subscribe to this page
Call#: Van Pelt Library KF2979 .L47 2004
Call#: Van Pelt Library KF2979 .L47 2004
Call#: Van Pelt Library KF2979 .L47 2004
Call#: Van Pelt Library GN449.6 .H93 1983
quoted in the Ecstasy of Influence
A great Harper's article on the relationship of authorship to creation. Highlights:
"Any text that has infiltrated the common mind to the extent of Gone With the Wind or Lolita or Ulysses inexorably joins the language of culture. A map-turned-to-landscape, it has moved to a place beyond enclosure or control. The authors and their heirs should consider the subsequent parodies, refractions, quotations, and revisions an honor, or at least the price of a rare success."
I've long thought that a reasonable plan.
Article about Open Content Alliance and the Internet Archive:
The New York-based foundation on Wednesday will announce a $1 million grant to the Internet Archive, a leader in the Open Content Alliance, to help pay for digital copies of collections owned by the Boston Public Library, the Getty Research Institute, the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The works to be scanned include the personal library of John Adams, America's second president, and thousands of images from the Metropolitan Museum.
The Sloan grant also will be used to scan a collection of anti-slavery material provided by the John Hopkins University Libraries and documents about the Gold Rush from a library at the University of California at Berkeley.
"Full copyright applies to most stuff on the web. But this search helps you find photos, music, text, and other works whose authors want you to re-use it for some uses -- without having to pay or ask permission."
Call#: Van Pelt Library K1401 .L47 2001
The Future of Ideas was Lawrence Lessig’s precursor to Free Culture. It is extremely tech-heavy and goes into great detail about the history and infrastructure of the internet, and the principles the internet was built upon. He describes how these values of freedom and the free interchange of ideas are being corrupted by the extreme of copyright control in our society. The drastic increase and rapid changes in technology have gotten out of hand, and there is no longer a balance between public and private goals. Our past traditions can still come into play, and changes in technology do not have to alter our law or culture. The DMCA is a good example of a flawed law put into place as a response to changing technology. The juxtaposition of the early internet to what it is now is striking – the extremes of copyright and the lack of works in the public domain have severely stifled creativity.
The three main sections of the book are a discussion of the importance of “the commons” on the internet, how to recapture online creativity and innovation, and how to stop the increasing restrictions on the internet. The first section details the need for more free resources on the internet, and a realm of works that are owned by everyone, without control to their use or access. Lessig explains in detail the principles of the GNU/Open Source movement, and how important it is to the innovation commons, moreso because large companies lack the ability to quickly adapt to technology changes. The second section illustrates how the constraints that stifle creativity on the internet need to be removed, and gives examples of online innovation such as HTML books, mp3s, and online cultural databases. The need for new models and new ideas is strong. The third section shows how the law is being manipulated by corporations, and their increasing control over web content. Copyright and patent laws have been virtually re-written to stifle the creativity of individuals, and increase the control of government-backed media conglomerates.
The book is as pessimistic as Free Culture, but does offer some ideas as to how to alter this negative process. Lessig introduces the ideas of Creative Commons and 5-year copyright term renewals, if desired by the copyright owner. He emphasizes the importance of removing special interests, and finding new ways to spread information for free. He also encourages individuals to go after large corporations if they provide false claims to copyright.
This book is extremely important because of how it details the internet and online copyright issues. It very accurately describes the foundation of the internet, and shows just how far away from that beginning things have gone.
Call#: Van Pelt Library KF2979 .L47 2004
Lessig illustrates a wide variety of specific examples, offers a thorough discussion of the important issues, and describes complex legal and economic issues in very easy-to-understand language. His mission seems to be to get this information about the current state of American copyright out to the public, since they are the ones being most harmed by the extremes of copyright control. The two main arguments are that over-extensive copyright goes against the tradition of developing new creative works from what has come before, and that the continuing extension of copyrights is unconstitutional (by ignoring the wording of the law that states a copyright will be for “limited times”). The lament is for the lack of a plentiful public domain, and how that negatively affects transformational and innovative expression. It also prevents important information from being disseminated to the public.
Much of the book centers on the Eldred v Ashcroft case which made it to the Supreme Court. The case focused on the two issues mentioned above. Lessig’s honesty about the arguments and outcome of the case are refreshing, but his overall view is pessimistic. The Supreme Court decision was against Eldred, stating that Congress can continue to extend older copyrights at their discretion, setting up a system of lobbying and corruption.
