Fsf-friends November 2004

fsf-friends@gnu.org.in

36 participants
53 discussions

Linux Magazine
by Raj Shastrakar 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

Hi can anyone highlight good linux magazine for my own personal subscription both here in India and US . I currently have linux for you subscribed. Is there any mag from GNU..with RMS as chief editor ..or something on same lines ( just a wild guess ... ) Please enlighten... Raj __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

1 0

[Fsf-friends] OFFTOPIC: Shoot, share and create -- looking beyond copyright and film
by Frederick Noronha (FN) 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

Interesting example of Free Software ideas spreading to film. FN SHOOT, SHARE AND CREATE: WHY LOOKING BEYOND COPYRIGHT MAKES SENSE IN FILM Young lawyer Lawrence Liang, based in city of Bangalore, makes an articulate case of why documentary and alternate film makers in India could do well to think of starting to license their works under an 'open content' license. By Lawrence Liang lawrenceliang99(a)yahoo.com Let's begin with a small personal statement, when I was in law school, I had great aspirations of wanting to be a film maker , and an FTII-type (Film and TV Institute of India, a prominent school for film-making) friend told me that the best place to start was to watch a lot of foreign films and documentaries. So I did that rather dutifully and spent many hours when I should have been reading corporate law, watching documentaries. My fondest memory of my placement in Mumbai with a law firm was when we took off to the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) and watched Anjali Monteiro and Jayasankar's film on the Yeravada prison. Then, I gave up on the idea of becoming a film-maker after we finally did do a documentary on law school. But by then the bug had bitten and I had fallen in love with cinema and the documentary form as well. And yeah I think watching documentaries has also made me a better lawyer than I would have been if I read Ramiaya on the Indian Companies Act. So if I have written this rather longish argument about why documentary film makers should start thinking about open content licenses, it is with a sense of repaying a debt. But firstly a few clarifications: what does an open content / creative commons license actually mean? Open content licenses have basically been inspired by the Free Software movement, where they try to reverse the principles of copyright to build a more vibrant public domain of materials which can be used by people. Copyright grants the author of a work an exclusive right to copy, distribute, create adaptations etc of his or her work. Any person using any material without the permission of the author, or without paying royalty, is presumed to be infringing the exclusive copyright of the author of the work. While copyright was initially supposed to be a means of balancing between providing incentives for authors and ensuring that works circulate in the public domain, over the past few decades, this balance has been completed tilted in favour of the owners of copyright. Increasingly, one sees the use of copyright to supplement restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. A quick example: Alice Randall, an African American author, wrote a rewriting of 'Gone With The Wind', from the perspective of Scarlett O Hara's mullato half-sister. The publishers claimed that this was an infringement of copyright and obtained an injunction against the publication of the book. Thankfully, in this case, the court of appeal then overturned the injunction. Similarly, copyright licensing makes the acquisition or use of a pre-existing work very very expensive, and let's hope that we don't go down the US route where you have to take a hundred copyright permission before you use any music, clip etc while making your own film. Think about your own experiences. If you had to pay for every time you wanted to use a clip or a song, how much would that add to your overheads? A cautionary take: In 1990 Jon Else, an American documentary film-maker was working on a documentary about Wagner's 'Ring Cycle'. The focus was stage-hands at the San Francisco Opera. Stage-hands are a particularly funny and colourful element of an opera. During a show, they hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and in the lighting loft. They make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage. During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stage-hands playing checkers. In one corner of the room was a television set. Playing on the television set, while the stage-hands played checkers and the opera company played Wagner, was The Simpsons. Else judge thought this shot would be great to use and he went ahead and shot it; he then decide to obtain permission form the owners of the copyright in The Simpsons to use the four-second clip. While Matt Groening, the creator, did not have a problem, he did not own the copyright. Gracie Films, the owner, demanded that he pay them $ 10,000 for the use of the four seconds. Else obviously could not afford to pay them. He could have gone ahead and used the clip, and it would have fallen under his 'fair use' right to do so. But this was too risky given that Elsie films had a record of pursuing copyright infringement cases, and the average costs of defending a law suit in the US is $250,000. The situation in the US is pretty bleak now, and any documentary film maker submitting a film to a broadcast organization has get copyright clearances for all materials used, otherwise they refuse to broadcast the film. This sounds almost like the Indian scenario of obtaining the censor certificate for films before broadcast. >From software to the other world -------------------------------- Anyway, as a response to the stifling copyright regime, the Free Software movement began. What it did was to create something called the GNU General Public License. This license, instead of denying people access or restricting their rights over a work, made software available for all with the freedom to copy, modify, redistribute etc. It is, of course, important to remember that the word Free here refers to freedom, and not to price. The only condition was that if someone created something new out of a Free Software, then that work would also have to be licensed on the same terms and conditions, namely that it could not be taken outside the public domain. The movement has now spread to other domains of cultural production and the creative commons is the best example of how this idea is being used with respect to movies, music, documentaries, literature etc. So why should documentary film makers start taking the Free Software movement seriously and think about similar licensing models for their works, as well as the very idea of collaborative production for the future? Here are some sound reasons: * DISTRIBUTION, A MAJOR HEADACHE NOW: One of the biggest problems faced by documentary film makers in India has