2019/01/30: The Local Contexts initiative began in 2010 when Kim Christen and I started to think more carefully about how to support Indigenous communities to address the immense and growing problems being experienced with copyright around Indigenous or traditional knowledge. We had both been working with Indigenous peoples, communities and organizations over a long period of time and had increasingly been engaged in a very specific way with the dilemmas of copyright that existed at the intersection of Indigenous collections in archives, libraries and museums. We were able to see more clearly the ways in which copyright has functioned as a key tool for dispossessing Indigenous peoples of their rights as holders, custodians, authorities and owners of their knowledge and culture.
Combining both legal and educational components, Local Contexts has two objectives. Firstly, to support Indigenous decision-making and governance frameworks for determining ownership, access to and culturally appropriate conditions for sharing historical and contemporary collections of Indigenous material and digital culture. Secondly, to trouble existing classificatory, curatorial and display paradigms for museums, libraries and archives that hold extensive Indigenous collections by finding new pathways for Indigenous names, perspectives, rules of circulation and the sharing culture to be included and expressed within public records.
Inspired by Creative Commons, we began trying to address the gap for Indigenous communities and copyright law by thinking about licenses as an option to support Indigenous communities.
Our initial impulse was to craft several new licenses in ways that incorporated local community protocols around the sharing of knowledge. Pretty quickly however we ran into a significant problem: with the majority of photographs, sound recordings, films, manuscripts, language materials that had been amassed and collected about Indigenous peoples, and that were now being digitized, Indigenous peoples were not the copyright holders. Instead, copyright was held by the researchers, missionaries or government officials who had done the documenting or by the institutions where these materials were now held. Or – at the other end of the spectrum, these materials were in the unique space that copyright makes – the public domain. This meant that not only did Indigenous peoples have no control over these materials and their circulatory futures, they also could not apply any licenses – either CC ones or ones that we were developing. This was a problem that we responded to by developing the TK Labels.
2018/10/02: BitTorrent usage has bounced back because there's too many streaming services, and too much exclusive content.
2018/11/28: the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, which many people assume keeps a permanent trail and origin of web-content, has little feasible choice but to comply with DMCA takedown notices. As a result of which, a portion of the archive of things people submit to the website continues to quietly fade away. Gizmodo:
Over the last few years, there has been a change in how the Wayback Machine is viewed, one inspired by the general political mood. What had long been a useful tool when you came across broken links online is now, more than ever before, seen as an arbiter of the truth and a bulwark against erasing history. That archive sites are trusted to show the digital trail and origin of content is not just a must-use tool for journalists, but effective for just about anyone trying to track down vanishing web pages. With that in mind, that the Internet Archive doesn't really fight takedown requests becomes a problem. That's not the only recourse: When a site admin elects to block the Wayback crawler using a robots.txt file, the crawling doesn't just stop. Instead, the Wayback Machine's entire history of a given site is removed from public view.
In other words, if you deal in a certain bottom-dwelling brand of controversial content and want to avoid accountability, there are at least two different, standardized ways of erasing it from the most reliable third-party web archive on the public internet. For the Internet Archive, like with quickly complying with takedown notices challenging their seemingly fair use archive copies of old websites, the robots.txt strategy, in practice, does little more than mitigating their risk while going against the spirit of the protocol. And if someone were to sue over non-compliance with a DMCA takedown request, even with a ready-made, valid defense in the Archive's pocket, copyright litigation is still incredibly expensive. It doesn't matter that the use is not really a violation by any metric. If a rightsholder makes the effort, you still have to defend the lawsuit.
2018/11/04: A new, self-consciously commercial coalition in open source, operating at the level of the older permissive and copyleft coalitions we’ve known so far, would be something new. If we wanted to bet on the past, instead, we’d take reconciliation within the copyleft user base.
In other words, a new, even stronger copyleft license that both software freedom activists and competitive upstarts could rally behind, in mutual support. Probably another patch to GPL, like SSPL, but a patch the activist community could make its own. A Mongo GPL that FSF could make GNU Mongo GPL to close the API and container loopholes, as Affero GPL became GNU Affero GPL to close the ASP loophole.
There is cause for doubt in the details.
