share this book

by DARIUS GARZA2011

SHARE THIS BOOK /

Intellectual property in the digital world; How corporations and politicians are manipulating our property rights in cyberspace.

SHARE THIS BOOK (scan code to download a copy of this book)

by Darius Garza / Creative Commons Attribution License / 2011

CONTENTS

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: THE WEB // PG.14Intellectual property goes digital

CHAPTER 2: THREATS // PG.22Your property rights are being exploited

CHAPTER 3: RECOURSE // PG.46Taking back our property rights

CHAPTER 1: //

THE WEB INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GOES DIGITAL

THE WEB HAS SHAPED THE WAY THAT WE LOOK AT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND HAS CHANGED THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN CONSUMER AND DISTRIBUTOR.

Technology has significantly lowered the costs of producing and distributing intellectual property and now most anyone with access to a computer can share a lot of information with lots of people for little or no cost. The origins of the world-wide web reach back to the 1960’s with both private and government agencies putting research into robust, fault-tolerant, and vastly distributed computer networks.

The funding of a new U.S. internet backbone by the National Science Foundation, as well as private monies for commercial pipelines, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks into what we now know as the world wide web.

06 CHAPTER 1 //: THE WEB

07

234,000,000INTERNET USERS WORLDWIDE

WEBSITES AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET

A WORLDWIDE WEB:

OF THE GLOBAL POPULATIONIS ON THE INTERNET

[ 1 ]

BILLION1.73

25.8%


GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS: //

Because the internet makes it easier for people to give their time and knowledge - through blogs, discussion forums and the like - it allows for non-monetary, non-market activities that in the past were difficult to co-ordinate and benefit from.

This, in turn, enables far greater media creation and consumption, and even more political participation, than before. This promises to bring about greater social justice - unless the reactionary forces of the establishment (be it big media or big government) misuse the law to protect their interests.

09

1+ 1 3

COLLABORATIVE CULTURE: //

The internet is the perfect medium to

encourage collaboration and sharing. It

let’s others easily expand on the work

of others and creates an energizing

force that results in the creation of

something that is far greater than its

direct value.

[ 2 ]

11

“

“THE WEB HAS ENABLED AN ASTONISHING FLOWERING OF COMMUNICATION AND EXPRESSION, AN ASTOUNDING DEMOCRATIZATION OF CREATIVITY.

—JAMES BOYLE AUTHOR OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

America’s founding fathers felt that

having intellectual property rights are

vital and necessary to promote the

progress of the “sciences and useful

arts”. Property rights were intended

to fulfill a true public domain and

promote the circulation of intellectual

property and wealth.

Scan here to download a free copy

of James Boyle’s The Public Domain

in which the author delves into the

history of intellectual property and

discusses the impact that the web

has had on our property rights.

CHAPTER 2: //

THREATSYOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE BEING EXPLOITED

14 CHAPTER 2 //: THREATS

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE CURRENTLY BEING MANIPULATED BY BIG CORPORATIONS AND POLITICIANS IN ORDER TO CONTROL OUR ACCESS TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB.

Currently the means of producing and exchanging information and culture are placed in the hands of hundreds of millions, and eventually billions of people around the world. This enables far greater new media creation and consumption than ever before and rids people of the normal boundaries to communication that we had before the web.

This presents a threat to the old established media companies. In response to this new democratized medium, they are using their wealth and political influence to thwart the development of the internet by lobbying policy makers to apply overly strict copyright restrictions on new media.

15

©300%

[ 4 ]

COPYRIGHT OVER EXPANSION://

Copyright terms have expanded more

than ever during the past 50 years and

now last nearly a century. Never before

has more of our culture been owned

than it is today.

