CC-BY-SA 3.0

CC-BY-SA 3.0

We’re ordering a small batch of t-shirts for the Free Culture X 2013 conference at New York Law School on April 20th! We’ll be selling them for $20 a pop, and all volunteers get one for free.

CC-BY-SA 3.0

The designs are licensed CC-BY-SA and the SVG source files are available here to modify in inkscape.

The open access movement is a long-standing campaign in the world of research to make scholarly works freely available and reusable. One of its fundamental premises is that the progress of knowledge and culture happens scholarly works of all kinds are widely shared, not hidden in ivory towers built with paywalls and shorn by harsh legal regimes.

Scholarly journal publishers currently compile research done by professors (for free), send articles out to be peer reviewed (for free), and distribute the edited journals back to universities around the world (for costs anywhere up to $35,000 each). Subscription prices have outpaced inflation by over 250 percent in the past 30 years, and these fees go straight to the publisher. Neither the authors nor their institutions are paid a cent, and the research itself—which is largely funded by taxpayers—remains difficult to attain. Skyrocketing costs have forced university libraries—even Harvard’s, the richest American university—to pick and choose between journal subscriptions.

The result: students and citizens face barriers accessing information they need; professors have a harder time reviewing and teaching the state of the art; and cutting-edge research remains hidden behind paywalls, depriving it of the visibility it deserves.

The good news is that the open access movement is changing all this, and you can help. As scholars, researchers, and tuition-payers, students hold a powerful voice in setting the course for the future of knowledge.

Here are three quick actions you can take to help promote the open access movement and support the cultural commons:

If you have 10 minutes…

Watch this video and share it widely

Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com

This eight-minute video is an excellent primer on open access, animated by PHD Comics creator Jorge Cham and narrated by U.C. Davis biology professor Jonathan Eisen and SPARC’s Nick Shockey. It highlights all the major issues with the current scholarly publishing system, as well as the benefits of open access. It’s fun, it’s engaging, it’s informative, and it’s definitely worth sharing around.

Here’s a sample tweet:

I support #OpenAccess to research. Everybody benefits when knowledge is shared. Watch this video to learn more: https://eff.org/r.3bHx

If you have 30 minutes…

Reach out to your professors and librarians

More often than not, university professors are both teachers and researchers. As authors, they control whether their articles will be openly available, and as faculty, they have the power to establish a campus open access policy.

Likewise, librarians are the custodians of knowledge at universities. Their job rests on spreading information, and they are often the ones making decisions about journal subscriptions, best practices, and institutional repositories. (And librarians are often the most aware of the boons of open access.)

Reach out to them and let them know you care about open access. Send an email, grab them after class, or set up a meeting. Professors and librarians (and even administrators) are often willing to talk about the state of academic publishing since it defines such a big part of their lives.

Here is a sample letter:

Dear [insert name here],

I am a student interested in learning your views on scholarly publishing and the open access movement. I believe that open access to academic articles is crucial to the progress of knowledge and is in line with our school’s dedication to the public good.

Many professors have made their works widely accessible by publishing in open access journals or depositing articles into repositories like PubMed Central, arXiv, and SSRN. Also, institutions like Harvard, Duke, and the University of Kansas have established strong open access mandates and funds to cover processing costs.

I support a future where scholarly works are available to anyone around the world, and I would love to hear your thoughts. Are you free to meet in person to talk more about open access?

Best,

[your name here]

If you have an hour…

Write an op-ed for your school newspaper

Taking your voice to a public forum can be an extremely effective form of advocacy. School newspapers are around for just this purpose—and they’re often itching for content. Open access affects everybody at your school, and an opinion piece or letter to the editor calling for change is sure to garner interested comments or emails.

Here are a few examples: two from Harvard (one by student advocates and one by Robert Darnton, the director of their library); two from Yale (one general call to action and one written in light of Aaron Swartz’ death—both, in full disclosure, written by myself); and an editorial from Duke.

Explaining open access and calling for action in a way that appeals to members of your school’s community—all within 700 words—is a task that requires some give and take. Before writing your op-ed, ask yourself, “What is the key point I want my audience to remember?” Narrowing the scope of your piece can help make your opinion more readable, approachable, and relevant. It may help to reach out to librarians for attention-grabbing facts, such as how much your university spends on subscriptions or the cost of your most expensive journal.

