The copyfight, science fiction, and social media

[comments are welcome]

1. Introduction
2. Gibson’s cyberspace: the end of privacy and historical memory in “augmented reality”
3. “Science fiction is the only literature people care enough about to steal on the Internet”
4. Peter Watts’ descent into the Maelstrom
5. “All citizens have an obligation to violate copyright law”
Notes
Works Cited

What kind of artist thrives on the Internet? Those who can establish a personal relationship with their readers—something science fiction has been doing for as long as pros have been hanging out in the con suite instead of the green room. (Doctorow, Content 80)

The “copyfight” over regulating intellectual property (IP) and digital culture pits states and corporations against citizens, who are criminalized en masse as ever-stricter IP laws exert increasing control over cultural production, distribution, and consumption. At the same time, these new laws and regulations increasingly infringe on citizens’ rights to freedom and privacy. As of this writing, the Harper regime is poised to introduce IP legislation pitched as “copyright modernization” but based on the punitive, police-state models of the USA’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the UK’s Digital Economy bill. New IP laws like these weaken and restrict provisions for public fair use, while extending protection not only to IP but also to the technological protection measures or “digital locks” that some companies put on devices and content. Looming over these sweeping regulatory changes is the secretive negotiation of a global Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (as discussed by my AU colleague Peter Jay Smith).

Between these enclosures of the cultural commons, and resistances to them, cultural production and media output have become highly politicized. Canadian science fiction writers have politicized cultural production as a specifically progressive movement. They’re not alone in this: indie musicians, DJs, legal scholars, and documentary film-makers have also linked cultural production to progressive politics under IP regulatory change. But the links Canadian science fiction writers make between fictional projections and actual mobilizations of social media (like blogs and social networks) represent a creative capacity building that articulates—sometimes with uncanny irony and acumen—the “new abnormal”1 regimes of digital culture.

Canadian science fiction authors mix creativity and tech savvy here, by linking their literary and social uses of new media, to raise awareness of the copyfight and to mobilize their audiences against the attempts of late global capital to confiscate the cultural commons. William Gibson, Cory Doctorow, and Peter Watts are the writers I’ll discuss here.2 All three authors are bloggers; Gibson and Doctorow also “microblog” on Twitter. Unlike Gibson, Doctorow and Watts complement the print editions of their books with free online editions, distributed under Creative Commons (CC) licensing.

All authors speculate on the shape of digital culture in science fiction’s distinctive temporal setting of the “future present” (Doctorow, Overclocked). As held by the tradition of science fiction studies, the genre’s future settings and speculations are most productively read as social commentary on the present. Reviews of Gibson’s recent work have extended this tradition. In 1982, Fredric Jameson wrote that science fiction’s “multiple mock futures […] transform our own present into the determinate past of something yet to come”; thus, the genre’s “deepest vocation is over and over again to demonstrate and to dramatize our incapacity to imagine the future.” In reviews of Gibson’s 2003 novel Pattern Recognition, Jameson and Veronica Hollinger reaffirm this tradition3: Hollinger reads Pattern as a “story […] about (the impossibility of) the future,” published at a time when “there is not much distance anymore between the facticity of realism and the subjunctivity of science fiction” (452); while Jameson’s review reiterates his claim that “the representational apparatus of Science Fiction […] is sending back more reliable information about the contemporary world than an exhausted realism” (105). Of Gibson’s last novel, Spook Country (2007), Doctorow says it’s “so futuristic that Gibson set it a year before it was published” (¶8), and both he and Gibson echo the critical view that “science fiction is a literature that uses the device of futurism to show up the present” (Doctorow ¶10, Gibson qtd. in Doctorow, “William Gibson” ¶4). The temporal setting of science fiction is worth noting here because the present “is difficult enough to get a handle on” (Doctorow, “Radical” ¶10)—for example, in the globalized maelstrom of technology, policy, and debate that is the copyfight.4 Moreover, the literary work and digital networking of these authors also show some peculiarly uncanny relations between their futuristic fictions and present realities.

Gibson’s cyberspace: the end of privacy and historical memory in “augmented reality”

For Gibson, digital culture signals the end of personal privacy.5 His first novel, Neuromancer (1984), coined the portmanteau cyberspace that has since become virtually synonymous with the Internet.6 Neuromancer describes cyberspace as a “consensual hallucination […] a graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer” (51). Famous as a fiction-based christening for the Internet (Barlow qtd. in Streeter 288-89), cyberspace was envisioned by Gibson more as a “McLuhanesque post-Orwellian television universe” (qtd. in Rapatzikou 228). The “post-Orwellian” aspect is crucial: Gibson’s cyberspace is dominated by multinational corporations and haunted by hackers, and the main activities there are securitization and surveillance, infiltration and sabotage. Significantly, these activities also dominate the novel’s non-virtual world. In one scene, the protagonists visit a back-alley shop that offers a “screen,” an electronically sealed room where they can talk freely. Well, relatively freely: the character paying for the service quips: “this is as private as I can afford” (49). The reification of fictional cyberspace as actual Internet is maybe the most familiar example of how Gibson’s work is weirdly involved in “augmented reality,” a blurring of the digital and the physical, described in Spook Country as the “eversion,” or turning inside-out, of cyberspace. Augmented reality has become increasingly familiar, in both Gibson’s work and everyday life. “One of the things our grandchildren will find quaintest about us,” he muses, “is that we distinguish the digital from the real” (“Rolling Stone“). Gibson’s work has moved from far-future scenes of plugged-in cyborgs, to near-future scenes of holographic virtual celebrities, to present-day scenes of digital art and the networks of fans and finance that follow it.

