Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Copyright and Ethics - My Opinions
My opinions on Copyright, ethics and its relation to the creative industries are largely based on my own experiences of working within the music industry, and living with the changes that I encountered from my professional beginnings back in 1992 to the present day.
The situation is far more complicated than this post implies, however my general opinion and personal stance is already set. My research so far hasn't changed this stance. I am of the opinion that most of the creative industries share a lot in common, and the issues regarding copyright, piracy, ethics and finances effect each of these in a similar manner (although these problems haven't affected all areas at the same time or in quite the same way).
In simple terms, copyright law was originally set up to protect creative people, to give them a financial incentive. It is highly likely that most creative professionals do what they do 'because they love it', however it is impractical for this to be purely a labour of love; without some other form of income these people would starve. Copyright was written into the American constitution, and a similar law exists in most territories. If these safe-guards hadn't have been put in place several centuries ago, there would be no creative industries as we know them today. The copyright laws are constantly adapted, but are always based on the same principles.
If current law is one side of the copyright fence, on the other side there are those who believe 'everything should be free'. Piracy, bootlegging and counterfeit are not new inventions, but the rapid development of digital networks and high speed internet connections have massively increased the rate of 'free stuff' (anything that can be converted into a binary code - a digital file - can be copied and shared at no loss of quality and distributed with ease and great speed). Some of this is legitimate open-source software applications, but the majority of the 'free stuff' is music, films, games, software applications, art, literature, designs, fonts (etc etc).
Globally there must be millions of people getting things for free, and I'd have thought the majority of individuals have gained an amount of "free stuff', however there must be a wide spectrum of stances individuals would take. Personally, I do try to use legitimate stuff, but will openly admit to using cracked software initially before purchasing official software later: I own official versions of the music production software packages Apple Logic Studio and Ableton Live, but many of the plug ins used are cracked.
I initially started using design software through a hooky key generated version of Adobe Creative Suite 2 (about 18 months ago), but went on to buy the Production Premium package of Adobe's Creative Suite 3 as soon as it was released. Despite this I do not pretend to be a saint, as I do have quite a few hundred fonts that were downloaded via P2P networks or obtained off friends! Most of my design software is part of CS3 Production Premium, but I do also have a copy of Final Cut Studio with a bogus serial number. I know I am not justified in having this, but I don't feel too bad about this for these reasons:
Musically I buy nearly all my Mp3s from iTunes or Beatport, and buy DVD's. I don't play games, and ave never really been interested in them (since 1991 I have made a living working on computers, and don't really wish to stare at computer screens any monger than I have to!). The reasons for always using legit means to enjoy films or music are these:
My moral stance wasn't always this honest. 5 or 6 years ago when broadband Internet connections appeared, I downloaded quite a lot of music, and used to trade music with other DJs via Instant Messenger. I readily admit that at the time I thought it was great! It felt rebellious, very punk/acid-house. I have also made a few "booty" edits and 'mash-ups' (2 or more compositions glued or layered together) of other peoples music, which went on to either become widely spread (virally) through the Internet, or pressed up by other bootleggers and sold on vinyl discs (bootleggers bootlegging bootleggers). This helped my music production career immensely, and got us loads of fresh exposure and positive Hype. It is another tool to be used. This has become a common thing in the corporate world of advertising, who call this type of 'guerrilla' activity viral marketing.