I don’t think the Free Software Foundation is of any mind to write a stronger copyleft license right now. It is headed in decidedly the opposite direction. More and more, the FSF has constrained itself to soft power, emphasized conciliation over enforcement, declined to make punitive examples, and accepted praise, attention, and stewardship of key but aging projects, rather than double down and scare off fellow travelers. Doctrinally, they’ve stuck to dogma on license drafting, notably freedom zero absolutism and private changes, that prevent them from closing the new loopholes robustly. Software freedom is a young, angry movement where widespread computing, and software freedom, are also new. But only there, far from the industry center of mass where SSPL is relevant, and FSF feels anachronistic.
More concretely, the Free Software Foundation doesn’t appear to share upstart business concern about API and container loopholes, as it once shared concern about the ASP loophole. FSF partisans point to activist users of AGPLv3 and see nothing wrong. In large part because activist projects under AGPLv3 don’t offer nearly the business bounty value that upstart projects do. They have succeeded largely within a niche activist community, appealing to its interests and style of computing. And in large part because activist AGPLv3 developers’ use case is different. The license was tailored to their needs, and will fit a while longer.
That’s not to say there’s no hunger for a more extreme, streamlined copyleft license among radical activists. There’s plenty of frustration with compromise. But here the cross-cutting nature of the new business-oriented licenses blocks the path.
I don’t perceive any activist demand for the peculiar combination of permissiveness and copyleft, and the specific line between, that upstart open source database developers crave. When software freedom activists want a permissive license, they use Apache 2.0. In vanishing edge cases, they use LGPL. The FSF position on “service as a software substitute” is that it’s pernicious. Why would activists want a license that allows making free code nonfree for the good kind of software—software you run for yourself—and requires keeping free code free for the bad kind—services substituting for software you run for yourself? Activists, independent and small-scale, aren’t living in the “new normal” of containerized, orchestrated service clusters deployed on rented infrastructure. They can’t afford thousands of dollars in service charges a month.
Overall, I’m sad to say that I think FSF has tightened its own bind. It knows it needs allies, but it’s keeping the wrong company, courting established business with lots of developers to spare, but no practical common interest. Software freedom activism has trusted that purity of message will create a groundswell of support sufficient to turn the tide of permissive alternatives, thin-client computing, and the relegation of free approaches to tooling, back-end components, and building blocks for proprietary end-user applications. It has optimized for taller pulpits from which to preach its message. But it’s drowned out as more economic interests join in and take over, and can’t match commercial volume. Unless or until software freedom reality comes to be felt as a crisis, and not just understood as one, I don’t think the Free Software Foundation has either a stronger license to give, or enough flexibility to accept someone else’s.
The baffling existence of a Joker origin-story movie gets one thing right: For Warner Bros., getting the hell out of the DC Extended Universe is the right move. It’s busted, and the shocking failure of Justice League is proof enough. It’s no coincidence that the studio’s biggest success, Wonder Woman, spent 99 percent of its time ignoring the rest of DC’s bigger world.
DC’s heroes are so iconic, so mythic, that they allow themselves to be altered and bent in any form.
Warner Bros. should be making movies outside its current cinematic universe, even if its current cinematic universe wasn’t stinking up the place. Because this is a power that belongs specifically to DC, not Marvel, and is one of its comics’ biggest strengths.
DC has never shied away from telling stories outside of its comics’ continuity.
2018/09/19: EU has increasingly been concerned with making its copyright system more modern and more competitive as a whole, to attract investments.
If these provisions are implemented, they could have an impact on the amount of content that is actually available online. But Europe has been heading in this direction over the past several years.
Take linking and Article 11. This would not actually be a huge change: The highest EU court has already ruled on a number of occasions that unauthorized linking to protected content might expose one to liability. Under EU copyright, the core idea is that exclusive rights should be granted a “high level of protection.”
In the U.S., the law provides for a fair-use doctrine, but in Europe, even the making of a meme or a GIF is already a bit risky because of different legal approaches. All EU countries have closed lists of available copyright exceptions. In Europe, if you want to make a GIF from, say, Crazy Rich Asians, you first need to identify whether the law would allow that by means of a relevant exception, and then, if you find this exception, you need to check that all legal conditions are also satisfied.
So what now? If Europeans wish to push back against Article 11 and Article 13, they need to prepare to radically change copyright law, including an overall rethinking of its foundations and approach.
Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses: Consequences, risks and side-effects of the license module "non-commercial use only – NC".