This last example supplies the premise of Pattern Recognition, the first in Gibson’s trilogy of present-day novels. The novel’s protagonist belongs to “FFF,” a fan community organized around a message board that follows an anonymous digital film series, publicizing new instalments of “the footage”, critiquing it, and speculating on its production (thereby effectively supplementing its anonymous creator’s “author function” [Foucault 101]). Remarkable, when published, as a Gibson novel set in the realistic present, Pattern Recognition still pursues two of his oeuvre’s major themes: the precarity of historical memory and the infinite capacity of global capital to commoditize anything—especially art and knowledge. From the vague, post-nuclear backstory of Neuromancer to the studiously deleted context of the “footage” in Pattern Recognition, Gibson’s science fiction dramatizes the fragility of historical memory and record.7 And, like the plots of Count Zero and Idoru, that of Pattern Recognition follows a commissioned protagonist’s global and virtual search to discover a reclusive artist’s identity.

In this way, Pattern Recognition dramatizes, like several of Gibson’s other novels, how capitalist interests compete for cultural commodities in the globalized “information economy”—and how monopolies on art and knowledge confiscate culture and destroy public memory.8 Since his first novel, then, Gibson’s concerns with the economics of the “information economy” have anticipated the present concerns over privacy, heritage, and IP regulation voiced by law scholars like Lawrence Lessig and James Boyle.

Meanwhile, through his blog (which he’s had since 2003) and Twitter, Gibson interacts with his fans and critics, reports on new technologies and cultural archives, reflects on his process, notes “augmented” relays between his work and everyday life, and raises awareness for IP issues like fair access for blind readers and the new Canadian IP bill. His reflections on process also reveal both its derivative bricolage and his attention to fan culture and remixing: in a recent exchange on Twitter, about Neuromancer’s protagonist Molly, Gibson attributes his “key iconic” for Molly to the first Pretenders album cover, and agrees with a fan “who hates it when Molly Millions is drawn [i.e. by other fans] as super-sexy”—but he doesn’t sue them for it.

“Science fiction is the only literature people care enough about to steal on the Internet” (Doctorow, Content 79)

In this way, Gibson uses Twitter a bit like Cory Doctorow, who balances his writing career between citizen journalism and science fiction. Co-editor and -owner9 of the popular culture blog Boingboing.net, Doctorow has become a go-to expert on the copyfight, with columns in the UK press, a busy public lecture schedule, and an appearance in the NFB copyfight documentary RiP: A Remix Manifesto. As if the torrent of blog posts, columns, talks, and tweets weren’t already a full-time writing career, Doctorow has also published several science fiction novels, and a collection of talks and essays on the copyfight, Content.10 And since his first novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (2003), his deal with Tor has let him give away CC-licensed electronic editions of all his books, in just about every format available. “I haven’t lost any sales, I’ve just won an audience” (71), he claims, pointing to the numbers: Down and Out has been downloaded over 700,000 times—and gone through six printings (Content 80).

By CC-licensing all his work, Doctorow substantiates his claims for the peculiarly intimate relationship that science fiction has with the Internet, a technical relationship conjoined to science fiction’s longer-standing social relationship with its fans. “Science fiction,” he says, is “perhaps the most social of all literary genres […it] is driven by organized fandom. […] What’s more, science fiction’s early adopters defined the social character of the Internet itself,” he reflects, adding that science fiction was and remains “the most widely pirated literature online” (72-73). But if Doctorow’s being ironic here, it’s only in evoking the overdetermined rhetoric of “piracy” (see Lessig, Free Culture 17-20). Doctorow encourages his readers to remix his work and share their results, whatever the medium.

As a result, Doctorow’s work has begun to “augment reality” too: Henry Jenkins, in his 2006 book Convergence Culture, takes up Doctorow’s Down and Out coinage “adhocracy” and theorizes it at length (251); Tara Hunt has taken another Down and Out coinage—“whuffie,” or social capital—and promotes its business applications.11 Last month, a fan tweeted a Wired story about a US high school spying on students with school-issued laptops; the fan wrote Doctorow had “totally called this in Little Brother,” his 2008 young-adult novel, “long before this story broke.” Little Brother opens at a panoptic high school, and, after a 9/11 kind of terrorist attack, becomes a cat-and-mouse game between tech-savvy youths who use social media to organize against the Department of Homeland Security.12

Doctorow advocates freely available and flexibly licensed cultural production not only in his distribution deals, but also in his blogging, and even in his work’s content: in Down and Out, fans have taken over the management of Disney theme parks. In several ways, then, his work shows the economic viability of net-neutral and loosely regulated digital culture, while suggesting the shape of popular culture to come under tighter global IP regulations. As the culture industry (or what Lessig calls “Big Media”) imposes ever harsher limits on how their products circulate and how consumers use them, these products may well get edited out of popular culture, displaced by free and/or flexibly licensed work that migrates more easily, can be adapted more freely, and so takes a more prominent place in the mediascape of popular culture.

