fordi tiden kræver et MODSPIL!
Friday August 22nd 2014

Posts Tagged ‘ophavsret’

Ophavsretten er en pest for kunsten og kunstnerne

Det er ikke mig, der siger det, det er Bjørn Bredal i Politiken. Jeg ville ikke selv gå helt så vidt, se herunder. Men først Bredal:

Senest satte EU ’beskyttelses’-perioden for musikoptagelser op fra 50 år til 70 år. Et lodret vanvid, som følger op på det samme vanvid, som i 1990’erne førte til udvidelse af ’beskyttelses’-perioden for døde komponister, forfattere, malere etc.: Kunstnerne dør – og skal de beskyttes!

Logikken er til at græde over, og det var slemt nok, så længe ’beskyttelsen’ var 50 år: Vi taler helt enkelt om en syg mekanisme, der flytter penge over fra den levende kunst og de levende kunstnere til deres arvinger og især til hele den industri, der administrerer rettigheder.

Lige for tiden er det især filmindustrien, der forlanger sig bedre ’beskyttet’. Folk downloader film fra nettet uden at betale, og det går selvfølgelig ud over filmindustriens indtægter. Og muligvis er der ræson i at bremse den trafik på en eller anden måde – i nogle få år efter at en ny film har haft premiere.

Det er frygtelig forkert, når fortalere for ’mere beskyttelse’ på et eller andet område straks sætter sig op på en høj moralsk hest og taler om ’tyveri’ og ’kriminalitet’ hos dem, der glad og gratis bruger løs af kunsten.

Billedsproget spærrer for udsigten til de praktiske problemer, der skal løses, og fører til det ødelæggende galimatias, som rettighedsindustrien er blevet. Det er forfærdeligt, at Det Kongelige Teater ikke kan opføre en opera af Richard Strauss uden at betale en formue til den for længst døde komponists oldebørns advokater; at lærere på skoler og universiteter ikke kan vise et billede af Picasso uden at begå en ulovlighed; ja: eller at en gymnasielærer ikke kan vise den lille dumme kommentar, du læser netop nu, til sine elever, uden at gymnasiet skal betale royalty for det.

Jeg vil meget hellere have, at 100 gymnasieelever læser min kommentar, end at jeg får et par hundrede kroner udbetalt fra et firma, der for tiden vokser fuldstændig vildt i sin egen ødelæggende logik og hedder Copydan eller Tekst og Node, eller hvad det aktuelle navn nu er for den rettighedsindustri, der søger at hindre, fordyre og forkrøble udbredelse af tanker og ideer.

Bjørn Bredal og Politiken kunne selv gøre noget for at gøre det muligt for gymnasieelever at læse Bredals kommentar uden at betale for det – de kunne blot udgive bidrag fra Politikens egne skribenter under en Creative Commons-licens, der tillader ikke-kommerciel genanvendelse, hvilket også dækker uddannelsessystemet.

Generelt om ophavsret har den amerikanske juraprofessor Lawrence Lessig foreslået en “totrinsraket”: At ophavsretten gælder 21 år efter udgivelse og herefter mod et gebyr kan fornys i endnu 21 år. And that’s it.

Det ville formentlig løse de fleste af de problemer, Bredal her påpeger.


Lækkede dokumenter: Danmark går forrest i hemmeligholdelsen af ACTA

Forhandlingerne om den kommende, ifølge rygterne superhårde og meget skadelige konvention om ophavsret (ACTA) foregår i dybeste hemmelighed, så vi som borgere ikke har mange muligheder for at finde ud af eller blande os i, hvad de er ved at trække ned over hovederne på os. Dette er der ikke enighed om rundt om bordet – ifølge nogle lækkede, hollandske dokumenter er nogle regeringer meget åbne for at tage diskussionen i åbenhed, mens andre – formentlig dem, der er mest i lommen på industrien og dens interesser – presser på for at holde den så hemmelig som mulig.

Blandt de allerstørste syndere er Danmark. Surprise? Michael Geist skriver:

Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, many countries have taken public positions that they support release of the actual text, but that other countries do not.  Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners, the text simply can’t be released until everyone is in agreement.  Of course, those same countries hasten to add that they can’t name who opposes ACTA transparency, since that too is secret.

No longer. In an important new leak from the Netherlands (Dutch, Google English translation), a Dutch memorandum reporting back on the Mexico ACTA negotiation round names names, pointing specifically to which countries support releasing the text and which do not (note that the memo does not canvass everyone – Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are known to support transparency but are not named in the memo).  According to the Dutch memo, the UK has played a lead role in making the case for full disclosure of the documents and is of the view that there is consensus for release of the text (there is support from many countries including the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, and Austria).  However, the memo indicates that several countries are not fully supportive including Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Denmark.  Of these four countries, the Dutch believe that Denmark is the most inflexible on the issue.

Skandale – eller …? Geists konklusion: “Those in the U.S., South Korea, Singapore, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Denmark should be demanding answers from their leaders”.

