Cory Doctorow's Information Doesn't Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age, (2014).
I want to start by quickly stating what I found this book to be useful for in three ways:
It explains vital information on how digital content works
It illustrates a big picture of the internet, digital world, and how big business behaves behind it
it explains how music art and writing are brothers-in-arms against content censorship in a digital age
These three ideas are presented in a form a three laws, named after the author as Doctorow's Laws.
LAW I: "Any Time Someone Puts a Lock on Something That Belongs to You and Won't Give You the Key, That Lock Isn't There for Your Benefit"
Digital locks only permit specific computers that have a key to open and understand the encrypted file or media. To focus on how this affects each of us, imagine all the media that you own digitally. All of that digital information is already encrypted (using an algorithm to scramble the data) and has a lock on it. Some devices can access and read the information (because the manufacturer bought a licensing agreement), others cannot because the key is unknown to the device.
To keep you from playing a bluRay in a DVD player, for example, there is a digital lock, and the media must be compatible to play it.
Some other examples of where you can find Digital Locks:
-Ink printer cartridges
-Media players (DVD, CD-ROM, VHS etc)
-Video game consoles
-Computers
-E-readers
-Wireless Routers
-Hard-drives
The author explains that with every new lock, comes a hacker who break the locks to access the digital format, and often releases it onto the internet for gains(p 14). Digital information is not locked for very long, and this is why the digital music you have on a CD is available on the web for free.
Locks protect distributors and investors, not creators:
The companies who own that information see every illegal copy as lost revenue and look for better ways to enforce their Copyright Protection with digital locks. But Doctorow makes good reason that digital locks are not proper copyright protection (p 5), because the companies that offer those locks decide who holds the key. Hence the title of the first law; as soon as control of the locks is out of the creators hands it is no longer fair copyright protection.
Anti-Circumvention is a way some people and companies attempt to stop people from getting access to unlawful copying, outlined in the WCT (1996). It was used to stop piracy during the early years of digital media, but quickly became a way to stop people from "getting around" the digital locks.
This led to many anti-circumvention methods:
-rootkits and spyware are inserted codes of a program that go unnoticed by the operating system of the computer or the user, originating on purchased software like CD's. They were used to spy on content and stop illegal copying, but were quickly picked up for other uses like data collection.
-Patents on hardware and software that restricts use without genuine product, where new technology threatens these patents
-Restriction on consumer/users ability to break apart or alter the patents. This is why it is illegal to tamper with many devices, and manufacturers won't repair tampered products.
-Non-negotiable User Agreements, which I'm sure you're familiar, which requires consent every time you download or install a new app or product.
-Devices with automatic updates focused on anti-circumvention. Renewable digital locks, for example, ensure that the content is never compromised without notice, and can be remotely changed.
LAW II: "Fame Won't Make You Rich, But You Can't Get Paid Without It"
This second law is less about making the big-shots, as so much as appropriately finding a market for the creator in a digital world. This ultimately comes down to the Intermediaries that allow you to reach other people. Unless you take it upon yourself to do every aspect of the business in your endeavors, your business most likely relies on some form of intermediaries.
Intermediaries: What they are and what they do?
In the past we had book publishers, art galleries and music venues allowing creators to reach audiences. Today there are many different forms of these same "middle-men" that exist on the World Wide Web.
intermediaries help to access audience/customer base; in our globalized and digital world, the internet is best means to doing this on an individual level.
The companies and institutions that were initially in control of most copyrights and patents, for example the big record companies in the music industry, were subject to a shock when new technology provided more people with new means of getting music.
In retaliation, and with some well-placed lobbying, Cory Doctorow points out how these companies influence anti-circumvention laws.
"Technological intermediaries like online stores and distributors have used digital locks to shift market power from creators to themselves." (p 43)
The New Intermediaries of the digital age have flourishes, and unfortunately been pruned and weeded. While there were many new media startups, music and video providing intermediaries like iTunes and Youtube have condense into industry juggernauts who's competition has been limited. (p 69)
Many of these tech industry stars were bought by bigger companies like Amazon and Google, others that offered streaming services were subject to paying royalties to the record labels and media networks.(p 47)
The less choice there is between intermediaries, the more difficult it is to keep copyright protection in the hands of the actual creators.
