Something I’ve been wondering about for a long while is Bible translations. To see what I mean, open up your bible to the front, where it tells you the publishing details. You’ll probably find something like this:

The ESV text may be quoted (in written, visual, or electronic form) up to and inclusive of one thousand (1000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verse quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

And so on and so forth. My question is why?

Think about what the publisher is saying. Crossway (or Zondervan, or Tyndale, or any other Christian publisher) is basically saying “We own the rights to this work, and we’re going to allow you to use portions of this work under these conditions, where ‘this work’ is ‘the Word of God’.” See the problem I have with it now?

I am essentially suggesting that the publishers should free the modern translations of the Bible. Of course, you may be wondering why I believe that it is absolutely necessary. I hold the same beliefs about other currently copyrighted material. This is not to say that copyright is bad, just that the current “protection” that copyright entails is currently immensely excessive.

Quoting

You may argue that the publishers are quite generous to allow us to quote a thousand whole verses for whatever purposes we may want. Yes, a thousand verses is a lot and I may never quote a thousand verses in a work. The publishers aren’t hurting anyone. Sounds familiar.

I believe that it’s wrong in principle for these publishers to be putting limits on how many times they allow you to quote the Bible. That’s a tad absurd, don’t you think? Oh no, I’ve quoted Jesus too many times in my book, and now Zondervan is going to sue me for copyright infringement!

KJV

Of course, we have one English translation that is currently in the public domain: the King James Version. We can copy the KJV to our hearts’ content. The problem with that is that most people today don’t particularly enjoy reading the KJV. The point of alternative translations is to make the Bible more accessible, and the fact that the KJV is the only English translation that is free does not help that cause.

Derivatives Works

There’s a great open source program called SWORD. It’s meant to be used as a Bible study tool that’s free for all and can be run on all platforms. The only problem is that it can only use the KJV since that’s the only free translation. As a result, its usefulness decreases sharply when prospective users find that the NIV is locked. A great project with a great goal becomes irrelevant.

Money

Translating the Bible costs money. Yes, it does, but just because a translation is free doesn’t mean that the publishers won’t make any money. Publishers can still sell books. Just look at the KJV, even without any extras and just the text, people still buy it. Publishers can free modern translations and still sell Bibles. The only reason for publishers not to release translations is because other publishers will publish them. In my mind, that is not a good enough reason to keep the translation locked away.

Bread

And so we face, in the twenty-first century, a very basic moral question. If you could make as many loaves of bread as it took to feed the world, by baking one loaf and pressing a button, how could you justify charging more for bread than the poorest people could afford to pay? If the marginal cost of bread is zero, then the competitive market price should be zero too. But leaving aside any question of microeconomic theory, the moral question, “What should be the price of what keeps someone else alive if it costs you nothing to provide it to them”, has only one unique answer. There is no moral justification for charging more for bread that costs nothing than the starving can pay. Every death from too little bread under those circumstances is murder. We just don’t know who to charge for the crime.

We live there now.
Eben Moglen, Software and Community in the Early 21st Century

“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Jesus, Matthew 4:4 (ESV)

Right now, I could download the entire text of some translation and fill my 250 GB external drive with copies of it and it would cost me nothing but my computer and the few minutes the script would run. The cost to reproduce any sort of information now is so low that most of us could probably generate a few hundred in a day if we tried.

So why is the most important book ever kept under the control of a few publishers?

Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against our will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in our names. We oppose any copyright reforms that would make it easier for record companies to do this. The government should repeal provisions of the Copyright Act that allow labels to unfairly punish fans who share music for non-commercial purposes with statutory damages of $500 to $20,000 per song.

Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels’ control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music or laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. The government should not blindly implement decade-old treaties designed to give control to major labels and take choices away from artists and consumers. Laws should protect artists and consumers, not restrictive technologies. Consumers should be able to transfer the music they buy to other formats under a right of fair use, without having to pay twice.

The Canadian Music Creators Coalition is comprised of such notables as the Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Broken Social Scene, Sloan, Andrew Cash and Bob Wiseman (Co-founder Blue Rodeo).

The fact is that it wouldn’t matter whether any of his relatives were alive or not anyway, since they wouldn’t be able to get any of that money we think they are entitled to. Why? Because of a nifty little thing called the Public Domain.

Shakespeare was born in 1564. He is considered to be the greatest writer in the English language. His plays are performed all over the world. After four hundred years, his works have become embedded into our culture. Today, there are countless editions of Shakespeare’s plays. At our school not everyone uses the same ones. Our class was lucky and got the elegant green hardbound copies of the Falcon Shakespeare.

