Book Review of Starving the Artist by William Aicher
As copyright becomes more and more of a hot-button issue on the Web, inevitably more and more authors are releasing books on the topic.
The notable books (and controversial) books on the topic released in the past few years have included Digital Barbarism: A Writer’s Manifesto by Mark Helprin, The Cult of the Amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today’s user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values by Andrew Keen, The Little Book of Plagiarism by Judge Richard Posner, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy by Lawrence Lessig and Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson (which was the subject of a plagiarism controversy of its own) just to name a few.
However, William Aicher is a relatively new addition to this field. Though he has blogged about copyright-related issues on his site for some time, his first book on the topic, a short self-published work called Starving the Artist: How the Internet Culture of “Free” Threatens to Exterminate the Creative Class, and What Can Be Done to Save It is a relatively unusual entrant into the field.
But what makes Aicher’s book unique isn’t what can be seen on the cover, but rather that it is a book on copyright that manages to avoid being mired in debates on law, philosophy and/or personal anecdotes. Even more impressive, it avoids personal attacks and even comes across as balanced and nuanced.
Though not particularly earth-shattering, it manages to be friendly enough for a casual reader and still have enough to hold the interest of someone more dedicated to copyright issues.
Still, it seems to be a book struggling for an audience and that may be the biggest flaw the book has.
Background
Aicher’s tome is not a lengthy work by any stretch. At only 70 pages not counting forward and introduction, even an average reader can breeze through this on a lazy afternoon.
The book is divided into three parts.
Creation: This section discusses the motivations behind creation, monetary and otherwise, as well as the costs of creation and how they are affected by copying.
Yours and Mine: Here, Aicher writes about the morals and ethics of piracy and other copyright infringement, saving the strongest sting for those who, according to Aicher, build businesses on the back of infringement.
The Future: Finally, Aicher discusses the current legal and market situation and how it may affect creativity in the near future.
The second section of the book is by far the longest, with the third being just one short chapter long, thus making most of the book closely focused on the ethics of piracy, including both the participatory culture created on the Web and the temptation of free works.
Legally, the book focuses by far most of its energy on the DMCA, specifically the notice-and-takedown regime. However, Aicher has taken the view that the system has enabled companies to abuse the law to build businesses on the back of infringement while claiming safe harbor.
All in all though, the book avoids delving too deep into the law, you’ll find no citations of famous cases or legal opinions. Instead, the book draws its rather lengthy references section primarily from news articles and other books, including many listed above. There are even a few Wikipedia entries cited, even though that might not be the best source of information for a book to be treated seriously.
But even with the at-times wonky citations, the book does an overall decent job talking about the issues of creation, copyright and ownership and avoids nearly all of the pitfalls other books fell into.
The Good
What makes Aicher’s book stand out is one word: Balance.
In almost every regard, Aicher’s book manages to straddle the line between two pitfalls without veering of course. For example, though Aicher includes anecdotes in his book, including how he used to run a BBS for sharing guitar tabs in a previous life, the book never feels like an autobiography, unlike Helprin’s book. Though there is a great deal of research and citation, it never feels like a stuffy academic paper, like Lessig’s work can at times. Finally, even though he has sharp feelings on the the issues, he refrains from insults and even admits that everyone is trying to think of the artist’s best interest, unlike both Keen and Helprin in their books.
All in all, the book takes an incredibly even keel. No insults, no excess of academia, no nostalgia. Aicher clearly wants his book to be approachable and read by those who disagree with him and works hard to introduce conflicting opinions and rebut them gently. Though his arguments may not be anything earth-shakingly new, the tone and the way they are presented is very refreshing.
On the whole, Aicher’s book is very well-written and easy to read. It manages to float through the topic of copyright smoothly and comfortably. Much like a ship going through an ocean, it doesn’t merely skim the surface nor does it sink into the depths. Instead floats just deep enough to avoid drowning and takes the reader on a three-hour tour of the copyright issues, without winding up on a deserted island.
The Bad
Though the book is, overall, a solid work. There were a few issues I took with it.
For one, though the book’s brevity is not, in and of itself, a strike against it the book’s third chapter is painfully short. At barely ten pages, the discussion about the future would seem to me to be the most important part of the book, the natural climax of the previous sixty. In fact, one could almost call the previous sixty pages a great introduction for a weightier book about the future of copyright and creativity but, just as the discussion gets truly interesting, the book abruptly ends.