Other forms of intermediaries:
-Resource providers like Internet (ISPs), electricity, or telephone service
-Online Service Providers (OSPs) which provide messaging systems, hosting, or data storage
-Common Carriers, which include some of the above but are unbiased to whom they do business with. They are also subject to more safety regulations (p 71). Cable companies, for example are not common carriers, because they share liability for copyright infringement, while phone companies are not responsible for illegal activity that takes place over their lines..
-Any service from telemarketing, to advertising, to renting, to supplying or transportation are intermediaries. Each come with fees or take a cut of the profits and benefits.
-payment processors, website domain registrars and banking
Many of the copyright owners would rather these intermediaries hold liability when content is illegally copied.
intermediary liability leads to the responsibility of filtering the content or activity for illegal or anti-circumventing behavior in the hands of the intermediaries and common-carriers. It is explained as a way for companies to regulate liabilities without doing it themselves, instead leaving the responsibility to another entity like a government such as the FCC, or onto providers like ISPs or websites like Youtube, called externalizing.
Copyright owners expect someone else to enforce the anti-circumvention laws, to protect their lost revenues, and restrict content distribution.
Content-Regulation and Censorship:
Some ways they do this is by issuing Notice and Take-Downs (NaTDs) when content violates copyright. But in immense data uploads and a constant flux of new content, sites increasingly depend on automatic NaTD's which can be easily abused to incriminate even the smallest of infractions, like song samples in the background of a party video on YouTube.
The biggest point Doctorow and I are trying to make is that these increased restrictions on content-sharing inevitably leads to censorship and that a healthy creator-audience relationship does not focus on incriminating everyday consumers and lovers of content.
LAW III: "Information Doesn't Want to Be Free, People Do"
"Industrial regulations should apply to industries, not individuals, families or private groups." (p 98)
The problem in trying to regulate fraudulent copying is that you have to filter through a lot of data transactions. Rootkits and spyware have provided very easy means to do this, but ultimately leads to mass surveillance in an attempt to catch all illegal activity. Doctorow makes a big point in noticing that customers are frequently being scrutinized and distrusted, as if they are only wanting to compromise copyright.
People are willing to pay for what they find value in:
The truth is that most people just want access to what they love; they are audiences looking for shows, not lock-picking data-thieves. There are other ways that creators and distributors can make money without controlling copies. Some include selling advertisements, merchandise, giving lectures, asking for donations, receiving commissions or having events; all these allow free flow of content, but also provides financial support.
Cultural Compromise: Sharing not Censoring
The Music industry had to compromise with digital media by using, not rejecting streaming services. Those services aren't going away, and if they don't want to be like the broadcasting companies after the record was invented, then the record labels must change with the times. Unfortunately they pulled all the strings they could, and remain in copyright control, at the cost of distrusting the consumers who didn't want to buy those songs.
Likewise, it is ridiculous to expect people to pay for products when most of the profits are siphoned from the creators, like what now happens with streaming services, or in digital media stores like iTunes. (p 47) Companies and the WTC cannot stop people from listening to each others music in our homes, so why should there be financial and criminal action when it is done digitally.
It is just as illegal for me to rip music off CD's that I rented from a public library as it is to download an identical file off a music-sharing service, but only the latter would ever incriminate me and end in a fine.
Free Flow of Information from Creator to Audience:
Creators must fight to stop extending time before works enter public domain, stop the fighting against net neutrality, stop encouraging digital locks, and stop allowing mass surveillance and censorship by corporate and bureaucratic control if we ever want to have true freedom with our information.
So instead of restricting copies, let those copies fly and spread the content. By letting content free, it puts more control in the hands of the creators and their audiences, and less in the content controlling and digital locking advocates. There is a lot of talk about transparency in the corporate world, but the opposite is happening with content and in intelligence control.