If you are interested in doing more…

• Organize a tabling effort, talking to students and handing out fliers

• If your institute doesn’t have an open access repository, advocate for one where researchers and students can deposit scholarly works. An up-to-date list of current open access repositories can be found at the OpenDOAR project.

• Push for an institutional open access mandate, whereby professors grant your university the right to make their works publicly available via your campus repository. A list of institutions with open access mandates can be found on the ROARMAP project.

• Join a student group that advocates access to knowledge, such as Students for Free Culture and Universities Allied for Essential Medicines. A list of relevant student groups can be found at the Right to Research Coalition website.

• Sign up for EFF action alerts. We’ll keep you updated about opportunities to support national legislation requiring free access to publicly funded research.

QuestionCopyright.org has just published this guest editorial by Kira, who serves on Students for Free Culture’s Board of Directors. This is a follow-up to “Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0” but instead of focusing on the problems with NC and ND, the editorial draws upon defenses of NC and ND to highlight how they go against the stated mission of Creative Commons. You can also read the original post.

A few weeks ago, Students for Free Culture published a detailed and thoroughly cited post calling for the retirement of proprietary license options in Creative Commons 4.0. Already the story has been picked up by Techdirt and Slashdot and it has spurred lots of heated debate around the value of the NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND) licenses to Creative Commons and to rightsholders, but not a lot of discussion has been framed around the official mission and vision of Creative Commons.

Creative Commons has responded to the post stating that adopters of NC and ND licenses “may eventually migrate to more open licenses once exposed to the benefits that accompany sharing,” maintaining that these licenses have been a strategic measure to approach that goal. The name Creative Commons itself highlights the aim of enabling a network of ideas and expressions that are commonly shared and owned or, as we usually call it, the commons. To be very explicit, one need not look any further than Creative Commons’ mission statement (added emphasis) to see that this is what they work for:

Creative Commons develops, supports, and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation.

 

Our vision is nothing less than realizing the full potential of the Internet — universal access to research and education, full participation in culture — to drive a new era of development, growth, and productivity.

The NC and ND clauses are non-free/proprietary because they retain a commercial and/or creative monopoly on the work. Legally protected monopolies by any other name are still incompatible with the commons and undermine commonality. There is no question as to the purpose of Creative Commons or the definition of free cultural works. What Students for Free Culture has offered is not primarily a critique of proprietary licenses, but a critique of Creative Commons’ tactics in providing them. The idea that the non-free licenses “may eventually migrate to more open licenses once exposed to the benefits that accompany sharing” is a reasonable one, but one that deserves careful reflection after a decade of taking that approach.

This line of reasoning is intuitive in a permission culture: that license options which sound good to rightsholders will lure them into giving up some restrictions licenses and becoming more comfortable with the idea of fully liberating their works. Encouraging the use of free culture licenses then becomes a problem of education and communication of values, and the question then becomes whether or not the proprietary licenses make that task easier or more difficult.

Some argue that rightsholders are not ready for free culture and that they need to be eased into it. Anecdotal arguments supporting this idea say that people switch to free licenses from the non-free ones once they learn about how problematic NC and NC are, but there is no evidence to support this claim. We have no idea how strong Creative Commons’ campaign for free licenses would be if they only provided free culture licenses from the start, and Students for Free Culture suggest that in the current climate of copyright and intellectual property maximalism, what we need is to stretch what is accepted as reasonable position to take, not sit comfortably within it.

It may be counter-intuitive that only offering free culture licenses would bring more rightsholders to liberate their works over time, but if we consider that this would allow Creative Commons to have a cohesive message behind the licenses they do offer, we can imagine their educational materials could be much more powerful. More importantly, they would be expanding the perceived realm of possibility. Students for Free Culture argue that the proprietary licenses are mainly used because they are misunderstood and function to reinforce those misconceptions rather than move rightsholders towards free culture. It is analogous to telling people to vote for the lesser of two evils to ease them out of supporting a two-party political system. It may seem practical and appear to bring more steady and reliable change, but it only serves to reinforce the status quo.

The popular criticisms of the post are actually very revealing of this very idea.

