The Center for the Study of the Public Domain, a non profit organisation at Duke Law School, has made available a worthwhile read in the form of a comic. It examines the legal & ethical boundaries of copyright and intellectual property versus public domain, and the impact that these boundaries have on our society. How far should we go in protecting property? When should people be allowed to use material for their creative pursuits?

The public domain is the realm of material—ideas, images, sounds, discoveries, facts, texts—that is unprotected by intellectual property rights and free for all to use or build upon. Our economy, culture and technology depend on a delicate balance between that which is, and is not, protected by exclusive intellectual property rights. Both the incentives provided by intellectual property and the freedom provided by the public domain are crucial to the balance. But most contemporary attention has gone to the realm of the protected.

The Center for the Study of the Public Domain

So, if this issue is of concern to you, make sure you check out the comic.

On November 12, 2008, a group of artists and activists unveiled a brilliant spoof of the New York Times, widely distributed to readers in New York and Los Angeles. This “July 4, 2009″ version of the Times — which the real New York Times described as a “Grade-A caper” — boldly announced the end of the Iraq War, the nationalization of major oil conglomerates, the elimination of tuition at public universities, and the indictment of soon-to-be-former president Bush on charges of high treason. The poignant send-up, also available in an online version at www.nytimes-se.com, is a perfect example of parody in the 21st century. It certainly got its fair share of attention.

Could the lawyers be far behind? Not surprisingly, the corporate targets of the parody were not pleased. Now, in what is becoming an all-too-familiar trend, one of those corporations has attempted to shut down the site by putting pressure on what is often the weakest link in the online speech chain: the domain name registrar. Stymied by the First Amendment and other legal impediments, those who don’t appreciate critical commentary and other “objectionable” online content have found intermediaries — providers of indispensable technical services like domain name registration and web hosting — much easier to intimidate.

This time, the complaining (and overreaching) party was the South African diamond conglomerate De Beers, the target of a critical fake ad on the web version of the New York Times spoof announcing that diamond purchases “will enable us to donate a prosthetic for an African whose hand was lost in diamond conflicts.” Miffed by the criticism, De Beers responded not by confronting the authors (whose parody is protected by the First Amendment) but instead by threatening their Swiss-based domain name registrar, Joker.com. De Beers has demanded that Joker.com disable the spoof website’s domain name or face liability for trademark infringement.

Come on guys @ De Beers—have a beer, lighten up & grow a sense of humour. Read the rest of the article at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

They managed to print over 1 million fake copies of The New York Times and distributed them in NYC and LA.

Brilliant way to make the headlines and bring your message across.

The spoof New York Times edition, dated July 4, 2009

Further Reading

• The spoof website that accompanies the paper edition
• The BBC News‘ take on the prank
• The Gaurdian‘s take on the prank
• See how they did it on the Laughing Squid
• The Yes Men on Wikipedia

What other manufacturers release a product with such silly warnings every time you use it? Start your car? You’d have to listen to this:

You must not drive this vehicle faster than the legal speed limit set by your local government and enforced by your local police department. You must not alter this vehicle in ways that do not comply with local legislation. You must not operate this vehicle under the influence of mind altering substances, other than those prescribed by your doctor. You must not use this vehicle for illegal purposes, such as armed robbery, drag racing, drug dealing, transporting more than 342 chickens…

Please comply with fore-mentioned rules and regulations to start the vehicle, and remember to drive safely.

C’mon… my wife is due any moment now—start the car already!

I can empathize with the difficult position Hollywood is in: it is seeing a long running multi billion dollar virtual monopoly potentially disappear like snow under the sun. But surely this is the wrong way to approach the issue. It lacks original thought (just like many of its products), shows little class (just like…) and has a very predictable ending(…).

This Hollywood knee-jerk reaction to a changing world seems rather silly when you take into consideration that the town has been run down by corporate giants:

It’s only in relatively recent years that Hollywood became the playground of multinational corporations which regard movies and TV shows as a minor irritant to their overall activity.

Peter Bart, editor in chief of Variety

A lot of people are getting seriously crapped off; it appears movie moguls are shitting in the corner while entertaining guests (and while some guests might be entertained, most wouldn’t be). This sort of behaviour makes little business sense: don’t bedevil your customers! Dare I say, more people will move towards downloading/copying movies that do not include these messages?

Now, can we get back to enjoying our movies again? If the industry insists on includig these messages, at least give us back our control: don’t freeze our remotes during these messages. Please? Give us a break…

Suggested Reading

• PBS Frontline: The monster that ate Hollywood
• Ars Technica: no balance between the threat of piracy and solutions to it