Skip to content or view screen version

UG#552 - Defective By Design and The War on Sharing (Copyright or Community?)

Robin Upton | 29.05.2011 09:01 | Analysis | Social Struggles | Sheffield | World

This week's entire show is devoted to a recent speech by the pioneer of the free software movement, Richard Stallman. He gives a history of copyright law, and how it has become a tool of corporations to maximize profit by creating scarcity. He explains the technical and legal sides of some recent battles about DRM, and the moral and pragmatic reasons why people should refuse to use proprietary software.

Speaking in Sheffield, earlier this year, Richard Stallman tells of the connection between copying technologies and copyright law, including the hidden history of copyright as a form of censorship. Modern corporations "are extending copyright power as never before", both the length (how long materials remain under copyright) and the breadth (which materials are copyrightable). He explains that with the length of copyright at 75 years, by the time material enters the public domain, its author will almost always have deceased. Hence the efforts to extend copyright to 95 years are clearly unlikely to motivate greater efforts of creativity, hinting at ulterior motives such as profiteering by promoting artificial scarcity.

Echoing episode 534 on built-in obsolescence, he details some of the recent developments in the battle between corporations and individuals in the area of DRM (Digital Rights Management), looking at Ebooks, DVDs, BluRay disks. Stallman sees DRM as an instance of the larger problem of 'digital handcuffs', which are deliberate restrictions generally found in proprietary software. He explains the Sony Rootkit controversy, and that although Sony was guilty of committing a felony, few observers were surprised that legal action against them has been unsuccessful.

We start a second hour with some music on the subject of Hollywood profiteering, then we pick up where we left off, with Stallman's recommendations for a sweeping reform of the copyright system so that it would work in the interests of society in general, making the case that copyright and incentives are mistaken in their assumption that unless motivated by money, people will not produce creative works. Most artists, he shows, are interested in recognition and in knowing that other people appreciate their work - only a few become corrupted by money to the extent that it becomes a major motivation. He insists that sharing is not a bad thing and must be legalized. We conclude with highlights of the ensuing Q & A section.

Thanks to Chris for making the recording and passing it my way.

Robin Upton
- e-mail: unwelcome [at] unwelcomeGuests [D0T] net
- Homepage: http://UnwelcomeGuests.net/

Comments

Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments

more

29.05.2011 10:17

Copyfight: EFF Co-Founder Enters e-G8 ‘Lion’s Den,’ Rips Into Lions
 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/barlow/

EU Commission outlines changes to IP laws
 http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=11956〈=en-gb

Hargreaves review: A starting point for a brighter digital future
 http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2011/may/18/hargreaves-and-future-pirate-policies/

BBCTech: New review of Digital Act sought
 http://twitter.com/BBCTech/statuses/74148854819336193


r


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

this is nonsense

30.05.2011 21:19

What about non-artists?

People like me who typically put about 1000+ hours of work into a product.
I wouldn't bother doing it if I thought i wouldn't be able to re-coup money as a wage for that time.

Also, where does this guy get off telling people what they can and can't do with their own work?

THis is purely an argument between a group that has something to lose, and a group that has something to gain (trying to get stuff for free without having to pay for it). Which side your arguments are purely depends on which group you are in. It all comes down to money and both groups wanting more of it.

copyrighter


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

sounds like an asshole

30.05.2011 21:21

I dont understand how this person thinks that hollywood could afford to make a $500million movie and then give it away for free?

Please explain?

There have been some amazing movies, software and music created that would not exist if the people who made them thought that they wouldn't be able to get paid.

Roper


Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments