Slashdot Mirror
The Death Of Intellectual Property
sheath writes: "The National Post
has an article on the possible death of intellectual property as a result of trends on the net. They quote William Gibson as saying, 'This may be the end of a 90-year window when it was possible to make money off recorded music.' Interesting piece from a mainstream (in Canada, anyway) source."
I think that such a democratic form of patronage will work better than the "pay-per-copy" model that dominates music, or the corporate sponsorship model that dominates web sites.
I'm calling this a "sponsorpool", for lack of a better name, and I'm going to be working on it over the summer. (I'm quitting my "day job" to work on some side projects for at least a few months.) For the prototype, I'm using PayPal to handle payments. (I'm faking the web interface with Curl.) If anyone's interested in more info, drop me a line and I'll update you when I've got something worth sharing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Bottom line, there are too many lawyers trained in Intellectual Property law for IP to disappear. It would take the concerted will of government to overturn or ignore IP law, and the bottom line is there's just too much lobbyist money for that to ever happen.
Gibson is underestimating the degree to which MP3's have been allowed to prosper, so as to force the hands of the courts, the houses, the lobbyists, and the competitors. He should know just how devious corporate behavior can be; the back story to most of his multinational conglomerates would probably look like the TimeWarnerAOL agglomerations of today at this point in his timeline.
I'd say more, but I've got some work to take care of. More later, hopefully.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Musicians might have to go back to making money via performance, teaching, and patronage by the wealthy! Oh no! That system would never produce any good music, would it?
Just think if the lending library did not yet exist; if the only way to read books was to go and buy them.
Now suppose that Benjamin Franklin was alive today and just now proposed the idea that large buildings be constructed with taxpayer dollars and more of those tax dollars be used to purchase books and magazines (copyrighted material) so that the public can come anytime and read these materials freely.
The print publishers would FLY INTO A RAGE and call Franklin every dirty name they could think of from "thief" to "crook" to, yes, even "pirate" who is "opposed to people profitting from their hard work" and "taking the food out of baby's mouths bacause writers won't be able to support their families anymore", and how all publications and writing will end because there's no money in it anymore.
Of course, today, Franklin would have proposed that libraries included software, video, and audio, and indeed, all copyrighted works. Today, many public libraries today do lend VHS and CDs. And it wasn't just for the purpose of education and betterment of the public. Most books were an entertainment medium in the 18th century as much as movies are today. So don't isolate Franklin's idea as having only altruistic motives.
Who would say that closing all libraries would be a GOOD idea? Very few I'll wager. Why should it be any different when it comes to CDs/movies/software than it is with books/mags?
And oh yes, despite the existance of libraries, (gasp!) people still make money and can even (choke!) earn a living as writers and publishers. Well imagine that. Free access to copyrighted books and magazines didn't kill the industry after all. In fact, it expanded it. Just like VHS rentals home video sales resulted in Hollywood making more money today from home video sales than it ever did or ever will from theatrical ticket sales (despite the Great VCR lawsuit against Sony's Betamax).
Ever rent a movie, video game, book, or magazine. Then you too are as much a pirate and thief as you label others to be. Libraries even install photocopy machines at taxpayer expense. What's all that about? I see no harm here.
Mozart died broke.
Actually, no. Check out The Pauper Myth
A brief excerpt: Mozart was never poor. He and his wife moved in an expensive set in an expensive city. The loans that he asked from Puchberg in 1788 were so that he could maintain his standard of living, certainly not so that he could keep starvation at bay.
>>Producing CDs costs them pennies yet the CD
>>prices have stayed at $14-18 for the past few
>>years.
>This is, simply put, a load of cr*p.
Well, it would take about $3-4K worth of consumer grade hardware & software (the most expensive part being the special printer to duplicate the artwork on the CD itself).
You'd buy the raw materials (blank CD-Rs, jewel cases, glossy paper for the liner notes, etc) in bulk.
Once everything was scanned in and set up properly, I'd be able to duplicate a copy, that the average joe couldn't easily tell from an original, every fifteen minutes at a cost of a $1 per.
Bump my equipment budget up to $10K and I could do about 20/hour still at a cost of $1 per.
And that's with CONSUMER equipment you can find advretised all over Computer Shopper, Macworld, or the like.
The record companies have CD fab machinery that cost millions, and can spit out thousands of CDs an hour. Plus, they buy the raw materials in much greater bulk than is possible for me.
I don't find it implausable AT ALL that the RIAA minions could produce CDs cheaper than myself by AT LEAST a factor of ten.
john
Imagine all the people...