been the question of circulation and distribution. This is an issue which has been discussed in a number of meetings as well as on electronic mailing-lists in cyberspace. If the work were available freely (again note this does not mean that you cannot charge for the documentary, but means that a person who has bought a copy may make a copy and distribute it to others), there would a far greater circulation of documentaries amongst other film makers, students, activists, scholars and general public. It is a fact that, currently, if you want to access documentaries, then you either have to approach the film maker or approach an NGO (non-governmental organisation) which keeps documentaries. Greater availability will ensure greater distribution and subsequently promote documentary-film watching. * IF YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM, SAY SO: I am sure that most documentary film makers do not have a hassle if people circulate their work, but it is important to remember that unless you state explicitly that people have a right to do so, to use your work etc it is presumed that they do not have a right to do so. In that sense, Copyright by default applies to your work. Which is why it is important to start thinking in terms of a pro-active licensing policy that allows people to use your work. * THIS DOESN'T MEAN WAIVING ALL YOUR RIGHTS: There may be one or two immediate concerns that arise. If I make my work available, isn't there a danger that someone will use my materials and pass it off as their own work. By licensing under a 'open content' license, you do not waive all your rights as the author of the work. It is really up to you to determine the nature of the usage involved. For instance, you could have a license that allows the work only to be copied for non-profit purposes, so I can't make a hundred copies of your work and then start selling the work for profit. Similarly, by licensing under an open content license, you do not loose your other rights, such as the right to be identified as the author of the work, and so on. You may allow or not allow someone to modify the work or use significant portions. * FILM-MAKERS DON'T LIVE OFF ROYALTY: More importantly is the fact that most documentary film makers do not live off royalty in any case. Their films are either commissioned or they earn some money from various prizes, invitations and the like. So, the fear of the loss of revenue cannot be a very serious one. But apart from the fear of loss of revenue on the film maker's part is the more important issue. When a film-maker is commissioned to make a film, it is important to ask the question as to where that money comes form, and if the money comes from public finding, there should be no reason why the film that is made from public money should then become the private property of an individual film-maker. Let's assume that the money that is provided for the film is not that great and cannot be measured in terms of the efforts that the film maker has put in. It is important to acknowledge that the film maker still benefits in terms of experience, credits, recognition, future assignments etc. * THEN, THERE'S THE COLLABORATIVE NATURE OF FILM-MAKING: Copyright's myth of the individual creator genius is perhaps more violently expressed in film making. Film making, as we all know, is perhaps one of the most collaborative of the arts, and the amount of diverse labour that goes into it is incredible. Yet, for the purposes of copyright, the author of the film is considered to be a single individual, namely the producer of the film. To its credit, the system of credits in film making, especially in feature film, still recognizes this process of joint authorship. Another issue, of course, is to recognise the hundred and thousands of influences and inspirations that have gone into our own films. We need to work beyond the assumed myths of copyright law, and develop alternative practices that recognise the multiplicity that goes into the making of a film. When we extend this principle to the making of films, we can start thinking in terms of the great benefit that making film-footage available has on film-making itself. I think at this point we really need to laud the efforts taken by a few documentary film makers post-Gujarat, in the form of the shared footage project. Given that we (documentary film-makers in India) are a small community, it is important to start thinking in terms of the benefits of collaboration, prime among which will obviously be vast amounts of footage available to be used. COPYRIGHT, INCREASINGLY THREATENING CREATIVITY: If copyright is increasingly threatening creativity, then one of the means of protecting this creativity is by ensuring that we take pro-active steps that build towards an ethic of the public domain in our own practices as well. One thing is sure: the digital revolution has arrived. You have more and more people from a non-film-making background who want to experiment with films, use it in the course of their work etc. In that sense the media and the medium is no longer external to any of our practices. At some level, we all have to, whether we are academics or lawyers or activists, start thinking of ourselves as media professionals as well. And the great thing that digital media has done is that it has enabled almost any person to become a low-cost production studio. You have a decent computer, and you can mix and match and edit your own stuff. Tinkering cultures are a critical part of the way we are learning the grammar of new media, for instance at the Alternative Law Forum, we have been working to bring out a CD on queering Bollywood which brings together clips of subversive queer readings of Bollywood. Three years ago we wold not have imagined ourselves doing it. Two students at the law school -- Warisha and Vinay -- have made their own films, one on Kashmir and one on Pakistan. I think we are living in very interesting times as far as democratic media is concerned, and we cant allow the freedom provided by technology to get curbed through a content barrier that arose in the 18th century as Copyright. * IT'S A QUESTION OF POLITICS, ABOVE ALL: Finally most documentary film makers would identify themselves as being against the neo-liberal global order. It's therefore important to start realizing that intellectual property is one of the key pillars upon which this neo-liberal order is built, and important to incorporate the subjects of our film into our own practices as well. It does sound a little ironic to make a film on protests against the hegemonic order of the WTO, and then claim strong protection for your own film! ENDS Lawrence Liang is a Bangalore-based lawyer, and leads the Alternate Law Forum. He wrote the above essay in an open letter addressed to Indian documentary film-makers recently, over the docuwallahs2 mailing-list on Yahoogroups.com -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/docuwallahs2 He can be contacted via email at lawrenceliang99(a)yahoo.com