All of the defenses of proprietary clauses which have been raised in the recent debate boil down to these types of arguments: that everything should be CC-licensed because it is better than “all rights reserved”; that Creative Commons needs to support all the options that rightsholders want; that not providing more license options is restricting freedom; and that the non-free clauses do serve worthwhile purposes even if they are oppose free culture. These arguments are all problematic in ways either explicitly mentioned or linked to from the original post, and underscore how much extra work this makes for Creative Commons.

The everything-should-be-CC-licensed argument:

• “Big media could adopt NC or ND, but not free culture licenses”
• “So much is already similarly available, it should all be CC”
• “The purpose of Creative Commons is to provide a diversity of options”
• “Creative Commons isn’t an ideological organization about free culture”

These arguments fail to see the mission of Creative Commons and ignores that for years they have been moving away from providing more options in favor of promoting their free culture licenses. Creative Commons does not exist to provide a licensing option for every possible desire of rightholders, nor does it exist to slap a CC logo on every work released under terms similar to what license options they could or currently do offer. We can keep licenses that big media may use for the sake of meaningless adoption, or we can focus on the licenses that subvert intellectual monopolies. Creative Commons could have moved towards being a highly-flexible modular licensing platform that enabled rightsholders to fine-tune the exact rights they wished to grant on their works, but there’s a reason that didn’t happen. We would be left with a plethora of incompatible puddles of culture. Copyright already gives rightsholdors all of the power. Creative Commons tries to offer a few simple options not merely to make the lives of rightsholders easier, but to do so towards the ends of creating a commons. By its very name, Creative Commons does promote an ideology.

The freedom of choice argument:

• “Everyone’s freedom should be respected”
• “This is an effort to dictate our license choices”
• “Promoting freedom by taking away choices is hypocritical”
• “This is just one definition of freedom”

Right off the bat, these arguments miss the fact that the old proprietary licenses will still exist and can be forked and updated, but that is beside the point. They not only confuse different freedoms but, in doing so, also value the legally granted right to restrict freedom over the freedom to be free from those very restrictions. This is the foundation of permission culture and the antithesis of the commons.

The NC-and-ND-clauses-are-useful argument:

• “They serve a purpose even though they aren’t free”
• “A vague protection is better than nothing”
• “These protect us from big media stealing our work”
• “Not everyone wants to use a free culture license”

These arguments all seem to be built around the popular discontent with today’s draconian copyright regime, yet they are at the same time apologetic towards the permission culture which enables it. While NC and ND appear to empower creators to retain control over their work, it is crucial to remember what copyright is: a legal construct of private property and, more specifically, a monopoly. Distributing these innumerable government-granted monopolies, even to individuals, only leads to monopolistic organizations that amass ownership and control over huge sums of our culture. Again, Creative Commons could have provided a totally customizable framework for rightsholders to pick what rights to grant for each of their works, but copyright already gives them that power. Making it easier to do only validates the fears that made copyright what it is today. Take, for example, the Free Software Foundation. If they had advocated for any proprietary software/licenses that were anything “better” than the terms that Windows and OS X are distributed under, the world would not be as open to the idea of free software as it is today.

These three types of arguments exclude those that have been made purely concerned with the interests of rightsholders and the many many interesting and creative misunderstandings of the license terms and enforceability. This all serves to indicate that Creative Commons’ current strategy is working against all of the great work they do promoting a freer culture. People don’t need to be convinced that copyright is a broken system. Instead, Creative Commons should be focusing on affecting what people believe is an acceptable position, showing the world that much more is possible, and proving that we can and are building a free culture.

Over the past several years, Creative Commons has increasingly recommended free culture licenses over non-free ones. Now that the drafting process for version 4.0 of their license set is in full gear, this is a “a once-in-a-decade-or-more opportunity” to deprecate the proprietary NonCommercial and NoDerivatives clauses. This is the best chance we have to dramatically shift the direction of Creative Commons to be fully aligned with the definition of free cultural works by preventing the inheritance of these proprietary clauses in CC 4.0′s final release.

The concept of free culture has its roots in the history of free software (popularly marketed as “open source software”), and it’s an important philosophical underpinning to the CC license set. As with free software, the word “free” in free culture means free as in freedom, not as in price, but Creative Commons has not set or adhered to any standard or promise of rights or taken any ethical position in their support of a free culture. The definition of free cultural works describes the necessary freedoms to ensure that media monopolies cannot form to restrict the creative and expressive freedoms of others and outlines which restrictions are permissible or not. Although Creative Commons provides non-free licenses, the fact that they recognize the definition reveals a willingness and even desire to change.

Creative Commons started off by focusing much more on flexibility for rightsholders, but since its early days, the organization has moved away from that position. Several projects and licenses have been retired such as the Sampling, Founders’ Copyright, and Developing Nations License. It’s obvious that something like Founders’ Copyright which keeps “all rights reserved” for 14 years (before releasing into the public domain) is not promoting free culture. Giving rightsholders more options and easier ways to choose what rights they want to give others actually reinforces permission culture, creates a fragmented commons, and takes away freedom from all cultural participants.

What’s wrong with NC and ND?

The two proprietary clauses remaining in the CC license set are NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND), and it is time Creative Commons stopped supporting them, too. Neither of them provide better protection against misappropriation than free culture licenses. The ND clause survives on the idea that rightsholders would not otherwise be able protect their reputation or preserve the integrity of their work, but all these fears about allowing derivatives are either permitted by fair use anyway or already protected by free licenses. The NC clause is vague and survives entirely on two even more misinformed ideas. First is rightsholders’ fear of giving up their copy monopolies on commercial use, but what would be considered commercial use is necessarily ambiguous. Is distributing the file on a website which profits from ads a commercial use? Where is the line drawn between commercial and non-commercial use? In the end, it really isn’t. It does not increase the potential profit from work and it does not provide any better protection than than Copyleft does (using the ShareAlike clause on its own, which is a free culture license).

The second idea is the misconception that NC is anti-property or anti-privatization. This comes from the name NonCommercial which implies a Good Thing (non-profit), but it’s function is counter-intuitive and completely antithetical to free culture (it retains a commercial monopoly on the work). That is what it comes down to. The NC clause is actually the closest to traditional “all rights reserved” copyright because it treats creative and intellectual expressions as private property. Maintaining commercial monopolies on cultural works only enables middlemen to continue enforcing outdated business models and the restrictions they depend on. We can only evolve beyond that if we abandon commercial monopolies, eliminating the possibility of middlemen amassing control over vast pools of our culture.

Most importantly, though, is that both clauses do not actually contribute to a shared commons. They oppose it. The fact that the ND clause prevents cultural participants from building upon works should be a clear reason to eliminate it from the Creative Commons license set. The ND clause is already the least popular, and discouraging remixing is obviously contrary to a free culture. The NonCommercial clause, on the other hand, is even more problematic because it is not so obvious in its proprietary nature. While it has always been a popular clause, it’s use has been in slow and steady decline.

Practically, the NC clause only functions to cause problems for collaborative and remixed projects. It prevents them from being able to fund themselves and locks them into a proprietary license forever. For example, if Wikipedia were under a NC license, it would be impossible to sell printed or CD copies of Wikipedia and reach communities without internet access because every single editor of Wikipedia would need to give permission for their work to be sold. The project would need to survive off of donations (which Wikipedia has proven possible), but this is much more difficult and completely unreasonable for almost all projects, especially for physical copies. Retaining support for NC and ND in CC 4.0 would give them much more weight, making it extremely difficult to retire them later, and continue to feed the fears that nurture a permission culture.

Why does this need to happen now?

People have been vocal about this issue for a long time, and awareness of the problematic nature of ND and NC has been spreading, especially in the areas of Open Educational Resources (such as OpenCourseWare) and Open Access to research. With the percentage of CC-licensed works that permit remixing and commercial use having doubled since Creative Commons’ first year, it’s clear that there is a growing recognition that the non-free license clauses are not actually necessary, or even good.

Both NC and ND are incompatible with free licenses and many, if not the vast majority, of NC and ND licensed works will not be relicensed after CC 4.0, so the longer it takes to phase out those clauses, the more works will be locked into a proprietary license. There will never be a better time than this. Creative Commons has been shifting away from non-free licenses for several years, but if it does not abandon them entirely it will fail as a commons and divide our culture into disconnected parts, each with its own distinct licence, rights and permissions granted by the copyright holders who ‘own’ the works.

In December of 2006, Creative Commons implemented a subtle difference between the pages for free culture and non-free licenses: green and yellow background graphics (compare Attribution-ShareAlike to Attribution-NonCommercial). This was also when they began using license buttons that include license property icons, so that there would be an immediate visual cue as to the specific license being used before clicking through to the deed. In February of 2008, they began using a seal on free culture licenses that said “Approved for Free Cultural Works“, which was another great step in the right direction. In July of this year, Creative Commons released a completely redesigned license chooser that explicitly says whether the configuration being used is free culture or not. This growing acknowledgement of free vs. non-free licenses was a crucial development, since being under a Creative Commons license is so often equated with being a free cultural work. Now, retiring the NC and ND clauses is a critical step in Creative Commons’ progress towards taking a pro-freedom approach.

The NC and ND clauses not only depend on, but also feed misguided notions about their purpose and function. With that knowledge, it would be a mistake not to retire them. Creative Commons should not depend on and nurture rightsholders’ fears of misappropriation to entice them into choosing non-free CC licenses. Instead of wasting effort maintaining and explaining a wider set of conflicting licenses, Creative Commons as an organization should focus on providing better and more consistent support for the licenses that really make sense. We are in the perfect position to finally create a unified and undivided commons. Creative Commons is at a crossroads.This decisive moment will in all likelihood bind their direction either being stuck serving the fears that validate permission culture or creating a shared commons between all cultural participants.

We don’t want the next generation of the free culture movement to be saddled with the dichotomies of the past; we want our efforts to be spent fighting the next battles.

What should we do?

There have been lots of discussions on the CC-license list about promoting free culture licenses and discouraging proprietary ones. A couple of proposals have been made to encourage the use of free licenses over the non-free ones.

One is a rebranding of the non-free licenses. They could be differentiated in a much more significant way than it currently is, such as referring to NC and ND as the “Restricted Commons” or “Limited Commons” or some variant thereof. License buttons could also be color coded in the same way that license pages are (green for free culture licenses, yellow for proprietary ones). Another proposal is to rename NonCommercial to something more honest such as CommercialMonopoly.

While these proposals and other ideas are certainly worth supporting, we should not lose sight on our ultimate goal: for Creative Commons to stop supporting non-free licenses. We should not feel like this is impossible to achieve at this point, as it will be much more difficult to do later. More people than ever are starting to advocate against proprietary CC licenses, and there is clear evidence and reasoning behind these arguments. We have the power to prevent the inclusion of non-free clauses in this upcoming version of the Creative Commons License set.

To join us in resisting the inclusion of proprietary clauses in CC 4.0, there are a few important things you can do:

This is a summary of a project I discussed at the 2011 Students for Free Culture Unconference. I’d like to thank SFC for putting the conference together, and for inviting me to publish this post on their blog.

No society that kept its laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law controls. But it does so justly only when visibly. And law is visible only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates. . . .
-Lawrence Lessig, Introduction to Richard Stallman’s Free Software, Free Society.

More must be done to increase the availability, and the visibility, of justice.

Whatever more is, I decided to be one of the people doing it. That decision is behind both my application to the David A. Clarke School of Law (DCSL) and my insistence on the creation of an Illustrated Law Journal (ILJ) while there. My passion for the idea of collecting, editing, and publishing visual illustrations of laws and legal concepts stems from the beliefs articulated in the following stanza from DCSL founders Edgar and Jean Camper Cahn’s Credo, This I Believe, that informs DCSL’s mission.

And I believe the day will come when the monopoly
      over law and legal knowledge -- the lawyers' monopoly
      the law schools' monopoly -- will be broken
When men and women and yes, even children will know that which
      is expected of them and that which they can expect of others:
            to refrain from harm
            to honor their word
            to respect the dreams of others and the right of others
                 to dream in their own way
	                                         This I believe

The opportunity to know what is expected of you, and what you should expect of others should not require a law degree. We can make the text of laws more freely available to people distributionally, but until those laws are also available conceptually, there’s room for injustice in impenetrably worded, opaque laws.

What is it?

A periodic online and print journal – each issue covering a single legal topic – that will help jurists understand their work, and interested laypeople understand the laws that affect them.

