kosmicaperture
September 2008 
Copyright and Reflections on Ultimate Blog Detachment
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
Transitioning and re-branding a social networking site is never easy. There are technical, business, legal, and social challenges that we have to tackle simultaneously. But, ultimately, as a service provider, it's our responsibility to see to it that the transition goes smoothly. Yesterday we had an issue with Gaia's Terms of Use which our members had vigilantly (and rightfully) brought up. We apologized and acted accordingly -- another lesson to charge to experience of running a community. We owe our members deep gratitude for keeping us honest.
That learning experience triggered this personal reflection...
As a long time blogger and supporter of Creative Commons, I could see where our members are coming from. I take the issues of copyright, creativity and free culture seriously. But I have a more "detached" attitude towards it. This attitude is an influence on me by the Buddhist philosophy of non-attachment. But philosophy is one thing, how do I put this into practice? That's where Creative Commons comes in handy.
Case in point: The license of my online content (blogs, photos, videos, music) is under Creative Commons (Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Generic). This means that anyone could share and remix my work with or without my permission as long as they provide attribution, use it for non-commercial purposes, and redistribute the work under the same share alike license. Personally, I think this is the best way to go to protect my rights as a content creator, but at the same time not get too attached with the content I put out on the internet. In principle this reasoning is sound, but in practice I don't know if people, organizations, businesses, and governments around the globe would respect the Creative Commons license once I put out my content out there.
In short, although Creative Commons provide me with the feeling of security and creative freedom, I still operate on the principles of detachment and uncertainty. Once I put out a content on the internet, it's no longer mine to seize and control and obsess about. Welcome to the digital age of RETICULUM REX where copy-pasting, remixing, caching, open source, wikis, and feeds are the norms of creativity and information sharing.
However, as much as I would like think of my attitude on copyright as liberal and enlightened, Zen Habits comes along to teach me a lesson on ultimate blog detachment. Here's the attitude of Zen Habits when it comes to copyright.
Open Source Blogging: Feel Free to Steal My Content
"I get a lot of emails asking me for permission to reprint Zen Habits articles on other blogs, in newsletters, in conferences and in classrooms. I get requests to translate certain posts, or my entire blog, into dozens of languages. I get requests to translate Zen To Done or republish it in another format.
"Until now, I granted limited permission, mostly for non-commercial use.
"Now, I’m granting full permission to use any of my content on Zen Habits or in my ebook, Zen To Done, in any way you like.
"I release my copyright on this content.
"From now on, there is no need to email me for permission. Use it however you want! Email it, share it, reprint it with or without credit. Change it around, put in a bunch of swear words and attribute them to me. It’s OK. :)"
Whoah! Now that is radical! Even my "enlightened" attitude on copyright looks pale in comparison. It reminded me of U.G. Krishnamurti's philosophy on non-copyright. Here's U.G.'s introduction in his book, Mind is a Myth.
"My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody. U.G."
And that book was written way before Creative Commons.
To take this even further, serendipitously, the oldest known printed book (about 587 years before the Gutenberg Bible), The Diamond Sutra embodies the philosophy of non-attachment, thousands of years before U.G. and Creative Commons. Here's what's written on the colophon.
"Reverently [caused to be] made for universal free distribution by Wang Jie on behalf of his two parents on the 13th of the 4th moon of the 9th year of Xiantong (i.e. 11th May, CE 868)."
So I'm back full circle to the influence of Buddhist philosophy on me when it comes to copyright and creativity. Obviously, the level of detachment I practice is still not at par with the principles I strive to live by.
So what's my point? My point is that I've been planning to re-design my blog for a while now. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to tweak it. I'm more interested on putting out content than making it pretty. But when I do get the chance to redesign and take my blogging to the next level, I'm considering to follow the example set forth by Zen Habits.
What about you? What's your philosophy on copyright and creativity? I'd love to hear your perspective.
Access: Public
Basically I share your philosophy.
In the long run GAIAM Mangement should think however about fair shares in User Generated Content. A Big Issue, and certainly only in context of revenue considerations for the business team of GAIAM relvant.
As I have writen here.. and elsewhere at one point in time license questions and fair regulations for creativity are a BIG issue in global discussions. JUst “google” some key points to writers strike in L.A. GAIAM Management should be very awake to these developments. Even here in Europe the discussions are making huge waves.
DEtachement is good. Practiced it my whole life.
Increasing transparency in Values Chains and involving the customer..the user..the citizens..with fair shares in different ways…the next level to master……
I am on the same page with you… My standard answer is:
Open Hand Philosophy - Is why I embrace creative commons, releasing copyrights to the clients and why I stay away from conventional marketing and advertising. We choose to release the rights and educate our clients on all the different resources the digital market place has to offer. Free culture is the foundation in the what/why of our achievements. Thus clients can get to know us not by what they purchase from us but what they can learn through us first.
You are one of my dearest teachers when it comes to learning about internet related issues like this… you never cease to amaze me!!! I am so thrilled to get to work with you… and even more so, to call you 'friend' … thanks so much for sharing this post… I am still learning how to “let it go” when it comes to *my* creative works … you helped me change my flickr account to creative commons … that was one step … a very challenging step for me!! :) Thank you for all of the ways that you've helped me learn to change for the better!!
very interesting input, C. I'm a writer, putting out writing in our pod here on Gaia, and have put my copyright on some pieces that felt like I might want to work on and need to protect the material. copyright is anissue if you want to make money with your writing.
I actually very much resonate with the Zen Habits statements. it's a great attitude for any kind of publication on the Internet. if you want to make money with your publications, better work in a restricted space.
I see a difficulty still for what we're doing on the writing workshop blog. some of us who intend to send shorter work to publishers put our work out on the pod for comments and feedback. in such a space copyright protection is of importance and I don't know if everybody who is writing there has ever really thought about the possible consequences.
so, I have no philosophy really, and you have increased the creative chaos I find myself in with this. much obliged!
:)
Well Chaos, I would partly agree with your write up Copyrights and Patents issue here on the Internet or using others' creative talent work for Commercial or Non Commercial works.
A Classic example for you is from sometime in 2002, when I first landed here in Los Angeles, the friend who picked me up from the Airport told me about a story doing the rounds of Hollywood corridors about Copurights violation by a Radio DJ, who was using an Old song of Lata MAngeshkar of Bollywood fame, along with a Hip-Hop, Rip-Rap song and Lata's voice was not fully audible, but the entire length of the song was remixed with the Hip Hop. This Jockey was pulled in for Copyrights violation and the station and him were penalized for a WHOPPING 400 Million dollars. they went for an Undisclosed Out of court settlement with Lata MAngeshkar's greata ttorneys from India, who were specially assigned because she is considered a National Treasure–Nightinghale–
Moral of the story is–Wake up all Indian Artists, amidst these Hollywood based music industry folks– Copyrights doesn't mean “Right to Copy”
I was at another seminar arranged by Durfee Foundtion here in LA and the Entertainment lawyer who spoke said “A Copyright violation is NOT by the Time or Quantity of the product being Copied in Art business, but even a 30 Second song copy was as bad a Violation as a whole song was”
So there are many myths about Copyrights we might get into. BEST thing is, Produce your own stuff, or have a fabulous Entertainment Attorney–that saves a lot of pain later on.
Ciao, good input from you Chaos.
But hey? whats this Secret of GAIA? Did it buy Zaadz off like Myspace was by Rupert Murdoch?
Namaste
Jagan Ramamoorthy,
Los Angeles, CA
I feel/think that an issue in all of the talk on copyright has not been addressed - and maybe because it's another discussion; but I'll sketch it here anyway…
To understand this you would need to know some basic about Ken Wilbers 4 quadrants - abbreviated:
upper left is all about “I”, the individual interior (UL)
lower left is all about “we”, tthe collective interior (LL)
lower right is all about “them”, the collective exterior (LR)
upper right is all about “it”, the individual exterior. (UR)
more here…
Mostly value is generated in the right quadrants; and science and economics only recognises value as generated there.
The value in social networks (zaadz, gaia, facebook etc.) is basically created, though, in the lower 2 quadrants. This value is harvested, though, as UR financial profit by a few persons - Brian, when he sold Zaadz + his investors got a lot of cash (millions? we'll find out later this year when Gaiam has to publish its figures).
The community, all the people writing blogs and pods, has created 95%, I guess, of the LL value and a lot (percentage, I don't know) on the LR. Yet the community creating this value has not received anything on the UR, right?
So what is being created in the lower half of the 4 q's is monetized through UR and LR mechanisms and not fed back to the people who created this value in the first place; what they receive is entirely within the LL and UL q's.
The z/G team and management is being paid - they are getting UR rewards (and value on the other q's as well in as far as they are open to and involved in those) for their work which mainly consists in creating the tools (UR & mostly LR), and some - anybody else exept you C4Chaos? - are creating blogs. So one could say that the z/G team is getting the most value in a 4q view.
Hmmm, this is a sketchy sketch, and probably an AQAL expert can do this analysis much better, but it somehow shows, maybe, what the direction should be, if we really want a change to happen through this medium that goes beyond the nice and cozy left quadrant interior; if we want to effect the change we believe ourselves to be in the exterior world as well…
Jagan said: “So there are many myths about Copyrights we might get into. BEST thing is, Produce your own stuff, or have a fabulous Entertainment Attorney–that saves a lot of pain later on.”
i'm all for producing our own stuff. but 400 million dollars penalty for re-mixing a song is just plain ludicrous. this shows that current U.S. Copyright laws need to be amended, especially in the rip-mix-burn generation. this is what Lawrence Lessig and Creative Commons are fighting for. and i'm on board with them on this one.
check out this Lessig lecture on Free Culture and Creative Commons.
my point: current copyright laws need revision to open the doors to more creative freedom.
~C
Mushin..very interesting considerations….Aglogo, YouTube, Google, Writers…creative editors of all kind….already 2007 there were lots of fiery and vivid discussions worldwide about these issues..will increase this year…would like to hear at least Jirka Rysavy Welcome Message for Gaia/Zaadz Community…some hello from the owner..expressing his understanding…of the YOU-Reality even TIME Magazine and other Mainstream Media developed in 2006 and 2007.
But beyond AQAL research…we know even in Bahrain they are AQALing now:):)real gestures and moves in asset sharing are necessary. If not crystallizing at least transparency in understanding is wishable….:):)
Mushin,
i'm kind of amused that you use Wilber's quadrants to take subtle pot shots at Brian, the company, and the team. ok, i'll play.
first, your use of quadrants is very shallow, very unbalanced and seemingly aimed at insinuating that Brian, Gaiam, and the Team are using the content created by members to “harvest” a “UR financial profit”. while it is true that we get a lot of value (as a team because we are passionate and happy with what we do), your definition of value is very limited to begin with at best, and biased at worst.
allow me to build on your incomplete and biased 4Q analysis.
“The community, all the people writing blogs and pods, has created 95%, I guess, of the LL value and a lot (percentage, I don't know) on the LR. Yet the community creating this value has not received anything on the UR, right?”
if you mean “monetary” and physical “stuff” then you are partly correct (we did send out free t-shirts, free books, free magazines, etc. to our early ambassadors). however, your definition of “value” as “stuff” on the UR is incomplete and misleading. when people get inspired by content on the site, when they are engaged in intellectual discussions, when they get a sense of camaraderie and community, then these are all “value” which has “physiological” effects (i.e. endorphins, dopamine, etc. these are the UR correlates). not to mention that people around the world started meetups via Zaadz/Gaia. those are physical meetups (UR+LR).
“So what is being created in the lower half of the 4 q's is monetized through UR and LR mechanisms and not fed back to the people who created this value in the first place; what they receive is entirely within the LL and UL q's. ”
you seem to focus on monetization when you say “not fed back”. yet you don't mention that majority of our members don't pay anything for the service that Gaia provides. have you paid anything to get into Gaia? why do you keep coming back? it's because you get value! maybe not financial or material “stuff” but you do get value (which have physiological UR correlates), otherwise you won't be here in the first place.
“The z/G team and management is being paid - they are getting UR rewards (and value on the other q's as well in as far as they are open to and involved in those) for their work which mainly consists in creating the tools (UR & mostly LR), and some - anybody else exept you C4Chaos? - are creating blogs. So one could say that the z/G team is getting the most value in a 4q view.”
of course we're being paid. otherwise we can't do our job and we'd look for somewhere else to get our livelihood. but to say that we're “getting the most value in a 4Q view” is again, another (not so) subtle insinuation that we're unfairly profiting from our members.
yes, we're happy to work here. we're passionate with our work. each of us has different areas on the site we're passionate about. in fact, you only see a few of our team members here. most of them work in silence (e.g. Dev team, marketing team, etc.). and we do owe our community members gratitude for this opportunity. in return, we work our asses off (in a good way because we love doing it), to keep the service running, keep the integrity of the site, so we can continue to offer it for free to people who are interested to join. you don't pay us directly. members do not pay us (financially) directly. so we have to figure out a way (read: business plan) how to get paid to keep the service going, for free. in this sense, if you look at it from a collective 4Q (i.e. accumulate the value of the service provided by Gaia), then members (collectively) get more “value” than the Team (due to the fact that the team is outnumber by hundreds of thousands of members). but from another perspective, yes, you are partialy correct in saying that we as a team “get the most value” because what keep us going is knowing that we are getting paid (fairly) and at the same time provide value to a lot of people. in that sense, we're a happy and passionate lot as compared to some members who maybe are, unfortunately, working on jobs they dislike.
