Singer/songwriter/activist Billy Bragg’s just launched a new effort to try to push for a reform of copyright laws: a Web site that acts as a forum for conversations between artists and fans. It’s being dubbed the Net’s first and only artists-to-fans-to-artists blog…Bragg, in collaboration with fan Jon Newton, has set out the site’s agenda as being the fact that ‘artists need to be paid, and fans want to pay them.’

More

Dear FCC Commissioners,

We, the members of Students for Free Culture at the School of the Art Institute Chicago, urge you to stand with us in support of Network Neutrality, the principle that protects a free and open internet. Up until this point, Network Neutrality has been the guiding force that has allowed the internet to thrive as a deeply powerful tool of democracy and free expression of every kind.

As you well know, Washington is in the midst of a critical debate over whether Net neutrality will continue to be the principle by which utilize and legislate our citizens’ engagement with the Internet. In this debate, the Federal Communications Commission has the opportunity to send a powerful message in favor of an open and neutral Internet.

Opponents have suggested that a Network Neutrality rule would give the government too much power over the internet—allowing them to limit free speech on the internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Without rules to prevent discrimination online, Internet service providers would be free to choose whose voices are more important and whose views will be heard. Network Neutrality promotes the widest possible dissemination of speech, by allowing democratically elected governments to be the stewards of the internet, not private corporations beholden to nobody.

The fight for Network Neutrality itself offers a shining example of online civic participation. Since it began more than three years ago, nearly two million Americans have signed petitions, reached out to their networks, and asked their members of Congress to get behind Network Neutrality. Most of this organizing has taken place online by a coalition of more than 850 groups (including SAIC Free Culture), and through MySpace and Facebook accounts, e-mail outreaches, Twitter feeds and independent blogs. People have been using the Internet to mobilize and build support for the Internet.

This new wave of political empowerment is the gathering force of a more engaged democracy, and it all relies upon our ability to freely access information when we go online. Whether you’re campaigning for a local candidate, participating in open-government forums, or organizing people in response to new legislation, Network Neutrality preserves the network’s greatest strength: giving everyone the chance to get informed, speak out and be heard.

Additionally, as students at a major art institution, we know intimately the inestimable value of free creative expression on the internet. As cultural producers, we will fight to protect our access to the vast diversity of information on the internet—as that information is our go-to source for the ingredients and inspiration for our creative endeavors. Also, we stand in support of Net Neutrality because the internet is increasingly the place where we share our creativity with the world. We see the internet as an exhibition space, and have come to believe that it is our right to use it to the fullest extent possible under our right to freedom of speech. We will interpret a failure to defend net neutrality as an active affront to artistic freedom.

It’s a mistake to assume that the Internet is already a space where free speech is protected and ensured. Under current law, or the lack thereof, Internet service providers can block Web sites, content, services or applications they don’t like. And they have, most notably when Comcast secretly interfered with users’ ability to access popular video, photo and music-sharing applications; when AT&T censored a political speech by the band Pearl Jam’s lead singer; and when Verizon blocked text messages between a pro-choice organization and its members. We cannot afford to believe that our most valued resource is safe unless we work to protect it under US law, once and for all.

And we are seeing more troubling behavior in the marketplace. Internet service providers have stated their intention to deploy discriminatory “deep packet inspection” technology that would allow them to monitor and control the Internet. This dangerous technology would give network providers unprecedented power over Internet users, and it presents a serious threat to online privacy.

We write this letter as representatives of a generation of artists and creative producers who will not stand to see the internet controlled by corporate interests the same way television and radio were before we were old enough to speak out. The FCC must take action now to affirmatively safeguard the free flow of information on the Web before it’s too late.

With many thanks and most sincerely,

Rebecca Gordon

Representative of The School of the Art Institute of Chicago’s Students for Free Culture

http://saicfreeculture.wordpress.com/

saicfreeculture@gmail.com

What Is Net Neutrality?

•    Network Neutrality — or Net Neutrality — is the guiding principle that ensures the free and open Internet.

•    Net Neutrality means no discrimination: It prevents Internet service providers from speeding up, slowing down or blocking Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

•    Net Neutrality leaves Internet users in control of the Internet, so that you can go anywhere, read or watch anything, and access and share whatever you want via the Internet.

•    Net Neutrality has always been part of the Internet — ensuring a level playing field for all, and it’s why the Internet has been such a powerful engine for free speech, democratic participation and economic innovation.

•    The Internet is the future of communications, and we need to keep it open, available and affordable to all Americans. On the free and open Internet, any Web site could become a TV or radio station – there are no gatekeepers or barriers to entry.

Why Net Neutrality Now?