Lessig’s dislike and distrust of extremes is clear, and he does offer some ideas for a more moderate copyright culture in the US. One of the ideas expounded is Creative Commons, a way for content owners to license their own work, and start creating a richer public domain. It is now up to creators and artists themselves, since large corporations and Congress seem to be working together to restrict the public domain.
The goal of Creative Commons is to build a reasonable layer of copyright for the public to access. The licenses are simple, and easy to read - no need for a lawyer. There is a variety of licenses offered, so the creator can choose what they want; somewhere between “all” and “no rights reserved”. It gives copyright owners a wider realm of freedom, but also creates a world of content that others can use and build on.
Call#: Van Pelt Library K1401 .L47 2001
Free, Legal and Ignored
Colleges Offer Music Downloads,
But Their Students Just Say No;
Too Many Strings Attached
By NICK TIMIRAOS
July 6, 2006; Page B1
As a student at Cornell University, Angelo Petrigh had access to free online music via a legal music-downloading service his school provided. Yet the 21-year-old still turned to illegal file-sharing programs.
The reason: While Cornell's online music program, through Napster, gave him and other students free, legal downloads, the email introducing the service explained that students could keep their songs only until they graduated. "After I read that, I decided I didn't want to even try it," says Mr. Petrigh, who will be a senior in the fall at the Ithaca, N.Y., school....
The Online Journal asked Fritz Attaway, a senior executive with the Motion Picture Association of America, to debate the issue over email with Wendy Seltzer, a law professor who specializes in intellectual property and First Amendment issues. Their exchange is below.
...
But, as we all know, these numbers regarding China are completely bogus anyways. Because most MPAA member movies can't be sold in China so they have no loss. China only allows 20 foreign films to be imported each year, and usually 14 - 16 of these are from MPAA members. So what the MPA is talking about in this report isn't "profits lost to pirates in China" but "profits lost to closed markets in China".
A graphic novel about fair use, Bound By Law explores copyright issues through an entertaining story about the trials and tributations of a heroic documentary film maker.
“Will a spiky-haired, camera-toting super-heroine... restore decency and common sense to the world of creative endeavor?” -Paul Bonner, The Herald-Sun
"Bound By Law lays out a sparkling, witty, moving and informative story about how the eroded public domain has made documentary filmmaking into a minefield.” -Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing.net
This is an introduction to copyright issues for undergraduates at Penn. It explains how you can use works without getting sued.
CHits is the new website to find and share music content under Creative Commons licenses.
May 28, 2006
No Free Samples for Documentaries: Seeking Film Clips With the Fair-Use Doctrine
By ELAINE DUTKA
THE film producer Alicia Sams viewed "Wanderlust," a documentary about American road movies, as a way of introducing a new generation to Bonnie and Clyde, Thelma and Louise, and other giants of the genre. Films like "Five Easy Pieces," "Easy Rider" and "The Grapes of Wrath," she was convinced, offered a window into the American character.
The 90-minute documentary, to be broadcast Monday night on the Independent Film Channel, was also a window into the frustrations of making a clip-intensive film dependent on copyright clearance, which has become hugely expensive in the past decade. Initial quotations for the necessary sequences came to more than $450,000, which would have raised by half the cost of the IFC film, directed by the Oscar-nominated team of Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini ("American Splendor").
"Paramount wanted $20,000 for 119 seconds of 'Paper Moon,' " Ms. Sams said. "The studios are so afraid of exploitation that they set boundaries no one will cross. Even after the prices were cut, we were $150,000 in the hole."
Unwilling to pay those fees, IFC's general manager, Evan Shapiro, helped Ms. Sams pursue another, more aggressive, tack, which may point the way for documentarians who want to tap movie iconography without paying studio prices. Its strategy involved some negotiating hardball, backed up by a willingness to fall back on the tricky legal doctrine known as fair use.
Mr. Shapiro called in a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer, Michael C. Donaldson, who drilled him on copyright law. Under the 165-year-old fair-use doctrine, Mr. Shapiro was told, filmmakers, news gatherers, critics and educators can access material at no cost if they add something to it (like a voice-over), don't undermine its value or use more than needed to make a point. Free speech trumps private property when a project is in the public interest, a term broadly defined.
"Fair use is the lubricant that allows creativity and copyright law to coexist," said Mr. Donaldson, a former president of the International Documentary Association.
...
Riddle me this: what do you get when you combine a nifty little piece of Flash software, some backend mojo, an army of cellphone-toting teens, and one "Lazy Sunday" clip? The answer is, of course, the largest online video streaming service on the planet, YouTube.
...
Ironically enough, however, it's YouTube's philosophy of small, digestible content and their willingness to avoid copyright issues that has positioned them to answer the age-old question of “What is fair use?”