On this episode of Spark: Copyright, the public domain, and remix culture
- Kutiman remixes YouTube on THRU YOU (full interview)
- Teru remixes Nora’s full interview with Kutiman to win Spark’s remix contest
- James Boyle tries to balance intellectual property rights and the public domain (full interview)
- Download Boyle’s book The Public Domain for free
- Jean Dryden demystifies Canadian copyright law
- Elizabeth mentions several helpful links
- Listen to Jim Lebans’s radio documentary Who Owns Ideas?
- Watch Brett Gaylor’s film RiP! A Remix Manifesto at nfb.ca
- Nora mentions her full interview with Jason Kottke (coming soon)
This episode features Creative Commons music and sound effects:
- “Wadidyusay?” by Zap Mama
- “Climbing the Mountain” by Podington Bear
- “Spark Kutiman Interview Minute” by teru
- “Movin’ on Up” by Chad Crouch
Play audio:
You can download this episode as an MP3, or receive Spark automatically by subscribing to any of our totally free podcast feeds:
- Free weekly podcast (Subscribe in iTunes)
- Free weekly podcast + additional blog-only content (Subscribe in iTunes)
- Free weekly podcast (low bandwidth version)
For more information (and instructions) visit cbc.ca/podcasting
[Original image by eflong]
Canadians don't push copyright laws? I beg to differ.
This year, McMaster University's Bachelor of Health Sciences program created its second annual musical mostly based around previously created songs.
Here is the recently challenged Viva La Vida song by Coldplay rewritten.
VIVA LA VIRUS
VIRUS
STARTED A SAD ARRAY
PROTEIN FRAGMENTS AND RNA
NOW A PATHOGEN, SO I CAN CLONE
FINDING HOSTS TO CALL MY OWN
LILY
I THOUGHT I LIKED OLDER GUYS
CHLOE
BUT DID YOU SEE JIM LOOK INTO YOUR EYES?
FIPPA
LISTEN TO MY LEARN LINK RING
CHORUS GIRL
LOOK AT ALL THOSE RED FLAGS, YOU POOR THING
JIM
ONE MINUTE THIS COKE WAS FREE
NEXT MY THROAT WAS CLOSED ON ME
TWINS
FORGET IT! FOCUS ON THE GAME AT HAND
CHORUS BOY
UPON BILLIARDS OF FUN, I AM IN COMMAND
CHORUS
WE HEAR THE HOSPITAL BELLS A RINGING
HEALTH SCI MUSICAL MINDS ARE SINGING
WE HAVE NO VACCINE NO MASK NOR SHIELD
OUR ANTIBODIES ARE READY TO YIELD
FOR SOME REASON WE CAN’T EXPLAIN
THE MAGIC BULLET WAS USED
USED AND LEFT UNFURLED
NOW THE VIRUS RULES THE WORLD
VIRUS
IT WAS AN INNOCENT MILD WIND
FILLED UP YOUR LUNGS AND LET ME IN
PASSED THROUGH WINDOWS AND ALL SUCCUMB
THEY WOULD NEVER BELIEVE WHAT I'D BECOME
JIMMY BOY JUST YOU WAIT
FOR THE END OF THE DORMANT STATE
YOU’LL BE A PUPPET ON A BROKEN STRING
MUSCLES FEELING THE VIRUS I BRING
CHORUS
WE HEAR THE HOSPITAL BELLS A RINGING
HEALTH SCI MUSICAL MINDS ARE SINGING
WE HAVE NO VACCINE NO MASK NOR SHIELD
OUR ANTIBODIES ARE READY TO YIELD
FOR SOME REASON WE CAN’T EXPLAIN
WE KNOW THE RHYTHM WILL CALL OUR NAME
ALWAYS A DANCE PREFERRED
BUT NOW THE VIRUS RULES THE WORLD
OH OH OH OOOOOOH
OH OH OH OOOOOOH
WE HEAR THE HOSPITAL BELLS A RINGING
HEALTH SCI MUSICAL MINDS ARE SINGING
WE HAVE NO VACCINE NO MASK NOR SHIELD
OUR ANTIBODIES ARE READY TO YIELD
FOR SOME REASON WE CAN’T EXPLAIN
WE KNOW THE RHYTHM WILL CALL OUR NAME
ALWAYS A DANCE PREFERRED
BUT NOW THE VIRUS RULES THE WORLD
Once I get the DVD I will send you a sound file
-Director of Health Sciences Musical
Today was the official launch of the FIRST EVER Oxford University Press book under the CC license (http://tinyurl.com/idtrail). The book is edited by Canadian academics Ian Kerr, Val Steeves and Carole Lucock. It is a book on Privacy, Identity and Anonymity in a Networked age. The negotiations with OUP were exhausting and difficult, and are a Canadian copyright landmark!