16

© CACHE GRAB17

90

1805

1820

1835

1850

1865

1880

1895

1910

1925

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

DURA

TION

OF

COPY

RIGH

T TE

RM (

YEAR

S)

1970 ACT 1831 ACT

COPYRIGHT TERM EXPANSION FROM 1709 - 2050: //

171925

1940

1955

1970

1985

1990

2005

2020

2035

2050

1909 ACT 1976 ACT 1998 ACT

The chart below illustrates the expansion of U.S. copyright law. The first federal copyright legislation, the 1790 Copyright Act, set the maximum term at fourteen years plus a renewal term of fourteen years. The 1831 Copyright Act doubled the initial term and retained the conditional renewal term, allowing a total of up to forty two years of protection. Lawmakers doubled the renewal term in 1909, letting copyrights run for up to fifty-six years. The interim renewal acts of 1962 through 1974 ensured that the copyright in any work in its second term as of September 19, 1962, would not expire before Dec. 31, 1976.

The 1976 Copyright Act changed the measure of the default copyright term to life of the author plus fifty years. Recent amendments to the Copyright Act expanded the term yet again, letting it run for the life of the author plus seventy years. As the chart reveals, all but the first of these statutes extended copyright terms retroactively.

[ 4]

18

THE DMCA:Signed into office by Bill Clinton in 1998: the DMCA provisions have been used to stifle a wide array of legitimate activities, rather than to stop copyright infringement.

CONGRESS HAS LEVERAGED GREATER COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEB BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PREVENTING © INFRINGEMENT.

Since they were enacted back in 1998, the original anti-circumvention provisions within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), have not been used as Congress envisioned. They intended to stop copyright infringers from defeating anti-piracy protections added to copyrighted works and to ban the “black box” devices intended for that purpose.

In practice, the anti-circumvention provisions have been used to stifle a wide reaching array of legitimate activities, rather than to deter copyright infringement. Thus as result, the DMCA has developed into a serious threat to several important public policy priorities.

19CHAPTER 2 //: THREATS


THE DMCA HURTS PEOPLE, NOT PIRATES: //

Rather than focusing on pirates, some have wielded the DMCA to hinder legitimate competitors. For example, the DMCA has been used to block aftermarket competition in laser printer toner cartridges, garage door openers, and computer maintenance services.

By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, the DMCA grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public’s fair use rights. Already, the movie industry’s use of encryption on DVDs has curtailed consumers’ ability to make legitimate, personal-use copies of movies they have purchased.

21

FAIL!

“ The DMCA has done far more harm to fair use, free speech, scientific research, and competition than it has to digital piracy. “

—EFF


APPLE THREATENS BLUWIKI

In 2009, Apple threatened the free wiki hosting

site BluWiki for hosting a discussion by hobbyists

about reverse engineering iPods to interoperate

with software other than Apple’s own iTunes.

Without a work-around, iPod and iPhone owners

would be unable to use third-party software,

such as Winamp or Songbird, to “sync” their

media collections between computer and iPod or

iPhone device.

PROFESSOR FELTEN’S RESEARCH TEAM THREATENED

In September 2000, a multi-industry association

referred to as the Secure Digital Music Initiative

(SDMI) issued a public challenge encouraging

skilled technologists to try to defeat certain

watermarking technologies that are intended to

protect digital music.

Princeton computer science professor Edward

Felten and a team of researchers at Princeton,

Rice, and then Xerox took up the challenge and

succeeded in removing the watermarks from the

music and were then threatened with liabillity

under the DMCA.

MICROSOFT THREATENS SLASHDOT

In spring 2000, Microsoft invoked the DMCA

against the Internet publication forum Slashdot,

demanding that the forum moderators delete

materials relating to Microsoft’s proprietary

implementation of an open security standard

known as Kerberos

In the Slashdot forum, several individuals

alleged Microsoft had changed the open, non

proprietary version of Kerberos specification

in order to prevent non Microsoft servers from

interacting with Windows 2000. Many speculated

that this move was intended to force users to

purchase Microsoft server software technology.

