This is a rambling, wide eyed conspiracy theory about the technology industry and Creative Commons, written by a Music Industry Prof at UGA. The person who wrote this teaches undergrads about the music industry.

There was a real deal gulf of misunderstanding around the SOPA/PIPA debate between members of the content industry and Internet users - you could see the media interests talking to themselves, absolutely convinced that they were sitting across the table from a bunch of thieves and liars. This sort of essay is exemplary of how detached from reality the thought leaders in the content industries have become. The thinking here is broken enough to be dangerous.

I think that some good could come from attempting to reach out to these people and help them understand what is really happening in technology and why. Unfortunately, they may not necessarily be receptive. My comment on this blog was not accepted by the moderator, and I see almost no critical commentary in the thread. I find it hard to believe that no one let this stand unchallenged.

I also deeply empathize with your generation. You have grown up in a time when technological and commercial interests are attempting to change our principles and morality. Sadly, I see the effects of this thinking with many of my students.

These technological and commercial interests have largely exerted this pressure through the Free Culture movement, which is funded by a handful of large tech corporations and their foundations in the US, Canada, Europe and other countries.

The words "their foundations" are linked to a tax return statement for Creative Commons. In other words, the fact that technology corporations fund Creative Commons is herein presented as proof that the conspiracy is real and the evil technology corporations are manipulating all the innocent little children into becoming corrupt thieves - Creative Commons being, of course, the epitome of pure evil.

The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time. (Since the works that are are almost invariably the subject of these discussions are popular culture of one type or another, the duration of the copyright term is pretty much irrelevant for an ethical discussion.) By allowing the artist to treat his/her work as actual property, the artist can decide how to monetize his or her work. This system has worked very well for fans and artists. Now we are being asked to undo this not because we think this is a bad or unfair way to compensate artists but simply because it is technologically possible for corporations or individuals to exploit artists work without their permission on a massive scale and globally. We are being asked to continue ... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]