What sorts of things will go in?

It could be anything that clearly illustrates a law or legal concept. Some of the things I expect we’ll publish are venn diagrams, flow charts, cartoons, and street sign type images.

What does the Journal Need? (non-exhaustive)

• A website where the editorial process can take place.
• Illustrations and ideas for illustrations of laws and legal concepts.
• While we do have several ideas for topic areas, we’d love to have more, especially from non-jurists

Where can I learn more and contribute?

The ILJ has a google group here, documents here and an Identi.ca group at !ILJ.

Tim Hwang has a way of clearly articulating the path forward for Free Culture. Tim, formerly of Harvard Free Culture and now a Berkman Center researcher, recently gave a talk up at the University of Alberta that in many ways is a follow-up to his blog post prior to Free Culture 2008 that probed the future of Students for Free Culture.

In it, Tim posits that the copyfight – the effort started by Stallman, expanded by Lessig & traditionally undertaken by Students for Free Culture – is largely over. There are certainly important issues still at play in that cause, but as Tim explains in the speech here and slides below, the cause of digital freedom has evolved to include much more.

Three important changes in the digital ecosystem have given rise to new issues. In Tim’s thoughtful reckoning, cloud computing, increased bandwidth and broad web services have drastically changed the battle from one of well-structure copyright to one that involves previously unconsidered challenges including:

• Privacy, interoperability and portability
• Filtration
• Access to knowledge

As he notes, the Open University Campaign has positioned SFC to deal with many of these new battles for online freedom, but as we continue to move forward, it will be important to bear in mind the lessons Tim outlines. So take a listen and chime in with your comments!

It’s been about six months since the Free Culture 2008 Conference—time flies! Berkeley is happy to report that the conference was a great success. We got some good press, made some great connections, and generated a little money for the national organization. We were also treated to a barn-burner of a talk by Larry Lessig and finally got everyone together in one room. We’re so grateful to everyone who made the trip and can’t wait for the next event; we hope you had as much fun in the Bay Area as we do on a regular basis. Get hyphy.

What follows is an extremely tardy wrap-up post—call it a post-mortem. Many folks wondered where to find resources, so read on to see what’s available online.

Videos of the conference are now available in three ways. First, check out Free Culture @ Berkeley’s Blip channel (http://freecultureberkeley.blip.tv). Like any good video site, Blip will let you embed the videos on your blog and also download them for archival. They’re available in OGG at archive.org—search “free culture.” Alternately, you can check out FreeCulture.tv on Miro. The videos are licensed CC-BY, so go nuts—spread them all over the world, chop and screw them, burn them on DVDs and sell them. Just make sure SFFC gets a shout out. If you’d like source files, drop us a line at berkeley@freeculture.org.

Also, Alaskan FC-warrior Jacob Caggiano has some great interviews from the conference up on his Vimeo page.

Some great summary posts were written by Tim Hwang, Kevin Donovan, and others (if you’re ever in Mexico and need a Spanish translation of Lessig’s speech, look no further).

Lastly, you should also check out the fc2008 Flickr pool (just watch out: we share #hashtags with FurryCon 2008). I’m particularly fond of the lewd dancing at the afterparty—thanks again to Lone Wolf, ripley, Kid Kameleon, and Refusenik for spinning on the one’s and two’s.

By now everyone who needs reimbursement for travel should have received a check. If you haven’t, contact berkeley@freeculture.org and we’ll check the status. We apologize again for the delay in processing; the travel grants made possible by our generous sponsors Google and Mozilla required that we work with UC Berkeley’s business services, resulting in a longer-than-average reimbursement period. It’s definitely something that SFFC will be working to improve on for future events.

Speaking of future events—it’s about the right time to start plotting the next one. What should we focus on? Who should be there? What are our goals? Speak your mind in the comments!

(photocred: thanks, mecredis!)

One day conference dedicated to the commons! This event brings together both the commons movement in the copyright realm and the commons movement in the environmental realm to discuss the history and future of the commons and a legal systems that can protect or harms the commons.

This seminar stitches together many different threads of the commons: the historical perspective in a contemporary context, creative and artistic commons, software and “intellectual property” including patenting of life forms, personal and political commons, natural resources, media and telecommunications commons. The seminar beckons to lawyers, professors and judges whose legal training is framed by property rights and human rights, computer geeks and “techies,” humanists, political activists, food activists, and creative communities of various stripes.