GAMESPY MENACES RESEARCHER WITH DMCA

Luigi Auriemma of Italy attracted the attention

GameSpy’s lawyers after publishing details on

his website regarding security vulnerabilities in

GameSpy’s online services.

In November 2003, GameSpy’s lawyers sent a

cease and desist letter to Auriemma, threatening

civil and criminal penalties under the DMCA.

According to GameSpy, Auriemma was publishing

key generators and other piracy tools, rather than

simply vulnerability research.

12 YEARS OF DMCA MISUSE: //

23

SONY SUES CONNECTIX AND BLEEM

Sony has used DMCA to sue competitors who

created emulation software that permits gamers

to play PlayStation console games on PCs. In

1999, Sony sued Connectix, the maker of the

Virtual Game Station, a PlayStation emulator for

Macintosh computers. Sony also sued Bleem, the

leading vendor of PlayStation emulator software

for Windows PCs.

Neither Connectix nor Bleem were able to bear

the high costs of litigation against Sony and

pulled their products off the market.

LEXMARK SUES OVER TONERCARTRIDGE REFILLS

Lexmark added authentication routines between

its printers and cartridges explicitly to stymie

aftermarket toner vendors. The Static Control

Components (SCC) reverse-engineered these

measures and sold “Smartek” chips that enabled

refilled cartridges to work in Lexmark printers.

Lexmark had then used the DMCA to obtain an

injunction banning SCC from selling its chips

to cartridge remanufacturers. SCC ultimately

succeeded in getting the injunction overturned

on appeal, but only after 19 months of expensive

litigation while its product was held off the

market; a crippling expense for the small company.

DMITRY SKLAROV ARRESTED

In July 2001, techno programmer Dmitry Sklyarov

was jailed for several weeks and detained for five

months in the United States after speaking at

the DEFCON conference in Las Vegas.

Sklyarov was never accused of infringing any

copyright, nor of assisting anyone else to infringe

copyrights. His alleged crime was working on a

software tool with many legitimate uses, simply

because other people might use the tool to copy

an e-book without the publisher’s permission.

SCIENTISTS AND PROGRAMMERSWITHHOLD RESEARCH

Following the Felten and Sklyarov incidents, a

number of prominent computer security experts

curtailed their legitimate research activities for

fear of potential DMCA liability.

For example, when Dutch cryptographer and

computer security systems analyst head Niels

Ferguson, discovered a major big security flaw

in Intel’s HDCP video encryption system, he

declined to publish his results on his website on

the grounds that he travels frequently to the U.S.

and is fearful of “prosecution and/or liability

under the U.S. DMCA law.”

AND THE LIST GOES ON.................................... [5]

Apple Threatens BluWiki

In 2009, Apple threatened the free wiki hosting site BluWiki for hosting a discussion by hobbyists about reverse engineering iPods to interoperate with software other than Apple’s own iTunes. Without a work-around, iPod and iPhone owners would be unable to use third-party software, such as Winamp or Songbird, to “sync” their media collections

between computer and iPod or iPhone.5The material on the public wiki was merely a discussion of the reverse engineering effort, along with some snippets of relevant code drawn from Apple software. There were no “circumvention tools,” nor any indication that the hobbyists had succeeded in their interoperability efforts. Nevertheless, Apple’s

lawyers sent OdioWorks, the company behind BluWiki, a cease and desist letter threatening legal action under the DMCA.Bluwiki ultimately sued Apple to defend the free speech interests of its users.6In response, Apple dropped its threat, and BluWiki reinstated the deleted pages.

