Lessig Defends Dotcom as Extradition Hearing Begins | Copyhype

Required reading regarding Larry Lessig’s pitch to help Kim Dotcom…

The second thing about Lessig’s declaration that jumps out is an apparent contradiction between Lessig and Dotcom’s defense team regarding the applicability of the DMCA safe harbors to Megaupload.

In the white paper, Dotcom’s defense team says

Even if the U.S. government’s wishful expansion of the criminal copyright law into the realm of secondary infringement were tenable (which it is not), Megaupload is shielded from criminal liability by specific “safe harbor” provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), included in the law to protect companies like Megaupload that make efforts to remove infringing material in response to “take-down” notices issued by copyright holders

But in his declaration, Lessig asserts “The DMCA is only a defense in the civil context”. The reversal is notable.

READ THE FULL POST AT COPYHYPE:
http://www.copyhype.com/2015/09/lessig-defends-dotcom-as-extradition-hearing-begins/


 

 

Larry Lessig is Wrong, and should “Get Over It”

Third Nyan Cat Award For Web Based Idiocy: Cathy Caverly of Creative Commons.

Nyan Cat awards are given for outstanding achievement in disinformation, web myths and general web based idiocy.

I just read with some amusement this article in the UK Guardian whereby author Phillip Pullman rightly calls piracy “Moral Squalor”. But that’s not the part that’s funny. It’s the quote that they use for “balance” from Creative Commons Chief Cathy Caverly.

“By default, copyright closes the door on countless ways that people can share, build upon, and remix each other’s work, possibilities that were unimaginable when those laws were established.”

NO IT DOESN”T. IT JUST MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK IF YOU USE IT PUBLICLY AND/OR COMMERCIALLY EXPLOIT IT. HOW CAN ANY DECENT HUMAN BEING BE AGAINST THAT?

Permission is the foundation of civilization or have you forgotten that Ms Caverly?

But it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Chief of Creative Commons would utter such idiocy. For they claim they offer a license “that lets creators take copyright into their own hands”. WTF? It actually does the opposite. Isn’t this a false statement? False advertising? Fraud? Reading that statement I can’t imagine there are NOT artists out there that unwittingly put their now valuable work into Creative Commons thinking they were gaining more control over their work when in actuality they were doing the opposite. I’m not a lawyer but isn’t there a problem misleading people in this manner?

Plain old normal copyright IS creators right to their works in their own hands.

Creative Commons licenses are a permanent surrendering of some or all of your copyrights as an artist. To use the same analogy these CC licenses take creators’ works from their hands.

Now some people see Creative Commons as a elaborate put up for a particular large Internet corporation that would like nothing better than to monetize every book, film, photograph and song without ever having to ask permission of the author. They often point to Sergey Brin’s (Google) financial support of the organization and the fact that his mother-in-law is the vice chair. Or they point out that their board is completely dominated by people with ties to technology companies and opponents of Copyright. I don’t agree with this. The pseudo-intellectual Creative Commons movement was afoot long before Google existed. Still one can certainly argue that Creative Commons are “useful idiots” and I won’t object.

But here is the question that no one is asking:

“Why are Creative Commons licenses even necessary?”.

For you can do everything you do with Creative Commons that you can do with old-fashioned-non-googly copyright! For instance I allow the non-commercial sharing of recordings of my bands live shows on the non-profit Internet Music Archive. There are thousands of our recordings on the internet music archive. All I had to do was state on our website that we allow this. Voila. Thousands of recordings appeared.

Neither do we object to fans posting ukele cover versions of “Take the Skinheads Bowling” on their facebook pages. And may I remind you that the Grateful Dead enacted their famous taping policy without a Creative Commons license?

Photographers who wish to freely share their photos in any manner commercial or non commercial may state so on their websites without using a Creative Commons license. Plus they have the added advantage of being able to change their minds later. Something that is not possible with a Creative Commons License.

Why is it left to me rather than a real journalist to point out that there is no point to Creative Commons licenses? Where are the grown-ups?