Og dét lyder ikke helt dumt.

Link: New ACTA Leak: U.S., Korea, Singapore, Denmark Do Not Support Transparency


Foredrag om ACTA, det nye ophavsmareridt

Dette er et tyve minutters foredrag om ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, den nye traktat om ophavsret, der forhandles på plads i dybeste hemmelighed i disse dage. Vi snakker nye drakoniske muligheder og straffe. Hvis lobbyisterne ender med at få magt som de har agt i denne sag, kan threee strikes-love og fængselsstraffe for download af musik til eget forbrug hurtigt blive dagens orden.

Link: The ACTA Threat: My Talk on Everything You Need To Know About ACTA, But Didn’t Know To Ask (via Boing Boing).

Læs også: ACTA: Worldwide Net restrictions without public debate


Fildeler retsforfølges for 25 millioner og fortæller sin historie

Joel Tenebaum fortæller i The Guardian om sine genvordigheder, efter at pladebranchen har sagsøgt ham for fildeling, og han har nægtet at bøje sig og erkende, at han skulle have gjort noget galt:

To a certain extent, I’m afraid to write this. Though they’ve already seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they won’t do it again. For the past four years, they’ve been threatening me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends, and myself twice – the first time for nine hours, the second for seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m.

When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I’m being charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave.

No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has operated under. “How did they get you?” I’m asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared music. And that’s when a look appears on the face of whoever I’m talking to, the horrified “it could have been me!” look. [...]

in August 2007, I came home from work to find a stack of papers, maybe 50 pages thick, sitting at the door to my apartment. That’s when I found out what it was like to have possibly the most talented copyright lawyers in the business, bankrolled by multibillion-dollar corporations, throwing everything they had at someone who wanted to share Come As You Are with other Nirvana fans.

I had assumed that as an equal in a court of law in the United States, my story would be told and a just outcome would result. I discovered the sheer magnitude of obstacles in your way to get your say in court. And even if you get to trial, (which only one other person, Jammie Thomas Rasset, has done) you’re still far from equal with the machine controlling 85% of commercial music in the US. [...]

My sisters, dad and mother have all been deposed. My high-school friends, friends of the family too. My computer’s been seized and hard drive copied, and my parents and sister narrowly escaped the same fate for their computers. And the professor who supervises my teaching is continually frustrated with my need to have people cover for me, while my research in grad school is put on hold to deal with people whose full-time job is to keep an anvil over my head. I have to consider every unrelated thing I do in my private life in the event that I’m interrogated under oath about it. I wonder how I’ll stand up in a courtroom for hours having litigators try to convince a jury of my guilt and the reprehensibility of my character.

Er der nogen af mine læsere, der kan genkende denne følelse af “det ku’ have været mig!”, som jeg har fremhævet?

Tak, Morten Jørgensen!

Link: How it feels to be sued for $4.5m, Joel fights back


Er ophavsretten en fejl? Imod intellektuel monopolisme

Fra mises.org, om en ny bog, der ærligt talt lyder spændende:


At a taped video interview in my office, before the crew would start the camera, a man had to remove my Picasso prints from the wall. The prints are probably under copyright, they said.

But the guy who drew them died 30 years ago. Besides, they are mine.

Doesn’t matter. They have to go.

What about the poor fellow who painted the wall behind the prints? Why doesn’t he have a copyright? If I scrape off the paint, there is the drywall and its creator. Behind the drywall are the boards, which are surely proprietary too. To avoid the “intellectual-property” thicket, maybe we have to sit in an open field; but there is the problem of the guy who last mowed the grass. Then there is the inventor of the grass to consider.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

The worldly-wise say no. This is just the way things are. It is for us not to question but to obey. So it is with all despotisms in human history. They become so woven into the fabric of daily life that absurdities are no longer questioned. Only a handful of daring people are capable of thinking along completely different lines. But when they do, the earth beneath our feet moves.

Such is the case with Against Intellectual Monopoly (Cambridge University Press, 2008) by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, two daring professors of economics at Washington University in St. Louis. They have written a book that is likely to rock your world, as it has mine. (It is also posted on their site with the permission of the publisher.)

With piracy and struggles over intellectual property in the news daily, it is time to wonder about this issue, its relationship to freedom, property rights, and efficiency. You have to think seriously about where you stand.

This is not one of those no-brainer issues for libertarians, like minimum wage or price controls. The problem is complicated, and solving it requires careful thought. But it is essential that every person do the thinking, and there is no better tool for breaking the intellectual gridlock than this book.

Link: A book that changes everything


Britiske internetbrugere: Dommen over Pirate Bay er uretfærdig

Den britiske avis The Guardian har en online-afstemning hvor de forsøger at lodde stemningen blandt deres læsere.

I øjeblikket er stemningen, som det fremgår af billedet – de har desværre ingen opgørelse over, hvor mange stemmer, der er opgivet (det kommer måske, når afstemningen er afsluttet).