DMCA Delays Disclosure of Sony-BMG “Rootkit” Vulnerability

Professor J. Alex Halderman, then a graduate student at Princeton University, discovered the existence of several security vulnerabilities in the CD copy-protection software on dozens of Sony-BMG titles. He delayed publishing his discovery for several weeks while consulting with lawyers in order to avoid DMCA pitfalls. This left millions of music

fans at risk longer than necessary.8 The security flaws inherent in Sony-BMG’s “rootkit” copy-protection software were subsequently publicized by another researcher who was apparently unaware of the legal risks created by the DMCA.Security researchers had sought a DMCA exemption in 2003 in order to facilitate research on dangerous DRM

systems like the Sony-BMG rootkit, but their request was denied by the U.S. Copyright Office.9 In 2006, the Copyright Office granted an exemption to the DMCA for researchers examining the security threat posed by copy protection software on compact discs.10 This exemption, however, did not protect researchers studying other DRM systems.

In 2009, Prof. Halderman was again forced to seek a DMCA exemption from the Copyright Office in order to continue his computer security research relating to DRM systems, including the protection mechanisms used on the Electronic Arts videogame, Spore, which has been the subject of class action lawsuits alleging security vulnerabilities.11

As of February 2010, the Copyright Office had not ruled on the proposed exemption.

Professor Felten’s Research Team Threatened

In September 2000, a multi-industry group known as the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) issued a public challenge encouraging skilled technologists to try to defeat certain watermarking technologies intended to protect digital music. Princeton computer science professor Edward Felten and a team of researchers at Princeton, Rice,

and Xerox took up the challenge and succeeded in removing the watermarks.When the team tried to present their results at an academic conference, however, SDMI representatives threatened the researchers with liability under the DMCA. The threat letter was also delivered to the researchers’ employers and the conference organizers.

After extensive discussions with counsel, the researchers grudgingly withdrew their paper from the conference. The threat was ultimately withdrawn and a portion of the research was published at a subsequent conference, but only after the researchers filed a lawsuit. After enduring this experience, at least one of the researchers involved

has decided to forgo further research efforts in this field.14

Censorware Research Obstructed

Seth Finkelstein conducts research on “censorware” software (i.e., programs that block websites that contain objectionable material), documenting flaws in such software. Finkelstein’s research, for example, revealed that censorware vendor N2H2 blocked a variety of legitimate websites, evidence that assisted the ACLU in challenging

a law requiring the use web filtering software by federally-funded public libraries. N2H2 claimed that the DMCA should block researchers like Finkelstein from examining its software. Finkelstein was ultimately forced to seek a DMCA exemption from the Librarian of Congress, who granted the exemption in both the 2000 and 2003 triennial

rulemakings. The exemption, however, was not renewed in 2006, leaving future researchers without protection from DMCA threats.19Benjamin Edelman has also conducted extensive research into flaws in various censorware products. Edelman’s research also led to evidence used by the ACLU in its constitutional challenge to the Children’s

Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which mandates the use of censorware by public libraries.In the course of his work for the ACLU, Edelman discovered that the DMCA might interfere with his efforts to learn what websites are blocked by censorware products. Because he sought to create and distribute software tools to enable others to analyze

the list if it changed, Edelman could not rely on the limited DMCA regulatory exception in place at the time. Unwilling to risk civil and criminal penalties under Section 1201, Edelman was forced to sue to seek clarification of his legal rights. Unfortunately, the court found that Edelman would have to undertake the research and hazard legal

reprisals in order to have standing to challenge the DMCA. The case was therefore dismissed without addressing the DMCA’s chill on research.20

Blackboard Threatens Security Researchers

In April 2003, educational software company Blackboard Inc. used a DMCA threat to stop the presentation of research on security vulnerabilities in its products at the InterzOne II conference in Atlanta. Students Billy Hoffman and Virgil Griffith were scheduled to present their research on security flaws in the Blackboard ID card system used by

university campus security systems but were blocked shortly before the talk by a cease-and-desist letter invoking the DMCA. Blackboard obtained a temporary restraining order against the students and the conference organizers at a secret “ex parte” hearing the day before the conference began, giving the students and conference organizer

no opportunity to appear in court or challenge the order before the scheduled presentation. Despite the rhetoric in its initial cease and desist letter, Blackboard’s lawsuit did not mention the DMCA. The invocation in the original cease-and-desist letter, however, underscores the way the statute has been used to chill security research.16

