I am preying we have an election
before this bill goes through
and I think that is possible
Gilda: and that the conservatives don't end up with a majority...
me: please spring election
sure
in fact
I wish enough of a stink was raised that they wouldn't even touch this file
and in fact
we can see that the delay
in not parroting the
was in part because the reward wasn't worth the risk
at least not in a minority situation
Gilda: yeah, i would hope that all the other parties would make a major issue out of it
me: but 1 or 2 elections from now
this may be for real
and if that's the case, time is a bit on the side of common sense
Gilda: hopefully by then the flaws in the DMCA will be even more evident
me: as young people for whom file sharing is normal, will be getting older
Gilda: i think things are moving in that direction
yeah
me: and maybe will be a little more comfortable with the norm we now have de facto
Gilda: and taking that kind of thing for granted
haha
we are saying the same thing [smile]
me: yeah
but just a sec
I don't think its entirely humourous
in the sense that I think that norm counts for something
Gilda: no i don't think it is
me: yeah I know
I wasn't trying to be too harsh
as in the kids these days
are taking advantage of the greatest copying and editing machine humanity has ever seen
and to unduly restrict that is counter productive
its like shooting ourselves in the foot
Gilda: definitely
me: to use a charged analogy
its like the priest taking the 8 year old aboriginal boy
and shoving his penis into his mouth
Gilda: !!!!
!!!!!!!
me: and telling him its about god
and not to speak his language etc etc
so destructive
so ill conceived
but at the time it was thought to be just
and right
etc etc
Gilda: yeah
on that note, my computer is about to die
me: and we are still paying for that legacy
anyways I worry about the same thing
but in this context
like all the culture we missed out on
and the artists
Gilda: yeah, i think these attempts to strehgthen copyright are really scary
me: who will be amazing at transformative art
yet never get to realize their potential
I sound a little dramatic
but you get the point
Gilda: yeah, and i don't even think you are being too dramatic
it's such an important thing
it's about culture
etc
me: yeah and the glaring thing I can't get over
is I think the emperor has no clothes
or if he does we need to understand the contours of it
otherwise it is an enterprise of guesswork
and that's not going to yield wise policy
it puts us precisely not in a good position to do so
Gilda: yup
ok, i have to go before my computer dies mid-sentence
me: ok word
Gilda: ok... but you have got me thinking on this now
me: double word
Gilda: haha
later
me: later
Sent at 12:12 AM on Friday
No comments:
Post a Comment