Ian Kerr (a colleague of Michael Geist) headed up the country's largest project on privacy over the past several years (see idtrail.org, where, coincidentally, you can also access the book). He, and his colleagues on the ID Trail, write and research so many of the topics you feature on your show it amazes me that you haven't picked up on him yet!
Dr. Kerr currently teaches a course in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa called "The Laws of Robotics". He holds a PhD in Philosophy, and refuses to use capital letters.
Enough of my rambling, you should really check out the past posts on the ID Trail blog, and get in touch with Ian in the near future. He is a wealth of good show ideas.
The comment from the photographer is a perfect example of the "faith based" policy making that James Boyle spoke about. The photograper injected comments about the need to pay professional photographers into a conversation about a need for balance in copyright, suggesting that something James said would lower what they would get paid. Confusing remuneration with copyright is a common problem in copyright conversations, and is based on a belief that more copyright offers more money, and less copyright offers less money to creators. When analysis is actually done we most often find some other dynamic is going on, or that "stronger" copyright is often taking money out of the pockets of actual creators.
The photographer lobbiests have been lobbying for years for changes in Canadian copyright around who is the first owner of the copyright in a photograph. The current rule is that the owner of the film or the person who hired the photographer is the first copyright holder, and this is a logical rule to deal with common scenarios fairly. The lobbiests want the photographer to be the first copyright holder in all cases. The problem is that for the vast majority of photographs the photographer is both unknown and unknowable. Even those professional photographs that have the name of the studio is pretty useless given by the time copyright is near to running out (50 years after some unknown person died) that studio and all records are long gone.
What is really happening? Copyright Royalty Collectives are wanting to be able to collect royalties on all uses of all these works, and then pay out to those tiny number of known photographers. Sure, someone is getting paid — but society would receive far greater benefit if those works were more clearly in the public domain.
A simple solution to this problem, and one the photographer lobby is opposing, would be to have all photographs have a fixed amount of time (no life+ component). That way the cultural recycling date can be determined by the subject matter rather than from the unknowable photographer.
There is what is fair, and then there is what some copyright lobbiests are asking for….
Unfortunately the proposal from the lobbiests were part of a senate bill, and the two most recent copyright bills tables by the house of commons. It seems the politicians are thus far happily relying on "Would this drug be neat — ya — ok, lets approve it without any analysis".
Thanks for the tip, Jason. I'll check it out.
I agree with James Boyle that debates on copyright should be based upon fact. However, it seems that both sides lack at least one important fact. Before making the claim that “file-sharing” has hurt or helped the recording industry or any other industry, we must have accurate statistics about the number of files being “shared”. Industry has an incentive to exaggerate the number (i.e. higher claims for lawsuits). File-sharers have an incentive to minimize the number (i.e. lower claims for lawsuits). Both sides seem to be making faith-based ideological arguments.
Exactly how many people are downloading files? Getting accurate statistics could be impossible since the people doing the most “file-sharing” have little incentive to be honest when they face potential lawsuits. Secondly, once a file is downloaded to a computer there is no way to determine exactly how many times it will be re-distributed. Files can be burnt to a CD without going through the Internet. Files can be placed on a USB key or an iPod without going through the Internet. How many times are such copies being made? No one can determine that accurately and anyone who claims they can is engaged in faith-based statistics.
As a professional visual artist, I am keenly interested in the copyright debate; it affects my livelihood. To claim as some people have that money has nothing to do with copyright is intellectually disingenuous. Why has industry spent millions on lobbying for copyright legislation? Why are some recording artists, such as Elton John or AC/DC, so opposed to the Internet? The perception that money is being lost is at the heart of the copyright debate. To convince the skeptics among us, file-sharers must address the skeptics’ concern about money. Failure to do so will only convince them to be more skeptical.