Speakers include:
Eben Moglen- Founding Director, Software Freedom Law Center, Columbia School of Law
Margaret Chon – Professor for the Pursuit of Justice Seattle University School of Law and active member of the A2K movement
Cindy Cohn – Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Laura Nader – Professor University of California Berkeley
Brian Rowe – Students for Free Culture Activist and Founder Freedom for IP
Beth Elpern Burrows – The Edmonds Institute
Nives Dolšak – Associate Professor University of Washington
Mark Leier – Professor Simon Fraser University
Robert Siegal – Center for Social Justice
Peter Linebaugh – Professor University of Toledo
Louis E. Wolcher - University of Washington School of Law
Steven A. Reisler – Steven A. Reisler PLLC and NLG Activist

Location:
Seattle University School of Law
1191 E. Columbia
Sullivan Hall, Corner of 12th at E. Columbia
Seattle, WA 98122-1090

Date: Friday March 13th

The cost to Students is free!
Read more at the Law of the Commons Web Site

Register at Seattle Univeristy CLE site

Last Friday, TechCrunch posted an article provocatively titled, Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data To the RIAA?. Based on a friend-of-a-friend tip, the piece alleged that Last.fm had “handed over” user data to facilitate the identification of U2 fans with leaked copies of the band’s forthcoming album, No Line on the Horizon. (This was before Universal Music Group copped to leaking the album and U2 started streaming it voluntarily.)

Within an hour and a half – midnight for the London-based Last.fm – the allegations were debunked. Employees responded to concerned readers directly,

“[Last.fm would] never personally identify our users to a third party.”

Last.fm’s reputation is saved, TechCrunch are lying liars, the RIAA still sucks, and then I found five dollars. Right?

Not quite. Last.fm, purchased by CBS Interactive in 2007, represents the tension driving this era in computing culture, a constant negotiation of value and privacy. I’ll enrich your database by telling you how many times I’ve rewound Las Mulas De Moreno today (five and counting) and you tell me about similar artists to obsess over tomorrow.

Billboard and Soundscan look like halfblind guesswork in comparison with the charts made possible by this kind of deep data collection. Last.fm’s revenue may draw largely from advertising but if they were to start selling custom data packages to interested corporations, would anyone stop scrobbling?

Like many FCers, I was initially so alarmed at the notion that Last.fm would “hand over” user data that I ignored the fact that Last.fm’s core operations are basically in a constant state of dry snitching on its users. Want to know who is listening to “Las Mulas”? Click the Listeners tab, and start crawling profiles for identifying information.

For some of us, this is reason enough to cease participation. In fact, several FC members have already begun brainstorming a non-commercial, decentralized alternative. Others propose ruining the data reported to Last.fm by deliberately spoofing the scrobbler software with falsified metadata.

But what about those FCers who use Last.fm, enjoy the services it provides, and accept its exchange of privacy for value? Do we demand they sacrifice this pleasure? To what end?

Rather than struggle against enjoyment of Last.fm, what if we were to maximize it? What would an enthusiastic embrace and exploration of a service like Last.fm reveal? Would we find its boundaries and be inspired to develop a successor with even greater capacity? Would it reveal new entrepreneurial opportunities that better protect user privacy without sacrificing the potential benefits of an enormous dataset?

Is this a positive, proactive, fanatic activism? Or surrender to an uncritical consumption?

BOOMBOX from Ely Kim on Vimeo.

Consider the case of YouTube, where thousands of people have been recently burned by spurious copyright claims. Every day YouTube users create and upload videos like the one above that incidentally infringe one or more copyrights. Quite often the videos – again, like the one above – are disabled because of a DMCA takedown notice. If the email we receive at YouTomb is any indication, these users rarely intended to flaunt the law or make a stand for free culture. Rather, they come to us confused at being disciplined for behaving in a way that felt ethically appropriate.

When large copyright holding organizations attempt to withdraw from popular web services, as Warner Music Group has done with both Last.fm and YouTube, they can no longer paint the users of those services as pirates, outsiders, or radicals as they once did with Napster and now do with the Pirate Bay. Instead, their withdrawal brands them perverse, confused, and out of step with widely accepted social practice.

