I've decided that until AAP drops its rather(read very) stupid lawsuit against Google for Google Book Search, I'm boycotting any books published by members of the AAP. This includes:
For a full list of AAP members see here.
Hmm it was always going to come up eventually, being an Inter-web connected Geek running and hosting sites for other people. I've been approach regarding some items posted on a site that I host. Nothing serious (yet), so I'm covering my ass here and stating my personal thoughts on freedom of speech.
Basically as long as you (some one posting stories/blogs on a Phoenix Productions hosted service) are not being defamatory (or in this case it would be specifically libelous) you are free to say what you like. You can be contraversial, angry, sad...I don't care. I'm not going to edit your opinions(to be perfectly honest there's a good chance I've not even read your opinion) BUT I am not stupid enough to let you do anything ILLEGAL. Of course whether I think a post is libelous or not is an entirely different question.
Anyway my server, my money, MY RULES (and what ever pertinent legal ones apply too ;-) )
The Software Patent act that was going through the European legislation has been thrown out! (Yay!)
Creative Commons is launching the UK version of its license tonight(that's 16th March)...1 word...excellent!
According to this article on ZDNet, the EU Software Patent directive has been adopted apparent to
to ensure that the Council adheres to its processes and to avoid creating problems for other directives.
RespectCopyrights.org is the MPAA's web site demoting (opposite of promoting??) P2P file sharing services, and pushing their own CopyRight agenda.
One of the interesting sections is the "So What's In In It To Me?" (surely What's In It For) which states what you get out of not downloading movies from the net(View image).
So... What's In In It To Me? Answer: Absolutely Nothing.
I'm really starting to resent this stance, in which the MPAA/RIAA say "this is bad, you will stop doing this or we will make your life a misery", instead of "this is bad, stop doing it and we will...." make better movies, not rip you off as badly, take our heads out of our asses.
Judge Richard Posner, who is looking after Lawrence Lessig's blog this week, has posted an interesting sequence of posts. The first looks at Fair Use and a (re-) introduction of some sort of copyright registry that would allow rights holders to signify their continuing interest in holding on to their copyright, and the second is an expansion on the whole idea of Fair Use. An interesting and quite light weight read, and probably a couple of links worth passing on to anyone who has an interest in Fair Use.
I seem to be spending so much time trawling the net on Copyright related stuff that I think I'm rapidly running out of time to any real work..maybe I should try to be an actual journalist but anyway I digress.
I was searching Technorati for stuff related to the UK music industry, and came across this post on Peer Pressure (a blog attached to AllPeers-a "unique file-sharing application to be released in 2004.") and Matt makes a very good point, in fact a couple of good points. I'd like to think that Apple wanted a DRM-free iTMS and were forced into it by the content providers, and I certainly agree that if content was available without restriction people would pay for it, providing that they found some value to it. I certainly have no problem paying for music, providing I like it, and the only reason that I don't (and I hasten to add I don't generally use P2P to copy music) is that the amount of money that I am paying for a CD is not equivalent to the value I'm getting from the CD.
I also dislike the fact that I can pay for a CD and then not be able to do whatever I like with it, whether that is rip it on to my pc, burn a cd to play in work/car, stick in on my iPod and, probably most illegally, give a copy to a friend saying "listen to this". If I can do all of that legally for a reasonable cost, then for me a CD has value.
I'll even say that I'd be happy with a "micro-payment" system for it: someone gives me a copy of a song (or I download it) and i'm charged maybe 15p every time I listen to it up to the point where I have paid the "full price". This gives the artist a royalty for each listen, and if I don't like it, I've not spent a fortune but if it is something that I really like, I'm not paying for it for ever. Of course this requires some form of DRM, but it would be a much more customer friendly form and would not (hopefully) limit any organic (word of mouth etc) spread.
