I learned something this morning -- the Free Culture Movement still hates copyrights. I probably could have guessed that without a stroll over to the National Press Club, though.

I attended this morning a press conference organized by CEA, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, EFF and CCIA to announce a new coalition targeting copyrights. In anticipation of the event, PFF published a Progress Snapshot I wrote addressing the coalition titled "Recognizing the Vibrant Market for Digital Content." But my efforts to substantively and dispassionately address the vexing issues in the copyright debate were probably not needed, for the event never reached that level of depth.

They booked the ballroom (the big room where CEOs and visiting dignitaries speak), walled off the left and right wings, and left most of the room empty of chairs. They drew, by my hand count, about 40-50 people if you include the staff of the various groups and their PR firm, Qorvis Communications (although Gary Shapiro guessed 80 from the dias; apparently it isn't just rallies where attendance numbers are inflated). They had a fair number of journalists, a dozen or so, the usual copyright beat suspects. I'm sure every one of them thought the same thing I did: "What is new(s) here?"

Well, I guess it's news that these groups, which have worked together for years in copyright battles, now have a name for their alliance -- the Digital Freedom Coalition. They also have a web site. Asked if that was it, Gary held up a Washington Post ad and promised more to come, but PK's Gigi Sohn said they hoped the web site would spur a grassroots effort. Gary hoped the "movement" could influence political races in 2008, and said "I hope what happens here is what happened in France, where riots were held." Gigi hoped the movement would be as successful in grassroots as the net neutrality campaign. (Translation for those who don't follow that issue closely -- we should expect to see lots and lots of ill-informed YouTube videos and some fiery language on blogs, and virtually no impact on the legislative calendar, other than perhaps delaying an unrelated bill here or there.)

"This is a historic day," Gary said at the beginning. "This is the day that the tides turn." Never knew one web site could be so powerful!

We heard a lot about rights, and how they need to be preserved. As a believer in copyrights, I'm sympathetic to such language. Gigi said we "must make sure these rights are being protected in the future." CCIA's Ed Black said there are things occurring that "strips the public of their rights." But it was not the right to copy they were referring to. It was the far more elusive "right," the "fair use" right, which copyright lawyers will argue isn't even a "right" in the sense of the term as it is used in copyright. But no matter.

To the extent artists have rights, they were only mentioned in passing, along the lines of "We believe artists have the right to be paid, BUT..." The three short videos on their web site tell the story. (FYI, we learned thanks to a reporter's great question that these are actors hired by Qorvis.) The fist one is a "technologist" whose hands, literally, are tied. He claims he can't sell his new widget because of the music labels; he doesn't say if he approached any content holders about licensing.

The second one is a "college student" who made a film, included a snippet from the evening news, and is now being sued. (Wouldn't these be stronger arguments if real people, real 'victims," were shown?) He doesn't say if he asked permission to use the snippet. I discussed this with a coalition leader after the event, who said this was an orphan works problem. I'm sorry, you don't have to do a very diligent search to find the owner of the evening news.

The third video is a woman with a bag over her head. Why does she have a bag over her head? It's not related to any old joke. She apparently is hiding because she "legally" downloaded a movie, put it on her laptop and her personal video player, and is afraid the studios will come after her. I asked the coalition leader why it was wrong to have one price point giving her all of those rights, and other, lower prices for fewer rights; that way, my in-laws don't have to pay for rights they'll never use. This coalition leader said such a model was "too complicated," even though you can buy an iPod with lots of different memory sizes and features; not everyone is required by law to purchase the most robust one.

To me, the most offensive video was the first one. I'm old enough to remember the miniseries "Roots." Anyone who saw that most likely was never the same again. So here is this coalition, taking a young African-American actor, binding his hands, having him talk about not letting them "tie you down," and holding his fists up in the air. To me it was evocative of Kunta Kinte, tied to a post, defiantly refusing to be called Toby while being mercilessly whipped. So when this young man curses the major labels with tied fists held high, are we to equate those labels with slave masters? Well, the CEA did call the record labels terrorists last week.

What this debate does not need is more rhetoric. But that what we got this morning. Much of it wasn't even well-informed (beyond the orphan works comment). Harold Feld of Media Access Project, who is new to this debate, actually argued that some of the copyright laws being proposed on the Hill would prevent amateurs from making fun of Senator Ted Stevens on YouTube. Gigi nodded enthusiastically at this comment but Gary, who knows better, looked pained. He's been around long enough to know the danger that comes with making an unsupportable argument. If C-SPAN were to exercise its copyright, those commenters right now could be in trouble. But nothing in any of the proposed laws addresses this issue. I wish Harold had attended our educational Congressional Seminar Friday on copyright legislation, where we had a bipartisan panel of senior Hill staffers addressing these points. Perhaps he can read the transcript when we publish it.

The dogs and the cats are going to keep going at it. I ask that participants in the debate have their facts ready, keep their dialogue at a more civilized level than my son's third-grade class, and that at the end of the day we all agree that there is merit to protecting the rights of artists to determine how their work is used. If we can nail that down, I'm extremely open-minded on the rest.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 1:08 PM | Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain, Analog Holes, DMCA, DRM & Watermarks, etc., Free Culture Movement, Legislation and Legislators, Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)