personally, i get more value from being happy working in Gaia knowing that we're having impact on other people's lives, even if i could get a job somewhere else with higher pay.
and btw, working at Gaia empowers me to blog my heart out. it's not that Gaia is paying me to blog. it's that i could blog because Gaia provides a space for me to do so. unlike previously, i don't have to hide my blog from my employers. and there are other tasks i do in Gaia which i won't bother to bore you with ;)
“Hmmm, this is a sketchy sketch,”
there's nothing sketchy about it whether you look at it using AQAL lens or whatever lens you want to use. it's just the dynamics, economics, and technical realities of running a social media service. look it up.
now let me ask you this? when was the last time Google gave you stuff? did you directly receive profit-sharing (in terms of money) from their billions? i doubt it. yet Google would not exist without the collective content created by people on the web. Gaia is a service like Google (and ALL other social networks and other social media services). Gaia would not exist without our members and their collective content. Gaia provides the space where people could meet and add content. it's like a beneficial symbiotic relationship. the value that Gaia provides differs on every individual who gets value out of it. some people use it for networking, some people use it to express their creativity, some people use it to communicate with people around the world, and so on.
the bottom line is: your analysis downplayed the value that members get from Gaia by focusing too much on physical stuff and monetization.
criticize by creating, my friend. criticize by creating.
~C
Dear C4Chaos,
I feel this matter is important enough to write a blog; so you find my rather lengthy answer there.
~mu
Very much looking forward to a dialogue between C4 and Mushin as I feel it opens up this copyright issue into a much larger and more interesting area.
I'd like to add that both of you, in my opinion, add an enormous amount of 'value' to this community by your input and your blogs. I feel that you both deserve 'more' than you are presently getting (or at least what I imagine you are presently getting, whatever the quadrant).
Personally I feel that if I put something on the internet I absolutely cannot expect it to remain 'mine' or not be used in some way or another. I love it if I'm acknowledged for it but .. otherwise, I let go the moment I hit 'send' or add comment.
Regarding my creative writing - putting copyright on my online work, as far as I know will do nothing to guarantee that someone else does not use it and make money from it (good luck to them…) If I find out about this and really want to pursue it because they have made a million and I haven't, I have all the hard copies and dated pieces and emails that can be tracked to 'prove' I was the original writer. (The main issue for us creative writers posting our work on a public site like this is that some, and only some, publications want 'first time' rights, and consider work on a website, even if it's clearly a 'workshop' pod, to be already 'published'.) It makes no difference to them if we have copyrighted our work or not.
I recently visited a Gaian's (! I got to use that word!) website where he had some music free for downloading. I listened. I liked it. He had a paypal donate button. I clicked it and donated a euro. Not much but if he hadn't put that button there I wouldn't have sent anything. I sense that if we want to make money out of our work that we put online, there are all kinds of possibilities. As to saying 'this is mine' don't touch it, well, that's another matter I guess! Is anything mine?
. This is what I posted on the ToU thread - and is much along the lines of your blog, C4.
————————-
I'd love people to watch/read this piece that rapunzel sent me about copyright - It's in a comment on the support group thread on this topic - and take a look at the Question Copyright site linked to from the article.
Although it might look like I'm going off-topic here, I don't believe I am. I'm speaking to an underlying 'belief' that if someone 'uses'/'steals' my work, I dont have it anymore, it's not mine. I personally don't think this is true. I wrote it, it's mine, no matter who goes off and uses it / copies it etc. (And believe me I'm the classic starving artist, so I'm not speaking from a place of financial wealth ergo no worries about earning a living out of my art.)
To quote from the Question Copyright site:
The title of Mark Helprin's May 20th Op-Ed piece (“A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?”) puts an important question front and center. And the answer is a resounding “No.”
It is precisely because great ideas and great works of art live forever that restrictions on accessing them should be temporary and limited, much more limited than they are today. This is not only because access to culture and knowledge is a public benefit in itself, but also because those who create new works build on the works of their predecessors and peers. All creation is derivative — as Mr. Helprin, himself a writer, ought to know.
