Archive for July, 2005
Open-Source Culture
July 14th, 2005
As a supplement to my last post concerning Creative Commons licenses, here are a few related links to other “open-source culture” initiatives striving to inform people on the current problems with copyright law in the US (and, to some degree, elsewhere) and to offer smarter alternatives more applicable to digital media in the Internet-powered P2P era. It’s also not surprising that many of these organizations or concepts are savagely hostile to the Music Industry and Hollywood - but that’s the subject of a whole ‘nother rant. So if you’re even vaguely interested in intellectual-property activism and the constellation of weird legalities surrounding it all, check out these links…and demand your rights - however many or few of them you want to be responsible for!
For those interested in learning more about how “Big Media” uses copyright laws and whatnot to shackle creative freedom and intellectual property, Lawrence Lessig’s book Free Culture is a wonderful place to start. It will piss you off. Guaranteed. But knowing what’s going on is only the first part of getting involved. Once you know, you must become proactive.
Along with Creative Commons, FreeCulture.org is a great place to start. FC.org is an “international student movement” dedicated to spreading the memeplex of open-source culture and freedom of information using the good ol’ tried-and-true method of aiming to educate the young while they’re still full of piss and vinegar and can get excited about activism. The website itself serves as a great general clearinghouse of articles and new concerning freedom-of-information topics from around the world (though, of course, the US, Canada, and Britain/the EU are the most frequently referenced places), but also provides lots of information on starting “campus crusade”-type outlets (I’ll certainly be starting up chapters at Cal U and Penn State Fayette this Fall) as well as e-mail-based discussion lists. They’ve also sponsored an awesome horror-inspired contest allowing visitors to remix old zombie films–how freakin’ cool is that? Some of the entries are completely awesome, and I highly suggest y’all check ‘em on out, y’hear?
Downhillbattle.org is another nifty site to check out. It is SAVAGELY anti-Music Industry/anti-RIAA…but it’s not merely a highly-organized rant against Big Media’s worst offenders. Sure, it provides lots of information on how the Music Industry rapes artists and whatnot–but, more importantly, it lets visitors know exactly how they can fight back, utilizing everything from guerrilla stickering tactics (which, I’ll admit, I find pretty useless) to open-source software initiatives/tools for folks wanting to establish their own truly independent record labels or distribution centers. For instance, the organization’s “Downhill Battle Labs” offers a completely free shopping cart solution called Battle Cart to make it easy for artists and small labels to set up their own web stores. They also have established a PayPal-based floating defense fund to help individuals hammered by the RIAA and their ilk with legal costs.
This is only a small sampling of related sites dealing with copyright reform and intellectual-property concerns. A quick googling of any related keywords will find hundreds of others, but at present, these are the ones that I have become active in supporting - so use them as I have: as a starting point for your own adventures in Giving It To The Man!
(cc)
July 13th, 2005
Pegritz.com is now officially “copylefted” with a Creative Commons license. In particular, an Attributions-NoDerivs license, which basically means folks can quote, reprint, and otherwise utilize any and all text presented on this site provided that 1) they properly attribute the work to its creator (that is, me) and that 2) they don’t alter the text in any way. Unless, of course, arrangements are made with me otherwise, or basic fair use guidelines cover it.
For quite some time now, I’ve been severely disenchanted with US copyright law in general. There’s nothing wrong with the fundamental concept of copyright: a content-creator, be he/she a musician or a writer or artist of any stripe, naturally deserves ownership of his/her creations, and likewise deserves legal protection for that ownership. But traditional copyright law has become more of a hindrance than a shield these days…mainly due to the fact that digital distribution and interactive media have rendered it almost obsolete, and by definition traditional copyright does not address contemporary media concerns such as sampling, remixing, and so forth. In fact, traditional copyright has become more of a tool used by corporate conglomerates (Music Industry, I’m looking right at you) to protect their interests in - or outright ownership of - an artist’s work, rather than to protect the artist.
I patently refuse to burden any of my intellectual property with an antiquated system that has, over the years, become little more than a weapon of conservative, outdated business models. I’d done some research into alternative rights-management schemes such as ““, however copylefting is prettymuch identical to offering up your work on a public-domain “open source” platform - and I wanted to retain at least my right to authorship. Hence, the reason I was immediately thrilled upon discovering Creative Commons licensing via Charles Stross’ free CC-licensed release of his amazing new novel Accelerando (massive review soon to come). In a nutshell, Creative Commons licenses operate around a much more flexible, but still legally sound, concept of “some rights reserved” rather than the overly-binding “all rights reserved” straightjacket of traditional copyright. CC licenses can be completely tailored to an individual’s own needs, and be as restrictive or as lenient as you, the content-creator, like!
For example, the license I’ve applied to the content of this blog is fairly restrictive, in that I do not authorize other parties to alter one word of which I’ve written–these are my words, and I don’t want anyone else mucking about with them!–but at the same time, I’ve authorized anyone to reproduce this material, be it in a private or commercial environment, as much as they’d like provided only that I be clearly indicated as the author of the text. If folks’ want to give me money to reproduce some of this stuff, great - I certainly won’t turn down cash! - but it’s not necessary, as long as I’m always given proper credit, which is the only thing that really matters to me.
On the other hand, all of the music that I will be releasing under Creative Commons will be licensed under much freer guidelines: I will give anyone and everyone permission to sample, remix, and otherwise dick around with my music provided only that, once again, they give me proper credit as the originator of the material. That’s it. As long as I am identified as the creator of the material - so that someone else can’t pass off a Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos or Retar-D2 track as some original invention of their own - I’m good to go. Creative Commons provides me with full legal protection to demand attribution, but also permit others a MUCH greater freedom to interact with my creations via remixing and sampling, for instance, without fear of legal reprisal.
Best of all, even if I specify a very restrictive CC license for some form of work (this blog, for example), I can nonetheless circumvent my own license’s restrictions via any standard binding agreement - written, most likely - between myself and anyone who wishes to use my work above and beyond the license itself. I am fully permitted to draw up exceptions as I see fit without endangering the basic application of my licenses.
As you can see, Creative Commons licensing allows me complete control over the legal protections deeded to my own works: I can both reserve and release rights to my content as I see fit. In the Digital Age, this makes a LOT more sense than traditional copyright by protecting my fundamental right to owning intellectual property while still allowing me total freedom to distribute it and license it as I alone see fit.
