Death Of The Global Information Infrastructure

Peter R. Kornblum writes "Under the title "Knowledge is Money", the German computer magazine "c't" has published an extensive discourse on how software patents, Digital Rights Management and the extended duration of the US Copyright law affects society at large. The article argues that multinational corporations are shrinking the public domain at the expense of innovation. The Entertainment Industry is agressively trying to force other countries to implement copyright legislation similar to the DMCA and adjust their patent laws to current US conditions. And they are succeeding: The European Union has passed a resolution for all its member states to implement DMCA-like copyright laws by the end of this year. Regular Slashdot readers may not find too much new info in the article, but it does a good job of putting things into perspective -- and it paints a rather frightening picture of the current situation. Its conclusion: The public domain is shrinking at an alarming rate; fair use rights are agressively undermined by corporate industry. "Not much has survived of the Global Information Infrastructure, that euphoric liberation rhetoric about the Internet being there for everyone." And it's all part of a grander scheme. A translated, English language version of the article is available online at http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/24/108/. The original German text can be found at http://www.heise.de/ct/02/24/108/."

PD Shrinking?

[ichimunki]

The Public Domain is not shrinking. It just isn't expanding very quickly. Big difference. If we're going to have an impact, we need to avoid these kinds of untrue exaggerations. Our credibility is already heavily impacted by the whole Napster debacle and the filesharing crowd (and I'm not talking about copying a song here and there, I mean the people who own nothing but unauthorized dupes and tons of warez).

Re:PD Shrinking?

[Jon-o]

On the other hand, you could say that things are constantly dropping out of the Public Domain - not because restrictions appear on them, but simply because they disappear! If the single copy of a book gets burnt in a fire, it's gone.

In a "normal" scenario, these losses are replaced at a steady pace (at the very least) by new works coming into the PD, but with the copyright freeze, we don't have anything new appearing.

Even if you can legally use something, doesn't mean it's practically feasible.

Re:PD Shrinking?

[akb]

Wasn't the rub of Eldred v Ashcroft that the copyright term extension was being applied retroactively? I thought that Eldred had to remove works from his site that had been public domain but were not after the Bono Act.

Re:PD Shrinking?

[ichimunki]

I believe that the problem is that he wants to post material that ought to have fallen into the public domain, but did not, due to the retroactive term extension.

Here is the original complaint [harvard.edu] where this is laid out.

I had, of course, no intention of appearing to side with term extension. I do not support retroactive laws of any nature, including those that outlaw possession of a particular good (i.e., prior possession of a drug or an image or any other proscribed item would constitute an affirmative defense).

I also think that our currently legislated "limited term" is way too long. Most copyrighted works seem to lose value extremely rapidly. The main exceptions appear to be those that involve media shifting, which is situations like re-releasing old audio recordings on CD, taking old films and putting them on DVD, or other dramatic shifts, like making a movie from old books (a great example of this is the recent "Lord of the Rings" movies-- if I'm reading this timeline of copyright [cni.org] correctly, the whole of LotR would be public domain by now. This was prevented in 1976, and again in 1998.)

In most cases, the people enriched by media shifting are not those who originally created the material. And with the exception of adaptive shifts like making movies from books, the main purpose of media shifting seems to be to resell the same content to the same customers in a different form. This also causes a lot of damage to the after-market for existing copies of those works.

Re:PD Shrinking?

[mkweise]

While the absolute quantity of information in the public domain obviously can't shrink without something like the Dark Ages happening again, the value-weighted ratio of PD knowledge to proprietary knowledge certainly *has* been shrinking at an alarming rate.

I mean sure it's nice that you don't need to license a patent in order to make fire by rubbing sticks together, but other things that *should* be considered trivial, like simple arithmetic coding for example, are still protected (or should I say haunted) by pantents.

making it easier for us

[solferino]

in a way all this copy protection and 'user management' makes it much easier for us to deal with 'information overload'

by applying the simple rule of 'i will only give my attention and personal engagement to writing, music, art etc that is put out into the world freely and without trying to hook something back from me' one can vastly cut down on the amount of 'content' out there clamouring for your attention

one might even find that works created for reasons other than economic reward are often vastly superior and more stimulating than the vast sea of mediocre 'cookie-cutter-content' that constanly seeks to engulf us and dampen our own creative individuality

so simply apply the rule of 'not freely given, then not worthy of my attention' and like god in the hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy the mpaa and riaa will simply cease to exist as no-one any longer believes in them

Bad headline

[Anonymous Coward]

The death of the information infrastructure is a side effect. The real damage is the shrinking of the public domain. The shoulders on which we are standing are shrinking, and some of us are going to fall off. When people are reduced to consumers in a mix of legal strings and tool lock-out, only big business can continue providing information resources. What do you need internet for then? A much more efficient distribution network feeds central streams to encrypted harddisks in consumers' "PCs" to achieve near on-demand. Upstreams don't need to support any more than simple control streams and statistical data. Attach discussions about cable company broadband monopoly here, please. Arguments about that will be moot after DRM has entered every PC.

Balance in all things

[Isao]

One must also consider the new content that is being made available, like the MIT online course information, or the Usenet archive in Google.

The new forms that information will take may be quite unrecognizable to us "old folk."

Of course, if there were no public domain...

[Lord Bitman]

If there were no public domain, things would be a lot easier for me. With so many independent artists, so many non-independent artists, so many free musics just being distributed because they are nice to listen to and so many indes who have had their music blatantly stolen and placed on filesharing programs while they have no one to turn to, and no way for others to know that their music ISNT really free. With all those, it would be a lot easier if everyone was controlled by the RIAA, and no music was free. As it is now, I think I'm legally obligated to spend six months trying to locate and contact the original artist of a song I see on Gnutella, secure direct confirmation from him that it is okay for me to download his music, and then actually see if it's any good.
See, there's this 'fair use' thing, and everyone here respects that. It says that if I own a song but think CDs are annoying low-capacity shitplatters, I can get online and download that song and I'll still be okay legally. The problem with that is it means (oh, shit..) people can share copywrited works on filesharing programs.
Then comes my problem. I'm on gnutella and I'm searching for random shit that's got a good beat. I see an artist I've never heard of, so I figure it's an independent artist sharing their music and I download it. It kicks ass, I get more, I love it all. Just to be sure, I check out stores, but I find nothing.
A year later I mention it to a friend and he says it's actually an artist that was all the rage 5 years ago. So all that great free music I've been listening to wasnt actually free, wasnt actually independent, and according to the law I'm supposed to pay a fine to the uncle of the left nut of the record company that merged with the local label that represented the artist five years ago.
This means that I'm in the wrong, all because your stupid public domain shit made me think that what I was downloading was actually okay for me to download even though I didnt own a CD I've never heard of.

"Reclaiming the Commons"

[Ivan the Terrible]

An earlier ./ posting was on a related topic: Reclaiming the Commons [slashdot.org] by David Bollier.

In addition to the article, there are eight responses plus Bollier's reply.

Makes for interesting reading...

-- Vladimir

License to surf?

[ka9dgx]

At the rate things are going, you'll need a license in order to view a web page, along with certified copies of the contracts with your information licensing providers. Each URL will have its associated policies, so you will only be able to view the content you've paid to see, and only once.

The public domain isn't shrinking, in theory... in practice what is there is more obsolete by the day, and new works are being locked down tighter than a drum. In a few years, you might need a license to write a web page. (After all, you might be a terrorist writing secret messages, or anti-american propaganda).

The future is bleak, but I suspect the revolution will fix most of this.

--Mike--
Cheney first

Changing values

[smallfries]

It would appear that the balance of laws are shifting. The original intent of a body of laws was to provide protection for members of society. Are companies really a member of society? In modern laws they would appear to be, and are offered most of the same legal protections as people.

Most laws are designed to create a protocol for the exchange of comodities, until people invented trading there was no need for people to follow the same system. Now it provided security and allowed commerce. Hence, early laws that are considered to be a basic part of most western legal systems. Protection against murder, theft and other activities that would stop society functioning. So laws offered extended protection, not just to people, but also to their property, or chattel.

At one time companies would be considered to be chattel, owned by an individual and subject to the protection that he had within the law. In the modern era though, companies have become much bigger entities; owned by many different people. And so somewhere along the line they have become individuals under the law and offered certain protection. Now, the property of companies are ideas. So laws are evolving again to protect the chattel of individuals.

Its interesting to see that most of the people who were consulted thought that more protection for intellectual property (theres a whole bit kettle of fish, whether that actually exists or not ;) was not necessary. More importantly, that it would begin to stiffle individuals or small companies and shift the balance of power towards the larger corporations. Even more interesting is that the commission decided to ignore their view, and then to decide that they were wrong, actual ly most of them did agree but had been biased.