SunnComm Threatens Researcher

In October 2003, then Princeton graduate student J. Alex Halderman was threatened with a DMCA lawsuit after publishing a report documenting weaknesses in a CD copy-protection technology developed by SunnComm. Halderman revealed that merely holding down the shift key on a Windows PC would render SunnComm’s copy protection

technology ineffective. Furious company executives then threatened legal action. The company quickly retreated from its threats in the face of public outcry and negative press attention. Although Halderman was spared, the controversy again reminded security researchers of their vulnerability to DMCA threats for simply publishing the

results of their research.12

Hewlett Packard Threatens SNOsoft

Hewlett-Packard resorted to DMCA threats when researchers published a security flaw in HP’s Tru64 UNIX operating system. The researchers, a loosely-organized collective known as Secure Network Operations (“SNOsoft”), received the DMCA threat after releasing software in July 2002 that demonstrated vulnerabilities that HP had been aware

of for some time, but had not bothered to fix. After widespread press attention, HP ultimately withdrew the DMCA threat. Security researchers got the message, however—publish vulnerability research at your own risk.15





...AND ON AND ON AND


Apple Threatens BluWiki

In 2009, Apple threatened the free wiki hosting site BluWiki for hosting a discussion by hobbyists about reverse engineering iPods to interoperate with software other than Apple’s own iTunes. Without a work-around, iPod and iPhone owners would be unable to use third-party software, such as Winamp or Songbird, to “sync” their media collections

between computer and iPod or iPhone.5The material on the public wiki was merely a discussion of the reverse engineering effort, along with some snippets of relevant code drawn from Apple software. There were no “circumvention tools,” nor any indication that the hobbyists had succeeded in their interoperability efforts. Nevertheless, Apple’s

lawyers sent OdioWorks, the company behind BluWiki, a cease and desist letter threatening legal action under the DMCA.Bluwiki ultimately sued Apple to defend the free speech interests of its users.6In response, Apple dropped its threat, and BluWiki reinstated the deleted pages.

DMCA Delays Disclosure of Sony-BMG “Rootkit” Vulnerability

Professor J. Alex Halderman, then a graduate student at Princeton University, discovered the existence of several security vulnerabilities in the CD copy-protection software on dozens of Sony-BMG titles. He delayed publishing his discovery for several weeks while consulting with lawyers in order to avoid DMCA pitfalls. This left millions of music

fans at risk longer than necessary.8 The security flaws inherent in Sony-BMG’s “rootkit” copy-protection software were subsequently publicized by another researcher who was apparently unaware of the legal risks created by the DMCA.Security researchers had sought a DMCA exemption in 2003 in order to facilitate research on dangerous DRM

systems like the Sony-BMG rootkit, but their request was denied by the U.S. Copyright Office.9 In 2006, the Copyright Office granted an exemption to the DMCA for researchers examining the security threat posed by copy protection software on compact discs.10 This exemption, however, did not protect researchers studying other DRM systems.

In 2009, Prof. Halderman was again forced to seek a DMCA exemption from the Copyright Office in order to continue his computer security research relating to DRM systems, including the protection mechanisms used on the Electronic Arts videogame, Spore, which has been the subject of class action lawsuits alleging security vulnerabilities.11

As of February 2010, the Copyright Office had not ruled on the proposed exemption.

Professor Felten’s Research Team Threatened

In September 2000, a multi-industry group known as the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) issued a public challenge encouraging skilled technologists to try to defeat certain watermarking technologies intended to protect digital music. Princeton computer science professor Edward Felten and a team of researchers at Princeton, Rice,

and Xerox took up the challenge and succeeded in removing the watermarks.When the team tried to present their results at an academic conference, however, SDMI representatives threatened the researchers with liability under the DMCA. The threat letter was also delivered to the researchers’ employers and the conference organizers.

