Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/University of California, Berkeley/Politics of Digital Piracy (Spring 2013)/Week 3 assignment

Reading
(Note that this was not on the original syllabus)
 * "Access Denied", The Economist, Jan 10, 2013.
 * John N. Berry, “The Real Purpose of Copyright”, Library Journal Archive, 2000.
 * Richard Stallman, “Misinterpreting Copyright-A Series of Errors”, Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.

Suggested Readings: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
 * To exemplify how complicated terms of copyright law can be:


 * Berkman Center for Internet and Society and EIFL, Copyright for Librarians.

Questions
If you are in group B, please answer the questions in this section (below) by 'editing' the page and copying your responses. At the end of your response please sign your user name by typing four ~(4 tildes).


 * When the first US copyright law was established in 1790, it was intended to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by making the ownership of that right limited to 14 years. Over time, the law has extended to 70 years after the death of the author.  In consideration of both compensation to  authors and the general public who is free to use these works after copyright has expired, what do you think would be a reasonable time period for copyright owners to have this exclusive ownership without trumping innovation?


 * Stallman suggests that the public "deserves to get what it wants." Do you think this is a good standard to use in developing copyright? If you do think so - how could we gauge the want of the public? If not - what would be a better metric?

Response (Group B)
Group B, please type your responses here.

I think that the length a copyright should last should depend on the amount of effort put in to a project. Stallman advocates for a differing copyright length depending on these factors and makes a ballpark estimate of 20 years for films over one hour and length, and 3 years for the copyright on software. From a utilitarian perspective, which I find the easiest to quantify, every year a copyright holder maintains his or her copyright gives them some marginal incentive (let's call it money) to contribute a creative work. The money they make off of, say, book sales for a published book decreases over time, as we would expect. The time a copyrighted work should be made available in the public domain is when the money being made by the copyright holder off of a work is less than the value that work could bring to the public if it were in the public domain. Another way of thinking about this trade-off is to imagine if copyright length were reduced. How would the number of creative works change? Would the public be alright with that decrease if it meant that more items were brought in to the public domain? If so, than the copyright should be at most that long. If not, copyright should be longer. Cp123127 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that prioritizing the wants of the public over the wants of large special interest groups is in the interest of most people. However this is not very feasible if the public is passive, given the number of special interests which are keen on increasing the length of copyright. I believe the only way to really gauge the public's opinion on whether the copyright length needs to be reduced is to propose a bill to reduce the length of copyright and see how the public reacts. Additionally, I believe the internet might rally, as they did to defeat SOPA and PIPA, to defeat a proposal to extend copyright length again. Cp123127 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Although it is true that if the ideas become open for the public the science and other field that contribute to the economy would develop faster, but, on the other hand, the individuals who do the innovations would be more concerned about protecting their own ideas which would make their scientific activities less productive. In my opinion there still should be some copyright time limit, however it certainly should not be 140 years. While considering how fast the ideas become “old” this days I think that short period of time like 3-5 years should be more than enough for the author. Tigstep (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)tigstep

Sometimes it may be very dangerous to give the public exactly what it wants. It would be great idea to create a special organization that (based on democratic approach) would decide which material should be provided to the public and decide the timeframes. One thing is for sure there should be some regulating body because obviously with the development of the internet keeping away all the copyrighted materials from the public has become much harder. Tigstep (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)tigstep

I feel that there can be never reasonable time period for copyright owners to have this exclusive ownership without trumping innovation because everyone is different in their individual way and each owner I feel has different motives depending what their work is and to who in the community they would like their work distributed. With our technology that we are faced with today we should have a system that enables owners to decide what kind of timeframe that they would like to impose on their work. Chadyy (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Chadyy

Even though I do believe that every American should have the rights to free access when it comes to terms of different authors works I believe the line is crossed when a sense of National Security is in jeopardy to the American people. I feel as if Americans would like to know everything that happens behind the closed doors of the government but this can be a dangerous situation if wrong information is leaked. I believe the public deserves to get what it wants to a certain extent depending upon the the type of work. --Chadyy (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Chadyy


