At Thinking Digital 2013, Aral Balkan delivered the most watched and favourited Thinking Digital talk of all time.
In 2014, Aral returned to Thinking Digital to deliver a blistering talk about the state of the Internet today. He argues that “free is a lie” and that we (via our personal data) are all being quietly farmed for profit by the superpowers of the Web.
We reported on this earlier this year and it’s great to see other voices stepping up!
by Stephen Carlisle
In other words, Google’s not going to do anything unless Google gets a slice of the profit. When asked, shouldn’t search engines have an affirmative duty to prevent the reposting of materials, she responded that it would be “impractical to enforce and it would chill online speech.” 19 This answer begs the question: since when is the repeated posting of “blatantly infringing” material online protected speech? To quote the Supreme Court of the United States, the First Amendment “securely protects the freedom to make—or decline to make—one’s own speech; it bears less heavily when speakers assert the right to make other people’s speeches.” 20 According to the RIAA, they have sent more than two million takedown requests to Google about the website mp3skull. Despite this, mp3skull continues to top Google’s search results for “artist+songname+download.” 21 Whose speech is being chilled here?
READ THE FULL STORY AT:
So how’s that DMCA working now?
We’ve written about this before in our posts “My Songs = Your Instagram Photos” and “Two Simple Facts about Technology and Piracy : iTunes Vs. YouTube.” Now Reddit experiences what musicians have been dealing with directly for over a decade, the flawed arguments of ignoring consent online.
Reddit community manager Lisa Liebig, explains:
“We understand that the moderators did the best they could with the situation at hand, but having users purposefully try and circumvent the takedowns was starting to become a whack-a-mole game,” Liebig said, adding, “These factors led us to decide that the subreddit and many of its sister-subreddits were in violation of rule five of the site, ‘don’t…do anything that interferes with normal use of the site.’”
Make no mistake about it, this is about intent. Either we allow lawlessness as the norm, or we enforce the same rule of online as we do in the physical world. Consent is cornerstone of civilized society and mob rule should not be tolerated (not even for free music or celeb nudes).
The same mentality and arguments that make it acceptable to hack and post personal photos have been used as an excuse to ignore the massive, for profit, theft of personal copyrighted works for more than a decade. Neither is acceptable. As the future of music is tied to ad funded piracy, so is privacy tied to internet profits by the same lack of personal consent.
We applaud Reddit for not standing on a soapbox conflating personal rights, privacy and consent with some twisted notion of censorship and some nonsense about “breaking the internet.” Indeed, as we noted in our post “Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet” technology may change but principles do not. It would seem that at least just for today, maybe the internet is growing up, just a little bit…
Read the Full Story at ReCode:
Reddit Bans Celebrity Photo Forums After a Week of “Whack-a-Mole”
By Stephen Carlisle, Nova Southeastern University
If you read the internet, copyright, and especially long copyright terms are an unfathomable evil. In their eyes copyright “hinders learning, destroys our cultural legacy, hurts innovation and the general public, but most importantly it impedes filmmakers, artists, DJ’s and other content creators that need to be able to build upon the work of others to create new content”. 1 There are lots of dire pronouncements, with lots of invective and insults hurled, particularly at the Walt Disney Company (quote “responsible for one of the greatest thefts in world history”) 2. Yet as typical with such cyberspace broadsides, there is very little explanation of precisely how this suppression of innovation occurs.
That’s because copyright doesn’t suppress either creativity or innovation. And here’s why:
READ THE FULL POST AT NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY:
The decision made several important findings related to enforcing rights online including that:
* the court had territorial jurisdiction over Google
* the court had the jurisdictional competence to make a blocking order under its broad equitable jurisdiction even if it would have extra-territorial effects
* URL blocking was not as effective as website blocking
* the balance of convenience favored granting a blocking order to assist the plaintiffs in enforcing their judgment against defendants who continued to violate their intellectual property rights
READ THE FULL POST AT BARRY SOOKMAN:
Google’s True Colors as Lobbying Goliath Revealed
Sunday’s Washington Post featured a story, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” that examined the company’s rise to become a top dog among Washington influence peddlers. For Google watchers revelations in the piece, authored by Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold, come as no surprise. However, for those who continue to regard Google as the web’s guardian angel of “free speech,” the story should add a bit of tarnish to its halo, illuminating the company’s extensive back-door maneuverings — the new normal in DC’s world of political puppeteering.
READ THE FULL POST AT VOXINDIE:
Friday, March 14 | 2:00PM – 3:00PM
New Adventures in Copyright Enforcement
Austin Convention Center | Room 17B | 500 E Cesar Chavez St
lthough debates about how to protect copyright online might seem so 2010, they certainly haven’t abated. The current conversations aren’t as contentious as the SOPA skirmishes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean consensus. Current attempts to address piracy are taking place outside of Congress, and include efforts to establish “best practices” between stakeholders. From the recently-minted Copyright Alert System to voluntary agreements meant to curb unauthorized activity within ad networks and payment processors, new experiments in rights protection abound. What’s the thinking behind the various approaches? What does a “win” look like, and what are the parameters for oversight? How can artists get involved?
Interim Exec Dir – Future of Music Coalition
VP, Legal Affairs- Public Knowledge
Exec Dir- Center For Copyright Information
Musician/Internet Content Provider – Cracker
This week congress will hear testimony on the DMCA as part of it’s on going review of the Copyright Act.
Here’s 10 essential posts and articles to read to understand the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
by Helienne Lindvall
At this week’s Midem music conference in Cannes, France, I sat down with electronic music pioneer Jean Michel Jarre, whose career as an artist and composer is now in its fifth decade, having broken through internationally with his groundbreaking Oxygene album in 1976. Last year, he took over the presidency of CISAC, the global body for authors’ societies, after the previous president, Robin Gibb, passed away – and so his Midem “visionary talk” went under the headline Fair Share for Creators.
“We should never forget that in the smartphone, the smart part is us creators. If you get rid of music, images, videos, words and literature from the smartphone, you just have a simple phone that would be worth about $50. Let’s accept that there’s a lot of innovation in the smartphone, so let’s add $100 for this innovation – the remaining $300-$400 of the price should go to us.
So we should sit down and talk to all the telephone companies and computer companies selling hardware, the companies carrying the content on the internet, such as Facebook and Google. We need each other, so at the end of the day we have to find the right partnership. We are talking about a business partnership, not a tax, and this shouldn’t affect the consumer.”
READ THE FULL INTERVIEW AT MUSIC TECHNOLOGY POLICY: