Many of us who are 100% ‘free speechers’ wave our hands dismissively and tune out when somebody raises the issue of ‘fair use rights’ on copyrighted materials. This is a mistake.
Just as ‘free speechers’ are not just a bunch of racists and rednecks, no matter how loudly their opponents laber them as such, ‘fair use rights’ advocates are not just a bunch of ‘pirates’ and ‘thieves’. If they were, they would simply steal the content – and certainly not bother to stand up and fight for their rights.
What we need to recognize that these issues are connected: both revolve around finding the ‘right’ balance of rights versus limitations. Once we recognize the similarities between these two seemingly separate issues, we can better understand how to arrive at a balance we can all be satisfied with – at least a little bit.
Just like we are willing to put limits onto ‘free speech’ – the proverbial ‘yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre’, and similar limits – it is also justifiable to place limits on the use of ‘music’, ‘movies’, books’ and other intellectual content meant for consumers. In the first case, ‘public safety’ is threatened. In the second case, the rights of the creators of this ‘IP content’ need to protect their investment and their ability to reap a fair compensation for having created it.
This does make sense. The trick is, and always has been, in finding acceptable balance of rights.
The problem arises when the laws are written so as to only protect one side’s rights, at the expense of the other. It is no less oppressive than having unreasonable limits placed on one’s freedom of speech, in order to protect some from ‘hurt feelings’.
But there is another connection, a very fundamental one, between these two issues: both seek to restrict communication. Limiting freedom of speech imposes limitations on an individual as to what they are, or are not, free to communicate. So called ‘fair use’ laws seek to control the means of communication….
Recently, I watched a program that drove home the difference. It is one-hour long (and part 2 of a 2-part series), but it is well worth watching. Here, in brief, is the background…
In Sweden, there used to be different ‘fair use’ laws than in North America. Under Swedish laws, it was legal to set up a company called ‘Pirate Bay’ – even though this was, at that time, illegal under US laws. The ‘Hollywood industry’ used its influence to pressure the White House, which, in turn, pressured the Swedish government, into police raids and materiel confiscation against ‘Pirate Bay’, even though their own attorneys advised the government that the operation was perfectly legal….. Part 1 of the show, ‘Steal This Film’ deals with this. I found the segments of it on YouTube here, here, here, and here.
Part 2 discusses the very interesting issue of how these ‘fair use’ laws are (and are not) balanced – and why. And yes, how this directly impacts ‘freedom of speech’. Very interesting, the whole lot of it. The links for the YouTube version are here, here, here, here, here and here.
While Part 2, section 2 has a comprehensive history of ‘copyright’ and its implications from book printing on (and thus VERY much worth watching), it is Part 2, section 4 that sums up – in my mind – the essence of this debate. It is not just about IP – it is about the control of the means of delivering ‘culture’ to us all… And whoever controls the means of delivery also controls which voices will be heard.
I suppose one could see the ‘fair use’ battle as the corrollary to the ‘free speech’ battle. While one is a battle to allow one to speak freely, the other one is the battle to allow one to be heard freely. After all, if one is allowed ‘free speech’ – but only in isolation, where what one says is not actually heard by any other human being – it is a hollow victory…
Trying to paint himself as a supporter of the arts during this election campaign, NDP leader Jack Layton has accidentally demonstrated his contempt for Canadian artists with this election promise:
Mr. Layton promised that if elected Prime Minister, he will use the CRTC (the government tool used to reign in radio and TV stations in Canada and ensure their content is appropriately censored) to force all TV networks to only show ‘Canadian content with Canadian actors’ during prime time viewing hours. (I could not find the audio clip of when I heard him speak – the link above is to an article reporting it….but the article had watered down his statement. If you find the clip, please, let me know and I will edit the post to insert it here. Thanks.)
What is this man thinking?
Yes, some say this is a mute point, as he will never win enough votes to be the next Prime Minister (even as a leader of a coalition, which he seems to be striving for now) – but his very suggestion normalizes this type of action and makes it seem less extreme the next time someone suggests it. And I don’t like it.
Why?
Aside from this being a terrible insult to Canadian artists (the ‘soft’ or ‘condescending’ type or ‘snobby prejudice’ – “they are so pathetic, without MY help here to eliminate all their competition, they could never make it on THEIR merits…..because they have NONE!”), he also made a call to heavily fund these ‘artists’. Let’s follow the chain of consequnces here. Step by step…
Government subsidizes (pays for) ‘Canadian art’
The government, of course, has to be ‘accountable’ for this spending, and so must select what bits of ‘Canadian art’ are actually worthy of being paid for
Government forces the privately owned TV networks to show nothing but the ‘Canadian arts content’ during prime time TV viewing hours
In order to be eligible for this ‘Canadian content’ (and thus eligible to be broadcast during these crucial-for-survival time slots), the ‘Canadian art’ will have to be certified as such by the government’s very own agency, CRTC
In effect, the government pays for the ‘Canadian art’ it first approves, then forces the TV networks to only show the bits it approves of the most. Thus, the government has 100% control over what we get to watch! (During prime time only, of course…)
HOW could any artist in Canada stand for this type of subjugation?
This turns every artists who would qualify for the label ‘Canadian content’ to be, in effect, a civil servant! We have seen in the past Canadian hockey teams, starring Canadian athletes, in a Canadian sports league, be refused (by CRTC) the label ‘Canadian content’ on the grounds that ‘sports’ did not qualify (perhaps because people like to watch sports….and it is hard to slip in ‘approved social messaging’ into a hockey game ‘dialogue’…)
The only ‘art’ we would be allowed to watch would be produced by ‘de facto’ civil servants!
And we have seen what has happened to our doctors, when THEY were turned into ‘de facto’ civil servants: the government, through various means, attempts to deny them even the freedom to act according to their conscience! Frankly, I don’t think the government is wrong to demand that its employees/contractors provide all the services the government pays them to – the problem is that doctors should never have been made into government employees/contractors in the first place.
There are several types of blogs. Some, much like ‘old-style newspaper’ editorials, present views and thoughts. Others, much like ‘old-style newspapers’ themselves, bring you a collection of posts from other places by giving a little intro with a link. There are other types of blogs, but this combination is usually quite effective in spreading news and ideas through the blogosphere.
I like to think of the two types I described above as ‘articles’ and ‘newspapers’ – in the old fashioned ‘way’. (In my own mind, I call the blogs who specialize in providing links to interesting places ‘blinks’ – ‘blogs+links’.) And people learn which is which, and come to these sites with specific expectations.
Usually, I leave the ‘blinking’ to others much better at it than I….but when I came across this at Dime-a-Dozen, I didn’t quite know what to think…..
Robert writes:
Some random photos found on Flickr from a protest in 2006 – recognize the woman at the top? Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party. This is from the notorious anti-Israel/pro-Hezbollah rally in Toronto during the Lebanon War. Scroll below to see why that rally was notorious.
This appearance of hers likely slipped under the radar as no one knew who she was back then. We know who she is now, so doesn’t she have some explaining to do?
The sign reads: ‘Down with Zionism, USA, UK’
The fellow in the turban is Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah. The flag of Hezbollah is obscured by the kid with the keffiyah headband.
The t-shirts read “Hezbollah”
I still don’t know what to think: Elisabeth May, the leader of a ‘national party’ in Canada – and who had gained herself a spot at the ‘nationla leaders’ debate’ as such – featured speaking at a pro-Hezbollah rally???
By the way – did you know that green is the sacred colour of Islam? Talk about a ‘hidden agenda’….
I love Canada. I am a proud Canadain. However, nothing is perfect – not even Canada. And it has made me ache to see my beloved country destroyed from the inside by the ‘tyrrany of the nice’. Of course, there is nothing ‘nice’ about this tyranny. It corresponds to ‘nice’ about as much as shadenfreude does to ‘pleasure’.
I speak of nothing else than the encroaching ‘fascism with a smile’. The thought police. And before most of us noticed, they have rotted the core of several of our legal institutions here in Canada – and are having a go in the USA, too. But, like a wart – the infection gets deeply sunk into the flesh before the outward signs are visible.
More and more Canadians have begun to wake up and smell the poison in our cups. Mostly regular people, who don’t understand why a person is not allowed to smoke a perfectly legal cigarette where a ‘privileged’ one can openly smoke marijuana. Or why a priest must never express his views – for the rest of his life – on issues like gay marriage. (Don’t get me wrong, I think it idiotic and immoral to oppose same-sex marriage. But somehow, I expect that many priests might have a different take on this – and that is their right.)
And since the calm, laid-back Canadians that we are actually began to discuss this at the watercoolers, coffe-shops and medical clinic waiting rooms (lots of people to talk to there), you know the winds of change are not far behind. So, how do our social engineers respond?
By sicking their ‘calming sqad’ at us.
I have trouble reading most ‘mainstream media’ print, because I love the English language and it pains me to see the abuse of grammar so routinely commited there. But, on occassion, people bring articles to my attention… as Blazing Catfur and FiveFeetOfFury have done here.
It is stories like these that make me question whether there is such a thing as ‘media bias’. That seems a singularly inappropriate concept – which implies that ‘bias’ is something that ‘could’ be a property of today’s journalism. Considering the ‘social engineering’ tone of ‘calming the populace’ this article takes, I think its aim is to educate us on what we ought to be thinking. How could that be referred to as bias?
It is not a ‘fluff piece’, as some seem to suggest. To the contrary. It is a well crafted educational piece, loaded with all the ‘proper’ buzzwords to ‘show us’ what we ‘ought to think’. To coddle us back into our woolly-headed sleepiness. Herd the sheep into the corale… That is the aim of the article – at least, in my never-humble-opinion.
Yet, it seems to have backfired. Perhaps it went too far in its tone of condescention, or perhaps it came too late. People were too awake to simply sink back into their slumber. The comments section reflects this, and is the most interesting part of this article. I, too, would have left a comment – but there is no way I’m giving my address to any organization that prints drivel like this!
Ah, yes. The comments section. Many of the comments point out that Mr. Warman, the much-admired subject of this article who often sues on behalf of others who – in his mind – ‘ought to’ have been offended but were not (and who is one of the worst offenders the thought police has to offer) is suing ‘some bloggers’ (including FiveFeetOfFury and BlazingCatfur) because, somebody commenting on their site called Warman a ‘Nazi’ (I think).
What I am not entirely clear about is this: is he suing because he thinks that calling him a ‘Nazi’ is an insult to himself, or to ‘Nazis’???
It could go either way, you know….
Correction: Blazing Catfur is not, in fact, being sued by Warman (though she had been threatened with other suits). This was my misunderstanding. However, many pro-free speech bloggers are. I apologize for my mistake.
UPDATE: The Globe and Mail has not closed the ‘Comment’ section on the article I wrote about in this post. However, Blazing Catfur has taken some screenshots and these can be accessed HERE! I wonder if this is simply frustration on thier part, because their ‘education’ had backfired, or if someone had threatened them….
The Christian world may have been dismayed, even outraged, at the Muslim reaction in 2005 to Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammed, but Italian law enforcement appears to have had its own sense of humour failure. Giovanni Ferrara, the Rome prosecutor, is invoking the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican, which stipulates that an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President.
…
Even certain sections of the Church are unimpressed. Father Bartolomeo Sorge, a Jesuit scholar, told La Repubblica the move to prosecute Ms Guzzanzi was incomprehensible. “We Christians put up with many insults, it is part of being a Christian, as is forgiveness. I feel sure the Pope has already forgiven those who insulted him on Piazza Navona.”
So, let’s recap this:
Ms. Guzzani told rude jokes about the Pope
She is charged under a law that limits free speech and dates back to fascist times and could face 5 years in jail
the Church does not think she did anything for which she ought to be charged (as in, no victim)
Why are there segments of our society which think that people who are not hurt, are not offended, still need legislation to protect their feelings? Do they REALLY care about the ‘victim’ who claims NOT to be a victim?
Or is this a pretext to manipulate the populace, to exercise power over us and censor any opinions that do not advance the censor’s power?
It is an interesting document, both in what it says and in what its publication implies: even the most ‘politically correct’ human rights organizations are considering the current happenings at the Canadian HRCs to be, in the least, worriesome. That should give us all a moment to pause and think!
Dr. Frank Dimant is Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada and CEO of the organization’s Institute for International Affairs and the League for Human Rights. Yestreday, on his blog ‘Frankly Speaking’, he asked for feedback on what people thought of the abovemantioned document.
Following is the comment I submitted:
Having read this submission several days ago, I found much in it which was very true and in need of saying. Thank you for that.
However, there were some parts which I very strongly disagreed with and which – in my opinion – are illustrations of fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of human rights. Please, allow me to explain using just one example.
In section iii – ‘Hate jurisdictions and their essential role’, there is a statement: “The Holocaust did not begin with censorship. It began with hate speech. Auschwitz was built with words.”
This statement is demonstrably untrue. The Holocaust DID INDEED begin with censorship: the censorship OF hate speech!