Peter Watts’ descent into the Maelstrom

Like Doctorow, Toronto SF novelist Peter Watts runs a blog where he reflects on writing and culture, interacts with fans, and offers CC-licensed editions of all his fiction.13 He credits online publicity for his first novel Starfish (1999) with validating his decision to try writing fiction (E-mail). But in December 2009, Watts started blogging (with a lawyer looking over his shoulder) about a fracas he’d got into with US Customs. Watts had been stopped for an “exit search” in Port Huron, Michigan, and when he simply asked why he was being searched, he was beaten, jailed, had his possessions (including his electronics) confiscated, and was charged with “failure to comply with a lawful order.” When he bailed himself out, he was taken to the Canadian border, and left coatless in a blizzard. Doctorow leveraged BoingBoing’s popular reach to publicize the case, and to drive an online fundraising campaign for Watts’ legal war chest. In March, Watts was convicted of “non-compliance with a border guard”—a felony offence (under statute 750.81d). In April he was fined $2000 for it: a relief, since he was expecting jail time. All for failing to “comply fast enough with a customs officer,” as Doctorow put it (and dozens re-tweeted it).

During and after the court case, Watts often expressed his surprised appreciation for the dedication and generosity of the social media campaign supporting him. He writes that any surplus money from his legal defence fund will go to the ACLU or the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), US non-profits that have championed citizens’ rights against unjust and invasive laws—like much recent IP legislation (“Detox” ¶17). While the major theme of Watts’ encounter with “new normal” border law may have been police brutality, his case starkly dramatizes the links among social media, science fiction, and IP law. Since 2008, US customs officials have enjoyed extraordinary powers to search and seize travelers’ personal electronics (Singel ¶5). The pretext for granting these powers was fighting IP piracy and child pornography (an issue that one music industry spokesman advises Big Media to exploit). Combined with newer “exit search” protocols, these powers expand the border patrol’s role to enforce IP law.14 After having his electronics confiscated, Watts joked: “I hope they have fun with my financial records, draft manuscripts, and bawdy jpegs (none of which portray naked children in compromising positions, to their probable chagrin)” (“Happiness” ¶1). His comment prompted many cautionary replies: “whatever goes on that computer will find a way to DHS”, warned one, while another advised him to “take your computer and flash drive to your lawyer and have a forensic copy made.” And the Globe and Mail focused on this issue in its reportage: “Mr. Watts said […] that what happened to him was more akin to police brutality than Big Brother information gathering. ‘But I have to admit there is this crawly feeling—they now have access to all my financial data, and more importantly, all my e-mails’” (¶9).

Watts’ case resonates uncannily—or at least ironically—with his work. Reporter Stephen Humphrey noted that, in Watts’s 2001 novel Maelstrom, “thuggish guards brutaliz[ing] civilians at will” (¶1). Humphrey quotes from Maelstrom to introduce his report on Watts’ case: […] “‘Technically, of course, it was not an assault,’ [Watts] writes. ‘Both aggressors wore uniforms and badges conferring the legal right to beat whomever they chose.’ […] Ironically,” writes Humphrey, “a piece of that sad future came true for Watts last December” (¶2-3).

And that’s from one of the milder scenes in Maelstrom. The extreme violence of Watts’ fictional future is matched by the ferocity of its speculative successor to the Internet. The “maelstrom” of the title is what people call the Internet in the mid-twenty-first century: a cybernetic jungle swarming with artificial life, “pestilence [and] predation, creatures with split-second lifespans tearing endlessly at each others’ throats.” Watts explicitly contrasts this digital “meatgrinder” against Gibson’s “cyberspace,” recalled as a quaint shibboleth, evoking a “wistful fantasy-word” (“Cascade”). Watts’ hyper-Darwinian image of the future Internet thus comments satirically on the competition, adaptation, and survivalism of our present-day digital ecology.

“All citizens have an obligation to violate copyright law” (Poster ¶26)

Karl Schroeder says Watts’ case “should concern every citizen […] since the verdict appears to criminalize ‘a reasonable expectation of communication’ between citizens and police officers” (qtd. in Godfrey ¶6)—officers who now have powers to search citizens’ communication devices. At the core of Watts’ case is a crisis of communication and privacy that’s structurally integral to the emerging political economy of IP regulation.