Well perhaps I’m too hasty. There may be ONE point to these Creative Common licenses:

They serve to confuse the public as to the true nature of copyright. And that looks suspiciously like propaganda to me. “Useful idiots” indeed!

Therefore we hereby present our 3rd Nyan Cat Award to Cathy Caverly of Creative Commons. Enjoy.

Lessig Mixes it Up | The Illusion Of More

David Newhoff at The Illusion Of More challenges Lawrence Lessig’s “Laws That Choke Creativity.”

So, as a legal layman but active observer of these things, it seems to me Mr. Lessig’s presentation, though charming, contains at least two fallacious premises.  The first is that the positive aspects of remix culture are actually threatened by the copyright system; and the second is that remix culture is universally positive.  I don’t know of any cases in which rights holders are stopping “the kids” from singing the songs of the day on YouTube.  But there are plenty of cases in which adults are profiting from remixing culture in ways that benefit neither fans nor creators. While it’s almost rote these days to call everyone a shill, I don’t think this is very helpful. I prefer to assume intelligent people mean what they say and believe in their positions, and Lawrence Lessig is certainly an intelligent man.  Of course, that might be why his ideas are ultimately so dangerous.

READ THE FULL POST AT THE ILLUSION OF MORE:
http://illusionofmore.com/mixing_lessig/

The New Ruling Class of Silicon Valley and Their Exploitation Economy

The Daily Beast published a must read on the new ruling class and the transfer of wealth in the economy, America’s New Oligarchs—Fwd.us and Silicon Valley’s Shady 1 Percenters. Of particular interest was one sentence in this paragraph,

Perversely, the small number of jobs—mostly clustered in Silicon Valley—created by tech companies has helped its moguls avoid public scrutiny. Google employs 50,000, Facebook 4,600, and Twitter less than 1,000 domestic workers. In contrast, GM employs 200,000, Ford 164,000, and Exxon over 100,000. Put another way, Google, with a market cap of $215 billion, is about five times larger than GM yet has just one fourth as many workers.

This is an equation that defines inequality: more and more wealth concentrated in fewer hands and benefiting fewer workers.

Here is the operative sentence from the paragraph above with one word added…

Google, with a market cap of $215 billion, is about five times larger than GM yet has just one fourth as many [PAID] workers.

It occurs to us in the new exploitation economy of loser generated content that many people are “working” for Google and other tech companies supplying endless hours of consumer created content from Facebook posts to Instagram photos. That’s just the stuff that people are willing to give away by consent (although we don’t know how much privacy they are actually consenting to give up in the process).

But the larger truth is even more scary. Google and other internet businesses profit greatly by avoiding paying for the cost of the goods they are monetizing (primarily by advertising). YouTube is a company built on infringement and theft as a business model.

In other words, it’s a lot easier to make money when you don’t have to pay for the labor or fixed costs of developing and producing a product. You know products like music, film, books, software, etc.

Obviously if all of these creators and producers were paid fairly in the value chain to which their work is creating revenue, than there would be less profit for the distributor. What we have now is a distribution mechanism that profits without paying the creative producers. Which is exactly how a company like Google can earn such extraordinary wealth, essentially through stolen labor.

Read the whole story here at The Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/14/america-s-new-oligarchs-fwd-us-and-silicon-valley-s-shady-1-percenters.html

Larry Lessig is Wrong, and should “Get Over It”

For the uninitiated, Larry Lessig is the outspoken and controversial former Stanford Law School Professor, and current director of Edmond J Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard, who is a leading voice for opposing artists rights on the Internet as expressed by the protections afforded in copyright law.

The two links below illustrate in painstaking detail just how far Larry Lessig (directly and indirectly) will go to be proven wrong. The first in Eldred v. Ashcroft and then again in Golan v. Holder.

ABA Journal – The Education of Larry Lessig.

From Eldred to Golan: The Traditional Contours Test.

Lessig writes of his public defeat in The Nation:

…the Supreme Court shut the door, finally and firmly, on any opportunity to meaningfully challenge a copyright statute constitutionally.