But until 1774, Shakespeare’s works were under the control of one publisherLessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. pp.85-94. Jacob Tonson, who controlled the copyright to Shakespeare’s work, was part of a small group of publishers called the Conger. They controlled the right to publisher, essentially copy, the works they held the rights to. As a result, they kept the price of classic literature high.

Basically, the publishers were controlling the spread of knowledge. This is around the time of the Enlightenment, where the popular notion is that knowledge should be free. Therefore, the British Parliament decided to limit the amount of time that publishers held the right to publish a work. This was 1710.

By the time the 1730s rolled around, the publishers tried to get Parliament to extend the term. They didn’t. So what do you do when you can’t get the government to do anything? Go to the courts. And the courts gave them what they wanted: copyright that lasted forever.

Then, in 1774, that decision was overturned by the House of Lords, the highest court of the day.

Before the case of Donaldson v. Beckett, there was no clear idea of a public domain in England. Before 1774, there was a strong argument that common law copyrights were perpetual. After 1774, the public domain was born. For the first time in Anglo-American history, the legal control over creative works expired, and the greatest works in English history—including those of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson, and Bunyan—were free of legal restraint.Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. p.93

After this decision, culture in England was freed from the control of the publishers. As a result, we can look up Shakespeare’s work online and search for something in them. We can have a wide variety of commentary and notes in the different editions of Shakespeare. The works of Shakespeare have spread because of the Public Domain.

Back then, copyright was in effect for fourteen years, renewable once if the author was alive, for a total of 28 years and only controlled the right to make copies of the work. After that, the work was released into the Public Domain, free for anyone to use. It was free for anyone to rip apart and study. It was free for anyone to mix and create something new out of it.

Today, copyright lasts for life and seventy years after that. Today, copyright not only controls the right to make copies of the work, it also controls the right to distribute, the right to perform, the right to control the creation of derivative works, and so on and so forth. Generally, copyright controls the right to use the work.

As a result, there has been no work passing into the Public Domain since the 1920s. We’re nearing almost a century in which our culture has been controlled by a select few.

The vast majority of works created in this time are of no commercial value to the holder of these rights anymore. But, since they’re not in the Public Domain, no one can collect them or copy them or archive them. And so, they will become lost and forgotten. No, these things probably aren’t going to get downloaded, but they are valuable as pieces of history, much as an old house is protected by laws because it’s a historic site. But there is nothing we can do to save that old work.

Also, creators that are hoping to build upon older works are reduced to having to fall back on Fair Use. You would think that Fair Use is enough cover some noble endeavours like filming documentaries or teaching. Nope. You can still get your ass sued by a corporation and you would have no choice but to give up because even if you won, you’d be destitute from the cost of fighting a legal battle against a corporation.

The direction in which legislators are heading is towards more copyright protections. Just the other day, I read an article at Ars Technica talking about the insane restrictions an American senator is proposing to add to digital devices.

The post points to broadcast flag draft legislation sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) that contains provisions which appear to limit digital broadcast media reception devices to “customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law and that prevents redistribution of copyrighted content over digital networks.” In other words, if it does anything heretofore unheard of with the digital content that it receives, then it’s illegal. And if it does anything “customary” that could also possibly lead to unauthorized redistribution, then it’s also illegal. So all the bases are covered!

Can it really be that bad? We already knew that the proposed HD radio provisions are just awful and absurdly draconian, but can Big Content really be trying to put a blanket freeze on innovation and outlaw any possible novel use at all of copyrighted digital broadcast content?

…

From reading the whole draft, it appears that the “customary historic use” stipulation governs playback on any device, whether it’s an attached device or the receiver itself. The broadcast flag is embedded in the signal like a special tag that defines the content’s terms of use, while the secure moving technology acts as a sort of DRM wrapper/sandbox for the content that ensures that any (compliant) playback device not only respects the restrictions dictated by the broadcast flag but also does absolutely nothing novel or unexpected with the content that the broadcast flag’s terms did not or could not anticipate.

Think about the power the entertainment industry has over our culture. Not just our artistic culture, mind you, but our technology. Do you think that anyone will dare create more efficient distribution channels while takedown notices are popping up everywhere because of the DMCA?

Do you think the Internet, which operates by copying things, be it audio, video or plain text, will survive as a bastion of free flowing information that anyone can contribute to? Do you think the next Shakespeare will be able to permeate our culture while being restricted by those who control it?

