Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) as Democratic Principle by DI0rR5B


									                           Digital Copyright in a User Generated World

Today I attended the second day of the Knowledge Policy for the 21st Century Conference, which was on Digital
Copyright in a User Generated World. Overall it was an excellent day, full of effective, interesting and fun
presentations on copyright law in the new digital environment.

Unfortunately once again limited internet access meant I wasn’t able to live blog the event, but I did take notes
and so I thought I’d post a brief summary of the day. These are merely my notes and may contain errors or
misinterpretations on my part, but hopefully they are of interest and will help promote further discussion and
understanding on the key themes of the conference. Also as I had seen many of the presentations in one form
or another before, my notes are not as detailed as those I took yesterday on Free/Libre and Open Source
Software (FLOSS) as Democratic Principle.

Session 1A: Welcome and Introduction – Professor Mark Perry (UWO) and Professor Brian Fitzgerald
As was the case yesterday, Professor Perry welcomed attendees to the Conference and Professor Fitzgerald
spoke of the desire for stronger collaboration between QUT and UWO in the field of copyright and intellectual
property. One recent aspect of this collaboration is to look at user generated content and copyright. In
particular, today highlights the work of several academics from QUT and UWO who are working in this field.

Professor Perry and Professor Fitzgerald then discussed the politics of the copyright landscape today and the
possibilities for the future, before opening the discussion up to the floor to help set the agenda for the day.

Session 1B: Digital Copyright in a YouTube World – Jason Schultz (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
Title: Will video sharing survive the online copyright wars? What YouTube has learned from Napster’s failure and
Flickr’s success.

Jason Schultz began by providing some history and context, starting with the legal failures of Napster and
Grokster, to the success of Flickr. What was interesting, however, was the discussion of Flickr’s copyright
problems due to their hosting of copyrighted material (up to 5-10% of works are probably copyrighted). So, why
is Flickr not being sued? Probably because Flickr has built-up goodwill as:
      1. Flickr has a very strong and dedicated response to allegations of infringement.
      2. Flickr has a large buy-in from the photographic community – a number of professional photographers
           have had their start in Flickr. Plus, Flickr supports DRM and Creative Commons and are therefore
           photographer friendly.

YouTube has become a phenomenon and has been sued twice – by Robert Tur and by Viacom. A recent study of
YouTube suggested that only 9% of videos on YouTube have ever received copyright complaints. That 9% only
account for 6% of traffic.

Viacom lawsuit on two grounds:
    1. direct infringement allegations – arguing YouTube is reproducing copyrighted videos and violating
        performance and display rights.
    2. secondary infringement (contributory, vicarious, inducement) allegations.

YouTube’s defenses lie in:
    1. for direct infringement – volitional act.
    2. for secondary infringement –
           remembering that there is a need to establish a direct infringement for there to be a secondary
           DMCA safe harbors – s 512(c).

What is significant is that there has been a cultural shift – the industry is no longer fighting a “rogue nation” like
Napster, but numerous “insurgent” sites and DRM is widely seen has having failed. Perhaps YouTube is an
opportunity for the industry to engage with the sites like YouTube and find a way forward.

Visit for more information.

Following his presentation, an excellent discussion followed with Jason Schultz on the range of issues covered in
his presentation.

Session 2A: Virtual Worlds, Second Life and Copyright Law – Nic Suzor (QUT)
Nic Suzor delivered a virtual presentation via a video he sent over. His presentation focused on virtual
environments, copyright and freedom of expression.

Session 2B: DRM to Conducer – Professor Mark Perry (UWO)
Theory: we are moving from a DRM structure to an economic environment where conducer’s will become more
important players.

Session 2C: Copyright and New Technologies: The Challenge of User-generated and Peer-produced
Knowledge, Content and Culture – Peter Black and Professor Brian Fitzgerald (QUT)
Find my PowerPoint slides on my blog, Freedom to Differ.

Session 3: Open Access: Research and Education
David Moorman (SSHRC)
David Moorman discussed the SSHRC research funding in Canada and its attempts to promote open access to
research in Canada.

Dr Margaret Ann Wilkinson (UWO)
Professor Wilkinson gave a detailed overview of the legal issues in Canada with respect to open access to
research and education.

Session 3: Creative Commons – Jessica Coates (CC Australia) and Marcus Bronfreund (CC Canada)
Jessica Coates and Marcus Bornfreund both delivered remote presentations – Jessica by a pre-recorded video
and Marcus by Skype. Both presentations provided information about the uptake and use of Creative Commons
in Australia and Canada respectively.

Session 4: Copyright Reform in:
       New Zealand – Suzy Frankel (Victoria University)
       Canada – Sam Trosow (UWO)
       Australia – Professor Brian Fitzgerald and Peter Black (QUT)

All presenters gave a brief overview of the copyright reform in their respective jurisdictions.

To top