Julianna Yau’s blog

I’ve been trying to figure out what to do with the creators’ rights Russell mentioned, which conceptually fit alongside rather than within copyright (as they stand now). I’m going to list these as other Creators’ Rights for now:

• exhibition rights
• performance rights
• moral rights
• performers’ rights (currently carved out as its own section in the Copyright Act)

It’s been a while since I’ve read the Copyright Act, and it’s thick. Have I missed any creators’ rights aside from copyright?

I was doing some reading last night, and realized that I missed the concept of Intellectual Property in my copyright brainstorm.

At this point in the exercise, it seems that copyright protects the results of intellectual property (intellectual/creative work?) which can be copied. So we’ll bump IP above copyright, and keep in mind some of the discussions about the right to copy being, obviously, applicable to copyable things. This, of course, becomes a bit of a challenge as more things become copyable… but I’ll get into that more after I categorize everything to create a starting point.

Forget for a moment the discussions of user rights, DRM and the WCT.

Forget for a moment the arguments for or against stronger or looser copyright benefiting creators.

Forget for a moment the misuse of copyright as a tool for censorship.

Forget for a moment the concepts of creators working for the benefit of the public.

Forget for a moment the shades of grey involved in creative reuse.

Now think about the word “copyright”.

Now think about the concept of copyright as simply the right to copy and nothing else.

Now fight the urge to remember all those things you’re temporarily forgetting for this exercise.

The right to copy.

…I don’t know about you, but I can’t help but wonder about the right to copy and the following:

1. The right to copy and resell.
2. The right to copy for personal use.
3. The right to copy for educational use.
4. The right to copy for creative reuse.
5. The right to copy and distribute…for profit.
6. The right to copy and distribute, without profit.

Am I missing anything in that list? I’ll break down each of those in posts to follow.

During one of my more reflective moments, I realized that I have allowed myself to try to untangle copyright issues by tugging randomly at strings rather than approaching it methodically. This is the first of a series of posts where I’ll be attempting to boil down the issues of copyright more systematically.

Note that this is a starting-point, and the list below will likely change/expand after I dissect and discuss the individual points.

Copyright – at its most basic, is simply the right to copy.

The practice and enforcement of copyright consists of:

1. The concept of the right to copy.
2. The intent to protect a creator’s ability to receive financial remuneration from their work. (is this really its own point, or is it a sub-point of the right to copy and copyright law?)
3. Copyright law – rights granted to creators legislatively.
4. The administration of copyright.
5. The impact of copyright on users.

What copyright isn’t about (but has been used to address):

1. Censorship
2. Marketing

Grey areas:

1. Business models
2. Creative reuse (also part of “impact of copyright on users”)
3. Financial stability/security of creators and the creative community [added 26-Dec-2007]

Michael Geist picks up on some press releases from groups advocating for fair copyright.

On Thursday, David Pogue wrote about The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality. This was picked up by my fellow copyright bloggers:

• The Op-Ed Editor on the Creators’ Copyright Coalition blog
• Russell McOrmond – The Generational Divide in copyright morality or creativity experience?
  
• John Degen – Kids these days

Russell argues that people are using file sharing because they are revolting against DRM. Although I think that some of them are, I think most of them just don’t feel they should be paying for music. In blog comments and social networking sites, the many kids these days are trying to rationalize their p2p activities not with DRM, but with the fact that they feel music is overpriced. Even on Fair Copyright for Canada, the Facebook group created by Michael Geist, I’m often distressed by the disgruntle music fan advocating against copyright because the money is going to The Man and The Man is charging too much.

As one of the younger copyright bloggers out there, I can tell you that when I was a frosh living on campus seven (eight? I’m losing track of time…) years ago, Napster, iMesh and sister applications were the buzz for music sharing. It wasn’t a matter of DRM, nor was it a matter of “discovering” music. It was a question of why someone would buy music if they could get it for free online. Granted, stores like iTunes and Puretracks weren’t around at that time for people to legally acquire music in digital formats, but mp3 players were horribly chunky and the mp3 format was only starting to take flight.

The impact of DRM on consumer choice is a real issue, and I’m concerned about it. But I’m more concerned about the fact that people are increasingly seeing creative works as being in the public domain as soon as it’s published.

The Art Law Blog posts on the fractional gift update from the New York Times and a NYC public photography rule update,

Amidst all of the adult reviews of the XO laptops, it’s nice to see how kids are reacting to them:

• 3 XO laptops for 3 kids
• A child’s view of the $100 laptop

William Jones reports on the XO laptop which never made it to him.

• One Laptop per Child (or geek) – photos
  
• OLPC Unboxing – photos
• XO unboxing photos from JohnnyA
• a slideshow of XO laptop pics
• an OLPC unboxing video