"While frightening to some, this new reality will not destroy all creation of wealth through inventiveness or artistry. People, including this techno-pirate who downloaded the film, will still go out to the theatre. People will still buy newspapers. They will still listen to commercial radio and television and still pay for CDs." People will not necessarily pay for CDs. People will go to the theatre for film, but for concerts-- some concerts are truly performances, whereas some concerts are impossible (industrial music is often better listened to studio-mixed than with some guy on a stage trying to do it in front of a crowd). Fewer and fewer people are buying newspapers, as news reported online is more up-to-the-minute and often more complex in its detail. These things will remain, of course but the difference is this: they will no longer be the source of major profits. Newspapers will have a harder time making the big buck. Artists and musicians will not be able to make their money in the same ways and the same quantities as they do now.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
As much as I disagree with how both the American and international IP systems are organized, I can understand how artists might like to maintain some control over their works. I mean, look at how great works of art and music have been used to peddle all sorts of junk on TV. Or how protest songs of the 60's are used to promote happiness-through-consumption now. I'd hate to create something only to have it used a few years later to sell breakfast cereal.
I disagree a little with your interpretation of Jefferson's words.
What he is really saying is that the protection of ideas is a recent social creation. Ideas are not "naturally" anyone's property. He is questioning the need for such an artificial protection, but stops short of actually condemning it.
Remember that the writers of the Constitution were very concerned with the idea of natural rights. Natural rights are inherently part of being a human being. They are not "granted" -- you get them just for being born. Jefferson is saying he believes what we know today as IP is not a natural right.
The Bill of Rights reflects this philosophy. It is an AFFIRMATION of rights, not an ENUMERATION of rights.
The Consitution DOES provide for IP protection in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 -- "To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Had Jefferson and the other Constitutional framers been opposed to these artificial restrictions, this clause would certainly not exist. This is NOT a contradiction, Jefferson is merely expressing his reservations in this letter.
Nevertheless, he clearly believes it to be an artificial right. The U.S. would do well to review its IP law in this light. Perhaps we are concentrating too much on "securing... exclusive rights" and not enough on promoting "the progress of science and useful arts."
The concept of IP protection may not be fundamentally broken. It may just need some tuning.
(Side note -- a Jefferson quote did not spark a Second Amendment debate on Slashdot? What are the odds?)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
For a recent, interesting handling of IP issues, see http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064996/html/ .
I disagree here. Creators do not necessarily need to be "protected" in order to be compensated. First of all, there are some people who conscientiously want creators to be compensated, and they will buy (direct from the creators, if possible) even when they could get it for free. Granted, this is a small population, but then again, they would be somewhat powerful, since their preferences would have a bearing on what actually gets created. Selection may not be quite as rewarding as "real" creation, but it nevertheless feels good to exercise that power.
And secondly, check out Schneier and Kelsey's Street Performer Protocol. This thing might actually work (although I still haven't heard of anyone using it yet). Atlas has no reason to shrug if he can get pre-paid for his work. And it doesn't even need IP's "protection".
Maybe there will be a first wave of many creators bailing out. They'll be the ones that the market decides aren't worth paying for. I'm not 100% sure that will be such a tragic loss. If this hurts the media giants who push and promote all that crap, I'm not going to shed any tears, because they weren't the prime movers anyway. Sell that Sony stock.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Can someone define "Intellectual Property" for me? I've always been a bit shaky on the definition.
VERY briefly:
Intellectual property is (like any property) a bundle of rights relating to information -- you know, non-physical, intangible stuff. This bundle of rights is different from the rights you have in physical property. An example of difference is copyright's fair use exceptions. The reason for the difference is that "if I give you an apple, I lost an apple, but if I give you an idea, both of us have the idea". In other words, information use is non-exclusionary: you can use information simultaneously with other people.
There are currently three forms of IP:
(1) Patents (which used to cover only devices, but now seem to cover anything at all). A patent gives you an exclusive right to make (and license, sell, etc.) the patented device. Patents expire after a period of time (17 years?) and the information passes into public domain.
(2) Trademarks (which cover names -- words, images, and now even scents -- used to identify business products). "Coca-cola" or the Nike's whoosh logo is a trademark. Trademarks, I think, never expire.
(3) Copyright (which covers any information). This, of course, is the interesting part. Copyright gives the copyright holder a bunch of rights, the most important of which is the right to restrict making copies of the copyrighted information. Copyright originated as the means to protect authors from unscrupulous publishers but since, let us say, changed its character quite a bit. Copyright expires after some ungodly amount of time (in the US thank the Sonny Bono bill for that).
