DRM isn’t code, it’s law.

How to Use CC-Licensed Work On “DRM” Devices
DVD – View on non-CSS DVD.
iPod – Install unencumbered file using iTunes. No DRM is added.
PSP – Add to memory stick then play or view normally.
PS2 – Play from CD or DVD.
PS3 – Boot in Linux and play or view.
Wii – Use unprotected media.

Devices From The Above List You Can Install GNU/Linux On

All except non-CSS DVD, which can be played by GNU/Linux, PS3, which allegedly come with GNU/Linux pre-installed, and Wii, which has not been released yet but has a GNU/Linux port in progress.

DRM For Artists And Consumers

None of the devices we have discussed need DRM permission to use CC-licensed cultural works. All can run a free operating system. Artists and consumers can use CC-licensed media on these devices without hitting the TPM restrictions.

DRM For Game Developers

Software developers for these platforms cannot allow their work that uses CC-licensed materials to be DRM-encumbered by the hardware platform vendor. Since this is a classic case of making work proprietary, using more modern copyright law than that which existed when the FSD or DFSG were drafted, this is no worse than copyleft. And given that all listed devices can run GNU/Linux, developers have the option to target this Free operating system instead.

In Conclusion

All the systems that have been mentioned during discussion of the CC-3 licence drafts as case studies for CC licences conflicting with DRM do not need DRM for media, and can run Free Software that doesn’t need DRM to use CC-licensed media in games.

Yochai Benkler describes Open Source as a methodology of “commons based peer production”. This means work made collaboratively and shared publicly by a community of equals. For Eric Raymond the virtue of Open Source is its efficiency. Open Source can create better products faster than the old closed source model. Many of the most successful software programs in use today, particularly on the internet, are Open Source.

Applying the ideas of Open Source to other projects, be they political, philosophical or artistic, is more difficult than it might seem. The idea of Open Source as a more efficient means of production has nothing to say about what Open Source politics or art should be like.

To take the example of the Open Congress event at Tate Modern, artists struggled to find an Open Source ideology to apply to their art, activists struggled to find an Open Source ideology to apply to their organisations, and theorists grinned and invoked Deleuze and Spinoza to cover the gaps.

This confusion is not a problem with the idea of Open Source. Rather it is the intended result of it. The name “Open Source” was deliberately chosen for its meaninglessness and ideological vacuity. This was intended to make the results of a very strong ideology more palatable to large corporations by disguising its origins. That ideology is Free Software.

Free Software is a set of principles designed to protect the freedom of individuals to use computer software. It emerged in the 1980s against a backdrop of increasing restrictions on the use and production of software. Free Software can therefore be understood historically and ethically as the defence of freedom against a genuine threat.

Once software users’ freedoms are protected the methodology that we know as Open Source becomes possible and its advantages become apparent. But without the guiding principles of Free Software the necessity and direction of Open Source cannot be accounted for. Open Source has no history or trajectory, it cannot account for itself or suggest which tasks are necessary or important. Free Software requires freedom, which is a practical goal to pursue.

Free Software is a historical development, a set of principles, and a set of possibilities. Free Software projects have converged on the methodology that Raymond describes as Open Source because of this. To describe this methodology as “commons based peer production” causes further confusion. There are no peers in a Free Software project. If contributions are deemed to be of acceptable quality, they are added to the project by its appointed gatekeepers. If not, they are rejected and advice given. This methodology is a structured and exclusive one, but it is meritocratic. Any contribution of sufficient quality can be accepted, and if someone makes enough such contributions they themselves may gain the trust required to become a gatekeeper.

This confusion leads to projects such as Wikipedia trying to create an open space for anyone to use as they wish. This leads to social Darwinism, not freedom, as the content of that space is determined by a battle of wills. Wikipedia has had to evolve to reproduce many of the structures of a real Free Software project to tackle these problems. But people still regard its earlier phase as a model for emulation, whereas it should serve as more of a warning.

It is therefore the condition of Freedom rather than the condition of Open Source that art should aspire to. Prior to the extension of copyright to cover art as well as literature, art was implicitly free. The physical artifacts of art were expensive to own and difficult or impossible to transport. But the content of art was free to use. Michelangelo could rip off christian and pagan imagery to paint a ceiling, generations of artists could riff on the theme of the crucifixion, and anyone could carve a statue of Venus. The representational freedom of artists, part of which is the freedom to depict and build or comment on existing culture, to continue the conversation of culture, is the freedom of art.

