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]
Doral Financial Scandal: Sammy Levis Guilty of Wire Fraud
Mario S. Levis, aka “Sammy Levis,” was found guilty on securities and wire fraud charges after a five-week jury trial before U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa for his role in a scheme to defraud investors and potential investors in the stock of Puerto Rico-based Doral Financial Corporation (Doral) that took place while he was the Treasurer and Senior Executive Vice President of Doral, Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today. The scheme, occurring between 2001 and 2005, involved misrepresentations that Levis made regarding certain core assets of Doral. An aggregate decline in shareholder value of approximately $4 billion followed the unraveling of the scheme.
According to the superseding indictment and the evidence at trial:
Doral, with mortgage banking operations in Puerto Rico and New York City, was a leading residential mortgage lender in Puerto Rico. Between 2001 and 2005, Levis corrupted the process by which Doral determined the publicly reported value of certain non-cash assets carried on Doral’s financial books called “interest-only strips” (IOs). Doral represented to the public, in its annual financial statements, that the aggregate value of its IOs, and company earnings associated with those IOs, were increasing substantially year after year. By the beginning of 2005, Doral publicly announced a streak of 28 quarters of “record earnings” based in significant part on the stated value of its IOs.
During the same time, Doral’s stock price steadily increased from approximately $10 per share in early 2000 to almost $50 at the end of 2004. Also during this time frame, Levis and other members of his family were substantial holders of Doral securities. Between 2001 and 2004, the value of Levis’s stock in Doral tripled to over $60 million.
In its public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Doral represented that the value of its IOs was based, in part, on two “outside” and “independent” expert valuations provided to Doral on a quarterly basis. According to Doral’s filings with the SEC and representations by Levis to investors, these outside independent valuators were performing the valuation using their own economic and portfolio assumptions.
In fact, however, Levis thoroughly corrupted those valuations. For example, the valuation provided by a Morgan Stanley trader in fact involved the trader merely recopying numbers provided by Levis without any other work whatsoever, and then subsequent attempts by Levis to conceal that fact from Doral’s auditors and lawyers. The other valuation from Popular Securities (Popular) actually involved Levis dictating key assumptions for Popular to use in performing its valuation analysis. In both cases, Levis failed to inform the valuators that Doral was treating their valuations as independent or citing their work in Doral’s SEC filings.
In March 2005, when an executive at Popular directly asked Levis whether Popular’s valuation was being used as an independent valuation, Levis denied that Popular was one of the independent valuations. Later, when investors pressed Levis to identify the sources of the independent valuations described in Doral’s SEC filings, he falsely told investors that he could not identify the sources due to confidentiality agreements.
Levis also materially misrepresented to the investing public — in direct communications with investors, investor representatives, and market analysts — certain specific characteristics of the Doral IO portfolio. Specifically, among other things, Levis falsely claimed provision in Doral’s loan-sale agreements called “caps,” which would purportedly function to prevent substantial write-downs of the IOs if interest rates continued to rise.
Beginning in mid-January 2005, when Doral announced an approximate $97.5 million write-down of the stated value of its IOs attributed to rising interest rates, and Levis’ scheme concerning the IO valuations began to unravel, the market price of Doral’s common stock began to drop steadily from its high of almost $50 per share. By the time Levis resigned from Doral in late August 2005, the price of Doral’s shares had fallen more than 70 percent to approximately $14.13 per share. In total, the company’s shareholders had suffered an aggregate decline in shareholder value of approximately $4 billion.
Levis was found guilty of one count of securities fraud (Count One) and two counts of wire fraud (Counts Three and Five). The jury found Levis not guilty of one count of wire fraud (Count Four), and the Court dismissed an additional count of wire fraud (Count Two). Levis faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on the securities fraud count and a fine of the greatest of $5 million or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. For each of the wire fraud counts on which he was found guilty, Levis faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of the greatest of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.
Levis, 46, of San Juan, P.R., is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Griesa on Sept. 14, 2010.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “Senior executives of publicly traded companies have to tell the investing public the truth, even when it hurts. It’s that simple. Today, a Manhattan jury found that Mario Levis of Doral intentionally flouted this bedrock principle, causing a colossal $4 billion loss to his company’s shareholders. Our office, working more closely than ever with the FBI and the SEC, will continue to pursue corrupt professionals in the financial services industry whose greed-driven misconduct hurts honest investors and threatens our markets.”
U.S. Attorney Bharara praised the work of the FBI and thanked the SEC for its assistance in the case.
This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.
The case is being prosecuted by the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorneys William J. Stellmach and Daniel A. Braun and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason M. Anthony, are in charge of the prosecution.
Law School Summer Programs: U.S. Attorney’s Office
This past summer, I had the fantastic opportunity to spend ten weeks working for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Florida. I had tremendous opportunities to gain hands-on experience and take on substantial responsibility even with only one year of law school experience. Further, fighting white collar crime in my hometown community, recently dubbed the nation’s “mortgage fraud capital,” was extremely rewarding.
The Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Office have awesome programs each summer that are very popular with students. I chose to go to a smaller office (only seven Assistant U.S. Attorneys) and work in its white-collar division, where I worked on a wide variety of cases including tax evasion, bank fraud, mortgage fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering. Additionally, I had the opportunity to work on drug-trafficking, immigration, civil litigation, and human-trafficking cases. Working in a smaller office was very unique as I spent a tremendous amount of one-on-one time with a small group of attorneys and still had the opportunity to work on high-profile cases. Over the course of the summer, I even had three of my very own pre-indictment cases to manage and worked with the federal agencies investigating these cases, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Secret Service.
Another great thing about working at the U.S. Attorney’s Office was the amount of time I spent in courtrooms throughout the summer. The Assistant U.S. Attorneys were great about bringing my fellow-interns and me to court as often as possible, and it was not uncommon for us to be in court four or five times a day. Further, in just ten weeks I had the opportunity to participate in three trials—which can take years in the private sector to do. In one particular trial I even had the opportunity to create jury exhibits for a money laundering trial to show how the money flowed through the scheme, in addition to numerous motions and research memorandums over the course of the internship.
Being a “Fed” for the summer was more valuable in terms of experience and job satisfaction than I can explain; it felt great waking up every morning to go (help) enforce justice and the law. Additionally, I was able to learn valuable trial strategy and the importance of prosecutorial ethics from my field supervisor Doug Molloy—Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney of the Fort Myers Division and legendary prosecutor in South Florida (see the original Miami Vice). Additionally, because of the great SPIF program at HLS, the school subsidizes expenses for students who spend their summer doing public interest work—including working at the Department of Justice or U.S. Attorney’s Office.
For those who have not considered public interest work, it is very rewarding and I highly recommend the program. Whether you want to go into the public or private legal sector, a summer at the U.S. Attorney’s Office can be outstanding training for your career.
[thanks to ktylerconk and hls in focus via cc]