I skrivende stund kan du forresten selv hoppe ind og give din mening til kende. Konklusionen synes at være, at hvis formålet med dommen og retssagen var at statuere, at fildeling er forkert, som vort eget danske IFPIs overfjols Jesper Bay antyder på sin JP-blog, er det lige præcis det stik modsatte, man har opnået: Dommen ses som formålsløst overkill af en befolkning, der for længst har vænnet sig til, at fildeling og downloads er vejen frem. Det er lov om ophavsret og branchens forretningsmodeller, der må ændre sig her, ikke teknologien eller promovering af musik og kunst via fildeling.

Og hvis denne ændring skulle føre med sig, at musikerne ikke længere har brug for de pladeselskaber, der i dag gør hvad de kan for at udsuge og udbytte dem, det bedste de har lært, vil i hvert fald mine øjne være tørre.

Link: A fair sentence for pirates?


Hvad en forlægger kan gøre

Man taler meget om, at Internettet er ved at overtage populærkulturen, at aviserne er ved at uddø, at pladeselskaberne er dinosaurer, osv.

Men dog må der vel være noget, som Internettet ikke bare kan, som f.eks. en forfatter har brug for et forlag og en musiker et pladeselskab/forlag til?

Den canadiske science fiction-forfatter og blogger Cory Doctorow, som vi også citerede i det forrige indlæg, svarer på spørgsmålet i sin seneste klumme i Locus Online os siger, at ja, der er én ting, forlagene kan gøre, som Internettet ikke kan: De kan få bogen ud på boghandlernes hylder.

Doctorow skriver:

Hardly a day goes by that I don’t get an e-mail from someone who’s ready to reinvent publishing using the Internet, and the ideas are often good ones, but they lack a key element: a sales force. That is, a small army of motivated, personable, committed salespeople who are on a first-name basis with every single bookstore owner/buyer in the country, people who lay down a lot of shoe-leather as they slog from one shop to the next, clutching a case filled with advance reader copies, cover-flats, and catalogs. When I worked in bookstores, we had exceptional local reps, like Eric, the Bantam guy who knew that I was exactly the right clerk to give an advance copy of Snow Crash to if he wanted to ensure a big order and lots of hand-selling when the book came in.

This matters. This is the kind of longitudinal, deep, expensive expertise that gets books onto shelves, into the minds of the clerks, onto the recommended tables at the front of the store. It’s labor-intensive and highly specialized, and without it, your book’s sales only come from people who’ve already heard of it (through word of mouth, advertising, a review, etc.) and who are either motivated enough to order it direct, or lucky enough to chance on a copy on a shelf at a store that ordered it based on reputation or sales literature alone, without any hand-holding or cajoling.

The best definition I’ve heard of “publishing” comes from my editor, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who says, “publishing is making a work public.” That is, identifying a work and an audience, and taking whatever steps are necessary to get the two together (you’ll note that by this definition, Google is a fantastic publisher). Publishing is not printing, or marketing, or editorial, or copy-editing, or typesetting. It may comprise some or all of these things, but you could have the world’s best-edited, most beautiful, well-bound book in the world, and without a strategy for getting it into the hands of readers, all it’s good for is insulating the attic. (This is the unfortunate discovery made by many customers of vanity publishers.)

(…)

It’s easy to imagine a web-based discount printer, web-based copyeditors and proofreaders (the Distributed Proofreader Project, which cleans up the typos in the public domain books in Project Gutenberg, is a proof-of-concept here), web-based marketing and advertising firms (“web-based” may be redundant here — are there any marketers and advertising agencies left who aren’t primarily Internet-based?), web-based PR (ditto), and even web-based editors who serve as book-doctor, rabbi, producer, confessor, and exalted doler-out-of-blessings, gracing a book with their imprimatur, a la Oprah. (…)

This vision has captured the imagination of many of my fellow techno-utopians: a stake through the heart of the Big, Lumbering Entertainment Dinosaurs Who Put Short-Sighted Profits Ahead of Art. And there’s plenty of short-term thinking in the recent history of publishing and the rise of the mega-publishers. There are plenty of “little” publishers out there, dotted around the country, figuring out how to fill in the gaps that the big guys won’t stoop to conquer: short story collections, quirky titles, books of essays, art books, experimental titles, and anthologies. These are often fabulous books with somewhat respectable numbers, but they lag the majors in one key area: physical distribution.

Det er en glimrende observation og siger også noget om, hvad en forfatter får ud af at komme på et etableret forlag frem for selv at stå for det.

Mht. musik er der selvfølgelig den hage ved det, at pladeselskabernes  standardkontrakter snyder kunstnerne så vandet driver, jfr. Courtney Love’s analyse.

Inden for bogudgivelser er det vist ikke helt så slemt (endnu?).

Link: In Praise of the Sales Force


Sider

[FSF
Associate Member] eXTReMe Tracker Creative Commons License