•    It’s time to make Net Neutrality the law once and for all. We have unprecedented support — a president who has called for Net Neutrality; a new pro-Net Neutrality chairman heading the FCC; support from congressional leaders; more than 1.6 million people who have written letters to Washington in support of Net Neutrality. We have incredible momentum, and with a final push we can make Net Neutrality the law.

•    The FCC is proposing new rules to fulfill President Obama’s promise to protect Net Neutrality. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced his plans to protect Net Neutrality on Oct 22.

•    We have new legislation in Congress – The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (HR 3458) – that’s gaining supporters.

•    There is an urgent need for Net Neutrality to protect us from phone and cable company schemes to block the free flow of information online. These companies have already violated Net Neutrality many times. Now they’re talking about plans to “manage” and “filter” content in ways that pad their profit margins (already in the double digits), but that rob users of their choice of content.

•    Washington can’t afford to wait any longer: As all media move online, the phone and cable companies see your high-speed Internet connection as their new source of revenue, and they’re scrambling to kill Net Neutrality so they can inspect and filter content, block Web sites and applications they don’t like, and overcharge you for using the Web.

Fight Back Against Powerful Corporate Special Interests

•    The phone and cable companies that provide your Internet connection are pulling out all the stops against Net Neutrality. These companies (including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast) have spent more than $50 million to deploy an army of more than 500 lobbyists in Washington. They’re trying to kill Net Neutrality once and for all.

•    Companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all. We have to send a strong and clear message that online discrimination will not be tolerated.

•    Internet service providers have already started blocking innovative applications that they view as unwanted competition. Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Internet providers will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.

•    With more media (TV, radio, phone service) shifting online, and the Internet affecting all areas of the economy, incentives for Internet providers to discriminate are increasing.

Net Neutrality is the beginning of a larger conversation on the future of the Internet

•    The larger goal is affordable and open Internet access for everyone, everywhere.

•    Net Neutrality recognizes that the Internet is an essential infrastructure for economic, social and political activity.

•    The question before us is whether the policies implemented by Congress and the FCC will serve the public interest or just the interests of a few big corporations.

•    At its core, this fight is about democracy – it’s about giving citizens the information and tools they need to hold their leaders accountable and shape the decisions affecting their lives.

SavetheInternet.com Coalition

•    Since we began our campaign, more than 1.6 million people have told Washington that we must make Net Neutrality the law. More than 850 organizations have signed on to the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, including every major consumer group, progressive and conservative leaders, small businesses and unions, bloggers and librarians.

•    If two million people tell Washington that we need to make Net Neutrality the law, we’ll send a resounding message that neither Congress nor the FCC will be able to ignore. This final push from supporters like you could put us over the top.

•    The coalition includes everyone from MoveOn.org to the Christian Coalition, the ACLU to the American Library Association. SavetheInternet.com takes no corporate or government money, period.

Visit http://www.savetheinternet.com/ for more information.

POSTED BY REH GORDON

Line sharing best solution for slow, expensive US broadband

The FCC may have gotten more than it bargained for when it commissioned a huge report on broadband from Harvard researchers. The data is clear: regulated “open access” schemes, where telecoms and cable companies are forced to lease their lines to other companies, have been better for broadband than the US model…MORE

Posted by REH GORDON

I’ve been wanting to compile my own list of resources on the settlement for a while now. Hopefully, I will have time to put it up on this blog later this week. The settlement has been postponed for revisions by Google ’til mid-October. Much more on this later…

Genachowski is also proposing the addition of two further principles:

• non-discrimination – broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.
• transparency – providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

Also, here’s some links to the beta versions of two government-operated watchdog sites, set up in the current spirit of transparency, to monitor the progress of the new broadband policy’s development – OpenInternet.gov and broadband.gov. Plus, some low-level network diagnostic tools you can run to keep tabs on your ISP here.

Earlier this week, five prominent research universities unveiled the latest demonstration of their commitment to open-access research and publishing.  Harvard, Cornell, Dartmouth, MIT, and UC Berkeley have become the inaugural signatories of the new Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity, an agreement to set up programs to provide the publication fees that are sometimes required by open-access journals. More Here

more

The Question of Freedom at the Open Video Conference

By Carolyn Kane on Wednesday, July 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm.