After extensive discussions with counsel, the researchers grudgingly withdrew their paper from the conference. The threat was ultimately withdrawn and a portion of the research was published at a subsequent conference, but only after the researchers filed a lawsuit. After enduring this experience, at least one of the researchers involved

has decided to forgo further research efforts in this field.14

Censorware Research Obstructed

Seth Finkelstein conducts research on “censorware” software (i.e., programs that block websites that contain objectionable material), documenting flaws in such software. Finkelstein’s research, for example, revealed that censorware vendor N2H2 blocked a variety of legitimate websites, evidence that assisted the ACLU in challenging

a law requiring the use web filtering software by federally-funded public libraries. N2H2 claimed that the DMCA should block researchers like Finkelstein from examining its software. Finkelstein was ultimately forced to seek a DMCA exemption from the Librarian of Congress, who granted the exemption in both the 2000 and 2003 triennial

rulemakings. The exemption, however, was not renewed in 2006, leaving future researchers without protection from DMCA threats.19Benjamin Edelman has also conducted extensive research into flaws in various censorware products. Edelman’s research also led to evidence used by the ACLU in its constitutional challenge to the Children’s

Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which mandates the use of censorware by public libraries.In the course of his work for the ACLU, Edelman discovered that the DMCA might interfere with his efforts to learn what websites are blocked by censorware products. Because he sought to create and distribute software tools to enable others to analyze

the list if it changed, Edelman could not rely on the limited DMCA regulatory exception in place at the time. Unwilling to risk civil and criminal penalties under Section 1201, Edelman was forced to sue to seek clarification of his legal rights. Unfortunately, the court found that Edelman would have to undertake the research and hazard legal

reprisals in order to have standing to challenge the DMCA. The case was therefore dismissed without addressing the DMCA’s chill on research.20





SunnComm Threatens Researcher

In October 2003, then Princeton graduate student J. Alex Halderman was threatened with a DMCA lawsuit after publishing a report documenting weaknesses in a CD copy-protection technology developed by SunnComm. Halderman revealed that merely holding down the shift key on a Windows PC would render SunnComm’s copy protection

technology ineffective. Furious company executives then threatened legal action. The company quickly retreated from its threats in the face of public outcry and negative press attention. Although Halderman was spared, the controversy again reminded security researchers of their vulnerability to DMCA threats for simply publishing the

results of their research.12

Hewlett Packard Threatens SNOsoft

Hewlett-Packard resorted to DMCA threats when researchers published a security flaw in HP’s Tru64 UNIX operating system. The researchers, a loosely-organized collective known as Secure Network Operations (“SNOsoft”), received the DMCA threat after releasing software in July 2002 that demonstrated vulnerabilities that HP had been aware

of for some time, but had not bothered to fix. After widespread press attention, HP ultimately withdrew the DMCA threat. Security researchers got the message, however—publish vulnerability research at your own risk.15





...AND ON AND ON ANDTHE EFF

When our freedoms in the networked

world come under attack, you bet the

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is

the first line of defense.

Scan here to see even more ways the

DMCA has been used to violate our

freedom of expression and creativity in

the digital world.

25

26

SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT ACT:the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended the duration of U.S. copyrights by 20 years. Many feel this extension was unjustified and overreaching.

THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FIRST RESPONDED TO THE INTERNET BY SENDING OUT ITS LAWYERS IN HOPE OF SMOTHERING NEW TECHNOLOGIES.

Starting with the December 1999 lawsuit against Napster, the recording industry has sued major P2P technology companies one after the other: Scour, Aimster, AudioGalaxy, Morpheus, Grokster Kazaa, iMesh, LimeWire and more. Although these same technologies were additionally utilized for non-infringing purposes including the sharing of authorized songs, live recordings of concerts and works in the public domain, the record industry has won most of these lawsuits.