So, are we entering a world where corporations begin to have democratic rights? Apparently the EU is a democratic system, however it would appear that corporate opinions have more 'weight' than individuals. This kind of transition smells of a return to a more fuedal, or perhaps monarchic system with patronage of power and influence. Only those who can secure the backing of larger players can enter the playing field. What does this do to individual rights? Are we no longer allowed to compete on a level playing field?

The commons _IS_ growing, at an increasing rate...

[rthille]

Just not as fast as the 'pay to play' space. There is still a huge growth in the 'free information' space, or a least the 'free information with garbage adverts attached' space.

But the laws covering IP are still a problem when they affect what people can create themselves and give freely. Patents are worse than copyright in this regard, because if I've never heard of Word or Office or whatever, I can recreate it (or similar functionality) myself and give it away for free. With patents, I can't even give away code that I wrote having never heard of their approach to the problem.

Re:The commons _IS_ growing, at an increasing rate

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is about the threats to the growth of the public domain. Only a small part of these threats are actually laws. The laws simply secure the technological barriers which will be under corporate control and are already sneaking their way into common PC hardware. If you think that musicians will much longer have the ability to simply offer their music for download without going through a digital rights broker, you're underestimating corporate greed. This isn't about stopping piracy. It's about making sure that consumers stay consumers instead of freeing themselves from their addiction to mass media. Future computers will simply not allow you to create. You'll have to prove that you're intent on making big money by paying extra for the special "producer" model.

Which is fine execpt for one thing...

[Kris_J]

Most of the pap that passes for content and/or innovation these days I wouldn't want to use. It's just a shame that these new laws can be used to club real innovators and artists over the head with baseless law suits.

Call To Arms!

[node 3]

Now's the time to do something about it. Create works and put them into the public domain!

Unless, of course, you would rather just have *other* people put their work into the public domain. I can't help you there.

Ask yourself this question: Why do I want things in the public domain?

(I'm not talking about fair use, or the DMCA, just the public domain.)

The answer, you will find, is that you want something for nothing. You want others to do the work for you.

I can't produce a single song that I'd enjoy listening to, but there are lots of others who can and do it daily. I'm glad to pay for music I enjoy. If I can't afford it, I will work for the money needed to pay for it.

It's likely that you can't produce an album either (or a movie, or a book, etc), but you want others to do it for you and for them to give it to you for free? And what, again, is their motivation?

Linus Torvalds was motivated by the fact that others will be able to improve upon his work. Software, like science, benefits from adding minds to a task. All classical music was composed by a single person, and modern music by one or two people, so the open source idea doesn't help here.

Richard Stallman was motivated by the desire to be able to fix his own stuff. He found the only way to guarantee that ability was by requiring the source code to be available. Songs and movies don't need fixing (ok, many do, but it's not like fixing a printer driver).

But what motivates the cry to force things into the public domain? And who's to do all this work for you for free?

Re:Call To Arms!

[rpresser]

Personally, my desire that items lapse into the public domain is grounded in my belief that nobody at Disney, for example, alive today, had the slightest bit of involvement in the creation of Mickey Mouse. Why should they get dollars for it when I don't? What makes them so special? You say that I just want to get stuff for free ... but they want to get money for free (i.e., without doing anything to earn it except bribe legislators).

Re:Call To Arms!

[node 3]

Disney (the company) owns Mickey Mouse. So them charging for it are not getting "money for nothing". They are getting money for allowing you the use (viewing) of Mickey Mouse.

One problem with copyright is that it is temporary. Why author's lifetime +70 years (or whatever the farce of copyright law currently has it at)? Why not +100 years? Or only +10 years? There are only 3 rational options. No copyright, copyright for the life of the author only, or copyright for as long as whoever owns the copyright wants.

And you say you don't want something for nothing? Yet you say you want (in this example) Mickey Mouse, without paying Disney anything in return. That's actually the definition of something for nothing.

Re:Call To Arms!

[rpresser]

Yes, Disney (the company) owns Mickey Mouse. I don't dispute that. I dispute that they have a right to own Mickey Mouse. The company was not the author of Mickey Mouse; no one at the company today had anything to do with Mickey Mouse; yet the company continues to collect money for Mickey Mouse and wishes to do so indefinitely (to all appearances, given their lobbying actions).

