Marching in the wrong direction - Copyright re-examined

This is really a summary of an article by Cory Doctorow (See boingboing.net). I don't claim any original ideas in this, but I do strongly agree with the arguments.

Two things we have

General purpose computers and the open internet. Society finds it difficult to have these wonderful intellectual tools around and use them. Why? Copyright.

Copyright wars are threatening the general purpose computer (let's say this is one that will run any program you want and do anything you tell it to do, no restrictions). The first threat to the open use of your computer came from DRM.

DRM grew in different ways: dongles needed to run a program, passwords. This failed because it was unpopular and because it reduced the usefulness of the software (think of a music track that would only play if a dongle was plugged in, a backup that wouldn't work at all…). Pirates quickly overcame the dongle by hacking the software and how to do this spread rapidly over the internet. Game over.

Then we had the idea of "an information economy". This could only work if some form of control was placed on the use of the information: pay €1 to rent a movie, buy a book but not lend it without further payment… and then you could sell movies and books for different prices in different countries, and so on.

This brings five problems that invented DRM:

- how to stop people moving a file from one device to another?

- how to encrypt the file so that a special program is needed to use it?

- how to stop the user saving the file while it is un-encrypted

- how to stop users discovering the keys?

- how to stop users sharing this knowledge with others?

In 1996 we had a solution: the over-arching UN's World Intellectual Property Organisations "Copyright Treaty". This made it illegal to extract secrets from unlocking programs, illegal to extract media from the protecting programs, illegal to tell others how to extract secrets and illegal to host copyrighted works or the secrets. It also created a shortcut process to remove stuff from the internet, without lawyers, judges, court orders etc. Mission Accomplished!

But no. WIPO created more problems than it solved. It made it illegal to look inside your computer while it was running, it allowed anyone to censor material on the internet on request without the courts saying anything was wrong. What happened is that reality did not conform, and copying just got easier. Broad regulations were disastrous in their implementation.

A test of whether a regulation is fit for purpose is 1) will it work, 2) will it have effects on everything else? The general purpose computer cannot be limited in this way, nor can the open internet. They have to go!!! Which is not what any of us wants. [Stop computers running Handbrake to copy DVDs, prevent web access to piratebay.com…). It all is an attack on fundamental freedom and inter-reaction. It does not prevent copyright infringement as people always find a way round anything that blocks freedom.

Yet the attack goes on in many ways attempts are being made to restrict the use of your PC and now governments are attacking the fundamental structure of the internet (the USA Stop Online Piracy Act, now being debated and sternly supported by the Motion Picture Association of America, the very ones whose business model depends on the exploitation of copyright). But these attempts at lawmaking are not the problem or the solution, The problem is copyright itself. Copyright prevents computation. This is the real war. To preserve Top 40 music, reality TV shows, bad movies, etc?

Why does this happen? Because copyright is not taken seriously by politicians. They rush through un-discussed and little understood legislation (e.g. UK's Digital Economy Act) time and time again. Or they write secret treaties like ACTA and try to smuggle it though without democratic process.

We live in a world made of computers and communications: you cannot legislate against that without destroying progress. The approach of "you can't make a general purpose computer that does not run certain programs, you cannot send files over the internet if it upsets us", is a none starter.

The copyright war, and its use to protect so-called "creative industries" (who get paid for a life time for one product they made in a couple of days and which support parasitic industries like media conglomerates, but does little for artists…) has to be won to keep our freedom. We have to use our tools - GP computers and the open internet - to shape the moral behaviour in society, giving support to the creative artists but reforming the media industry, not agree to restrict their utility.