Also, there were also a few minor errors in the book. One example is on page 44 where he refers to the Pirate Party as being anti-copyright and seeking to abolish copyright. However, all Pirate Parties, including Sweden’s, to which he was referring, simply favor extreme copyright reform, in this case reducing the term to five years and making non-commercial file sharing legal.
Another error was on page 61 when Aicher said that the law did not require that DMCA takedowns be filed by either the copyright holder or a designated agent and that such a requirement was the creation of Web hosts. That is simply not true. Section 512(c)(3)(vi) states that a notice must including the following:
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
In short, if you submit a DMCA notice and you are not either the rightsholder or an authorized agent, you are committing perjury. Red flag takedowns are an unrelated issue that have all but been done away with in recent court decisions.
These errors are relatively minor and at least somewhat understandable given the angle Aicher is taking with the subject, but they serve to misstate the current copyright situation ways that are fairly vital.
Still, the technical details of the book play a fairly minor role in the work and the meat of the book is more about the broader issues. There, the book is solid and, even the parts I disagree with, I’m forced to admit that Aicher makes his case both compellingly and entertainingly.
Bottom Line
I want to recommend this book but I am unsure about who to recommend it to. If you’re reading this site, you probably are familiar with the back and forth of the copyright debate and have heard these arguments before, if not pondered them yourself. If you are interested in the copyfight, you either already agree with him or have your counter-arguments lined up already.
This best audience for this book is, in my view, people who have only a passive interest in the copyright debate. It’s a short, quick read that doesn’t lose even the most lay of the laypeople. It is akin to a tourist visit in the copyright wold, a horse-drawn carriage ride through the pro-copyright side of the argument. It sacrifices depth for breadth and quickness and that makes it approachable and at least somewhat useful to those with but a passing interest.
Unfortunately though, this audience isn’t likely to seek out this book or know to look for it. Even if they were given a copy, I doubt many would read it. Your casual file sharer or person that just doesn’t think about copyright isn’t going to sit down and read a book on the subject, even if they can get through in the time it takes to finish a bottle of wine.
Still, if you are interested in copyright you can do a great deal worse than Aicher’s book. Though far from perfect, short and not ground-breaking, it’s a good book to have on your shelf and considering that a paper copy is only $9.95 and a Kindle copy $4.95, it’s cheap to own and takes almost no time. Just don’t expect to be blown away or have your views changed.
It may not change your life, but it certainly won’t make you regret reading it.
[thanks to jonathan bailey via cc]
Canada’s ADISQ Calls For a Stop to Copying CDs at Libraries
Those who argue for balanced copyright policies are often characterized as anti-copyright. Yet in my research I’ve seen at least two examples that suggest that the characterization (which I would prefer not be used at all) might be appropriately applied to the collectives, at least with respect to how the Supreme Court of Canada interprets copyright.
First, Quill and Quire, a Canadian publication on the book industry, featured a revealing article on pressure from Quebec creator groups against the Grand Bibliothèque, Montreal’s new library. The library reportedly boasts an impressive collection of works from Quebec creators, including 13,000 films and 90,000 CDs and DVDs. The library permits personal copying by providing computers with CD burners in the library. It says that it is vigilant about ensuring that patrons do not make multiple copies.
Nevertheless, the copying has angered ADISQ, the Quebec association of performing artists and producers. The article notes that several ADISQ members are calling on the library to stop the copying of CDs from its collection. Eduardo Da Costa, the agent for a popular Quebec singer Marie-Chantal Toupin, says, “there’s no difference between copies sold at flea markets and those made in the library.”
Arguments that equate piracy in flea markets to private copying, which generated more than $39 million last year, are so far removed from what Canada’s courts say are the policy goals of copyright that advocates of that line of thinking could be characterized as anti-copyright.
Similarly, Access Copyright issued a press release responding to a CMEC press conference on education and copyright. Maureen Cavan, Access Copyright’ s Executive Director, is quoted as saying that “the government cannot legislate that Canada’s creators and publishers be made to work for free when their works are copied from the Internet instead of purchased, but that is precisely what would happen if they allow the exemption the education sector is seeking.”
Once again, arguments that suggest that the exercise of user rights forces creators to work for free distorts what the Canada’s courts say copyright is all about. The copyright protection that creators enjoy is based on a policy decision that providing such protection is in the public interest. The protection is not absolute: there are user rights that balance such protection and enable Canadians to copy works under appropriate circumstances without further compensation. This is particularly true in the education context, where there are broad exceptions for research and private study.