With photography and now electronic media, copyright and trademarks have increasingly restricted the artists freedom to continue the conversation of culture. Where once artists could paint gods and kings, they must now be careful not to paint chocolate and the colour purple or they will infringe Cadbury’s trademark. And new computer technology makes it possible to physically lock artists out of mass media imagery, closing off part of the world from art’s freedom of representation.

In this context artists are not volunteers when they take on issues of cultural freedom. They are exemplars. Free art, a free culture, is of vital importance for a free society. Part of this freedom may be ideas of “commons based peer production”. But it is important not to confuse the results of an ideology with its principles. It is these principles that artists should pursue.

How then can art learn from Free Software?

* Artists should campaigning to oppose the extension of copyright and trademark law and the reduction of fair use.

* Artists should use copyleft licensing to ensure the free circulation of ideas.

* Artists who are interested to do so can investigate the use of collaborative project management.

* Artists who are interested to do so should produce work to show the value of fair use and the public domain.

* Artists who are interested to do so should challenge copyright maximalists and censors by using mass media imagery and transgressive imagery.

* Artists should use Free Software and free (or “open”) file formats for accessibility, and help drive improvement of them.

What mistakes of Open Source can people avoid?

* Read “Free Software Free Society” and “Free Culture”, not “The Cathedral And The Bazaar”.

* Don’t try to organise your organisation in an “Open Source” way. That methodology is for content, not structure.

* Don’t try to emulate early Wikipedia’s world-writeability. Emulate the meritocratic model that Wikipedia is converting to instead.

* Don’t hide your ideology. Renaming “Free Software” to “Open Source” has cost the people who have done so the biggest software market in the US, as the military are much more comfortable with “freedom” than they are with “openness”.

What are good examples?

* Joy Garnett.

* Kollabor8.

* Open Clip Art Library.

* Remix Reading.

* Me. 😉

What does the title of this post call to mind? An indie publisher publishing a Mickey Mouse mash-up perhaps. That marxist version of Tintin possibly. You’d be wrong.

Nowdays indie publishers are more likely to be slapping an excessive copyright claim inside their books than treading on anyone else’s copyright. The “Bear” graphic novels I have claim, quite incorrectly, that you can only copy them for the purpose of review. This ignores private study in the UK and Fair Use in the US.

The most shocking example I’ve seen, shocking both for its severity and how cool the publisher doing it used to be, is Fantagraphics discalimer in the back of the new “Castle Waiting” graphic novel. Fantagraphics claim that if you want to reproduce anything from the book for review, you have to contact them for permission.

This is just wrong. Review is explicitly covered by Fair Dealing in the UK, and a standard feature of Fair Use in the US. Fantagraphics should know better, and if they do know better their attempt to reduce the scope of fair use in this way really doesn’t do them any favours. I’ve been reading Fantagraphics books for twenty years. I don’t expect this sort of thing from them.

Every indie publisher should place a notice saying “[Publisher X] respects Fair Use, including at least the right to reproduce this work for review and personal study” on their copyright page or in their copyright block. Any who refuse (possibly out of fear of offending Disney or UPS) suck like a vampire bat undr a cow. 

CopyCamp | An unconference for artists about the Internet and the challenge to copyright

CopyCamp is a place to meet people making art and making waves, an opportunity to discover how the Internet can work for artists and fans, and a chance to debate the value(s) of copyright with some of the key players. It is an event in which participants drive the programming, and debates are genuine round-tables. There are no observers: everyone has something to offer and is expected to contribute.

REMIXWORLD

Welcome! This is the first post on the REMIXWORD Blog. This is an experiment in creativity, and I am very excited.

A few details to get out of the way first…

-All the content on this blog is original and created by yours truly, Mitch Featherston.

-All of the content on this blog is free.

-All content on this blog is covered under a Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 2.5 license.

-In time, there will be a wide range of content on this blog, including texts, photos, illustrations, procedural art, fractals, textures, abstract material, sounds, video, and much more!

The main reason this blog exists is to encourage creativity. I will not be accepting content or remixes from others on this site… I am a one-person operation, and I simply don’t have the time to clear rights or deal with such things. I encourage you to create your own blog, use any material you wish from this site, and make up your own material. REMIX!!!