There are loads of great examples of this type thing, Steinski was doing these "extra" legal mixes as early as 1982 - it goes back to the birth of sampling and hip-hop. Much of the foundations of reggae is based on versions and covers. Some of the most innovative and fresh recording ever made were borne out of these genres, whether through cover versions I doubt Jamaican record labels always pay publishing royalties for their covers) or sampling. The evolution of booty cover has been recuperated by the huge entertainment corporations and converted into chart topping hits by the Sugarbabes ("Freak Like Me"). The debate for the pros and cons of reworking other peoples work is huge, and will be looked at on another post. I will return to my own experiences:
My current ethical stance is partly based on my own experiences in a creative job; since 2001 and the advent of broadband, money quickly began to disappear from the dance music scene, and the greater music industry. I had never realised that this would happen; money had always been relatively plentiful, it was simply a case of working on lots of remix briefs. From 2002 the fees for remixes suddenly started dropping, and have dropped steadily ever since, virtually destroying remixing as a career. The major label dance departments soon followed suit, alongside all the major label acts getting either dropped or not having their deals renewed. This was widely thought to be due to a decline in interest in dance music, which it was (in part), however it soon became obvious that it was simply a small part in a much bigger picture, which has seen the closure and merger of record labels, and chains of music stores disappear entirely (Our Price, Tower, Virgin etc). It quickly became obvious that without customers paying for the end product, jobs and careers were in trouble.
The period of change coincides with the switch to digital music distribution; slowly but surely it became obvious that the established order was over and new ways of making money had to be sought in order to survive. In the music industry this means making money through live work and music publishing. If your brand is strong, money can be made. Music still needs to be made, but only as a vehicle to do concerts (or in my case DJ bookings).
After a couple of cash-lean years I had deduced that I could make money by DJ'ing and less by the 9am-6pm day-job of making music in the recording studio, but this meant traveling extensively just to make enough money to live a normal life. This meant leaving my wife and kids every weekend, and being jet-lagged al the time. This, coupled with being totally bored of dance music ultimately led me to seek out a new career, and brought me to NWSAD. I have felt the effects of change at first hand. Having enjoyed the pros of P2P culture I have most definitely felt the cons. This is what shapes my stance on copyright.
I feel that copyright is basically a necessary and positive thing, but also believe that Creative Commons Licenses are a welcome addition to the marketplace. CC gives creative people options (see post on Creative Commons) - and loosens the tight grip corporations have held over most parts the creative spectrum. A re-evaluation of IPR has been necessary in such changing times, but it is my opinion that the original copyright law has to remain, and needs to be updated to cover new developments. Those who wish to choose an alternative can choose a creative commons license. This is my ethical stance.
Despite my lengthy post, and my personal ethics, I believe rules are meant to be broken, and that it is a huge topic, full of gray areas. I know what I feel is right, yet have chosen to abuse copyright and IPR when I see fit. A bit of shenanigans and creative anarchy is sometimes needed and can be fun (see the movie Good Copy Bad Copy). This kind of creative 'theft' can be highly inventive. Strictly speaking this makes me a hypocrite, but I am happy enough with my actions (those times I have bent the rules), and have a (reasonably) clear conscience!
CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I feel that where the danger really lies is where people may be uneducated and unaware that they are in effect, stealing. I know when I am stealing, and on these occaisions I am aware of it, and will try my best to rectify the situation if I plan to use the product/piece in future. I am aware that if everyone gets 'free stuff', I might as well quit any creative work now, and get a job in Tesco.
My piece, which will be a simplified message delivered in a short video, aims to educate people - primarily the next generation of creatives (for example design students) that their actions have repercussions, and they should consider paying for things in future (when they leave college and start making money), as their livelihood will come to depend on it. The aim is to make those people think (rather than take the moral high ground).
The situation is far more complicated than this post implies, however my general opinion and personal stance is already set. My research so far hasn't changed this stance. I am of the opinion that most of the creative industries share a lot in common, and the issues regarding copyright, piracy, ethics and finances effect each of these in a similar manner (although these problems haven't affected all areas at the same time or in quite the same way).
In simple terms, copyright law was originally set up to protect creative people, to give them a financial incentive. It is highly likely that most creative professionals do what they do 'because they love it', however it is impractical for this to be purely a labour of love; without some other form of income these people would starve. Copyright was written into the American constitution, and a similar law exists in most territories. If these safe-guards hadn't have been put in place several centuries ago, there would be no creative industries as we know them today. The copyright laws are constantly adapted, but are always based on the same principles.