Like the other writers and texts treated here, Watts’ “Kafkaesque” case (Watts, “Smoke” 17) demonstrates the conjoined powers of social networks and their science fictional representations to mobilize opposition to the increasingly repressive regulations of IP, which bid to enclose the cultural commons—and, in the process, reshape the whole Internet. In a recent Guardian column, Doctorow slams the UK’s new Digital Economy Act, in dystopian terms, as “the absolute road to dictatorial hell” (“Digital Economy” 11).15 The close relays among science fiction, social media, and digital culture in general can help us to understand the copyfight as a globalized class war between the empires of transnational capital (and the states financing them with what Boyle calls “perpetual corporate welfare” [8-9]) and a multitude being criminalized simply for using the very technologies developed and distributed by those empires. Leveraging its social capital to report back from the possible futures of present realities, science fiction mobilizes opposition to the corporate confiscation of the cultural commons and, sometimes, can even transform the ground on which these conflicts play out.

Notes

1. See Humphrey, from whose headline I take this handy phrase.

2. Others include Minister Faust, Nalo Hopkinson, Robert J. Sawyer, and Margaret Atwood (whom I’d consider a science fiction writer despite her disavowals of the genre).

Atwood tweets in support of several causes; one recent tweet promoted the Open Book Alliance, which opposes the concerted efforts of Google, the American Association of Publishers, and the Authors’ Guild “to monopolize the access, distribution and pricing of the largest digital database of books in the world” (“Mission” 2).

I’ve discovered Sawyer’s 2009 novel WWW: Wake too late to discuss it in this essay, which I should: its protagonist is a blind blogger whose prosthesis-assisted ability to “see the Web” prompts a debate over its IP value (see chapter 29); in voicing an open-source ethos through a sympathetically rendered protagonist, Sawyer subtly invites his readers to identify with that ethos. (Then again, Disney made three movies with Johnny Depp playing a sympathetically rendered pirate…)

3. I suspect these reaffirmations of science fiction tradition in Gibson’s new work also aim, in part, to counter popular reviews that see it belonging more to the “thriller” genre (see Rucker ¶2; see also “Pattern Recognition: Reception”). Of course, Gibson’s own attitude towards science fiction is ambivalent: he “tries to avoid […] the whole edifice of science fiction” (qtd. in Rapatzikou 37) and has called his work a “disgust[ed]” reaction to “hard SF” and “the expectations of the SF industry” (qtd. in McCaffery 275).

4. The other authors under discussion have related perspectives on the complexities of the globalized present. In 1995, Gibson said “the present is more frightening than any imaginable future I might dream up” (qtd. in Lewis ¶8); in a 2007 interview, he was more emphatic—and specific:

If one had gone to talk to a publisher in 1977 with a scenario for a science-fiction novel that was in effect the scenario for the year 2007, nobody would buy anything like it. It’s too complex, with too many huge sci-fi tropes: global warming; the lethal, sexually transmitted immune-system disease; the United States, attacked by crazy terrorists, invading the wrong country. Any one of these would have been more than adequate for a science-fiction novel. But if you suggested doing them all and presenting that as an imaginary future, they’d not only show you the door, they’d probably call security. (“Rolling Stone“)

Watts weaves a sense of the globalized, complex present into the premise and setting of his Rifters trilogy: Maelstrom introduces the “Complex Systems Instability-Response Authority” or CSIRA, an agency informally called “the Entropy Patrol” (“Corpse”). CSIRA is tasked with rapid-response solutions for the social, technological, and ecological breakdowns that proliferate in his post-national, post-Gulf Stream, Malthusian world of the mid-21st century.

5. On this issue, Gibson’s work expresses in fictional form concerns shared by many new media developers, critics, and scholars; in a talk on social media and research presented earlier this year, George Siemens stated bluntly that “the difficulty with privacy is that it doesn’t exist.” Yet Gibson is not wholly critical of the end of privacy: it “comes with a new kind of unavoidable transparency. […] It will be very hard for politicians and governments to keep secrets” (“Rolling Stone“).

6. The conflation of cyberspace and the Internet arguably peaked in the “techno-romantic” mid-1990s, marked by the rapid popularization of the World Wide Web, e-commerce, prototypical “virtual reality” gear, and “cyberdelic” rave scenes (see Streeter 288; see also Coyne).

7. Gibson’s next novel, out this fall, is titled Zero History.

8. Sarah Brouillette argues that Neuromancer “focus[es] on the structural relations that define corporate culture” (203) in a way that has made it “the science-fiction […] community’s canonical text, a text that explains and codifies what they see themselves as having lost at the hands of their corporate others” (205).

9. The author thanks Mr. Doctorow for clarifying his status with BoingBoing.

10. Doctorow describes his process as writing for (at least) twenty minutes every day (“Writing”).

11. Exploiting whuffie for real-world business management seems a little ironic, since in Doctorow’s fiction, the “reputation economy,” for which whuffie is the currency, has wholly replaced the monetary economy.

12. As an aside, the novel takes so many asides to discuss software and security systems that I found it impossible to distinguish technological fact from fiction: I no sooner learned that the novel’s “Paranoid Linux” operating system was fictional, than I read that actual programmers had attempted to develop it, although that project now seems abandoned.

13. This also means Watts can redistribute his work in editions that fit his artistic vision more than the page-count priorities of print publishers (see his Author’s Note to the electronic edition of ßehemoth).

14. I had take stock of the music on my laptop when I went to Philadelphia last year—ironically, to give a talk on DJ practice, a constitutively IP-infringing cultural form. One BC university recently circulated a memo warning academics traveling to the US to keep devices to a minimum, and to back up all data transported—one scholar apparently lost original, un-backed-up research to border confiscation (Stefanick).

15. In the wake of the British election, reports are emerging that UK politicians are already considering a repeal of the Digital Economy Act (Masnick).

Works Cited

Anderson, Nate. “Screw you, Internet? Digital Economy bill passes in the UK.” Ars Technica 8 Apr. 2010.

Atwood, Margaret. @MargaretAtwood [Twitter].

—. Blog.

—. Oryx and Crake (2003). Toronto: Random House Seal, 2004.

—. Year of the Flood. Toronto: Random House, 2009.

Boyle, James. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. Yale UP, 2008.

Brouillette, Sarah. “Corporate Publishing and Canonization: Neuromancer and Science-Fiction Publishing in the 1970s and Early 1980s.” Book History 5 (2002): 187-208.

Clark, Campbell. “Canadians don’t forfeit right to privacy at border, Obama official says: But science fiction writer’s detention a reminder that searches can be intrusive.” Globe and Mail 14 Dec. 2009.

Coyne, Richard. Technoromanticism: Digital Narrative, Holism, and the Romance of the Real. Cambridge: MIT P, 2001.

Creative Commons Canada [website].

“Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” Wikipedia 11 May 2010.

Doctorow, Cory. Content: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright, and the Future of the Future. San Francisco: Tachyon Publications, 2008.

—. Craphound.com [blog].

—. “Digital Economy Act: This means war.” The Guardian 16 Apr. 2010.

—. @doctorow [Twitter].

—. Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. New York: Tor, 2003.

—. E-mail to author. 14 May 2010.

—. Little Brother (2008). New York: Tom Doherty, 2010.

—. “Music industry spokesman loves child porn.” BoingBoing 28 Apr. 2010.

—. Overclocked: Stories of the Future Present. Philadelphia: Running P, 2007.

—. “Radical presentism.” Tin House Blog 6 Oct. 2009.

“William Gibson explains why science fiction is about the present.” BoingBoing 8 Jul. 2007.

“Writing in the Age of Distraction.” Locus Magazine 7 Jan. 2009.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) [website].

Esguerra, Richard. “The Entertainment Industry’s Dystopia of the Future.” DeepLinks [blog]. EFF, 14 Apr. 2010.

Faust, Minister. The Bro-Log [blog].

—. The Coyote Kings of the Space Age Bachelor Pad. New York: Del Rey, 2004.

Foucault, Michel. “What is an author?” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1984. 101-20.

Geist, Michael. “The ACTA Threat: My Talk on Everything You Need to Know About ACTA, But Didn’t Know to Ask.” Michaelgiest.ca [blog] 12 Nov. 2009.

—. “Covering the Return of the Canadian DMCA.” Michaelgeist.ca 6 May 2010.

Gibson, William. Blog.

—. @GreatDismal [Twitter].

—. Neuromancer. New York: Penguin Ace, 1984.

—. Pattern Recognition (2003). New York: Berkley, 2004.

— “Rolling Stone 40th anniversary issue interview with William Gibson.” Rolling Stone Nov. 2007.

—. Spook Country (2007). New York: Berkley, 2008

Godfrey, Laura. “Sci-fi community reacts to author Peter Watts’ guilty verdict.” Quill and Quire 23 Mar. 2010.

Hollinger, Veronica. “Stories about the Future: From Patterns of Expectation to Pattern Recognition.” Science Fiction Studies 33.3 (2006): 452-72.

Hopkinson, Nalo. Nalo’s Blog.

—. @nalohopkinson [Twitter].

Humphrey, Stephen. “Dystopia now: the new abnormal for convicted novelist Peter Watts.” Toronto NewsFIX 23 Mar. 2010.

Hunt, Tara. The Whuffie Factor: Using the Power of Social Networks to Build Your Business. New York: Crown Business, 2009.

—. The Whuffie Factor [website].

Jameson, Frederic. “Fear and Loathing in Globalization.” New Left Review 23 (2003): 105-14.

—. “Progress versus Utopia.” Science Fiction Studies 9.2 (1982): 147-58.

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York UP, 2006.

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin, 2004.

—. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury, 2008.

Lewis, Peter H. “ON LINE WITH William Gibson; Present at the Creation, Startled at the Reality.” New York Times 22 May 1995.

Masnick, Mike. “UK Politicians Looking to Repeal Digital Economy Act.” Techdirt 19 May 2010.

McCaffery, Larry. “An Interview with William Gibson.” Storming the Reality Studio: A Casebook of Cyberpunk and Postmodern Fiction. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. 263-85.

