This weekend, I received a time-sensitive message from thecopyrightalliance.org concerning
http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/ where a draft set of Internet Governance Principles is open for public comment, just for this weekend.
This is the substance of the email sent to me:
Disclaimer: I did edit the copyright alliance email for brevity.
After jumping off the deep end, metaphorically speaking, it occurred to me to google "permissionless innovation." Naturally, my understanding of "permissionless innovation" was nowhere to be found on the Google front page, but it wouldn't be, would it?
Google prefers "permissionless innovation" and does an excellent job of convincing judges that scanning authors' copyrighted works and displaying large chunks of the works free to the public and for their own profit is "Fair Use" or "Transformative."
As I pointed out in an earlier blog, this sort of "innovation" is a lot less harmless than Google's apologists would have one believe... at least to those hoping to earn a living from their writing. It is regrettable that Judge Denny Chin changed his mind about whether or not it is preferable for authors to "opt in" when their works are being scanned, published, and distributed on the internet, rather than "opt out".
Pirate sites run on an "opt out" basis. The process of opting out is prescribed under the DMCA, and is otherwise known as a Take Down Notice (or NOCI if one is dealing with EBay.)
"Opting Out" is not the same as "Opting In." The "permissionless" innovator profits for as long as the copyright owner is unaware of the ongoing exploitation. Electronic works that have been disseminated across the internet by one bad actor can never be returned or destroyed, and as long as authors (or musicians) are disqualified from being called a "class", most authors and musicians are financially unable to afford justice or compensation. The best they can expect is that the exploitation stops for a short time.
One interesting blog should be read in the interests of fairly interpreting what the tech crowd think of permissionless innovation. Some think of Permissionless Innovation in a sense of being able to just do whatever they wish on the internet without having to obtain a permit from any regulatory body.
If one means "Permitless" when one discusses "Permissionless" perhaps the narrower term would be preferable.
The Internet Governance Principles document does talk about Human Rights, but the definitions of Human Rights omit all reference to any rights of authors, musicians, artists, photographers, movie makers etc to not be exploited. See paragraphs 2 - 8.
As one commentator on paragraph 13 points out, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27,
(2) states, “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”
Copyright is under attack, and to those who would tell copyright owners, "Suck it up," I would point out that so far, one does not have a Human Right to free entertainment.