If current law is one side of the copyright fence, on the other side there are those who believe 'everything should be free'. Piracy, bootlegging and counterfeit are not new inventions, but the rapid development of digital networks and high speed internet connections have massively increased the rate of 'free stuff' (anything that can be converted into a binary code - a digital file - can be copied and shared at no loss of quality and distributed with ease and great speed). Some of this is legitimate open-source software applications, but the majority of the 'free stuff' is music, films, games, software applications, art, literature, designs, fonts (etc etc).
Globally there must be millions of people getting things for free, and I'd have thought the majority of individuals have gained an amount of "free stuff', however there must be a wide spectrum of stances individuals would take. Personally, I do try to use legitimate stuff, but will openly admit to using cracked software initially before purchasing official software later: I own official versions of the music production software packages Apple Logic Studio and Ableton Live, but many of the plug ins used are cracked.
I initially started using design software through a hooky key generated version of Adobe Creative Suite 2 (about 18 months ago), but went on to buy the Production Premium package of Adobe's Creative Suite 3 as soon as it was released. Despite this I do not pretend to be a saint, as I do have quite a few hundred fonts that were downloaded via P2P networks or obtained off friends! Most of my design software is part of CS3 Production Premium, but I do also have a copy of Final Cut Studio with a bogus serial number. I know I am not justified in having this, but I don't feel too bad about this for these reasons:
a - Apple have had a ton of Money off me over the years. I have purchased 5 desktop Macs and 2 laptops, 3 iPods plus have bought numerous versions of their operating systems, Logic Studio software and other Apple products such as keyboards and mice. Apple stuff looks nice, but I think inside it's just the same cheap shit that's in any other computer.
b - I haven't actually used Final Cut yet (only at college on their machines). If I did start using it, I would most likely buy it (as I have done with my music packages and Adobe Suite.
Musically I buy nearly all my Mp3s from iTunes or Beatport, and buy DVD's. I don't play games, and ave never really been interested in them (since 1991 I have made a living working on computers, and don't really wish to stare at computer screens any monger than I have to!). The reasons for always using legit means to enjoy films or music are these:
a - I don't have time to use P2P networks. Life is short, and I am always busy
b - The quality of bootlegged films and music if often very poor, ruining my enjoyment. My spare time is scarce, so why watch a film which was recorded on a camcorder in a movie theatre with terrible sound and poor picture, or listen to a badly ripped MP3? I am aware that if enough time is spent on a p2p or bit-torrent, high or original quality versions can be sourced, but I don't have the time.
c - I feel that it's ethically wrong.
My moral stance wasn't always this honest. 5 or 6 years ago when broadband Internet connections appeared, I downloaded quite a lot of music, and used to trade music with other DJs via Instant Messenger. I readily admit that at the time I thought it was great! It felt rebellious, very punk/acid-house. I have also made a few "booty" edits and 'mash-ups' (2 or more compositions glued or layered together) of other peoples music, which went on to either become widely spread (virally) through the Internet, or pressed up by other bootleggers and sold on vinyl discs (bootleggers bootlegging bootleggers). This helped my music production career immensely, and got us loads of fresh exposure and positive Hype. It is another tool to be used. This has become a common thing in the corporate world of advertising, who call this type of 'guerrilla' activity viral marketing.
There are loads of great examples of this type thing, Steinski was doing these "extra" legal mixes as early as 1982 - it goes back to the birth of sampling and hip-hop. Much of the foundations of reggae is based on versions and covers. Some of the most innovative and fresh recording ever made were borne out of these genres, whether through cover versions I doubt Jamaican record labels always pay publishing royalties for their covers) or sampling. The evolution of booty cover has been recuperated by the huge entertainment corporations and converted into chart topping hits by the Sugarbabes ("Freak Like Me"). The debate for the pros and cons of reworking other peoples work is huge, and will be looked at on another post. I will return to my own experiences:
My current ethical stance is partly based on my own experiences in a creative job; since 2001 and the advent of broadband, money quickly began to disappear from the dance music scene, and the greater music industry. I had never realised that this would happen; money had always been relatively plentiful, it was simply a case of working on lots of remix briefs. From 2002 the fees for remixes suddenly started dropping, and have dropped steadily ever since, virtually destroying remixing as a career. The major label dance departments soon followed suit, alongside all the major label acts getting either dropped or not having their deals renewed. This was widely thought to be due to a decline in interest in dance music, which it was (in part), however it soon became obvious that it was simply a small part in a much bigger picture, which has seen the closure and merger of record labels, and chains of music stores disappear entirely (Our Price, Tower, Virgin etc). It quickly became obvious that without customers paying for the end product, jobs and careers were in trouble.