Read that again, Lessig was arguing on the grounds of the constitutionally of copyright… uhm… good luck with that.  Then compare to a recent lecture Lessig gave to a high school class where he told students that he lost Eldred for  “silly, stupid reasons” — because anyone who disagrees with him is silly and stupid? Surely he didn’t mean that his “reasons” in Eldred were silly or stupid?

So for those of you keeping score at home that makes it Copyright two, Lessig zero. It’s pretty simple math.

Also ironically it’s Lessig who is against money buying influence in politics but it is his causes that are being funded by a variety of major corporate interests, especially Google and offshore gambling interests.  That’s right–the same Google who is spending record money lobbying on capital hill–you know, what Politico calls “ambassadors to the Hill”, at least when it’s a tech company lobbying. Yet another case of “do unto thee, but not unto me.”

But the thing that is most interesting to us, is how Lessig suggests that anyone opposed to his views–especially the hated “Hollywood”–should just “get over it“, but yet he and his Google-financed interest groups seem prepared to outspend anyone on their tireless crusade against artists rights.

We think Larry should buy a guitar and “get over it”, it’s more fun on our side.

###

see also : Musicians For An Ethical Internet
https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/roll-call-musicians-for-an-ethical-internet/

###

[ THE 101 ] [NEW BOSS / OLD BOSS ] [ SPOTIFY ] [GROOVESHARK ] [ LARRY LESSIG ]
[ JOHN PERRY BARLOW ] [ HUMAN RIGHTS OF ARTISTS ] [ INFRINGEMENT IS THEFT ]
[ THE SKY IS RISING : MAGIC BEAVER EDITION ] [SF GATE BLUNDERS PIRACY FACTS ]
[ WHY ARENT MORE MUSICIANS WORKING ] [ ARTISTS FOR AN ETHICAL INTERNET ]

The Trichordist Random Reader News & Links Sun Apr 29

Grab the coffee!

Google stops charging for advertising, moves to t-shirts and merchandise model instead (just like bands should)…
http://themusicaldisconnect.blogspot.com/2012/01/google-announces-ads-free-just-buy-tee.html

Class war on creatives; Salon reports astounding labor stats of 45.3% drop in “Musical groups and artists” from Aug 2002 – Aug 2011…
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/22/no_sympathy_for_the_creative_class/singleton/

Spotify to introduce “Pandora” like internet radio. This allows Spotify access to all music, as no artists or labels can opt out and royalties are set as stat rate. Will be interesting to see if the Major Labels have direct licenses that redirect the artist share to the labels.
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012/04/spotify-readies-pandora-like-radio-service.html

This week was Grammy’s On The Hill, support artists rights, call your representative…
http://capwiz.com/grammy/callalert/index.tt?alertid=61243176

In case you were wondering, traditional terrestrial radio airplay is still the number one influence in music purchasing “60 percent of musically active consumers citing it as a top influence.” We love social media but don’t believe the hype…
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/12/active-vs-passive-fans-why-radio-tv-still-rank-tops-for-music-discovery-best-of-hypebot.html
https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/pressreleases/pr_111110

If you disagree with Sergey Brin it’s only because you aren’t smart enough to understand that he doesn’t want to ask your permission to exploit you or your work so that Google can make more money…
http://copyrightblog.co.uk/2012/04/20/a-sergey-update-we-misunderstood-him/

Can’t make this up, Pirate Politician Says Party ‘Rising as Fast as Nazis’…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,829166,00.html

Hacker collective Anonymous to create pirate streaming music search engine so that music “can be free.”
http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-targets-music-industry-with-anontune-20223840/
However, there is some interesting skepticism online.
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/anonymous-launches-anontune-streaming-music-service-20120419/

Larry Lessig explains why Hollywood (ie, “the copyright industry”) needs to accept that there’s no point in protecting copyright. This is the origins of the “break the internet” rhetoric. Uploaded by the Pirate Party to YouTube on Aug 27, 2009…