 * In “Misinterpreting Copyright,” Richard Stallman suggests that different mediums could have different copyright time limits depending on the durations of their product cycles. This seems logical to me, as a 700-page novel takes longer to produce than a song or a simple application.  The level of effort put in by the creator/artist should be taken into account.  However, I disagree with Stallman that ten years would be a sufficient copyright time limit for a book.  This seems thirty years too short in the least.
 * I don’t think that the public “deserves to get what it wants” in the short term if it deprives future generations of receiving the same. If we do not consider producers to have a reasonable right to their own work, we will discourage the creation of new art and science.  While copyright law as it currently stands may not be in the best interests of the general public, it is also the duty of the government to protect and act on behalf of smaller populations (such as artists, etc.) that the majority might not consider. Editingcontent2 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If the problem is the trade-off between how much the public wants to provide the incentive for authors to write and the public’s hunger for copies, then it becomes a problem of determining what price the public should pay to provide how much incentive. To this date there has been no better way of determining prices than by market forces. In a way similar to how construction companies bid for contracts, it would be interesting to implement a legal framework where the author owns the copyright, but can only lease the rights to publish the work for however long one publishing cycle is in that medium. The author is not allowed to sell the copyright. Then the publishers would bid for the lease to publish that work for each time. The copyright would last for the author’s lifetime, unless the author chooses to give it away to the public domain. At the death of the author it could be treated as another piece of the author’s property, and the author could leave instructions to donate the copyright to the public or to leave it to an heir. Anyway that is what I think should happen if the copyright is treated as a traditional piece of property.

So I guess that answers both questions – discretion of the author, and market forces. I agree with Stallman that a good government should serve the interests of the public, but I think that the mentality of “I deserve to get what I want” might create a so-called tragedy of the commons and therefore not in the best interests of the public. It’s probably dangerous to talk of a group of people as “wanting” something, because a group has no such will, even if each individual member does. Enaha (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Prompt Response - Adrianvallence (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to respond to the second question first: that is, whether "what the public wants" is an ideal metric for evaluating copyright. In stallman's article, he mostly compares the interests of the public to the interests of the publisher, while neglecting to directly confront what is perhaps the most important aspect: the rights of the creator. Because although publisher's rhetoric often cites "protecting the rights of authors" as a motivating factor, that's not the case at all. And in fact, copyright that favor's publishers can inhibit both the public and creators.

As an anecdote, I'd like to describe an issue that I stumbled upon recently: An previously self-published creator of graphic novels whose works I enjoy recently received a contract with a small publisher to publish a compilation of the first several volumes of her main series - which ideally would bring profit to both the creators and the publishers. However, one side affect was that because the publishers had bought the rights to the early volumes, the original creators could no longer publish them for a period of several years. After one print run, the publisher indicated that they would not be doing any additional print runs, but they still retained all rights. In the time since then, there has been demand from many fans who came too late to buy the original volumes for a reprint - an idea which the creators seem interested in, and which could indeed help them profit, and profit the public by making the books available again - but their hands are tied by copyright law.

Here I think we have a conflict between the stated purpose of copyright law (to protect author's rights/profits, and to encourage the production of more works) and the effective purpose (which is to protect the profits of major publishers--NOT authors). And this example is also a good illustration of how the actual effects of copyright are in fact sometimes contradictory to the stated goal. In this case, copyright does not encourage authors to make works. It does not protect author's profits. It does not lead to more available information for the public. The only potential beneficiary is the publisher.

The issue of the length of copyrights is a tricky one, especially since copyrights can cover anything from fiction to art to computer programs to academic writings and many other things, all of which I think ought to be considered under slightly different standards. There is also the fact that copyrights also cover many different factors: who has the right to make a profit off a work, who can make derivative works, accreditations, fair use, and many other aspects. As far as ideals go, I have the most clear cut opinions about fictional novels/graphic novels, as they are the area I am most familiar with. Other media, such as, say, computer programs, I don't know enough about the industry or community to really say much.

However, some of the general beliefs I have include:
 * copyrights on academic work, technology, and programs should be shorter than those on fiction. While absurdly long copyrights on fiction do not greatly impinge on everyday life, overlong copyrights on science and technology can have much greater effects.
 * While I could deal with rights to fictional works being lifelong (for authors, not publishers), they should never extend past the death of an author, barring perhaps situations in which an author dies within ten years or so of publication; I also think that publisher should only be able to contract rights for a smaller period of time.
 * I think there should also be some differences between derivative works and wholesale copying; between commercial and non-commercial uses. For example: I think non-commercial use (giving a song or ebook to a friend) should be allowed sooner, but restrictions on any non-approved commercial use should remain for the creators lifetime. Derivative works (when properly accredited) should be allowed sooner and more easily than simple copying of an entire work.
 * In general, I think copyrights should be based on an estimate of the point where diminishing returns mean that the profits resulting from keeping the copyright become lower than the potential benefits of allowing it's use; this is far more important for "industrial" copyright.

