Free Culture

From Blaise.ca Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

"The desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity." - RMS [1]

Contents

[edit] Freedom

Free culture/software is an ethical issue, a moral imperative. To deny the following freedoms in modern society is unethical, at the very least unacceptable.

[edit] The Four Freedoms

  • Freedom 0: freedom to use the thing (software/cultural work) for any purpose
  • Freedom 1: freedom to study and adapt it to your needs, to apply the knowledge gained from it
  • Freedom 2: freedom to make and redistribute copies
  • Freedom 3: freedom to redistribute modified versions


[edit] Freedom 0: the freedom to use

For software, the freedom to run the program for any purpose.

Rob Myers' free screwdrivers example

We have this freedom with physical objects:

  • If you own a chair, you don't need the carpenter's permission to sit or even stand on it
  • If you own a house, you don't need the builder's permission to do things inside of it
  • If you own a car, you don't need the manufacturer's permission to drive it somewhere

Examples of how this freedom is denied:

  • Digital Restrictions Management
  • Academic software licenses
  • EULAs
  • Kindle text-to-speech
  • Anti-circumvention legislation

[edit] Freedom 1: the freedom to study and apply

For software, the freedom to study the software and adapt it to your needs, which requires the source code. For cultural works, I'm not yet sure what specifically could be meant by "apply the knowledge" (i.e. specific examples?).

We have this freedom with physical objects:

  • If you own a chair, you don't need the carpenter's permission to reupholster it
  • If you own a house, you don't need the builder's permission to renovate it
  • If you own a car, you can bring it to the mechanic of your choice to have work done

Examples of how this freedom is exercised:

  • RMS MIT AI lab printer TODO: link

Examples of how this freedom is denied:

  • Non-free software - no access to source code
  • Tivoization with GPLv2 software (i.e. DRM)

[edit] Freedom 2: the freedom to make and redistribute copies

This is the freedom to share with your neighbour, taking advantage of the digital nature of software or cultural works.

It is unacceptable to deny this freedom because (a) there is no necessary reason for denying it (i.e. profit argument is false, only denied for heavily increased profits) and (b) the social good that comes from asserting them is far greater than any good that comes from restricting it.

There are two ways to divide redistribution into categories:

  • Private vs. public
  • Commercial vs. non-commercial

Private, non-commercial sharing is the most obvious use of this freedom (e.g. making backup copies, sharing with a friend, etc.). It is difficult to draw a clear line between personal and public, or non-commercial and commercial, therefore it's an all or nothing thing; therefore, all.

Examples of how this freedom is exercised:

  • Sharing software
  • Emailing a song to a friend
  • Peer to peer music file sharing

Examples of how this freedom is denied:

  • Enforcing copyright law
  • DRM

[edit] Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute modified versions

This is the freedom to participate in your community. This permits ideas to develop naturally, rather than independently (which is artificial).

It is unacceptable to deny this freedom because (a) there is no necessary reason for denying it (i.e. profit argument is false, only denied for heavily increased profits) and (b) the social good that comes from asserting them is far greater than any good that comes from restricting it.

Some will claim that copyright is supposed to protect an authors "right" to choose what their work is associated with and deny use on philosophical or ideological grounds. Though it may be troubling to have your work associated with something you don't agree with, freedom of speech is far more important than the freedom to control every aspect of your work.

Given the freedom to modify (freedom 1), why should the freedom to share your modifications be denied?

Examples of how this freedom is exercised:

  • Software forks (Debian=>Ubuntu, vi=>vim, Compiz=>Beryl)

Examples of how this freedom is denied:

  • Enforcing copyright law
  • DRM

[edit] Distinctions

[edit] Digital vs. Physical

Freedoms 0 and 1 apply equally to physical things, whereas freedoms 2 and 3 are much more relevant for digital things.

[edit] Personal vs. Social

Freedoms 0 and 1 are about personal freedom, whereas freedoms 2 and 3 are more about social good.

[edit] Modification

Freedom 1 and 3 involve modification, whereas freedoms 0 and 2 do not.

