Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing; Video and audio from my closing keynote at Friday's Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain
"On Friday, hundreds of us gathered at the Internet Archive, at the invitation of Creative Commons, to celebrate the Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain, just weeks after the first works entered the American public domain in twenty years.
I had the honor of delivering the closing keynote, after a roster of astounding speakers. It was a big challenge and I was pretty nervous, but on reviewing the saved livestream, I'm pretty proud of how it turned out.
Proud enough that I've ripped the audio and posted it to my podcast feed; the video for the keynote is on the Archive and mirrored to Youtube.
The whole event's livestream is also online, and boy do I recommend it."
Showing posts with label Cory Doctorow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cory Doctorow. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Not in our name: Why European creators must oppose the EU's proposal to limit linking and censor the internet; BoingBoing, September 10, 2018
Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing;
"The European Copyright Directive vote is in three days and it will be a doozy: what was once a largely uncontroversial grab bag of fixes to copyright is now a political firestorm, thanks to the actions of Axel Voss, the German MEP who changed the Directive at the last minute, sneaking in two widely rejected proposals on the same day the GDPR came into effect, forming a perfect distraction (you can contact your MEP about these at Save Your Internet).
These two proposals are:
1. "Censorship Machines": Article 13, which forces online providers to create databases of text, images, videos, code, games, mods, etc that anyone can add anything to -- if a user tries to post something that may match a "copyrighted work," in the database, the system has to censor them
2. "Link Tax": Article 11, which will only allow internet users to post links to news sites if the service they're using has bought a "linking license" from the news-source they're linking to; under a current proposal, links that contain more than two consecutive words from an article's headline will be illegal without a license."
Not in our name: Why European creators must oppose the EU's proposal to limit linking and censor the internet
"The European Copyright Directive vote is in three days and it will be a doozy: what was once a largely uncontroversial grab bag of fixes to copyright is now a political firestorm, thanks to the actions of Axel Voss, the German MEP who changed the Directive at the last minute, sneaking in two widely rejected proposals on the same day the GDPR came into effect, forming a perfect distraction (you can contact your MEP about these at Save Your Internet).
These two proposals are:
1. "Censorship Machines": Article 13, which forces online providers to create databases of text, images, videos, code, games, mods, etc that anyone can add anything to -- if a user tries to post something that may match a "copyrighted work," in the database, the system has to censor them
2. "Link Tax": Article 11, which will only allow internet users to post links to news sites if the service they're using has bought a "linking license" from the news-source they're linking to; under a current proposal, links that contain more than two consecutive words from an article's headline will be illegal without a license."
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
[Podcast] Cory Doctorow on copyright and piracy: 'Every pirate wants to be an admiral'; Guardian, 5/30/11
[Podcast] Guardian; Cory Doctorow on copyright and piracy: 'Every pirate wants to be an admiral' :
"Blogger and activist Cory Doctorow argues that all new media – from sheet music to cable TV – is accused of piracy by the mainstream ... until it becomes the mainstream."
"Blogger and activist Cory Doctorow argues that all new media – from sheet music to cable TV – is accused of piracy by the mainstream ... until it becomes the mainstream."
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.; Boing Boing, 11/20/09
Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing; Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.:
"The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).
But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.
What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
"The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).
But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.
What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
UK "Pirate Finder General" law innocuous now, could get ugly; Ars Technica, 11/22/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; UK "Pirate Finder General" law innocuous now, could get ugly:
Just two days after the Queen announced that an online copyright enforcement bill was coming, it landed in the House of Lords. It has no sanctions, no "three-strikes" rules, and no fines—but it gives one official the power to levy them at any time in the future.
"The Queen announced on Wednesday that her government would deliver Internet piracy legislation; today it arrived in the form of the massive Digital Economy bill meant to modernize the UK's approach to everything from copyrights to broadband to video game ratings to domain names. The bill contains no sanctions against suspected P2P file-swappers, but it introduces a "reserve power" that can be deployed whenever the Secretary of State feels that it's time to bust out the switch and administer some beatings.
The bill implements the Digital Britain report, which was completed earlier this year and attempted to chart a course forward for Britain in a high-tech world. It initially imposes two obligations on ISPs: they must forward warning letters from copyright holders to their subscribers, and they must maintain an anonymized list of the number of such warnings received by each subscriber. If a copyright holder asks, they must be shown the list, at which point the rightsholder can go to court and seek to uncover the names of the top offenders, and then sue them.
There are no sanctions, but such sanctions could be coming. The government has written "reserve powers" into the law that can be deployed at a later date without needing Parliamentary approval. What powers are those? Here's how the bill describes them:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend Part 1 or this Part for the purpose of preventing or reducing the infringement of copyright by means of the Internet, if it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so having regard to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur."
In other words, whenever the Secretary of State decides that speed throttling or Internet disconnections are a good idea, he can implement them with a simple order. The government insists that such power will be introduced only against the "most serious infringers" and only "in the event the initial obligations do not prove as effective as expected."
Public outrage
But the prospect is clearly on the table in this bill. That has kicked up furious opposition since the idea was floated back in April; public opinion was so against the idea—which came weeks after current Secretary of State Peter Mandelson vacationed with media mogul David Geffen—that the government had to publish a response called "Filesharing: some accusations and some answers."