The period of change coincides with the switch to digital music distribution; slowly but surely it became obvious that the established order was over and new ways of making money had to be sought in order to survive. In the music industry this means making money through live work and music publishing. If your brand is strong, money can be made. Music still needs to be made, but only as a vehicle to do concerts (or in my case DJ bookings).
After a couple of cash-lean years I had deduced that I could make money by DJ'ing and less by the 9am-6pm day-job of making music in the recording studio, but this meant traveling extensively just to make enough money to live a normal life. This meant leaving my wife and kids every weekend, and being jet-lagged al the time. This, coupled with being totally bored of dance music ultimately led me to seek out a new career, and brought me to NWSAD. I have felt the effects of change at first hand. Having enjoyed the pros of P2P culture I have most definitely felt the cons. This is what shapes my stance on copyright.
I feel that copyright is basically a necessary and positive thing, but also believe that Creative Commons Licenses are a welcome addition to the marketplace. CC gives creative people options (see post on Creative Commons) - and loosens the tight grip corporations have held over most parts the creative spectrum. A re-evaluation of IPR has been necessary in such changing times, but it is my opinion that the original copyright law has to remain, and needs to be updated to cover new developments. Those who wish to choose an alternative can choose a creative commons license. This is my ethical stance.
Despite my lengthy post, and my personal ethics, I believe rules are meant to be broken, and that it is a huge topic, full of gray areas. I know what I feel is right, yet have chosen to abuse copyright and IPR when I see fit. A bit of shenanigans and creative anarchy is sometimes needed and can be fun (see the movie Good Copy Bad Copy). This kind of creative 'theft' can be highly inventive. Strictly speaking this makes me a hypocrite, but I am happy enough with my actions (those times I have bent the rules), and have a (reasonably) clear conscience!
CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I feel that where the danger really lies is where people may be uneducated and unaware that they are in effect, stealing. I know when I am stealing, and on these occaisions I am aware of it, and will try my best to rectify the situation if I plan to use the product/piece in future. I am aware that if everyone gets 'free stuff', I might as well quit any creative work now, and get a job in Tesco.
My piece, which will be a simplified message delivered in a short video, aims to educate people - primarily the next generation of creatives (for example design students) that their actions have repercussions, and they should consider paying for things in future (when they leave college and start making money), as their livelihood will come to depend on it. The aim is to make those people think (rather than take the moral high ground).
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Creative Commons
The Spectrum of Rights
Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright — all rights reserved — and the public domain — no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work — a “some rights reserved” copyright.
Too often the debate over creative control tends to the extremes. At one pole is a vision of total control — a world in which every last use of a work is regulated and in which “all rights reserved” (and then some) is the norm. At the other end is a vision of anarchy — a world in which creators enjoy a wide range of freedom but are left vulnerable to exploitation. Balance, compromise, and moderation — once the driving forces of a copyright system that valued innovation and protection equally — have become endangered species.
Creative Commons is working to revive them. We use private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends are cooperative and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian. We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them — to declare “some rights reserved.”
There is a comic on wikipedia that explains the creative commons principals in very easy terms here
Thursday, October 25, 2007
TV Links shut down for linking - The Guardian Blog
According to a report in The Guardian: "A 26-year-old man from Cheltenham was arrested on Thursday in connection with offences relating to the facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet, Fact said."
