Thanks for the feedback, Tom! I'm going to respond to this and try to sound undefensive, because I'm totally not :). Also, just so you know, I'm making some final edits and pushing this on the blog today. I think we should continue to discuss it, but I want to have something published before this falls off everybody's radar.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Thomas Levine <[email protected]>wrote: > I love the discussion of the ability to innovate without copyright. You > might expand it to include other "intellectual property" issues or more > explicitly say that you're just going to look at copyright because the DRM > issues are really just copyright. > > This was kind of a delicate thing to do, sematically, because they repeatedly refer to "intellectual property," but they're really just, in this case, talking about copyright, at least with regard to the MPAA. So on the one hand. I'd like to respond to their actual words, but on the other hand I think that's beyond the scope of the discussion. I certainly don't think that a discussion of, say, patent law would be perceived as relevant here. > The letter seems divided into these sections > A Introduction > B Questioning the two sweeping claims > B.1 Innovation > B.2 Rights > C Discussion of the business and enforcement > D Conclusion > > The division among sections B.1, B.2 and C is not particularly clear. > > Totally fair. I've made some edits that reflect it better. Excellent breakdown, by the way. That's clearer than my own outline was. > The section in the original editorial to which you respond in part C seems > more subjective and less empirically testable than the other sections. I > feel like discussing it won't affect readers that much because you can't > refute it as clearly as the other sections. Your section on it is already > smaller, but I think it could get smaller if it stays in its current form. > Agreed. I'm thinking I'll publish something like this on the SFC blog, and then cut down a bit and see if they'll publish it as a letter in the Crimson. In that case, that section is the most likely to be chopped. > > Also, this section in the original editorial is sort of based on the view > that copyright in its current form should be enforced, so breaking the > reasoning from those two bizarre reasons starts to make this section > irrelevant. I think it would be interesting to compare university policies > on the enforcement of copyright to policies on enforcement of drinking and > drug-use restrictions. I get the impression that universities generally > avoid reporting violations of alcohol and drug laws to the local police. It > seems that the new university policy is vaguely similar to this except that > it is much easier to catch the violations. Could one say that this copyright > enforcement policy is thus more strict than equivalent enforcement of laws > related to drug use on campus? What would the Crimson say about the balance > of the policies on underage drinking on campus, perhaps in dormitories in > particular? > This is a great idea, and one I had't thought of at all. I think it's beyond the scope of this post, but probably know-able. I've never seen any formal research on how universities protect their students from law enforcement in those situations, and I suspect it's not written into the actual published rules of the universities, but it's definitely something I've observed. I guess there's just no "big drinking punishment" lobby to railroad laws through the legal system and then enforce it on universities. > > Tom > > Thanks for the comments! All the best, Parker > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Parker Higgins > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hey guys, >> >> so I wrote something which could be published on the blog or perhaps sent >> to the Crimson. (It's below.) If we wanted it published as a letter, it'd >> probably have to be about 40% shorter. What do you guys think? >> >> Parker >> >> --- >> >> "A Sensible Compromise," an editorial published in the Harvard Crimson >> last week, described the actions of the MPAA in urging universities like >> Harvard to develop a "written plan to effectively combat the unauthorized >> distribution of copyright material by users" of the university network in >> compliance with the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. The Crimson's >> take, as suggested by the title, is that these actions and the law that >> supports them are reasonable and justified. >> >> The evidence for such a claim is shaky, based largely on two sweeping >> claims about intellectual property. The Crimson states that without an >> effective intellectual property regime, there will be no incentive for >> innovation; this statement is provided as a common sense conclusion without >> any examination of evidence. And as a hypothetical, what evidence could >> there be? >> >> In order to imagine innovation without strong intellectual property laws, >> one can travel in geography, time, or even subject matter. Around the world, >> there are well documented examples of innovation and creativity that >> function in the absence of strong copyright protection: the world's second >> largest movie industry, in Nigeria, or the booming "techno brega" scene in >> Brazil were both documented in the excellent "Good Copy Bad Copy," a >> documentary itself freely downloadable online. And that's to say nothing of >> all of the innovations that took place before the mid-1700s, the works of >> Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, and all the others that lived before >> modern copyright was developed. Lastly, enormous areas of creativity like >> fashion, cooking, comedy, and even magic tricks operate without copyright >> protection. Closer to home, the entire academic publishing system functions >> without authors retaining copyright for their works, instead forfeiting a >> monopoly for the opportunity to publish. Copyright can certainly provide a >> motivation for entrepeneurs to create, but in light of these examples, a >> statement that the absence of IP laws would eliminate innovation carries a >> heavy burden of proof. One that's not carried by the Crimson. >> >> >> The second overbroad claim in the editorial pertains to a concept called >> "moral rights." "Intellectual property rights are important," according to >> the Crimson, "because each person has a fundamental right to enjoy the >> fruits of his or her mental labor." The fact is that that justification is >> not uncommon in other parts of the world, but has no basis in American law. >> The Constitutional "copyright clause," in fact, is the only right enumerated >> in the Constitution with an explicit purpose, and that purpose was >> incentivization: Congress may secure monopolies for creators in order "to >> promote the progress of science and the useful arts." No less than Thomas >> Jefferson was uncomfortable with the "embarrassment" of monopolies, but >> conceded that as an incentive, they might be worthwhile. As a fundamental >> moral right? He never even considered it. >> >> Finally, the editorial talks about the concept of "balance," and then gets >> into a discussion of business models, >> debating whether the ones that exist today are convenient enough to remove >> the justification for piracy. This discussion is an interesting one, and has >> a place elsewhere, but in the world's premiere institution of higher >> learning—and truly, in any institution of higher learning—the balance seems >> straightforward. Should Harvard University, at the urging of a media >> industry that presumes the students to be criminals, reduce the flow of >> information available to them? >> >> The MPAA and similar organizations are comfortable to disregard the >> educational benefits that technology has brought us and to see the Harvard >> student body as a group of potential criminal freeloaders. One can >> sympathize with the movie industry which, in spite of consistently breaking >> annual box office records, purports to be having a hard time. And it's >> certainly reasonable for a university to discuss what the guidelines of its >> network, for legal and technical reasons ought to be. But it's wrong to >> kowtow to the demands of a media industry at the cost of Harvard students' >> technological autonomy. >> >> --- >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Parker Higgins >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> By the way, I will probably write a longer form response to this. If we >>> want to put it on the national blog, I'm all for it. I've been in the pages >>> of the Crimson talking about DRM before: >>> http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2007/12/14/when-judging-amazons-kindle-drm-is/ >>> >>> P >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Parker Higgins <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the writer, who probably >>>> wrote "IP-rights" and had a clueless editor expand out the acronym, but >>>> this >>>> sentence came across as particularly ridiculous: >>>> >>>> "Although these moves are encouraging, however, we still see numerous >>>> opportunities for Internet Protocol-rights holders to expand in the >>>> Internet >>>> space, particularly in sports programming and back-catalogue access to >>>> popular television programs." >>>> >>>> P >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Parker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/13/universities-intellectual-copyright-unauthorized/ >>>>> chat it up here and in the comments there. >>>>> >>>>> And if someone wants to write a good response, we'll put it up on the >>>>> national blog! >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> http://www.madebyparker.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> parker higgins >>>> berlin, germany >>>> >>>> http://parkerhiggins.net >>>> >>>> gmail / gchat: [email protected] >>>> twitter / identi.ca: @thisisparker >>>> skype: thisisparker >>>> >>>> please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a >>>> proprietary platform >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> parker higgins >>> berlin, germany >>> >>> http://parkerhiggins.net >>> >>> gmail / gchat: [email protected] >>> twitter / identi.ca: @thisisparker >>> skype: thisisparker >>> >>> please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a >>> proprietary platform >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> parker higgins >> berlin, germany >> >> http://parkerhiggins.net >> >> gmail / gchat: [email protected] >> twitter / identi.ca: @thisisparker >> skype: thisisparker >> >> please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a >> proprietary platform >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > > -- parker higgins berlin, germany http://parkerhiggins.net gmail / gchat: [email protected] twitter / identi.ca: @thisisparker skype: thisisparker please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a proprietary platform
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
