Fcons

1,399 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,399
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Søk i Mediearkivet - alle kilder
    Søkestreng 1: kilde AND ("store norske" or "store norsk")
    Søkestreng 2: kilde AND wikipedia
    Fil: wikipedia.xls
    Cut & paste direkte inn i Excel - men ikke koblet.
  • Fcons

    1. 1. FCONS 2010 Gisle Hannemyr Gothenburg, 2010 Challenges to Copyright: The shift towards collaboration
    2. 2. Before copyright • When the printing press was invented in Europe (ca. 1455), it became apparent for the powers that the dissemination of ideas through mass produced printed leaflets needed to be controlled. • This was facilitated by only giving certain individuals the right to print books through royal privilege (monopoly). • The motivation behind the monopolies was not to secure any rights, but censorship. • When printing was by royal privilege, it was very unlikely that someone would print anything that would displease the King. Side #2
    3. 3. A brief summary of copyright during the last 301 years • The first law that implements copyright is the Statute of Anne (1709, UK) or “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned”. • The main idea behind the act is to regulate the production (printing) and distribution of physical copies of a work. • Reviewing Copyright Law in 2010, most of it hinges on the rights that somehow attaches itself to physical copies of a work. • Without a physical copy, on the surface, there are no copyright. 2010-11-07 Side #3Hannemyr
    4. 4. Current state of affairs • To the extent that digital media is recognised at all, it is always as a negation of rights. • For instance, Norwegian copyright laws mentions certain permissions or exceptions to copyright restrictions (fair use or fair dealing) – but always with the provision: “this does not apply to a copy of the work that can be read by a machine” (case law, however, shows that scanners and OCR-readers are machines that the courts has yet to discover). 2010-11-07 Side #4Hannemyr
    5. 5. The missing bits • Torrent, hyperlink, frame, inline, embedded, mashup, etc. are all different forms of utterances that may be used to describe literary and artistic works that are distributed as digital bitstreams instead of as physical copies on pieces of dead trees and plastic. • None of these words appear in current copyright law. 2010-11-07 Side #5Hannemyr
    6. 6. Old school law professors strike back • The fact that none of these words appear in the law has of course not stopped society for applying those laws to works that are not in a physical format. • Old school law professors has offered their interpretation of the law, often with surprisingly creative results. • For instance, a leading Norwegian professor on computers and law (rettsinformatikk), Jon Bing, has suggested that “hyperlinking” should be interpreted as “making a work available to the public” – the latter, of course, is a phrase you will find in copyright law. (If he manages to get this interpretation generally accepted, the World Wide Web seems to have a bleak future). 2010-11-07 Side #6Hannemyr
    7. 7. Bing (2008): Net-utterances and legal responsibility (figure, p. 98) Hannemyr Side #7 (Norwegian title: Ansvar for ytringer på nett.) Figure on the left shows that by double- clicking a link apparently sends a request to the publisher of a hyperlink, who the fulfils the request by forwarding it to the content provider through the net cloud. But this is not how thing really happen. Any request for content goes directly from the user’s computer to the content provider’s computer, with involving the publisher of the link. The sole act done by a link publisher is publishing the link – which is a text string.
    8. 8. Hannemyr Side #8 The power of metadata robots.txt Reject all robots: User-agent: * Disallow: / Per document regulation: <meta name="robots“ content="noindex, nofollow"> More: http://www.robotstxt.org/
    9. 9. The courts reject Metadata • In 2002, a Danish court convicted a search engine known as “Newsbooster” for copyright infringement despite the fact that it respects robots.txt restrictions.  (The Berne Convention notion that copyright should be “automatic” assigned any work without any need for registration or a ©-symbol may stand in the way of getting the courts to accept metadata?) 2010-11-07 Side #9Hannemyr
    10. 10. A more recent example • On Oct.3, 2010, GD.no (a local paper) published a video on their webpage showing a wolf in the centre of Ringebu. • Because their own video-server apparently suck, they published the video on YouTube, and embedded the YouTube stream in their own webpage. • NRK.no (public service broadcaster) picked up the story and also embedded the video from YouTube. • GD.no sends NRK.no a NOK 10000 invoice for copyright infringement. • Then prevents everyone from embedding ... 2010-11-07 Side #10Hannemyr
    11. 11. Hannemyr Side #11 ... including themselves
    12. 12. Hannemyr Side #12 The shift towards collaboration Vint Cerf (1997): “[Tim Berners-Lee] didn't patent the [World Wide Web]. He didn't copyright. He made that openly available. And that's what has fuelled a great deal of the network develop-ment, and all the innovative ideas. [...] There is a continuing ethic in the community to give back to the network what it has given you.”
    13. 13. 2009-05-25 Hannemyr Side #13
    14. 14. Hannemyr Side #14 Example 2: Magnatune • «To download an album so you can play the songs any time or burn them to a CD, you have to buy it. When you click to buy, you see a "suggested" price of maybe $8, but you can choose to pay as little as $5, or as much as you want. Here's what's fascinating: "Everyone assumes we're just getting $5," Buckman says. "The average is $8.93."»
    15. 15. 2009-05-25 Hannemyr Side #15
