Repudiate Copyright Monopoly

YouTube, one of my favorite “Web 2.0″ sites, may soon have their day in court, according to CNet.com.¹ YouTube’s is a social network that allows members to post videos to the site to share with visitors. YouTube does not preview content, so it has been accused of being a rampant violator of copyright. In the article, a journalist has filed a lawsuit against YouTube for distributing a video he took in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots — 14 years ago.

Japan is now considering extending its copyright laws to match the US — from 50 years currently to 70 years.² Copyright originally was meant to give an artist or content creator a monopoly on the distribution of art or content for a limited time, after which the content would be public domain. This attempted to strike a balance between the artist’s ability to generate income versus the public good that content has always created.

The Consumer Electronics Association is battling the MPAA and RIAA over Google’s Image search tool. The CEA says that Google has the right to redisplay images it finds, and that sites can protect themselves from the image crawling by using a simple web tool that has been around for nearly as long as the web.³ We ask Congress to stop expanding copyright law without also protecting consumer rights. The Perfect 10, XM and Cleanflicks lawsuits are so bizarre. They simply demonstrate a need to return to sanity in the copyright law. These lawsuits come at the same time the recording industry is pushing multiple pieces of legislation aimed at controlling fair use rights. The totalitarian efforts by the content industry to restrict consumer access to information, services and technology must be stopped. We oppose piracy but the content industry now wants to use the claim of copyright to bar the access Americans have to information and entertainment, when, how and in the form they choose appropriate for their children, says Gary Shapiro, CEA’s President and CEO.

Parody has always been considered protected speech under copyright law, and the most famous parody musician Weird Al Yankovic has used both the law as well as common sense for his parodies — he asks the artists if he can parody their songs. If they say no, like Prince always has, he won’t do a parody. Now it seems the artists’ wishes are irrelevant, as we see in a song Weird Al parodied with approval of the artist, but had to retract from an album due to the record label’s demands.⁴

Discuss this article at the repudiate copyright forum.

Gary North published a great article today titled Watching the New York Times Self-Destruct.¹ He talks of the end of an era — the end of the newspaper. I was born in 1974 and I still read newspapers. I ran print newsletters for years and they were successful enough. I killed all but 2 of my newsletters last year and I accepted the online blog format. I produce and finance music groups and some video groups as well as write online, and I’m on the verge of releasing 2 new books in e-book format (free) as well as in print format.

As many know, I’m anti-copyright — I don’t believe that you should retain any legal protection for anything you create if you release it to the world in any form. I believe there are ways to protect what I consider a “moral” right to be known as the original author of an exact work — if someone copies my words and attempts to call it their original thought, I’ll work to embarass them and call them out. If someone copies my words and republishes them and doesn’t make it seem like they’re the original author — I’ll gladly accept it as they’re working to grow a market bigger, and a bigger market means more customers for me even if they never knew I was the original author.

When I give money to a band to create new music, I work out an agreement that they’ll release their recorded music for free and allow others to copy it for free. So far, no band I support has seen their music “stolen” and renamed with a new band name — and the music they’ve freely given out has provably increased their fanbase which has increased their ticket sales at live shows (which has increased their merchandise sales). Music on a CD or MP3 form is an advertisement and a marketing gimmick — the real money is in live face-to-face performing. Anyone can copy a CD, very few can mimic the processes that create the composition.

When I give money to a videographer to create videos, I work out the same agreement — give away your videos in order to promote your next production. Sell your videos to those who want to see you create more. When you do create something new, charge the first batch of fans to see your video before anyone else. There is a market in the entertainment world, but the live market is very different than in music. My long term goal is to work with theatre groups to provide free digital copies of their past performances in order to drive business to their local theatres. For those making larger scale videos, the market is always in the value-added product. Don’t sell just one video, sell a subscription to receive all future videos for a certain period of time. Even a US$30 a year subscription is good income if you entice just 2000 subscribers. Don’t be lazy — constantly create.

It is in the print media world that I am at a loss as to what to do. I love e-books but I hate reading them on my PDA or laptop for long. I want paper. So do most readers. The two books I will be releasing in e-book format would do much better in terms of distribution if there was a new way to produce the book format. Maybe we need to start seeing “Book Binding” kits at Office Max or at Target. I’ve bound my own books before (tedious), and I definitely dislike 3-ring binders (unprofessional and too large). Why haven’t we seen a market to convert e-books into print books easily?

That is what I am calling on “society” and the entrepreneurs to work on — the “Physical E-Book Kit.” First, we need to figure out what the best format would be. I’d like to see a kit that includes paper (thinner than the current inkjet/laser paper we use) precut to a certain format, let’s pick 6.5″ x 4″ as an estimated size. By offering a preset size, just like a paperback, we can allow publishers to use that size when creating their PDFs or other formatted text. We need some sort of binding mechanism — I’ve always liked what the Bind-It² corporation uses: premade binders with hot glue in the seam portion. Put your pages in the binder, put the binder in a device that seems to be a regular clothes iron, press a button, warm up that glue, wait 30 seconds for it to dry and you have a permanent bound book. I own a Bind-It machine myself for my corporate brochures and submittals, and it works great. Why isn’t the device available in a competitive atmosphere for US$10? It’s a hot plate and a plastic shell.

What is the cost of 500 sheets of thin low-quality recycled paper at that size? I can’t imagine it being more than US$5, if that. I can buy a ream (500 sheets) of great quality laser paper for US$2.99 in bulk. This is less than half that size (but a much smaller market). Can you imagine the market that could pop up for home-bound e-books if it ever came to the market?

Of course the market won’t happen. E-book publishers don’t want any teenager in his bedroom to be able to crank out duplicates of the e-book for US$3 per copy. It could hurt Amazon and Borders and the million bookstores out there. Thank you copyright for that monster which restricts the market.

I’m still willing to come up with a solution and self finance it. I can buy one of those tea-cup boilers that plugs into the outlet for US$1.99 at the dollar store. This device shouldn’t be much more expensive. If anyone has any thoughts or ideas on how we can create a home-binding kit for e-books, come and discuss it at the repudiate copyright forum.