Clearly sensitive to public outrage, the drafters of the Digital Economy bill go out of their way to explain that "introducing account suspension is by no means a given. If the initial obligations prove as effective as we expect, we will not need to introduce technical measures… We recognize that there is some concern over the proportionality of this measure [disconnection], and so we will ensure that the interests of consumers are properly recognized."
This is very much a "take our word for it" approach, since the bill does not appear to contain such safeguards. Indeed, the Secretary of State is given broad powers to give or remove rights and even to impose fines of his or her own choosing.
But there are two safeguards; the idea that the bill suddenly creates a totally autonomous Pirate Finder General who can go on a crazed seek-and-destroy mission and implement any rules he or she chooses has both a political and a Parliamentary limit. The political limit is that the bill requires any new order drafted by the Secretary of State to first be put up for public comment."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/uk-pirate-finder-general-law-innocuous-now-could-get-ugly.ars
Just two days after the Queen announced that an online copyright enforcement bill was coming, it landed in the House of Lords. It has no sanctions, no "three-strikes" rules, and no fines—but it gives one official the power to levy them at any time in the future.
"The Queen announced on Wednesday that her government would deliver Internet piracy legislation; today it arrived in the form of the massive Digital Economy bill meant to modernize the UK's approach to everything from copyrights to broadband to video game ratings to domain names. The bill contains no sanctions against suspected P2P file-swappers, but it introduces a "reserve power" that can be deployed whenever the Secretary of State feels that it's time to bust out the switch and administer some beatings.
The bill implements the Digital Britain report, which was completed earlier this year and attempted to chart a course forward for Britain in a high-tech world. It initially imposes two obligations on ISPs: they must forward warning letters from copyright holders to their subscribers, and they must maintain an anonymized list of the number of such warnings received by each subscriber. If a copyright holder asks, they must be shown the list, at which point the rightsholder can go to court and seek to uncover the names of the top offenders, and then sue them.
There are no sanctions, but such sanctions could be coming. The government has written "reserve powers" into the law that can be deployed at a later date without needing Parliamentary approval. What powers are those? Here's how the bill describes them:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend Part 1 or this Part for the purpose of preventing or reducing the infringement of copyright by means of the Internet, if it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so having regard to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur."
In other words, whenever the Secretary of State decides that speed throttling or Internet disconnections are a good idea, he can implement them with a simple order. The government insists that such power will be introduced only against the "most serious infringers" and only "in the event the initial obligations do not prove as effective as expected."
Public outrage
But the prospect is clearly on the table in this bill. That has kicked up furious opposition since the idea was floated back in April; public opinion was so against the idea—which came weeks after current Secretary of State Peter Mandelson vacationed with media mogul David Geffen—that the government had to publish a response called "Filesharing: some accusations and some answers."
Clearly sensitive to public outrage, the drafters of the Digital Economy bill go out of their way to explain that "introducing account suspension is by no means a given. If the initial obligations prove as effective as we expect, we will not need to introduce technical measures… We recognize that there is some concern over the proportionality of this measure [disconnection], and so we will ensure that the interests of consumers are properly recognized."
This is very much a "take our word for it" approach, since the bill does not appear to contain such safeguards. Indeed, the Secretary of State is given broad powers to give or remove rights and even to impose fines of his or her own choosing.
But there are two safeguards; the idea that the bill suddenly creates a totally autonomous Pirate Finder General who can go on a crazed seek-and-destroy mission and implement any rules he or she chooses has both a political and a Parliamentary limit. The political limit is that the bill requires any new order drafted by the Secretary of State to first be put up for public comment."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/uk-pirate-finder-general-law-innocuous-now-could-get-ugly.ars
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Print Books Are Target of Pirates on the Web; The New York Times, 5/12/09
Via The New York Times; Print Books Are Target of Pirates on the Web:
"For now, electronic piracy of books does not seem as widespread as what hit the music world, when file-sharing services like Napster threatened to take down the whole industry.
Publishers and authors say they can learn from their peers in music, who alienated fans by using the courts aggressively to go after college students and Napster before it converted to a legitimate online store.
“If iTunes started three years earlier, I’m not sure how big Napster and the subsequent piratical environments would have been, because people would have been in the habit of legitimately purchasing at pricing that wasn’t considered pernicious,” said Richard Sarnoff, a chairman of Bertelsmann, which owns Random House, the world’s largest publisher of consumer titles...
Others view digital piracy as a way for new readers to discover writers. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/technology/internet/12digital.html?scp=2&sq=piracy&st=cse
"For now, electronic piracy of books does not seem as widespread as what hit the music world, when file-sharing services like Napster threatened to take down the whole industry.
Publishers and authors say they can learn from their peers in music, who alienated fans by using the courts aggressively to go after college students and Napster before it converted to a legitimate online store.
“If iTunes started three years earlier, I’m not sure how big Napster and the subsequent piratical environments would have been, because people would have been in the habit of legitimately purchasing at pricing that wasn’t considered pernicious,” said Richard Sarnoff, a chairman of Bertelsmann, which owns Random House, the world’s largest publisher of consumer titles...
Others view digital piracy as a way for new readers to discover writers. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/technology/internet/12digital.html?scp=2&sq=piracy&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)