What implications might this reversal have for the free culture activist?

Do we want those YouTube users to familiarize themselves with the arcane constraints of copyright law and the numerous variations we’ve made available? Or should the users be left alone and the regulatory institutions be compelled to struggle with a set of laws and expectations ill-suited to contemporary media ethics?

Imagine a free culture pro-activism that consistently supports, encourages, defends, and extends the everyday practices of users of services like Last.fm and YouTube. What might we gain through such radical participation?

The following is a post from a guest, Ian Elwood, who has been involved in social justice movements for some time and has tried to bring the Free Software and Free Culture movements to them. We post it here because it expresses a voice in the discussion of free network services. Indymedia London recently considered questions very much like these.  Ian Elwood’s thoughts follow.

The Internet is being used as the primary organizing tool by people in the global social justice and environmental movements, but many do not fully realize how integral technological and cultural freedoms are to having a sustainable activist movement.

As former Project Manager for CorpWatch‘s corporate accountability wiki, Crocodyl.org, I noticed that many aspects of interacting with a small but focused online community seemed contradictory. The purpose of the project is to increase transparency, accountability and respect for human rights by holding corporations accountable, yet I grappled with the lack of adoption of tools that were analogous to those aims. I wanted to find out if these themes were consistent in other online communities. My participation in a similar online community, WiserEarth.org, also showed that many activists in environmental and social justice circles are not as insistent about their choice of media and technology as they are about what kind of foods they eat, or the clothes that they wear. Although people insist on organic foods, fabrics and biodegradable soap, they tend to settle for less than what Mozilla has dubbed organic software.

WiserEarth is a site dedicated to creating connections, fostering collaboration and sharing knowledge in the environmental sustainability, indigenous rights and social justice movements. Renowned environmentalist, journalist and author Paul Hawken describes the current movement of people working towards these goals in his book, “Blessed Unrest.” His strategy for creating a directory of organizations that make up this movement was the beginning of a bottom up and global effort—now represented by WiserEarth.org. The site grew from his idea and is now a thriving online community and social networking space with over 17,000 members and 110,000 organizations. Through participating in conversations with WiserEarth staff and community members, a few common themes presented themselves.

Though its content is Creative Commons, its software is GPL and it is working on creating an open API, the majority of the community members on WiserEarth, as with most online communities, do not see the bigger picture of why these measures are important to maintaining the Internet as an independent medium where free speech, privacy and human rights are protected. The staff of WiserEarth understands these issues, but WiserEarth’s new feature development process stresses that the users of the WiserEarth platform should be the main drivers of new features. WiserEarth receives constant feedback about what is useful, what works and what doesn’t, and they attempt to accommodate community member requests as a point of process. Unfortunately, the community regularly requests bells and whistles without regard for more abstract considerations such as the negative social consequences of certain technologies.

The site regularly gets requests to integrate proprietary software into its codebase, create applications within closed social networks, and republish copyrighted content outside the terms of fair use. These things are antithetical to the work that WiserEarth wants to facilitate, because its mission is to help the global community connect, collaborate and share knowledge without restrictions. A copyrighted, proprietary and closed Internet—or online community—cannot do this. Often times selecting a free (as in freedom) tool is not considered, because the gravity of this situation is not felt by the community member making the request.

In this case and in others, I would like to see more community members making requests for integration of software, standards and other related tools that are held to a higher ethical standard. WiserEarth has shown a commitment to the underlying values of the larger free culture and open source movements in its actions, but has not formally made a commitment to the sole use of free and open source tools. It would be good for this commitment to be made, but action will not be taken unless there is a groundswell of community support for ethical web tools.

With a “Yes We Can” attitude on the mind this month, I urge people in the Free Culture community to help WiserEarth by being counted among its members. It would be helpful to have Free Culture people join discussions and educate people about open source, free software and the importance of keeping the Internet free for everyone. WiserEarth is an excellent platform for these discussions, because its members represent a large segment of the global social justice movement—namely the ones who are using Internet technology as a part of their social justice organizing. It is a good wedge community for educating and building more connections between communities advocating for software freedom, media justice, social justice and free culture.