The traditional music industry measures success using a bygone standard, leading to a lopsided perspective of how artists can achieve success in this digital day and age.



30,0001

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE SUED BY THE RIAA,AND COUNTING...

The recording industry has now filed,

settled, or threatened actions against

well over 30,000 individuals, and there

is no end in sight. Ordinary music fans

must pay thousands of dollars in court

and many of which may be innocent of

copyright infringement. [5]

29

THE RIAA vs THE PEOPLE: //

On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs with peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against alleged copyright infringers. Thousands of lawsuits are still being filed and there is no signs of these lawsuits ending soon.

The RIAA’s lawsuit campaign against individual American music fans has failed. It has failed to curtail P2P downloading. It has not persuaded music fans that sharing is equivalent to shoplifting. It has not put a penny into the pockets of artists. It has done little to drive most filesharers into the arms of authorized music services. In fact, the RIAA lawsuits may well be driving filesharers to new technologies that will be much harder for the RIAA’s investigators to infiltrate and monitor.

JIM CICCONI, AT&T TOP POLICY EXEC.AT&T has put itself in the spotlight as the anti-net neutrality poster child. Head lobbyist for the company insists that regulation is “completely unnecessary”.

30

CORPORATIONS THAT PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE WEB WANT TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THE TYPES OF CONTENT THAT THEY PROVIDE TO THEIR USERS.

When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume that we’ll be able to access whatever web site we want, whenever we want to go there. The freedoms we have online are not guaranteed however and the access we have now may not exist in the future. [6]

The biggest cable and communications moguls would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, high-speed to run applications, and permission to plug in our devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers and device manufacturers for the right to use the network.


NET NEUTRALITY MEANS THAT INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTENT ONLINE.


NEUTRAL WEB

USER

SINGLE DATA CONNECTION

UNRESTRICTED DATA

33

RESTRICTED WEB

USER

PROPRIETARY, TIERED-ACCESSDATA CONNECTIONS

UNRESTRICTED DATA

RESTRICTED DATA


“

“THE INTERNET’S UNPRECEDENTED OPENNESS IS IN JEOPARDY. THE SUCCESS OF FUTURE INNOVATION DEPENDS ON AN OPEN INTERNET FOR EVERYONE.

—LAWRENCE LESSIG AUTHOR OF FREE CULTURE

35

FREE CULTURE: //

In FREE CULTURE, Larry Lessig argues that never before in human history has the power to control creative progress been so overconcentrated in the hands of the powerful few, the so-called Big Media. To lose our long tradition of free culture, Lessig describes us, is to lose our freedom to create, our freedom to build, and ultimately our freedom to imagine and dream. [3]

Scan the QR code above to download a free copy of Lawrence Lessig’s epic FREE CULTURE work and learn more about his views toward society, culture and intellectual property.

CHAPTER 3: //

RECOURSE TAKING BACK OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS

Sharing takes the control of intellectual property out of the hands of old media conglomerates and puts it back into the hands of the people.It allows for people to have greater access to a richer collection of intellectual property and enourages others to build and create new things. Sharing also discourages the creation of monopolies and prevents the concentration of power over media and information.

So hey, RIP, BURN, MIX and SHARE that intellectual property and help to preserve the future of your rights on the internet.

38

WHY SHARING MATTERS

“Success means something very different when your goal is freedom than it does when your goal is power”

—Terry Hancock

The following pages suggest a few ways that we can promote the ideals of freedom in cyberspace and educate people about their digital intellectual property rights. Reform starts off with education and it’s important that people know what their rights are before they can defend them.

39

“Success means something very different when your goal is freedom than it does when your goal is power”

—Terry Hancock

AN EDUCATIONAL WEBSITE THAT TEACHES PEOPLE ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ABOUT THE THINGS THAT GOVERNMENTS AND CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN DOING TO ENCROACH ON OUR FREEDOM TO COMMUNICATE ONLINE.