I really wish I could vote in this election because there are a few issues that will affect me and I’ve taken a side on those issues. Unfortunately, I will be turning into a legal adult 42 days too late. Also, I wished I were in some other riding, because our MP is going to stay here until he dies. I mean, he once had the highest margin of victory here. But yes, a few things happened on the way to January 23 that has changed my opinion dramatically.

I remember at the beginning of the election that I thought that the Liberals were going to win, even if a minority. Why? Because the opposition forced an election too early. The Conservatives were still scary, especially after a few attempts to bring down the government before. The NDP just switched sides. And everyone doesn’t like the Bloc.

One thing I wasn’t expecting was the Liberals to mess up as much as they had. They had a very clear shot at victory again, but one thing after another just made the public’s opinion of them plummet. Really, it’s amazing how crappy they are at keeping things low profile. As a result, the entire province of Quebec is going Bloc just to spite them and everyone else is going Conservative. Those lefties who got tricked into going Liberal are probably going back to NDP to salvage their pride.

I have two main concerns with this election: Internet and copyright law, and education.

Education was simple. It’s either Liberal, with their newly announced education plan and the fact that they never delivered on their last promise on education from last time, or the NDP with lowering tuition 10% and just being the student friendly lefties that they are.

Internet and copyright legislation is something I’m following very closely. I obviously don’t want Canada to fall into the trap and emulate the travesty that is the DMCA. So I checked out CIPPIC and was checking back every so often for party responses.

The first question was “Do you agree that we need legislation to protect Canadians from harmful technologies like the Sony-BMG rootkit DRM?” and the Liberals responded with:

The Liberal Party of Canada supports technology that protects digital artistic content and we will continue to work hard to facilitate consensus amongst stakeholders in copyright matters. We introduced a wide ranging piece of copyright legislation in the last Parliamentary session that encourages creativity and protects the rights of creators, while ensuring diffusion of knowledge and access to cultural products.

Wait a second. Read that carefully. Read the question. The question is asking whether the party agrees that Canadians should be protected from the Sony-BMG rootkit. The Liberals respond saying that they support Digital Rights Management. It seems to me that they missed the entire point.

The other day, I was reading Boing Boing when I came across a post about a Canadian MP, Sam Bulte (Parkdale-High Park) who was a steadfast supporter of US-style copyright legislation (think DMCA) and was getting a fundraiser from the recording and publishing industries, to name a few.

Without going any further, does anyone else see the problem here? Here we have an MP supporting harsh copyright protection legislation and the industries that stand to benefit most from that legislation is giving her money. Is it legal? Yes. Does it raise suspicion, especially in a government that has been brought down by a sponsorship scandal? Yes.

Here, we have echoes of what is going on in the States: corporations essentially buying (they call it lobbying) laws. Upon further inspection, it is revealed that Bulte’s campaign is the only one to be funded in this manner. Also, it’s not only Canadian interests, but those from the States are supporting her as well. What happened to keeping out of our election? What’s worse is that she’s basically the author of this amendment to the Copyright Act and she’s pretty much next in line to become the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Of course, being posted on Boing Boing and Michael Geist’s blog, the story got picked up by blogs all over the Internet. And as with most things that happen on the great big Internets, the mainstream media has picked it up as well. The Canadian Press, CBC, and Toronto Star all have coverage.

The thing to notice here is how Bulte and Henderson, President of CRIA, respond. “I’ve done nothing illegal.” “These people have become my friends.” “This is part of the political process.”

It seems that everyone but Bulte sees what’s wrong with the picture. Either that or she doesn’t believe we can put two and two together. If they are your friends and you are responsible for legislation that benefits only them and they raise money for you, isn’t it possible that the public will raise some serious questions about your integrity? Let’s not forget that the Liberal Party of Canada has not exactly shown itself to be the epitome of integrity, even during the election.

So, in effect, the NDP just won my (useless, since I can’t vote yet) support. They haven’t screwed up like the Liberals have and I agree with them on many more counts than the Conservatives.

There is much more to the Bulte and copyright story and I encourage you to have a look at the links and links on those sites for more. I will end off with a nifty graphic (as the Internet is full of nifty graphics) from The Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st Century.

EDIT
This story talks about how the Conservatives are ahead in the polls and features a funny picture of Harper in front of a Quebec flag. A little Inkscape magic and we have the successor to Gilles Duceppe!

Sony Screws Up Again

We all remember Sony’s DRM screwup and how they made it worse with their uninstaller. That was then. And now, well, they’ve done it again. It’s been known that there’s another piece of DRM called MediaMax. Well, that’s all fine and dandy, until it was made known that there’s another security problem. So Sony does the whole apology and releases another uninstaller. Another uninstaller that makes the problem worse, that is.