As an educator I am also interested in how copyright affects academic freedom and the ability of educators to help students develop new knowledge. I find that both sides in this debate tend to have a simplistic one-size-fits-all solution. Throw everyone in jail or make everything free. I think we need different types of copyright to cover the different uses of media. What that would look like I am not certain but I know whatever solution is arrived at has to address the monetary concern of the skeptics. The skeptics are the source of most of the opposition to new technology.
I am interested in trying to measure whether government policies and business model options increase or decrease revenues for creators. If instead we try to count the number of files shared without permission we are going to spin major resources on something that won't help us answer that more important question. There is a faith-based presumption that the more files being shared without permission, the less revenue for creators. This is not "intellectually disingenuous" to mention this, but a critical part of the debate.
Why has "the industry" spent millions on lobbying for copyright legislation? Depends on the industry. Don't presume they are doing it for the artists, as the opposite is often true.
In the case of the recording industry they are only one of three copyright holding groups in the music industry: composers, performers and "makers" of sound recordings. When the cost of recording and reproduction was high, that third copyright holder (and specialised bank) dominated. Now that the cost of recording and reproduction is extremely low, it is now well past time that composers and performers dominate. These "makers" (predominantly the labels) are lobbying not for the benefit of the music industry, but in a fight to take control and thus money away from the real music industry.
I'm also a creator and copyright holder as a software author. I chose many years ago a business model where sharing would benefit rather than threaten me. If I was focused on counting copies rather than making money, I would be a far poorer person.
Don't presume that the debate is between people who share files without permission and those who want "stronger" copyright. There are many people like me who are neither, and disagree with both.
Thank you Nora, Elizabeth and Dan for the opportunity to remix the interview.
Being that that the theme was remixing, I especially liked the nifty touches added by Dan Misener. Most excellent job on a most excellent show. : )
Thanks, teru! We really enjoyed what you did with it.
Nora & gang,
Great show! I've been following the whole copyright issue with great interest for a number of years now, ever since I heard of the DMCA in the USA. I realize that you are limited in time with the show, 27 minutes, but there are a few additional things you could mention to the listeners. 1. The blank CD levy. 2. Recent court cases in Canada, i.e. the one where the judge ruled sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada. 3. Another useful link: michaelgeist.ca.
Thanks and keep up the great work.
Thanks, Ryan. I think it's likely that we'll explore Canadian copyright in more detail when it looks like there's proposed legislation on the horizon. Cheers.
First time listening to Spark – caught you completely by accident – and a lovely pleasure to hear the voice of Nora once mora.
I had internal dispute with pretty much every sentence out of Jimmy Boyle's mouth – too much to go into here. Incredibly ironic – given his rhetoric – that he should lampoon the comparison of the VCR with the Boston Strangler.
Did someone really say that Canadian copyright is 50 years compared to 70 in the US ?
Whatever happened to Berne ?
Are we no longer signatories.?
I don't kare about Kutiman
Copyright is important. No argument there. Artist should be paid. But one has to wonder how much money is really being made by work older than 28 yrs? And if the copyright is life+70, how can the author be paid for the last 70?
One more important question in the download debate ( which is not the same since it often infringes copyright) that is never asked by the mongols is how many of those illegal downloads lead to real buying and how many would never lead to real buying even if the download wasn't available.
Jean Dryden demystifies Canadian copyright law~
I know this!
The clip from Teru's remix was amazing!
"Who Owns Ideas?" link is broken.
Hmm, I think that's because the archiving window has now expired on Jim's piece, so it's no longer posted. It looks as though episodes from before Jan 2009 (which I think includes his piece) are no longer up.
Copyright should be there to protect the artists hopefully they are able to get paid for everything they own also. Good job on the remix!
Hi Dan,
Glad I came across with your site, it's a thought provoking. Anyway, What's your view about intellectual property rights in association of culture?
Gwyneth
Hi Dan!
I'm interested with "Jim Leban's who owns ideas", do you know where can I listen to him or subscribe if any?
Vilmore Dee
Or probably he might have recorded any talks I can buy or download. Do you think there's any?
Hi Dan!
I wish to know how can I get or share the creative commons music and sound effects you're talking on the episode above.
Samantha Bliss