Open Book Alliance. “Mission.” Open Book Alliance, 2009.

Pattern Recognition: Reception.” Wikipedia 25 Jan. 2010.

Poster, Mark. “Who controls digital culture?” Fast Capitalism 1.2 (2005).

Rapatzikou, Tatiani G. Gothic Motifs in the Fiction of William Gibson. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2004.

RiP: A Remix Manifesto. Dir. Brett Gaylor. NFB, 2008.

Rucker, Rudy. “Logomancer” [rev.of Pattern Recognition]. Wired 11.2 (Feb. 2003).

Sawyer, Robert J. Blog.

—. @RobertJSawyer [Twitter].

—. WWW: Wake. New York: Ace, 2009.

Siemens, George. “The potential impacts of social media on social research and scholarly communication.” Annual Research Forum, Athabasca U, 27 Apr. 2010.

Singel, Ryan. “Border Agents Can Search Laptops without Cause, Appeals Court Rules.” Threat Level: Privacy, Security, Politics and Crime Online. Wired Blog Network: Threat Level 22 April 2008.

Smith, Peter Jay. “The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Enclosing the Internet?” Society for Socialist Studies conference, Concordia U, Montreal, 31 May 2010.

Stefanick, Lorna. E-mail to author. 15 Apr. 2010.

Streeter, Thomas. “Romanticism in Business Culture: The Internet, the 1990s, and the Origins of Irrational Exuberance.” Toward a Political Economy of Culture: Capitalism and Communication in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Andrew Calabrese and Colin Sparks. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. 286-306.

Watts, Peter. ßehemoth. New York: Tor, 2004.

—. Maelstrom (2001). New York: Tor, 2009.

—. “Detox. Recharge.” No Moods, Ads, or Cutesy Fucking Icons [blog] 2 May 2010.

—. E-mail to author. 16 May 2010.

—. “Happiness is a Warm Parka. And Friends I Didn’t Know I Had.” No Moods, Ads, or Cutesy Fucking Icons 13 Dec. 2009.

“Not the Best of Possible Worlds.” No Moods, Ads, or Cutesy Fucking Icons 11 Dec. 2009.

Tags: science fiction, canada, creative commons, cultural commons, copyfight, intellectual property, copyright, blog, social media, sns

This page is licensed under a CC Attribution 3.0 Canada license: you may share, redistribute, and remix this work, but you must attribute credit to its author.

Advertisements

12 responses to “The copyfight, science fiction, and social media

  1. Pingback: Cory Doctorow’s craphound.com >> Blog Archive » Scholarly essay on copyfight, science fiction and social justice

  2. Pingback: A scholarly take on the copyfight & pop culture « Academicalism

  3. Pingback: Sobre copyrights, copylefts y la ciencia ficción « Theorein

  4. When anyone uses Cory Doctorow as one of their primary experts on copyright and publishing, that’s a good clue for those of us interested in the subject that many of the arguments will be hopelessly flawed.

    Doctorow deliberately ignores American copyright law, as it is written, and imposes his own version to bolster his arguments. One such misuse is his declaration that an ebook is covered by “The Doctrine of First Sale” which it isn’t.

    For a discussion on the subject and links to the original sources, I suggests the links on the bottom of my blog entry on the subject.

    http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/search/label/copyright

    Doctorow is also a poor example of how free ebooks can build a career. He makes his living, not with his fiction, but by being a celebrity “expert.” He’s celebrity capitalism’s poster child, not an advocate for free content.

    He also fails to mention that the promotional quality of a free ebook version of a new book is only of value if the book and the author’s backlist is available in most brick and mortar stores. A vast majority of authors, even successful ones, don’t have their books in so many stories.

    Also, as more readers buy hardware ebook readers and become comfortable with ebooks, they are less likely to go out and buy the paper book after slogging through a few chapters online. They read the free copy, and the author sees no money.

    Of the many authors and publishers I have talked to, the only ones who are successful with free ebooks are those who give away the first book of an established series.

    Straight science fiction, not including fantasy, has been the least successful genre for the last ten years. The fact that it has also been the most pirated online can’t be ignored.

    Many of my author acquaintances are now seeing a drastic drop in sales as the pirates move beyond sf into romance, erotica, fantasy, and mystery. Even if the paper book sales improve, the ebook sales are now dropping dramatically as free pirate versions appear.

    Social networking and new media goes way beyond offering free versions of an author’s books, and the true experts are authors who have built communities around their books. The free content tends to be little extras like short stories with favorite characters and an expansion and explanation of their worldbuilding. For a good example of this, I suggest you look at the websites of Sherrilyn Kenyon.

    Doctorow is very misleading because he’s promoting Cary Doctorow, not his books, and he blithely tosses other authors and their financial futures to the pirates with his spiel about the evils of copyright when he doesn’t make his living from it while others do.

    The truth of the matter is that writing, like all forms of entertainment, runs on money, and if you take money out of the equation, you lose many of the creators of that entertainment.