You can read all about it at Ars Technica.

Downloading Music is Wrong

It’s no secret that the RIAA really doesn’t like people downloading music for free from peer to peer services. However, the MPA are beginning a new war against evil copyright infringers. They’re going after lyric sites.

The music industry is to extend its copyright war by taking legal action against websites offering unlicensed song scores and lyrics.

The Music Publishers’ Association (MPA), which represents US sheet music companies, will launch its first campaign against such sites in 2006.

MPA president Lauren Keiser said he wanted site owners to be jailed.

He said unlicensed guitar tabs and song scores were widely available on the internet but were “completely illegal”.

Mr Keiser said he did not just want to shut websites and impose fines, saying if authorities can “throw in some jail time I think we’ll be a little more effective”.

Adobe Flash Acrobat

Yes, it’s finally done. Head on over to Macromedia’s site. Macromedia is now assimilated into Adobe, which makes it the largest maker of design software. It has in its belt Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, Flash, Dreamweaver, and Acrobat, among others. What will happen next as this fearsome design monster has finished merging?

Telus’ Marketing Strategy

Concluding Statement

And that is all for this issue. We’ll see you again some time.

I’m not sure if people are aware, but Sony is a publisher. They’re merged with BMG. Now, Sony’s latest attempt to protect freedom in the United States by stopping the evil pirate terrorists happens to install a rootkit. A rootkit is a program that allows for control of your computer. If you happen to agree to Sony’s license agreement, it’ll install this rootkit onto your computer and make it damn near impossible to remove. If you try to get rid of their ‘protection,’ you’ll be left with a dead CD drive. And according to Ars Technica, malicious hackers are able to use this rootkit to enter your computer.

When this was all discovered, there was an outrage amongst the techies. What was Sony’s response to all of this?

“Most people, I think, don’t even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it,” he asked? “The software is designed to protect our CDs from unauthorized copying, ripping.”

Why should users care that a malicious program that is impossible to remove without breaking their system is being installed on their computers without their knowledge? Those pirates are making us do it anyway. Blame them!

Somewhat hilariously, the DRM, like 90% of software out on the market, does not support Macintosh or Linux. That’s comedy gold, really. All you have to do to avoid this carefully weaved web of deception and pirate a CD is to pop it into an iBook.

At the end of the day, in all their brilliance, Sony gets handed a few lawsuits.

But what do I care? I’m a Linux user and I’m a pirate anyway.

I happen to know quite a few of you who went out and got Switchfoot’s Nothing is Sound. Guess who their publisher is: Sony. I remember a month and a half ago, that the band apologized for the DRM and suggested ways around it. This was before the whole rootkit thing, which was discovered about a week ago.

By now, I’m sure you’re all aware that I have a dislike for this DRM stuff. It stems from this crazy, lunatic ideal I believe in called the “free society.” In a way, the GNU is based on this ideal. That is, freedom of information, freedom of ideas, and freedom of culture. DRM runs antithetical to a free society.

There is a brilliant presentation about free culture by Lawrence Lessig, a Professor of Law at Stanford and founder of the Creative Commons. The presentation is titled “Free Culture.”

If you’re running short on time, it’s all summed up in his ‘thesis,’ if you will. I’ve been doing a crapload of essay analyses for English. Anyway:

• Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.
• The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
• Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.
• Ours is less and less a free society.

DRM is all about control. It infringes on your rights to decide where and how you want to use the product. Not only that, but it is also a weapon that allows them to control culture. In controlling culture, they are enabled to limit more and more freedoms. Lessig notes that never has there been such control over our culture, not even before the birth of free culture in 1774, when copyrights were forever.

And we’re seeing it continue today. It’s much more than music, movies, and software. Ever heard of Palladium, or “Trusted Computing”? In short, Trusted Computing is a proposed platform that will essentially control everything that you do with your computer. DRM is only the beginning. Got unlicensed software? Broken. Don’t want to pay for another upgrade? Tough. Wrote an article critical of the current government? Palladium lets them delete it from your computer remotely.

So what do you do about it? Downhill Battle suggests continuing to download MP3s as an act of civil disobedience. Interestingly enough, today in English, we were discussing about the ethicalilty of downloading music. Pretty much everyone agreed that the record companies were gouging us. Since we’d studied an essay titled “Civil Disobedience” a few weeks before, our teacher asks us “So is your downloading music an act of civil disobedience?” Everyone wholeheartedly agreed that it was. Of course, I don’t think any of them realized why this act was so important.

They did it because $20 is a hell of a lot of money for an album. We do it to protect our freedoms.