2018/09/12: consigli per evitare una violazione: SBAGLIATI, perchè non citano affatto pubblico dominio, Creative Commons, e fanno pure confusione sul punto royalty-free = previo acquisto licenza:
Quando decidiamo di pubblicare un video in rete o su un social network, occorre prestare molta attenzione. Se si utilizza una musica di sottofondo, infatti, si potrebbe violare il diritto d'autore. Come fare allora? Abbiamo raccolto quattro consigli per stare tranquilli:
Se vuoi pubblicare un video su YouTube o su un altro social network, evita di inserire una musica di sottofondo;
Chiedi l'autorizzazione all'autore, pagando i relativi diritti, se decidi di pubblicare un video utilizzando un brano edito;
Opta per brani royalty-free, ovvero quelli che, previo acquisto di una licenza d'uso, consentono di sincronizzare la musica con un altro contenuto audiovisivo senza spese ulteriori;
Cita sempre le fonti delle notizie o dei tweet riportati.
2009-02-18: Da un punto di vista operativo, la situazione è al momento inconfutabile: chi è iscritto alla Siae come autore non può rilasciare opere sotto licenza CC, perchè, così facendo, creerebbe una situazione di incompatibilità nella possibilità di gestione delle stesse, il cui mandato è attribuito esclusivamente alla Siae stessa.
2017-05-19: a discussion with the students of the Roman School of Comics
2011/04/16: La sentenza Eminem, che colpisce indirettamente i negozi online, è la punta di un iceberg o un caso isolato. Di sicuro mescola le carte in un mercato in grande crescita che sta scrivendo regole nuove per tutti i contenuti "liquidi": brani musicali, ebook, film e anche notizie
2011/03/29: Mike Masnick is absolutely right that the report debunks the entire foundation of US foreign IP policy. That policy has essentially been written by the owners of US intellectual property, who jealously protect it and think that the best thing they can possibly do is be as aggressive as possible towards any sign of international IP piracy. As the report shows, this makes a tiny amount of profit-maximizing sense for the companies concerned. But it actually encourages, rather than reduces, piracy in the aggregate.
2011/01/10/: there are two major classes of threat to freedom: one that has been present for many years now, and the other that is relatively new.
A pianist performed a Bach composition for his Youtube channel, but Youtube's Content ID system pulled it down and accused him of copyright infringement because Sony Music Global had claimed that they owned 47 seconds' worth of his personal performance of a song whose composer has been dead for 300 years.
Just last week, German music professor Ulrich Kaiser posted his research on automated censorship of classical music, in which he found that it was nearly impossible to post anything by composers like Bartok, Schubert, Puccini and Wagner, because companies large and small have fraudulently laid claim to their whole catalogs.
This is a glimpse of the near future. In one week, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal to force all online services to implement Content ID-style censorship, but not just for videos -- for audio, text, stills, code, everything.
In the same way that California is a global net exporter of lifesaving emissions controls for vehicles, the EU has been a global net exporter of privacy rules, anti-monopoly penalties, and other desperately needed corrections for an Internet that grows more monopolistic, surveillant, and abusive by the day.
Many of the cheerleaders for Articles 11 and 13 talk like these are a black eye for Google and Facebook and other US giants, and it's true that these would result in hundreds of millions in compliance expenditures by Big Tech, but it's money that Big Tech (and only Big Tech) can afford to part with. Europe's much smaller Internet companies need not apply.
It's not just Europeans who lose when the EU sells America's tech giants the right to permanently rule the Internet: it's everyone, because Europe's tech companies, co-operatives, charities, and individual technologists have the potential to make everyone's Internet experience better. The US may have a monopoly on today's Internet, but it doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas about how to improve tomorrow's net.
L’indagine Copyright & US Tech Giants ha raccolto l’opinione dei cittadini dell’Unione europea in vista del voto del 12 settembre alla plenaria di Strasburgo, quando il Parlamento europeo torna a votare la cosiddetta riforma del copyright per far pagare ai colossi del Web un compenso ad artisti e autori di contenuti distribuiti sui social network e piattaforme digitali. Condotta da Harris Interactive su 6600 persone in Europa rappresentative della sua popolazione, ha dato un risultato molto netto: a favore della riforma l’89% degli italiani, dato maggiore rispetto alla media europea che arrivata comunque all’87%
Copyright and the Vatican