Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have just revealed their new strategy for working with the content industries to crack down on internet piracy (How ISPs will do “six strikes”: Throttled speeds, blocked sites | Ars Technica). The approach takes 3 phases: notice, acknowledgement, and punishment. A spokesperson said that the goal was not to stop heavy-downloading “serial pirates.”

[ISPs goal is to] educate “the vast majority of the people for whom trading in copyrighted material has become a social norm.”

The 3 steps certainly have a better chance of success than the bland, generic copyright “education” of the past, but still might fall short for achieving the kind of change content owners are looking for.

My research is starting to reveal that norms usually trump law, despite “education” efforts. Media effects and psychological theories point to difficulty of overcoming factors like our natural tendency to think heuristically and the power of group norms. I’m sure these measures will bring a small decrease in downloading, but I predict a push-back as our culture engages in more online creativity. Especially if that creativity is an individual’s livelihood!

I’d argue that there are also issues of private enforcement of law here, but that is an issue for another day.

In the course of my dissertation research, I’ve spoken with a number of people who have been affected by takedowns. Works completely of their own, sometimes with no offending material, have been taken down. This results in less exposure and potential loss of revenue.

These new rules will help the little guy.

Under the new rules announced Wednesday, however, if the uploader challenges the match, the alleged rights holder must abandon the claim or file an official takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Falsely representing ownership in a DMCA flap may expose one to potential monetary damages.

via YouTube Alters Copyright Algorithms, Will Manually Review Some Claims | Threat Level | Wired.com.

Here’s a thought experiment: Everyone over age 12 when YouTube launched in 2005 is now able to vote.

What happens when — and this is inevitable — a generation completely comfortable with remix culture becomes a majority of the electorate, instead of the fringe youth? What happens when they start getting elected to office? (Maybe “I downloaded but didn’t share” will be the new “I smoked, but didn’t inhale.”)

This is why understanding the intersection of copyright, culture, and technology is not just a worthwhile pursuit — it should be a prerequisite for future policymaking.

via No Copyright Intended – Waxy.org.

Allowing such ersatz lending is a pretence by booksellers. They wish you to engage in two separate hallucinations. First, that their limited licence to read a work on a device or within software of their choosing is equivalent to the purchase of a physical item. Second, that the vast majority of e-books are persistent objects rather than disposable culture.

I’ve made this argument here before–some media are like newspapers.  They have value in their day, and perhaps as historical artifacts, but quickly become “fishwrap.”  Books and movies are media that a user can go back to, over and over again.  I think this sense is how many justify paying to own something. They want it on their shelf as a reminder, and as an artifact that they might return to over time.

The larger argument in the article is perhaps up for debate.  The author seems to think that cheap rental systems and in-store browsing are viable answers to things like buying used books (thanks to the first-sale rule, which is quickly disintegrating in the digital world).

I, for one, enjoy going to a used bookstore for the adventure.  Digging up a good book is an activity that is driven by more than my hunt for a good deal.  There’s a spirit in used books that sometimes draws you into volumes you might never have found in an Amazon search. Perhaps cheap rentals will work for blockbusters, but I’ll stick to digging for lost treasures in the dim shelves of my local bookstore.