Kia ora Danyl, all,
I agree. The framework of the recent NZOnAir paper is mostly amenable to the arguments that we put forward, namely that CC licensing should be applied immediately
– or, at worst, after an ‘embargo period’ of some kind. And, as you say, if producers want to extend this period of closure, then it ought to be up to them to make that case to the public funding body.
The reason why they haven’t adopted our conclusions – even as they appear to agree with our basic arguments – can be explained by the fact that submissions
to their initial discussion paper were very heavily weighted in favour of industry groups. Many of these submissions were very strongly against any change to the status quo, one going so far as to question whether there was any proof that the public did in
fact desire greater access.
Anyway, I’ll aim to clarify our proposals over the next few months, in consultation with the community, so that we have a more rigorous proposal for next time.
The last submission was drafted in an afternoon, so we should be able to make a more detailed case with a longer lead-in. If anyone is interested in helping out, perhaps we can develop a working group within Loomio.
Cheers,
Matt
Matt McGregor
Creative Commons
DDI:
+64 4 470 5779 | Twitter @cc_aotearoa
Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand is a project of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of New Zealand
| Te Apārangi
11 Turnbull Street, Thorndon | PO Box 598, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
www.creativecommons.org.nz
From: cc-nz-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-nz-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]
On Behalf Of Danyl Strype
Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2013 2:57 p.m.
To: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion
Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] NZOnAir Online Rights Paper
Kia ora koutou
>> CCANZ submitted to NZOnAir’s online rights discussion paper earlier in the year. In October, they released a second paper, which emphasises some of the limitations of ARR copyright for publicly funded materials:
http://www.nzonair.govt.nz/media/99019/discussion_paper_online_access_to_publicly_funded_content_oct13.pdf <<
Thanks again Matt for making sure a CC ANZ perspective was included in this process. If possible, it would be great to have a number of CC ANZ advocates participating in any in-person discussions with NZ on Air, particularly anyone who publishes locally-produced
audio-visual material under CC licenses.
Reading NZ on Air's discussion paper, I find myself feeling frustrated by the conceptual framing. NZ on Air's discussion starts from the same slanted assumption that underpins the whole copyright debate; that copyright exists for the commercial benefit of producers
and distributors, rather than the public interest goal of increasing the amount of published content available to the public.
From the introduction:
"The issue is the balancing of competing interests to include the public interest."
When we are talking about spending public money, surely the public interest is the primary consideration? Certainly interests such as the ability of creative workers to make a reasonable living from their work and the commercial viability of production and
distribution business model, will be part of any discussion around online availability of creative works. However, to "include the public interest" as only one among a set of "competing interests" ignores that the purpose of public funding of the arts (like
the point of copyright itself) is to provide the public with access to local creative works, not to provide corporate welfare to businesses which trade in the production and/or distribution of creative works.
In fact, it could be argued that ensuring the economic survival of creative workers, and the organisations through which they coordinate their work, does serve the public interest, considering that the same member of the public may be at different times;
* part of an audience seeking quality work to watch
* a creative worker seeking satisfying work that pays their bills
* an administrators/ businessperson seeking to cover their operational costs
* a rent seeker hoping to generate profits, dividends, royalties etc from creative work
In that case however, the issue is one of striking a balance between competing aspects *within* the public interest. The problem with the framing of this paper is that is allows the authors to carry on the discussion in a way that clearly relegates the interest
of the public as audience to a secondary role. The onus in placed on us to justify giving the public access to publicly-funded work.
If we reverse the burden of proof, and place it on those putting publicly-funded content behind paywalls, as where it arguably belongs, there is a lot in this paper that supports an argument for greater online access to funded works, and very little that justifies
limiting it. As Matt pointed out, very little revenue is made with most funded works (which after all is why they're being funded), and almost none a few years after funding, even with a full copy monopoly in place. The paper also admits:
"... a large majority of New Zealanders do not see most content when it is broadcast. It would therefore seem to be in the public interest to further explore how to extend online availability for New Zealand audiences for publicly funded content."
Looking at the framework they put forward, it seems pretty clear to me that 100% funded productions should be under a CC license after they are "published" (ie first transmission), and perhaps that's a recommendation
CC ANZ advocates could take to the stakeholder meeting? Where there is a mix of public and private funding, things are more complicated. I'm not convinced there is an argument for public funding topping up the budget of productions which are commercially viable
enough to get the majority of their funding from private sources. But that's a separate discussion ;)
I'm totally opposed to geo-blocking, as it breaks the "end-to-end" principles of the internet. Would it be possible to create an international agreement that any publicly funded creative work should be available to the global public, using
the same sort of mechanisms by which governments recognise each others' copyright laws?
--
Danyl Strype
Community Developer
Disintermedia.net.nz/strype
"Geeks are those who partake in our culture."
- .ISOcrates
"Voting... is the next to last refuge of the politically impotent. The last refuge is, of course, giving your opinion to a pollster, who will get a version of it through a dessicated question, and then will submerge it in a Niagra of similar opinions, and convert
them into - what else? - another piece of news. Thus, we have here a great loop of impotence: The news elicits from you a variety of opinions about which you can do nothing except to offer them as more news, about which you can do nothing."
- Neil Postman, 'Amusing Ourselves To Death'
|