Prior to Hitler’s rise to power, Germany did indeed have hate speech laws, very similar to those we have here in Canada today. These laws were indeed used to prosecute those who ‘spread hate against Jews’ – and Jewish leaders of that era were very satisfied with the application and efficacy of these laws!
It was precisely these hate speech laws which Hitler, once in power, used in order to silence dissenters – the very people who could have prevented atrocities like Auschwitz…..had they not been stripped of their freedom of speech.
Auschwitz could never have been built had the fear of prosecution under hate speech laws not silenced those who would have spoken up against it!
It is precisely because hate speech laws can be, were and are used to silence those who would protest ‘incitement to hate’ which makes atrocities a possibility. True, the ‘incintement to hate’ must (at least at first) be veiled or disguised in order to become entrenched as ‘acceptable’, but the veil can be very thin indeed. We have seen it in history (the Nazi regime) and we are seeing it again from militant Islamists.
It is not by coincidence that many leaders of militant and politicized Islamism idolize Hitler. But these Islamists are doing more than just idolizing Hitler- they are quite intentionally emulating him by using hate speech laws as a weapon, not a shield. Failing to recognize this could be very bad for our society.
There is no place for hate speech laws in a society which wishes to remain free and whose citizens respect each other’s rights. It was these hate speech laws themselves which facilitated opression, torture and murder under the Nazi regime and which can (and, I fear, will) be used in this way again! That is something we must never again allow to happen!
If you would be interested in more of my observartions, please, contact me.
The Beijing Olympics is about as much about sports as Sexapalooza is about human rights.
No, this is not at all being facetious – it is a very valid comparison. Without ‘human rights’ (specifically, the freedom to exercise them), Sexapalooza would not be able to educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of sexuality’, its primary goal. Similarly, without ‘sports’, the Beijing Olympics organizers (i.e. Chinese Government) could not educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of how wonderful their regime is’, their primary goal.
(Why the comparison to sexuality? Because typically, repressing sexuality is among the first goals of an opressive regime. And, you can bet your bippies, there will be no Sexapalooza (or anything even remotely similar) anywhere within smiting distance of the Beijing Olympics.)
When, eariler, there were calls for boycott of the games, ‘people’ said: “But what about the athletes? It is not fair to them!” It seemed that, in many people’s eyes, the ‘right’ of the athletes to compete in the Olympics somehow invalidated any concerns about the message the world is sending by allowing this farce to go on!
By participating, the world is very much condoning the harvesting (yes, HARVESTING – like, as in, ‘reaping’ – by definition) of human organs from political prisoners/innocent citizens – and that is just a tip of the iceberg of opression in China!
But, sending a message that this behaviour is not acceptable and NOT participating in this sham of an Olympics would, somehow, be ‘unfair’ to the athletes… We just don’t understand – they TRAINED for this! It’s their DREAM! And everyone knows that an athlete’s dream is so much more important thant a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s nightmare!
Their ‘right’ to compete is SOOOO much more important than a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s right to keep her liver! (I wonder if Monty Python, in their worst nightmare, ever thought that their ‘can we have your liver’ sketch would come true….ecxept without the ‘asking’ bit!)
So, as we are about to be force-fed a set of Olympic games in a regime so controlling of its people, it dictates how cheering may or may not be done, why is nobody asking:
‘What ABOUT the athletes?’
Who are these people for whose ‘right’ to ‘get a podium’ so many others have to pay for in blood? (And, make no mistake about it – much of the Olympic fanfare HAS been paid by the proceeds from ‘organ harvesting’. Instead of ‘blood diamonds’, these are ‘blood medals’!)
Who are these priveleged few, whose desire for fame is so great, they will – literally – look the other way, amile and say nothing, accept the medals as their dues… while their hosts murder and torture to get them these medals?
I, for one, do not think that any being worthy of being called ‘human’ could possibly choose to elevate themselves this high above others. It is arrogant elitism at its worst. And it is allowing their bodies to be used to promote this corrupt and opressive regime – for a fitting reward, of course!
So, would ‘good athletes’ prostitute themselves to the ‘grim reapers’?
Please, consider the options which would open up to you if your house had a really long tail – a fibre optic tail, that is! One belonging to the homeowner, NOT the ISPs! We could take a step away from throttling off net neutrality.
With more ISPs discussing ‘bundling’ accessible websites the way cable companies offer ‘bundled channel packages’, this would significantly improve consumer choice.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 