Does free video uploading and downloading equal democracy? I asked myself this question during the recent Open Video Conference, organized by the Information Society Project at the Yale Law School and the Open Video Alliance, an umbrella coalition for the development of an “open video ecosystem”: a “movement to promote free expression and innovation in online video.” Conference sponsors include Mozilla, Redhat, Intelligent Television, and Livestream. The conference was held at New York University’s Vanderbilt Hall, home of the NYU Law School from June 19-21, 2009. I attended several of the panels at the conference, although it was primarily Yochai Benkler’s opening keynote that was of concern.The mission statement for the conference reads, “Open Video is a movement to promote free expression and innovation in online video.” The conference and its affiliates aimed to respond to outdated copyright law in an attempt to open the limits on the circulation and distribution of copyrighted material. Gabriella Coleman of New York University in her talk, “The Politics and Poetics of DeCSS,” demonstrated the historical connection between code and free speech. Coleman traced the relationship back to John Stuart Mill, who first equated Romantic notions with utilitarian ones in order to justify free speech. In the 20th century, figures such as Richard Stallman, Peter Salins, and Daniel Bernstein, all further solidified the connection between legal rights and code. This history, Coleman points out, thus explains the popularity of today’s research into the triumvirate of copyright, law, and culture. Ideally, the open video culture sought after would be one that would allow for the distribution and use of copyrighted video content without the fear of lawsuits or legal action.

Yochai Benkler, author of the celebrated book, The Wealth of Networks (2006) took the stage in the morning on Friday June 19. His conflation of the freedom to access content, as noted above, with freedom in general, was suspect. Benkler argued that Open Video was indicative of an “open democracy for everyone, everywhere, all the time.” Open Video Culture, he said, would usher in the possibility for “anyone to express oneself, be creative and innovative.” Benkler also claimed that because “millions of people are now looking at [social and political] problems” we will thus find millions of, “distributed solutions.” In this “free” culture, he continued, “human creativity would move to the core.” Aside from the seemingly naïve conflation of terms, exactly which society, which “everyone,” and which economic system did Benkler have in mind?

Rhizome’s founder, Mark Tribe, also presented at the conference with Rhizome’s Executive Director, Lauren Cornell. After the talk, Tribe shed some light on the significance of Benkler’s broad statements. He said that Benkler is partially correct, social media has granted more freedom. For instance, look at what the Yes Men can do. But at the same time, he added, this freedom has no effect on social relations, economic inequity and will not necessarily increase freedoms for those whom it is denied. Lastly, it does not automatically equal audiences.

It is true. When Benkler states that in “Transparent culture, anyone can innovate” and thus become “better readers,” this is correct, in theory. For instance, random users may upload a video of a protest or demonstration to YouTube, or a mashup video of something they found online—they may make critical commentaries, subvert normative journalistic channels, and gain more insight into how television and mass media products are produced and assembled. But again, this does not guarantee more perceptive readers, critical content, or an audience for that material. As László Barabási points out, the majority of internet traffic still flows through major hubs—hubs like Amazon and Yahoo, which means that online content generally continues to rely on traditional media channels for distribution. Even if an independent new media organization may gain an audience, such as Boing Boing, or Rhizome, they may not be guaranteed the financial support needed to sustain on a long-term basis (this was the focus of Xeni Jardin’s talk at the conference, a reporter from Boing Boing).

The situation is nicely summed up by media scholar Geert Lovink, in his recent manifesto written with Ned Rossiter. “Web 2.0” they explain, “is not for free. ‘Free as in free beer’ is not like ‘free as in freedom’. Open does not equal free. These days ‘free’ is just another word for service economies…. Where is the enemy? Not on Facebook, where you can only have ‘friends’. What Web 2.0 lacks is the technique of antagonistic linkage. Instead, we are confronted with the Tyranny of Positive Energy…” The utopianism of “open and free” video culture, it seems, is correct in that it allows people to do things they could not do before. But this does not automatically equal change or democracy in itself. Any proclamation of social utopia deserves a second look, yet we also need to understand why Benkler framed his arguments in the way he did that morning––speaking to an audience of lawyers, corporate investors, sponsors, and public relations representatives.

POSTED BY REH GORDON

Excellent video essay on the stigma of appropriation and visual remixing from one its biggest practitioners, Oliver Laric. Surprisingly reminiscent of a Chris Marker film (maybe it’s the narrator).

Also, somewhat related…an interesting essay on the hypocrisy of the recent Pirate Bay arrests and what it could mean for the future of ye olde music industrie from the vice-president of the Berklee College of Music. LINK

Even as the content industry celebrates another false victory over file sharing, the world is moving on, to cloud-based, on-demand streaming services — some licensed — where you can hear music and watch videos faster and in a more social way than you can with bit torrent. And as content holders look to monetize those networks, P2P networks provide the only useful template, because they share so many characteristics with today’s social-media networks…

In addition to teaching them how to mine social networks for user data, file sharing taught the content industry that it’s often more efficient to address networks than users. On one hand, this sort of thinking led to The Pirate Bay lawsuit. On the other, we have Choruss, Warner Music Group adviser and digital music guru Jim Griffin’s plan to license universities, then ISPs, to allow subscribers to download and upload as much music as they want for an overall, royalty-like fee.

POSTED BY CHRIS

POSTED BY CHRIS