What is most troubling about the anti-copyright rights holder view is its impact on those who sit in the middle. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Grand Bibliothèque is entitled to assume that their patrons will use their equivalent lawfully (much like the Great Library in Toronto). Similarly, the library is not only entitled to provide a paper copy to patrons, but following CCH is presumably entitled to provide patrons with faxed (and likely electronic) copies of those same works under the fair dealing user right.
That is the law as it is. Yet under pressure from anti-copyright rights holders, the library practices a law as rights holders would like it to be, finding it necessary to be vigilant about stopping multiple copies and declaring that it “is ready to work out more stringent anti-pirating policies with interested parties.” The same is true of Canada’s universities, who appear to have bought the Access Copyright vision of copyright hook, line, and sinker, paying millions in annual license fees for copying that is likely covered by their user rights.
[thanks to michael geist and kitonlove via cc]
Top 5 Ways to Prevent Copyright Theft of Your WordPress Blog
If you are launching a new site, especially a new blog, there are several things that you can do to make sure that your copyright is as protected as possible.
Simply put, when you are starting from scratch, you have a rare opportunity to get things right from the start and many of the best tools to protect your work function at their best when you use them from day one.
So, if you’re preparing to launch a new site, whether it is a static one or a blog, here are the steps you need to take today to protect your work or, if you’re not interested in enforcement, track it and encourage its sharing.
1. Register with the U.S.Copyright Office
Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is both slow and expensive. It’s also hopelessly out of date with the current Web and can take some nine months get your certificate.
Still, the fact remains that, if you want execute your full rights in the U.S., you need that registration. You need it both to file suit in a Federal Court and you need to have either registered before the infringement or within three months of publication to be able to collect statutory damages.
If you think you might ever want to sue for copyright infringement, you will want to register your work promptly. It’s a pain and it costs $35 but it can be invaluable down the road.
Likewise, as you add content to your site, you will likely want to re-register every 3 months to ensure that the registration is up to date and all content is protected.
2. Register with FairShare or Use Google Alerts
If you have a site where most of the content will be in an RSS feed, set up an account with FairShare so it can begin tracking the content in your feed from the first post. The service is free and only requires you to subscribe to the provided RSS feed where it will list where matches of your work were discovered along with some basic information.
If your content is largely static, you can use Google Alerts. I’ve covered Google Alerts before, but basically you just find good, unique phrases within your content and have Google search for those phrases and email you with any results it finds.
3. Set up an RSS Footer
If your site will put a large part of its content into an RSS feed, add a footer to the feed. You can use a simple WordPress plugin to do that if you’re a self-hosted WordPress user or, Blogger users can simply use the option in their admin panel.
Ideally, it should include a copyright statement, a link back to your site and, possibly, a digital fingerprint to make the tracking of your content even easier.
Since RSS scraping is one of the biggest problems content creators face, this can make sure that such use is at least attributed and trackable, even if it won’t put a stop to it.
4. Set Up Your Site’s Footer
Though you don’t technically need to include any copyright information for your work to be protected, it is a very good idea to do so as many have the misconception that, if it is not marked, it is free to use.
Make sure your footer includes all the basic copyright information including the year, which you can configure to update automatically, the copyright symbol, your name and the license information for the work (All Rights Reserved, Creative Commons, etc.)
5. Add Contact Information for Permissions
Finally, as you’re setting up how people will contact you, make sure to have a means for people to contact you to ask permission to use your work.
This is a good idea even if you use some form of blanket licensing, such as Creative Commons, as people will still contact you about these issues. This happens both because they don’t understand or see the license and because they want to use the work in a way that goes beyond it.
If you offer a clear path to contact you about these issues, even if it is just through your regular contact page, you’ll find people to be much more likely to ask permission than they would otherwise.
Bottom Line
When starting a new site, whether your first or your hundredth, it is a chance to get things right and avoid mistakes that you made with the other efforts. Copyright is no different in that regard.
If you value your content, its worth taking some time before launching to make some adjustments and make sure that your work is protected. Doing so will not only help you enforce your copyright, but also track where it appears on the Web, legitimately and unlawfully, letting you better understand your audience and reach.
So take the opportunity and spend a few minutes making sure your work is adequately protected.
[thanks to paul keller and jonathan bailey via cc]