[edit] Royalties vs. Salaries

Some will argue that free culture is about people not getting paid for their work, which is not true. There's a difference between being paid to do work (salaries) and being paid for work you've already done (royalties).

[edit] Content vs. Communication

Copyright law is designed to regulate content, not communication. Copyright law gets "weird in a hurry" if you start applying it to communication, like figuring out who owns the rights to your email inbox. The Internet is a communications platform, but media companies like Viacom want to treat it as a broadcast platform and thus apply copyright laws to the content.

[edit] Creative Commons

[edit] Attribution

Some people argue it's annoying. I think it's more relevant and less annoying for art than it is for software. You're likely to have less contributors, and attribution is more important for a form of expression than for a tool, I think.

[edit] Derivatives

The only objection which makes some sense to me is a moral objection. What if the derivative is vandalism or pornography?

But I don't think that policing this with copyright is appropriate. The attribution clause in Creative Commons licenses, for example, requires that you do not attribute derivative works in any way that suggests the original author endorses the derivative. If there is a case of defamation, defamation laws - not copyright laws - should be used. The original intent of copyright was never to police defamation.

Freedom of speech is more important than having an artificial monopoly over your works. This was never the original intent of copyright, since it was originally intended to apply only for a limited amount of time.

[edit] In favour of allowing commercial Use

  • If you allow someone to create a derivative work, they aren't able to benefit from it financially without this freedom
  • If you allow someone to create a derivative work, you aren't able to benefit from it financially without this freedom
  • Rights are often owned by a corporation, in which case the artist can't make their own commercial use of the work anyways
    • Danny Michel can't sell his own CDs because of his record contract
  • There are other economic models based on the economics of abundance that work better than models based on artificial scarcity
    • "Smart companies monetize their products' complement" [1]
  • In the creative process, we build on the ideas of others - all artists "steal" ideas, this doesn't mean artists shouldn't be able to make a living if they're influence by others
    • Shakespeare is a good example
  • From a user perspective, it was ridiculous and disheartening to be told by the CMMRA that there was no practical way for us to license the music we used in the Student Council videos. Copyright laws are clearly outdated with respect to the ease in which people can create new works, and even to have a non-commercial limitation may have interfered with our ability to fundraise (and no one was buying a DVD as a replacement for The Killer's latest album).
  • "Rather than ensuring that the author is paid, NC tries to prevent anyone else from being paid." - Rob Myers
    • NC doesn't profit the artist, just ensures that no one else profits - how is that helpful to anyone or constructive at all?
    • It's "misery loves company" - if I can't make any money, neither can you!
  • Positive externalities
    • For example, Google reproduces some content and links to it and profits from it, but their commercial usage of material adds value to that material and benefits the owners by making it findable [2]
  • Why shouldn't someone be allowed to do something commercially useful with my content without compensating me financially? [3]

[edit] In favour of only allowing non-commercial use

Copyright does serve a useful purpose. Restrictions on commercial use with reasonable time limits (5-15 years?) would be acceptable. But, that's still not "free," even if it's acceptable.

[edit] Copyright Law

[edit] Problems in the 20th Century

"With a system based on copyright, you actually greatly limit the content that's produced. Because for it to work, you need to sell a lot of the content itself. So that pushed the folks funding such endeavors only to focus on mainstream appeal and big hits. If you think of the long tail, copyright basically built up something of a barrier, making it harder for those down the tail to get anywhere." Mike Masnick

[edit] Problems in the 21st Century

With the democratizing of the tools of production and distribution, copyright, which once regulated corporations, now regulates everyone. Before, you needed a printing press to make copies, or a radio station to broadcast. Now, all you need is a person computer.

Also, copyright law is mean to regulate content. It gets weird in a hurry when applied to communication. The Internet is a communication platform, not a content platform. Copyright doesn't make sense on the Internet.