Cliché but true, reform starts off with education and people must be aware of the their rights and what is being done to them before things start to get better. This website will spread the gospel about intellectual property on the web and show people how and what they can do to protect the future of cyberspace.

40 CHAPTER 3 //: RECOURSE

WEB.

2741

WEB.

53CHAPTER 3 //: RECOURSE

FEST.A FESTIVAL THAT CELEBRATES THE FREEDOM THAT THE WEB BRINGS AND RAISES AWARENESS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FUTURE OF AN INTERNET THAT IS RUN BY POLITICIANS AND CORPORATIONS.

There will be a variety of tents and spaces in which people can teach and learn; studios, labs and playgrounds where people can connect and spread their love of knowledge. The Common Minds festival is for anyone who wants to lend their skills and creativity to the cause of keeping the internet open and free. The mission of the festival is the protect the openness of the web and keep it that way for generations to come.

43


DOC.A DOCUMENTARY THAT TALKS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF CYBERSPACE AND SHOWS HOW IT HAS SHAPED THE FACE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

This movie will guide viewers through a series of interviews talking to various people that are connected with the web in one way or another. It will cover major landmarks in the history of the web and tie in events that have also played a significant role in the progress of intellectual property rights.

44

2745

DOC.

57CHAPTER 3 //: RECOURSE

MAG.A MAGAZINE THAT FOCUSES ON OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ON THE WEB. THIS MAGAZINE WILL AIM TO EDUCATE AND PROMOTE THE IDEALS OF FREEDOM IN CYBERSPACE.

The name of the periodical is Internet Culture and will feature artists, musicians and scholars to talk about intellectual property and relate it to everyday topics and ideas. The magazine will strive to make the concept of intellectual property on the web “cool” and to get younger people thinking about their rights in cyberspace.

47


APP.A MOBILE APPLICATION THAT WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO SHARE THINGS ON THE WEB USING CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSING.

The application intends to demystify the licensing process and make people more aware of what they can do with their intellectual property rights. The app will be readily available on most popular smart phones and be accessible to a wide range of people that use the web.

2749

APP.

51

“

“HE WHO RECEIVES AN IDEA FROM ME, RECEIVES INSTRUCTION HIM-SELF WITHOUT LESSENING MINE; AS HE WHO LIGHTS HIS TAPER AT MINE RECEIVES LIGHT WITHOUT DARKENING ME.

—THOMAS JEFFERSONONon the value of sharing and

the public domain

THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION

America’s founding fathers felt that having intellectual property rights are vital and necessary to promote the progress of the “sciences and usefull arts”. Property rights were intended to fufill a true public domain and promote the circulation of intellectual property and wealth. Scan here to read the entire manuscript written by Thomas Jefferson on the topic of intellectual property law and sharing ideas and knowledge.

CITATIONS

52 COLOPHON

1Internet Usage World Stats - Internet and Population Statistics. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. <http://www.internetworldstats.com/>.

2Boyle, James. The Public Domain. Durham, NC: Duke University School of Law, 2003. Print.

3Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin, 2005. Print.

4“Copyright Term Extension Act.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act>.

53

5 “Unintended Consequences: 12 Years Under the DMCA | Electronic Frontier Foundation.” Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending Freedom in the Digital World. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/unintended-consequences-12-years-under-dmca>.

6“Net Neutrality 101.” Savetheinternet.com. Web. <http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101>.

7“Net Neutrality 101.” Savetheinternet.com. Web. <http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101>.

54 COLOPHON

Share This Book Written and designed by Darius Garza

Contact: e-mail: [email protected]

TypographyTrade Gothic Bold Condensed No. 20 Trade Gothic Condensed No. 18

share this book

Documents

web intellectual property

intellectual property

property rightschapter

threatsyour property

digital chapter

interneta worldwide

world wide web

worldwide web reach