2 1

"Intellectual property" -- a seductive mirage
by Frederick Noronha (FN) 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Apologies for cross-posting. FN Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:23:15 +0000 From: Sunil Abraham <sunil(a)mahiti.org> Subject: [fsug-kochi-discuss] [Commons-Law] Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage To: Commons Law <commons-law(a)sarai.net> Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage -- by Richard Stallman It has become fashionable to describe copyright, patents, and trademarks as "intellectual property". This fashion did not arise by accident--the term systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and was promoted by those who gain from this. Anyone wishing to think clearly about any of these laws would do well to reject the term. One effect of the term is a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, these companies have worked to make the term fashionable. According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term "intellectual property" is a fad that followed the 1967 founding of the World "Intellectual Property" Organization, and only became really common in the past few years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact it represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks.) Those who would prefer to judge these issues on their merits should reject a biased term for them. Many have asked me to propose some other name for the category--or proposed alternatives themselves. Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of "exclusive rights regimes", but this means referring to restrictions as rights, which is doublethink too. But it is a mistake to replace "intellectual property" with any other term. A different name could eliminate the bias, but won't address the term's deeper problem: overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as "intellectual property". It is a mirage, which appears to have a coherent existence only because the term suggests it does. The term "intellectual property" operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Non-lawyers who hear the term "intellectual property" applied to these various laws tend to assume they are instances of a common principle, and that they function similarly. Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of a work of authorship or art. Patent law was intended to encourage publication of ideas, at the price of finite monopolies over these ideas--a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others. Trademark law was not intended to promote any business activity, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying; however, legislators under the influence of "intellectual property" have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising (without asking the public if we want more advertising). Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every detail as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you learn some fact about copyright law, you had best assume that patent law is different. You'll rarely go wrong that way! Laymen are not alone in getting confused by this term. I regularly find that experts on patent law, copyright law, and trademark law, even law professors who teach these subjects, have been lured by the seductiveness of the term "intellectual property" into general statements that conflict with the facts they know. The term distracts them from using their own knowledge. People often say "intellectual property" when they really mean some other category, larger or smaller than "intellectual property". For instance, rich countries impose laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them. These laws often fit the category of "intellectual property"--so people who question the fairness of these laws often use that label, even though it does not really fit. That can lead to incorrect statements and unclear thinking. For this subject I recommend using a term such as "legislative colonization" that focuses on the central aspect of the subject, rather than the term "intellectual property". For other subjects, the term that describes the subject would be different. The term "intellectual property" also leads to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form of these disparate laws, which is that they create special powers that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the specific restrictions each of them places on the public, and the consequences that result. At such a broad scale, people can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. These issues arise from the specifics, precisely what the term "intellectual property" encourages people to ignore. For instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed. Patent law has nothing to do with this. But patent law raises the issue of whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives. Copyright law has nothing to do with that. Neither of these issues is just an economic issue, and anyone looking at them in the shallow economic perspectives of overgeneralization can't grasp them. Thus, any opinion about "the issue of intellectual property" is almost surely foolish. If you think it is one issue, you will tend to consider only opinions that treat all these laws the same. Whichever one you pick, it won't make any sense. If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, or even learn what these laws say, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. If you want to write articles that inform the public and encourage clear thinking, treat each of these laws separately; don't suggest generalizing about them. And when when it comes to reforming WIPO, among other things let's call for changing its name. Copyright 2004 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved. Thanks, ಸುನೀಲ್ -- Sunil Abraham, sunil(a)mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 51150580. Mobile: +91 80 36701931 Currently on sabbatical with APDIP/UNDP Manager - International Open Source Network Wisma UN, Block C Komplex Pejabat Damansara. Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights. 50490 Kuala Lumpur. P. O. Box 12544, 50782, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: (60) 3-2091-5167, Fax: (60) 3-2095-2087 sunil(a)apdip.net http://www.iosn.net http://www.apdip.net _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law(a)sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Fsf-friends November 2004