[edit] Copyright Extension

[edit] What it's not about

  • Defamation or libel
  • Counterfeiting (anti-fraud laws)
  • Natural rights
    • How do you account for the public domain?
    • Look at the provision in the U.S. Constitution
  • Moral rights
    • Freedom of speech is more important

[edit] Economics

[edit] Definitions

  • Price - the amount of money needed to purchase something; a product's monetary value; the intersection of supply and demand.
  • Value - The property or aggregate properties of a thing by which it is rendered useful or desirable, or the degree of such property or sum of properties; worth; excellence; utility; importance. [1913 Webster]
  • Supply - TODO: definition here; inverse relationship to price
  • Demand - TODO: definition here; non-inverse (what's the word??) relationship to price

[edit] Economics of scarcity

Most common, based on supply and demand and the allocation of scarce resources.

[edit] Economics of abundance

There is in inverse relationship between supply and price; as supply increases, price decreases (assuming constant demand). Therefore, as supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero. The price natural approaches the marginal cost in a competitive market, and the marginal cost of reproduction for digital goods is naturally zero.

Digital goods are infinitely abundant, thus their price naturally approaches zero in a competitive marketplace.

TODO: link to Grand Unified Theory post

"Smart businesses monetize their complements." TODO: link

[edit] Inevitability Argument

Economics are about what is happening, not what should happen or what you want to happen.

Free as in price is inevitable for digital goods because of the economics of abundance. Two options:

  • Embrace the economics of abundance (which free culture/software wholeheartedly does);
  • Use artificial scarcity to pretend it's not happening (e.g. DRM) - never works.

[edit] Alternate Means Argument

Free culture business models exist with the economics of abundance, allowing you to profit while respecting people's freedom.

If the economics of free content makes enough sense, then even the ethical economic benefits of copyright law can be seen as unnecessary, especially with all the additional unethical baggage they carry with them. Rob Myers' outlines a ton of ways to get paid for copyleft art. As Joel (on software) says, "smart businesses monetize their complements."


[edit] Examples

TODO: generalize TODO: separate into examples and models (or models with subpoints as examples)

[edit] Ways to get paid

  • Live performances
  • Session work
  • Selling digital recordings
  • Selling embodied recordings
  • Selling other merchandise (e.g. DVDs, posters, t-shirts, video games, etc)
  • Busking
  • Playing at weddings (violin)
  • Tiered systems (Nine Inch Nails)
  • Monetize patronage (Radiohead)
  • Kevin Fox (not a 'way' but an example)
  • Administrative work (e.g. SAC)
  • Teaching (private lessons level)
  • Teaching (Humber Songwriting Workshop level)

[edit] Let People Pay You

"Some people like to pay. Let them." (Derek Sivers)[2]

[edit] Sort

[edit] DRM

Cory Doctorow: "Any time someone puts a lock on something you own, against your wishes, and doesn't give you the key, it's not being done to your benefit." [3]

[edit] Music

There's lots of Free Music out there already!

[edit] Definitions

Various things can be meant by the word "music":

  • the language (i.e. notes, chords, harmonies, theory)
  • a composition (e.g. a song)
    • scarce in an economic sense - someone must write it
    • free-flowing in an intellectual sense, in the sense of culture and influence and knowledge, etc - its an idea, "no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it" (Thomas Jefferson)
  • a (master) recording (i.e. a particular instantiation of a composition in a recorded medium) -- abundant once it's digital
  • a digital audio file (e.g. an Ogg Vorbis file, an MP3), a particular instantiation of a recording -- abundant insofar as it's digital
  • an embodied recording (e.g. a CD) -- scarce insofar as it's physical
  • a live performance -- scarce insofar as it requires an artists time and presence

[edit] Business Models

[edit] External Links

[edit] Notes

  1. ↑ Richard M. Stallman, The GNU Manifesto: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
  2. ↑ http://sivers.org/ppay
  3. ↑ Cory Doctorow, My ebooks and DRM talk from O’Reilly’s Tools of Change for Publishing: http://craphound.com/?p=2212
Retrieved from "http://wiki.blaise.ca/wiki/Free_Culture"
Personal tools