I was in the pub yesterday with a couple of friends, one of whom mentioned that early rock & roll music has entered the Public Domain after 50 years (on the basis of it being recordings) which means that as this article (via Boing Boing) states means that "That's All Right" is going to enter it on Jan 1 2005. Except that the music industry in Europe is lobbying for the copyright term to be extended by another 45years, thus meaning that early rock and roll will only be availble to buy (if its even still available in any format) until 2050.
Only a couple of the songs would have a commercial value, others are effectively worth nothing and by keeping theses out of PD we loose a valuable commodity showcasing the whole of early Rock'N'Roll, not just the famous artists.
Think of the value of a digital libraries where you could go and listen to the very earliest recordings of a genre and see its development through to the current state.
I would go so far as to suggest that if you have recordings that pre-date 1954, digitise them, start your own archive of recordings. (I 'm not entirely clear that this includes CDs that include recordings from pre-1954 but as far as I can see, as a layman, it should).
Following on from the Play It Safe In Cyberspace, is good news that the ALA (American Library Association) will be sending materials to school librarians in an attempt to balance the endevours by pro-copyright groups such as the RIAA,MPAA & BSA. (See this article at Wired News)
I agree with the quote from Rick Weingarten ("The idea that elementary-school kids are ripping off business software is a little strange") after all all kids at that age are copying and peddling copies of M$ Office and the like. Ok Disney is probably quite likely but not M$.
The article also highlights other measures that the various copyright groups have set up as well as one or two that the "CopyLeft" groups (EFF etc). However there seems to be a recurring theme in that most of the Copyright groups have substantial funding, and the Copyleft ones don't. So as a resolution to this, I'm definately going to have to start making at least some form of donation to EFF and Privacy Intl. etc.
-Update-
Tim Wu, who is looking after Lawrence Lessig's Blog has linked to this site now, via A.S.Bradbury
More news on the "Stealing is Wrong" lessons for school kids on The Register this time they're looking for the enrolled kids to name their mascot, which is a ferret, appropriate really, although a weasel would have been even better.
I've been trawling around their website....
Senator Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) INDUCE looks like its running into a couple of problems, certainly if Rick Boucher(VA-9), guest posting on Lessig Blog, gets his way. He and John Doolittle have also introduced H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, which looks like it goes someway in redressing the imbalance created by DMCA.
"Stealing Songs is Wrong lesson's head for UK Schools [-El Reg]
OK now this has gone too far...stop treating us like criminals, give us
an easy and cost effective to get what we want, and maybe then you
won't have to resort to these sorts of "education" programs....eesh. If
have to want to see a film I'll see it somehow, I'd probably wait till
it is formally released, but then being in the UK why do I have to wait
a month until it comes out over here? I'd happily pay my cinema ticket
price to have it available over the net to watch as soon as it's
released, but failing that if I really want to see it I'll half inch
it....I'll probably still goto see it in the cinema if I like it, so
how's Hollywood lost any money, except if it was crap, then they've
missed out on taking my money for something that was (for me)
worthless...hmm that's almost stealing isn't it? And it isn't like
they're missing out on the ticket price for me seeing the film for a
second time, because I don't generally go to see the same film twice in
the cinema (a few notable exceptions). Same principles apply to music,
but unfortunately I can't afford to go out and buy all the CD's of
artists I like because I can't afford to pay £16+ per album, especially
when I may only like 4 songs off it. Suffice to say that iTunes is
rapidly turning into my favourite music shop.
--------
You know when things are starting to enter the general public consciousness when they appear in the Metro (for any one who doesn't know, The Metro is an free, ad supported newspaper that distributed on public transport in various cities around the UK). I digress slightly, I was pleased to see in todays(2004-08-04) "The THINK Tank" section that Tank 1:Words was "What is copyleft?", with the answer as "The opposite of Copyright, where an author grants widespread reproduction of his work (with some conditions) rather than monopolising it."
Some stupid things that Jack Valentihas said in the course of his 38
years as head of the MPAA((Motion Pictures Association of American)
courtesy of Tim Wu, who is looking after Lawrence Lessigs' blog while
he's off.
--------