It's a pity the Gloucestershire Police started with such small fry. There are a couple of multibillionaires called Larry Page and Sergey Brin -- the founders of Google -- who provide vast numbers of links to content that is being illegally distributed. Indeed, as everyone knows, they actually host plenty of illegal content on their own video site, YouTube, which has a UK operation.
Is the message that it's less criminal to host illegal content on YouTube than it is to to link to it from a site such as TV Links? Or is it just that FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft) and the police won't tackle anybody with enough high-powered lawyers to fight back? Is The New Freedom blog correct in saying: "They just have so much money that they have become above the law."
Of course, there is a difference between building a site around links to content that could be presumed to lack copyright clearance and linking unintentionally from a site set up for a different purpose. However, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how significant this is. (Is shoplifting OK if you have a proper job but criminal if you're unemployed and starving?)
It will be interesting to see who FACT picks on next. There are plenty of newspaper journalists who nowadays, as part of their proper jobs, link to YouTube videos and other internet content. It would be amazing if every single bit of material -- some of it "repurposed" -- had full and correct copyright clearance.
In future, do I risk being thrown in the slammer for linking directly to a YouTube video? What if I just say "go to Google and search for [YouTube xxx yyy]" or whatever? Oh dear, I forgot, Google's illegal so that will have to be closed down.
Perhaps I am already breaking the law by linking to Google, YouTube, TV Links, Pirate Bay and other sites that link to illegal content because this must also count as contributing to "the facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet" -- and, by the way, I expect you are breaking the law if you link to or even read this story.
Indeed, if linking is illegal, we might as well shut down the Internet, because there is no practical way anybody can guarantee the legality of what's on the end of any link. Even if you could guarantee it at the time of linking, there's no guarantee it would still be legal less than a second later, or for the rest of time.
Click here for all the replies to the Guardian blog post
The arrest and the closure of the site - www.tv-links.co.uk - came during an operation by officers from Gloucestershire County Council trading standards in conjunction with investigators from Fact and Gloucestershire Police.
Fact claims that tv-links.co.uk was providing links to illegal film content that had been camcorder recorded from cinemas and then uploaded to the internet. The site also provided links to TV shows that were being illegally distributed.
It's a pity the Gloucestershire Police started with such small fry. There are a couple of multibillionaires called Larry Page and Sergey Brin -- the founders of Google -- who provide vast numbers of links to content that is being illegally distributed. Indeed, as everyone knows, they actually host plenty of illegal content on their own video site, YouTube, which has a UK operation.
Is the message that it's less criminal to host illegal content on YouTube than it is to to link to it from a site such as TV Links? Or is it just that FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft) and the police won't tackle anybody with enough high-powered lawyers to fight back? Is The New Freedom blog correct in saying: "They just have so much money that they have become above the law."
Of course, there is a difference between building a site around links to content that could be presumed to lack copyright clearance and linking unintentionally from a site set up for a different purpose. However, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how significant this is. (Is shoplifting OK if you have a proper job but criminal if you're unemployed and starving?)
It will be interesting to see who FACT picks on next. There are plenty of newspaper journalists who nowadays, as part of their proper jobs, link to YouTube videos and other internet content. It would be amazing if every single bit of material -- some of it "repurposed" -- had full and correct copyright clearance.
In future, do I risk being thrown in the slammer for linking directly to a YouTube video? What if I just say "go to Google and search for [YouTube xxx yyy]" or whatever? Oh dear, I forgot, Google's illegal so that will have to be closed down.
Perhaps I am already breaking the law by linking to Google, YouTube, TV Links, Pirate Bay and other sites that link to illegal content because this must also count as contributing to "the facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet" -- and, by the way, I expect you are breaking the law if you link to or even read this story.
Indeed, if linking is illegal, we might as well shut down the Internet, because there is no practical way anybody can guarantee the legality of what's on the end of any link. Even if you could guarantee it at the time of linking, there's no guarantee it would still be legal less than a second later, or for the rest of time.