Treating works of the mind as physical property fails at a basic logical level: if I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle; if I copy your song, now we both have it. When Helprin argues that the government should not be able to “commandeer” your works (by which he means, apparently, allow them to pass into the public domain), he blurs this crucial distinction. The government is not commandeering anything. Even after leaving copyright, your work is still your own. After all, no one is arguing against rights of attribution being preserved: the world will still know who made that book, or song, or painting. What's really happening is that the government is finally relinquishing command of the work, by allowing it to flow freely in the great creative stream where the bulk of humanity's inheritance resides.
Phenomenal discussion.
Perhaps we should consider why those who disliked the ToS (myself included in that group) were motivated to dislike it. Perhaps I am too simplistic, but they probably fell into two groups - those that had selfish motives, and those that had amazingly unselfish motives. Yes, the latter category may cause some true wonder, but stick with me. Oh, and certainly no judgement on my part for EITHER category.
I posted this on a discussion regarding poetry coming from the intellect versus the heart. I think neither - it comes from the spirit (Kosmos). In that pod, I wrote -
“As a poet, I consider myself an artist who utilizes words and language as a medium.
As an artist, I am not convinced that I “create” anything. In a sense, everything already exists as a creation. As such, perhaps I merely view from a different perspect that which is already created, and simply “channel” that view into our current construct.”
Perhaps I need to grow beyond the following, but here it is as I feel it today - I think I have a responsibility to that creation to protect it's integrity, and to protect it's manifestation, from profit (specifically in the UR/LR quadrants, as it were). Yet, in retrospect, that may be silly, since I may be hindering it's “profitability” in the other two quadrants. In this sense, while I believe my motives were unselfish, perhaps they were selfish at the core.
oh, bother!
Here I go REALLY simplistic to provide a solution to the “quandry” posed by mushin -
Since Gaia is experiencing a number of “oops!” moments, then we shall sell them incense and chai, thereby taking the UR/LR they liberated from us, and returning said UR/LR “profits” to ourselves.
Problem solved…. I think?
jeepdog, well I loved your comment :-) but what if the tea in the chai has been made off the backs of poorly paid tea pickers???! sigh. I think I'll just have to go back to 'facing the blank page' and see what comes up.
Sandra
Yes, I'm all for “like” and “dislike” from the heart - but really, I would never want to judge people's motivations (selfish, unselfish) - or even my own ;-) It is way to difficult to know what makes us move; there's always people who would propose something underneath the motivation you've just identified. But that's an aside ….
The Creative Commons offers all kinds of ways in which you can protect your visual or textual creations; you can have all kinds of choices. The challenge that Gaia posed us when they - unthinkingly, I believe (suggesting a nice motivation, I think) - presented us with that awkward ToS which upon storm of protest the knew how to withdraw and replace by the old zaadz ToS very fast (not that they weren't warned before; they simply didn't take it as serious as they could have)… I see at people who didn't get in on the storm still blogging how uncomfortable they feel about all of this move from zaadz to gaia (and mind you, I hardly ever look at the other stuff here outside of the zaadz heritage).
Anyway, as you can also see in the discussion on my blog (to which C4Chaos hasn't answered beyond his initial feelings) re. the monetizing the creative work of crowds (and not paying them back; I'm not, again, speaking of all the other nice values), the copyright issue is a rather difficult one….
By the way, my writing here and elsewhere is covered under Creative Commons Licence 3.0
Mushin, i have responded in length on your blog post.
thanks!
~C
phew. took me a while to find this blog, C4. For some reason, it didn't come up when I did a search on 'copyright'.
A friend just sent me this article, I thought you might be interested:
The End of Copyright
Sandra,
if the site search fails, try using the search box on this blog. it's faster too :)
thanks for the link to the article!
“Does the end of copyright mean that books or music or movies or games will die? Of course not. The urge to create is too strong in all of us, and consumers will always be willing to pay for novelty and for excellence. It may mean that nobody gets mega-wealthy any more. What it does mean for sure is that the giant dinosaurs that currently dominate the distribution channels had better learn to adapt or die. There are a lot of fast-moving little mammals in the underbrush eating the dinosaurs’ eggs.”
exactly. but i don't think that copyright will technically “die” here in the U.S. but it has to cope up and adapt to the explosion of creativity and the Internet. certain laws on copyright should be ammended, changed, or make obsolete. Creative Commons is an excellent example of the evolution of copyright.
~C