    16. 16. Hannemyr Side #16 Example 3: Wikipedia • World-wide encyclopaedia based on a major collaborative effort. • Generally recognised has having a large scope and more content that any single encyclopaedia produced under the “old” model while at least not being worse in terms of accuracy. • Turns out to be a preferred source for professional users, even when the alternatives also are available at no cost.
    17. 17. Wikipedia vs. Store Norske Hannemyr Side #17 Period Store Norske Wikipedia 2002 117 0 2003 135 2 2004 178 14 2005 241 137 2006 275 582 2007 520 2296 2008 612 2529
    18. 18. 2009 Hannemyr Side #18 Mashup: housingmaps.com «In web development, a mashup is a Web application that combines data or functionality from two or more sources into a single integrated application.» (Wikipedia) Housingmaps is a mashup of Google Maps and Craigslist «For rent».
    19. 19. FaceBook mashup • FaceBook solves the problem by requesting that their users transfer very extensive rights to FaceBook. • This allows FaceBook to monetize on content created by the users. 2010-11-07 Side #19Hannemyr
    20. 20. Hannemyr Side #20 Other examples • Open Access academic publishing (studies show a higher number of citations for papers published in OA publications). • All the examples that has been described by other speakers at FCONS.
    21. 21. Uncontroversial? • Examples so far has been uncontroversial from a copyright point of view, because sharing is based upon some sort of (more or less) voluntary opt-in. • But there is also some mashups and remixes that current copyright law deems as illegal. 2010-11-07 Side #21Hannemyr
    22. 22. Bush & Blair Love Song remix Hannemyr Side #22 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=151931508083111702# http://thru-you.com/#/videos/1/ Video artist Johan Olav Anders Söderbergs remix: Bush and Blair Love Song. Remixes copyrighted news footage with the copyrighted song Endless Love (words and music by Lionel Richie, duet by Lionel Richie and Diana Ross in 1981). I considers Söderbergs work here as brilliant and original, but using the Richie's work to satirize Bush and Blair may violate Richie’s moral rights. [You’ll find a lot more examples of this in the video “Good Copy, Bad Copy” and on Lawrence Lessig's talk at TED. Artists like Girl Talk and DJ DangerMouse has established the remix as a new art form.]
    23. 23. “Jackson Browne's lawsuit stated that he was concerned that use of his music would cause people to conclude he was endorsing John McCain, even though the 60-year- old singer is a self- described liberal.”
    24. 24. Wealth of Networks (2006) • The networked information economy […] adds to the centralized, market- oriented production system a new framework of radically decentralized individual and cooperative nonmarket production. It thereby affects the ability of individuals and groups to participate in the production of the cultural tools and frameworks of human understanding and discourse. It affects the way we, as individuals and members of social and political clusters, interact with culture, and through it with each other. It makes culture more transparent to its inhabitants. It makes the process of cultural production more participatory. […] We are seeing the possibility of an emergence of a new popular culture, produced on the folk-culture model and inhabited actively, rather than passively consumed by the masses. Through these twin characteristics — transparency and participation — the networked information economy also creates greater space for critical evaluation of cultural materials and tools. The practice of producing culture makes us all more sophisticated readers, viewers, and listeners, as well as more engaged makers. (Benkler, p. 275) Hannemyr Side #24
    25. 25. Copyright Reform Now! • There are a lot more examples out there where the “stuff” that current copyright law tries to regulate simply breaks down when it is brought face to face with the reality of digital media. • I do not trust the ability of the courts or old schools law professors to sort this out through “interpretation”. • A reformed law about the rights and permissions attached to creative works that recognises digital works and digital utterances as “first class object” with special characteristics. 2010-11-07 Side #25Hannemyr
    26. 26. Reformed copyright law • Major undertaking – who are the stakeholders?  Creative persons as individuals.  Elected representatives of these (associations, collection societies).  Users: Libraries, media, consumers.  Activists: Pirate Party, Fribit, EFF, etc. 2010-11-07 Side #26Hannemyr
    27. 27. Lets get started! 1. Make the right to link explicit. 2. Recognise metadata as a legally binding mechanism to clear rights. 3. Recognise Free Culture licenses as something that contributes to society. 4. Recognise non-commercial remixes that do not infringe on economic or moral rights as fair use/fair dealing. 2010-11-07 Side #27Hannemyr
    28. 28. Lets get started! 5. Make the deposit of binary copies to the National Library compulsory for publishers Make digital escrow compulsory and activate when works are no longer available commercially. 6. Make explicit provisions permitting the use of orphaned works. 7. Spend public money on developing semantic web technologies that makes it simpler for users to find creative works suitable for their use. 2010-11-07 Side #28Hannemyr
    29. 29. Lets get started! 8. Make it the law that any creative work created with the tax-payers money refrain free to share and use for everybody. 9. When it is interest of society, tax-payers money should be spent on freeing works that will benefit form being shared and built-upon. 10. Make it the law that any copyright transferred to a publisher that is no longer exploited by the publisher should be reverted to the author (or to the public domain if the author is not interested in the work any more). 2010-11-07 Side #29Hannemyr

    ×