Your 3 rational options are all themselves irrational in my view. I would propose returning copyright to the original (in the USA) 14 years from publication. That's plenty of time to use the immediate profits from work X to fund the creation of work Y.

Re:Call To Arms!

[node 3]

I dispute that they have a right to own Mickey Mouse.

Which is the crux of the matter, isn't it? If a man can own Mickey Mouse, can't he sell it to a company?

Your 3 rational options are all themselves irrational in my view.

That statement is irrational. Rationality doesn't depend on one's "view". Either something is or it isn't. The options I gave are the only rational ones (if there are more, I'd be happy to hear them). You are talking about what is considered the reasonable, which is subjective.

I would propose returning copyright to the original (in the USA) 14 years from publication.

Why 14 years? Why not 3? Or how about 28? Perhaps it depends on the phase of the Moon at the time? My point being, why is 14 years the proper number?

That's plenty of time to use the immediate profits from work X to fund the creation of work Y.

Ah, and here we have the answer. 14 years is the optimal amount of time (well, if not optimal, at least "plenty") required for a person to continually create, while giving you the ability to take their work without payment. You see? Something for nothing. I'm just calling it what it is.

Should you only be able to make enough money to survive until your next paycheck? Why would you work hard? It's been said that the box office sales for The Fellowship of the Ring has already made back all the money that will be spent for the entire trilogy plus and extra 50%. So should New Line Cinemas be forced to release the entire trilogy now into the public domain? After all, now they can fund 4 films and have money left over!

Re:Call To Arms!

[AstynaxX]

My basic reason is for the sake of balance. Should -everything- be public domain? No, I doubt that is even possible, let along right. But a sizable and thriving public domain serves to balance both personal and corporate greed. If there is no free alternative, then one has to cough up whatever the current owner demands or do without entirely. When free alternatives are present, the current owner will discover that, if he charges a fee that is too outrageous, people will choose the free alternative, even if it is of somewhat lesser quality. The issue, the core problem we face now, is that the owners are seeking to stop the growth of the public domain, thereby allowing themselves to charge any outrageous price they can think of. Connected to this is the issue of those who simply cannot afford the commercial prices due to other bills, lack of education, economic downturns in their region, etc. For them, it becomes a matter of free or nothing, and if the public domain ceases to grow nothing is all that is left.

[Before someone chimes in with the obligatory 'We are talking about entertainment, not food or medicine' consider two points. 1. Do you honestly expect that, should monied interests succeed in locking up all optional, luxary items, they will stop there and not proceed on to food and other necessities? 2. As the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone. Living a life that consists of work, eat, and sleep with no entertainment or leisure activities is a quick way to a padded room.]

Re:Call To Arms!

[node 3]

Forcing things into the public domain is theft. You can cite all the good the public domain does (and I agree that the public domain is *great*). But to strike some form of balance is to try to balance an amount of theft for the common good vs not being a thief. How do you determine the balance? Who determines the balance.

Such a system (which is what we have now) simply becomes the creators lobbying against the consumers and vice versa for the rights to certain property.

And it's laughable to think that anyone could corner the market on food, water, air and shelter. Any system that allows that to happen is corrupt. A free market can't keep you from growing corn and raising cattle in your own backyard.

EUCD Implementation

[YDdraig]

The European Union has passed a resolution for all its member states to implement DMCA-like copyright laws by the end of this year.

Actually the implementation has been delayed in the UK [patent.gov.uk] because of the volume of responses to the consultation paper [patent.gov.uk]. Their target is now next March.

Hopefully they're using the time to seriously consider the concerns raised and will actually come up with a vaguely reasonable implementation. Well, we can hope.

Re:EUCD Implementation

[jacoplane]

If you want to know more about this resolution,

- The Directive [eu.int]

- Explanation [eu.int] (scroll to page 54 for intellectual property)

Re: Death Of The Global Information Infrastructure

[ddimas]

It's amazing how the same problems pop up again and again in history. This is the latest incarnation of an old story, one that destroyed civilizations it destroyed the Romans (enserfment of the citizens in the western provinces), the Byzantines (same thing, 1000 yrs later) the Spanish Empire,the French Monarchy, the Soviet Union, well you get the idea. Every time an elite aristocracy took hold and subsumed the rights of the "common people" for thier own benefit, thereby weakening the society at large until a collapse occured.
I wonder who will succed the West, hmmm!