    The average successful author struggles to earn enough to pay for the time he uses to create as well as the expenses of being a writer. Suck away enough money, and all you have left are hobby writers, a few megabestseller authors, and professors on tenure. All diversity disappears, and literature, entertainment, and culture are damaged.

    In other words, all citizens who want something good to read have an obligation to protect copyright.

    If you would like other views on this subject from very successful writers, I suggest you contact Mike Stackpole and Rowena Cherry.

    • academicalism

      Marilynn, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Thanks for making time to share them. Let me clarify that — like legal experts Boyle and Lessig — I am not categorically opposed to copyright. I have numerous publications protected by traditional copyright. (Not that I get royalties for any of them.) And I well appreciate the break-even or worse returns most creators get for their efforts. So your comments shrewdly complement my focus on literary luminaries by articulating the legitimate concerns of less popular artists. (Among which we might rank my third exemplar, Peter Watts, who might not claim shoulder-rubbing status with Gibson or Doctorow … yet … although he is committed to “building community” in some of the ways you describe.)

      A question I’d like to ask you, if I may, concerns your source for the claim that SF sales are down relative to other genres. I’d appreciate finding out more about that.

      However, I don’t think my argument is “hopelessly flawed,” partly because my concern isn’t with copyright per se, but with its increasing infringements on issues and areas it’s had nothing to do with in the past:

      I am opposed to IP law being exploited by corporations to accrue revenue, sometimes at the expense of artists. That problem is perhaps better seen in the music industry than in publishing; recent studies suggest artists profit more, while major labels profit less, with file-sharing. And other studies have shown major labels to pursue predatory and IP-infringing practices under the guise of business as usual. (See Jack Bishop’s “Who are the pirates?” http://www.jackbishop.com/pirates.htm and my article “Techno, Frankenstein, and copyright,” in Popular Music 26.2, 2007, about Sony’s unlicensed re-recording of a successful dance record by indie Detroit label Underground Resistance.)

      I am opposed to how these new exploitations combine with copyright’s otherwise outdated model to keep work that nobody’s profiting from anymore, work that should be in the public domain by now, out of that domain, thereby limiting resources for new cultural production. (Lessig and Boyle both point out that outdated IP law and copyright term extensions have effectively kept all cultural and media works made since the 1920s out of the public domain. Most of it wouldn’t make money for anyone, much of it has not been properly deposited, and traditional IP clearance protocols make it impossible to legally reuse. This is a great loss to cultural history.)

      And I am opposed to IP law being extended to control domains of culture and technology that transgress its traditional jurisdiction.

      Exhibit A: technological protection measures or “digital locks” (disastrously deployed in the infamous Sony rootkit debacle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit ). IP law’s jurisdiction is to protect content and its profitability, not to dictate how consumers can or cannot use what they buy. E-books are another interesting case; see Lessig’s discussion of electronic editions of his own work and the new limits their medium places on readers’ uses: http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig/doc.html#615

      Exhibit B: “three strikes” clauses in new IP legislation, like the UK’s Digital Economy bill and ACTA, that require ISPs to stop service to households suspected (not proven) by media and entertainment companies of infringing use like file-sharing, and given three warnings to cease & desist — failing which, on nobody’s word but the complaining company’s, and without legal recourse, you can lose your internet service. Accompanying these IP reform provisions are stepped-up surveillance and monitoring efforts that start to gravely encroach on citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom.

      Hope this clarifies better the case against the character of most IP “reform” today. Thanks again for your comments.

  5. Well, if nothing else, my comments are making you clarify your arguments.

    You need only walk into a bookstore where the sf and the fantasy are stocked separately to see the disparity in the books available. Take away the various media, shared worlds, and game tie ins, and the pickings for sf are slim, indeed.

    Some publishing figures show an increase in sales for sf, but they tally in fantasy. Urban fantasy, in particular, is the biggest growth segment in the sf/f/horror industry right now, primarily because voracious romance readers, the literary omnivores of publishing, buy and read it.

    I also tend to trust what the various agents and major publishers are looking for at this moment to get a sense of what is and isn’t successful, and I’ve heard very little buzz about anyone searching for new talent or successful midlist authors in sf.

    If you are interested in numbers, I suggest the book surveys from BSIG, Bowker, and the AAP although they tend not to be genre specific.

    I won’t argue any points about the music and movie industry because I don’t keep up with them. I do know that the various “evil” laws that are supposed to protect copyright and allow copyright owners to go after individuals, ISPs, etc., that host pirates have proven less than successful for the book industry so I can’t see why honest people are afraid of them since pirates aren’t.

    Taking books out of copyright sooner would allow such cultural “improvements” as we are currently seeing–putting zombies in Jane Austin, as well as giving the desecrators the profit. Pardon me if that doesn’t excite me.

    Anyway, shortening copyright length is a moot point since it would take an act of God to make that happen, and everyone who makes their living with copyright would fight Him on the point.