In addition, I think that the discovery of the internet has radically changed the relationship between publisher and author, and that copyright law needs to acknowledge that difference. Before the internet, the costs of setting up printing presses, making paper, binding books, etc. were such that going through a major publisher was the only feasible way of disseminating a written work. And so since the only way the public could access works was with the assistance of publishers, it made sense to protect their rights. However, that is now changing. No longer are expensive large scale print shops required to reproduce works. Online distribution (as well as developments such as digital on-demand printing and the vanity press industry) have lead to a thriving online creative community, all without the assistance of publishers, both on for-profit and non-profit bases. Rather than making access to books easier, current mainstream publisher and copyright policies now make works less available to the public - defeating the original point of copyright.

Again, consider something like, say, academic publishing. In the past, protecting the profits of academic publishing companies made sense, as their printed journals were one of the only ways of disseminating information among researchers, students, etc; there were also greater costs in printing, shipping, etc. Now, however - in days when articles can easily be posted online with no material costs, without even needing the help of a publisher - the major academic publishing institutions do more to suppress knowledge than to spread it. And this isn't even about protecting authors - they don't see a dime! It's all about publishers trying to stick to an older model that simply isn't relevant to the times. It also makes research and academic involvement nearly impossible for individuals not connected with any kind of large establishment (such as the university of california) that can afford the ridiculously hiked up subscription fees - unless they resort to casual piracy by getting copies from aquaintances, or subvert the system by getting unedited versions directly from authors (which can be a tricky business when publishers see it as being in their interests to prevent such sharing). Adrianvallence (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

When the first US copyright law was established in 1790, it was intended to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by making the ownership of that right limited to 14 years. Over time, the law has extended to 70 years after the death of the author. In consideration of both compensation to authors and the general public who is free to use these works after copyright has expired, what do you think would be a reasonable time period for copyright owners to have this exclusive ownership without trumping innovation?

I believe that the current time period of a copyright “powers” is way too long. The main purpose is to maximize profit from intellectual property. Therefore, it would be more beneficial that the owner of said copyright only be entitled to the powers protecting their intellectual property until they die. If the owner dies early in life, then the law should protect their property until the person would be at least 80 years of age. This way the person would have been able to reap the benefits of their art, invest those benefits wisely, and have some of those benefits saved for their families. That way the public wont have to wait in excess of 100+ years to have their art in public domain and the creators of the art get to enjoy the benefits of what they created.

Stallman suggests that the public "deserves to get what it wants." Do you think this is a good standard to use in developing copyright? If you do think so - how could we gauge the want of the public? If not - what would be a better metric?

I do not think so because the vagueness of the statement. The public may want violence and other things that may be costly to the quality of life of others. Should we give it to them? In the realm of copyright, we need to recreate the system in which if you are an artist like Girl Talk you register to be able to download all of the music you want for free through a free music source for mixers. The music would have a tracker that shows when it is being mixed and when it is being used in a club setting or being distributed as a new form of art. Automatically through said music source the artist whose music was used gets x amount of dollars for the use of their art. That way, at least in a mass setting such as a club, people can get the benefit of “new music” and the mixer and original artist won’t have as many legal/ethical problems as they do now.

ORambo (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Current Events (Group A)
Group A, please post your articles below this. In order to make the title of the article a link, do as follows: [www.thisisthelinktomycurrentevent.com "My Current Event"] Please note that there is just one space between the link and the quotation mark enclosing the title. As with the reading response, just sign your name next to you article by typing four of these: ~ (4 tildes).

"Japanese Government Plants Anti-Piracy Warnings Inside Fake Downloads" Melconser (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"White House spreads misinformation about copyright law"Gary wks (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?" Radhika (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Prince George’s considers copyright policy that takes ownership of students’ work"Chwubryan (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"EU's copyright reform talks a waste of time, says digital rights group" Editingcontent2 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Playing Whac-a-Mole With Piracy Sites" Kaylaholderbein (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Kayla H.

Is piracy a Mega problem for Hollywood? Radeonhead (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Benjamin Porter

Despite 'Extraordinary' piracy Hotline Miami is a Big Hit Gloudas (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

CBS RESPONDS TO INJUNCTION AGAINST CNET REPORTING ON TORRENT TECHNOLOGY MarkDavidoff UCB (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Content Piracy and the war over the future soul of the Internet" (Fredy2012 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Fredy2012)

"Pirate Bay Proxy Owner's Bank Account Seized by Hollywood Group" IanElli (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminders

 * The reading responses should be 1-2 paragraphs, but no more than one page.
 * If you wish to indent your response type one or more colons (":") at the start of it.
 * I will be selecting a few excerpts from the responses to bring up during class.