Click here for all the replies to the Guardian blog post
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Good Copy Bad Copy
This recent documentary is all about copyright, intellectual property rights, culture and the changing times. The greater part of the hour-long film is primarily on the music industry, but also covers filesharing, the film industry and legal issues both in the USA and other parts of the world (such as Sweden nd Nigeria). It features interviews with Danger Mouse, Girl Talk, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Lawrence Lessig from creative commons, and many others. These give their perspective on copyright, piracy, free culture and the way forward.
The film skips around the world, showing the changing attitudes toward art and culture in Nigeria, Sweden, Brazil, the UK, and the US, answering statements about incentives and creativity by the MPAA and IFPI by showing us real artists (like Danger Mouse and Girl Talk) making wonderful art, defying the current copyright standard in many of the world's richest countries.
It is clear that this is a vast subject; the law is inconsistent in all territories. TBC
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wikipedia Copyright page
Wiki isn't usually seen as reliable enough to submit for college research, but let's face it, there's a ton of good links off here, and it is 90% accurate. Read it here.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Intelectual Property Rights site
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright protects creative or artistic works. You should only copy or use a copyrighted work with the copyright owner's permission.
Copyright protects:
literature, including novels, instruction manuals, computer programs, song lyrics, newspaper articles, website content and some types of database
drama, including dance or mime
music
art, including paintings, engravings, photographs, sculptures, collages, architecture, technical drawings, diagrams, maps and logos
layouts used to publish a work, for a book
recordings of a work, including sound and film
broadcasts of a work.
Copyright applies to any medium. This means that you must not reproduce copyright protected work in another medium without permission. This includes, publishing photographs on the internet, making a sound recording of a book, and so on.
Copyright does not protect ideas for a work. However, when an idea is fixed, for example in writing, copyright automatically protects it. This means that you do not have to apply for copyright.
A copyright protected work can have more than one copyright, or another intellectual property right, connected to it. For example, an album of music can have separate copyrights for individual songs, sound recordings, artwork, and so on, whilst, copyright protects the artwork of your logo, but you could also register the logo as a trade mark.
BENEFITS OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
Copyright allows you to protect your original material and stops others from using your work without your permission. The existence of copyright may be enough on its own to stop others from trying to exploit your material. If it does not, it gives you the right to take legal action to stop them exploiting your copyright and to claim damages.
By understanding and using your copyright protection, you can:
* sell the copyright but retain the moral rights
* license your copyright for use by others but retain the ownership
* object if your work is distorted or mutilated.
What if I do not enforce my copyright?
If you do not enforce your copyright, you will allow others to copy your work without having to seek permission.
Copyright protects creative or artistic works. You should only copy or use a copyrighted work with the copyright owner's permission.
Copyright protects:
literature, including novels, instruction manuals, computer programs, song lyrics, newspaper articles, website content and some types of database
drama, including dance or mime
music
art, including paintings, engravings, photographs, sculptures, collages, architecture, technical drawings, diagrams, maps and logos
layouts used to publish a work, for a book
recordings of a work, including sound and film
broadcasts of a work.
Copyright applies to any medium. This means that you must not reproduce copyright protected work in another medium without permission. This includes, publishing photographs on the internet, making a sound recording of a book, and so on.
Copyright does not protect ideas for a work. However, when an idea is fixed, for example in writing, copyright automatically protects it. This means that you do not have to apply for copyright.
A copyright protected work can have more than one copyright, or another intellectual property right, connected to it. For example, an album of music can have separate copyrights for individual songs, sound recordings, artwork, and so on, whilst, copyright protects the artwork of your logo, but you could also register the logo as a trade mark.
BENEFITS OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
Copyright allows you to protect your original material and stops others from using your work without your permission. The existence of copyright may be enough on its own to stop others from trying to exploit your material. If it does not, it gives you the right to take legal action to stop them exploiting your copyright and to claim damages.
By understanding and using your copyright protection, you can:
* sell the copyright but retain the moral rights
* license your copyright for use by others but retain the ownership
* object if your work is distorted or mutilated.
What if I do not enforce my copyright?
If you do not enforce your copyright, you will allow others to copy your work without having to seek permission.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)