    Passing copyright protection of orphaned works to Google (the Google Book Settlement) would simply pass the profit of copyright to Google instead of to the owners of copyright which would be good for no one except Google who is proving as trustworthy of the public’s trust as Facebook, Amazon, and other large corporations.

    The biggest point that needs to be made is that pirates hurt the reader as well as the writer, and we need to be working with each other to protect copyright and allow reasonable profit for the creators. If we do that, many of the things you fear won’t come to pass because they won’t need to.

  6. academicalism

    Thanks again, Marilynn. Four points I’d like to address:

    1. What I fear coming to pass has already happened in the USA and the UK. I fear it coming to Canada, and, via ACTA, to the world.

    2. “Piracy.”
    As I mention in the essay, the word “pirate” is so loaded with multiple meanings that it’s important in these discussions to specify how it’s being used. You contrast pirates with honest people, but the entertainment lobby uses the word strategically (and indiscriminately) to lump organized criminal profiteers together with culture consumers and computer users. If I download an mp3 version of a music album that I bought as a vinyl record—and so have already paid my share of royalties for—does that make me a pirate? I don’t recall having been called a pirate for dubbing the same record to an analogue cassette, back in the day. Is Jammie Thomas, a working mother of three, a pirate? Was she looking to make $2 million by re-selling the twenty-four mp3 songs she downloaded? Because that’s how much the RIAA has fined her for. Or Jesse Jordan, a student in New York who improved his college’s search engine and, because that enabled others to more easily find music content on the college network, was fined $15 million by the RIAA?
    In summary, piracy is a word that’s been so thoroughly hijacked by the entertainment lobbies that I don’t find it a useful term with which to discuss copyright reform.

    3. Jane Austen’s public domain. I agree that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies isn’t exactly a blue-ribbon achievement in the rich tradition of Jane Austen adaptations. But the same copyright that, if still in force, would “protect” her work from lazily pasted-in zombies could also be exploited to protect it from Hollywood–and from other authors trading on Jane Austen in their own fiction. Contemporary authors and estates who have exploited copyright law to suppress otherwise fair use and parody, and to lobby for tighter copyright control, include J. D. Salinger, J. K. Rowling, and Dr Seuss, whose people have apparently worried his work would be exposed to appropriation by drug subcultures. (Too late!)
    More balanced fair use (and, in Canada, fair dealing) provisions in copyright law would stimulate economic growth in popular culture by nurturing a richer adaptation tradition. You may not like what gets done to public domain works (and I’m with you on the example you cite) but picking and choosing should be the work of criticism, not law or technology. (Disney’s empire, and the whole US culture industry today, are both predicated on what now gets called piracy, as pointed out by critics like Lessig and Canadian communications scholar Daniel Downes. Like T. S. Eliot said: Great poets don’t borrow, they steal.)

    4. Google Books. I’m pleased to see we agree completely on Google Books. A longer version of this essay would discuss Margaret Atwood’s use of social media to raise awareness about exactly the problems with the Google Books settlement that you mention. The Open Book Alliance is a great source for information and updates on this disturbing bid to monopolize a sizeable portion of literature and literary history.

    Thanks again for continuing the discussion. I hope you find it as illuminating as I do.

  7. “Contemporary authors and estates who have exploited copyright law to suppress otherwise fair use and parody, and to lobby for tighter copyright control, include J. D. Salinger, J. K. Rowling, and Dr Seuss”

    Rowling, really? Rowling allows fanfiction, and has taken no stepps against various unauthorized books on her novels. The only thing that she went against was a single book, which in turn lifted entire pages, word for word, from her novel. That is classic plagiarism, not “Parody”. You can check this yourself, the documents are available.

    “But the same copyright that, if still in force, would “protect” her work from lazily pasted-in zombies could also be exploited to protect it from Hollywood”

    Not if the author wants it to be used by Hollywood. If they don’t, then yes, it should be protected from Hollywood.

    The time it takes for a work to enter public domain is, if anything, too short, not too long.

    I agree with you partially on your second point (yes, not all people in piracy statistics are pirates. On the other hand, someone downloading and selling content is a thief and does deserve persecution – which usually will be harsher than what they could have gained by their theft. Just like an ordinary burglar will usually lose more money for being persecuted than they could have gained), and you’re spot on on your fourth point.

    But what I fear is that your argument isn’t going to actually help culture – just companies.

    • academicalism

      Millian –
      Thanks very much for the correction about Rowling. Much appreciated.
      I’m unsure about some of the subsequent points. How is the time-to-public-domain for a creative work too short? Nothing created after the 1920s is in the public domain yet, and given recurring term extensions, may well be kept out of the public domain indefinitely.
      If you can spare time to elaborate, I’d also like to learn more about how my argument would help companies instead of culture. I’ve been developing it on the opposite assumption so flagging any blind spots would be appreciated.

  8. Pingback: De eso no se habla, eso no se dice, eso no se toca. « JOIN THE TALK!

  9. Pingback: Seven Top Trends in Social media – WordPress Professional Business

  10. Pingback: Those Canadian sci-fi revolutionaries | Beyond the Beyond | Wired

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s