HTH
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
No. Re-read what Jefferson said:
This means society may give you the right to sell your song, and have people to buy your song (and thus have you profit from it) as an encouragement to you to write more songs. Of course people do not have to buy your song--but society may give you the exclusive right to profit: that is, society may give you the right to force other people not to sell your song, or otherwise distribute that song in a manner which prevents you from profiting from it. That is, Jefferson is describing the state of affairs that we currently "enjoy" today.
However, it would be arrogant of me to assume that anything is owed me.
No. What Jefferson is saying is that "rights" are things that arise out of a social compact: that your "inherent" right to possessions such as owning land or owning your clothes, or your right to profit exclusively from ideas you create (such as writings, music, inventions, etc) doesn't exist. "Rights" as such arise because we as a society agree to give eachother certain rights, such as the right to property (through enforcement of laws preventing theft) or rights to "intellectual property" (through enforcement of laws that prevent IP piracy). Other rights arise similarly: your right to life, for example, is only as good as our society's acknowledgement of laws against murder.
Just because these rights are man-made and not God-given or inherent to nature doesn't mean you're arrogant in thinking that you should enjoy them--any more than you should feel arrogant in thinking that you have the right not to have some mad-man come over to your place with a baseball bat and turn your skull into red-colored tapioca pudding.
How can I charge a price for something that no longer costs me anything? And how do I determine a price to charge another man for something that holds no value to him until it is given to him, especially when it may be of no value?
A thing has no value if it costs nothing, either in time, space, or material goods to reproduce. Unfortunately, even ideas take some time, and if they are recorded, take space and material goods to reproduce. Further, any idea of merit probably took a master artist a non-trivial amount of time to create. Perhaps some artists feel the reward of creation is it's own payment--but most people live in the real world, and the time it took them to create their idea was time they don't have to spend to make money to put food on their table or a roof over their head.
I'm always fascinated when people quote our Founding Fathers in order to justify things like erasing IP laws. Not only for the obvious reason that these people lived in a different time with different values--in a world where slavery was acceptable to many, where women were considered not to have an immortal soul and thus were no more spiritually valuable than a small dog, and in a world where only the landed arristocracy were given the vote.
But also because our Founding Fathers had completely different ideas about what should--and should not--be included with our Federal Government. And it wasn't until around the early 1800's when the actual shape and form of our Federal Government was really established--it took almost a couple of generations for people to "get it right", so to speak. (I'm refering to a number of Supreme Court decisions which were used to "fine tune" the accepted interpretation of the Constitution.)
While it is instructive to quote Jefferson, we're talking about a generation of people who were still trying to figure out if the Federal Government should be exclusively responsible for issuing currency, for heaven's sake! If they were still debating the idea of a central currency system (which wasn't even brought into being in it's current form until the early part of this century), then what makes you think their ideas about intellectual property rights would be any better formulated?
In a letter to Isaac McPherson, on August 13th, 1813, Thomas Jefferson writes:
...
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
...
In other words, if I write a song, and it is recorded, I no longer have control over the spread of said song, and my song must stand on it's own value. If people like my song, and they like it a lot, then those people have the choice to make payment to me, not necessarily for the song itself, but as an encouragement to produce more songs.
However, it would be arrogant of me to assume that anything is owed me. How can I charge a price for something that no longer costs me anything? And how do I determine a price to charge another man for something that holds no value to him until it is given to him, especially when it may be of no value?
This stands as well in the concept of Patents on Ideas vs. Inventions (The implementation of Ideas), which was the original subject of this letter.
That we are revisiting problems that existed 200 years ago, is proof that the man who holds no value in history is doomed to repeat it.
-Tommy
"I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
Sometimes this can work. If you are curious about a profession that demonstrates exactly what happens when technology passes you up, look at the history of typesetting. Try here for some detail on this.
Given that, if we got the economics fairy to wave a magic wand and make intellectual property and the associated income go *poof*, we'd find ourselves crippled economically.
Do we really want to go back to the old assumption that you have to own a factory to have any money?
And, before anyone starts complaining that "those rock stars don't need all that money," (or film stars, or Bill Gates, etc.), write down your salary on a piece of paper. Now imagine someone working at McDonald's finding out that you make that much (and some of you do!). I'm willing to bet that they think that you don't need all that money.
Don't get comfortable thinking that you have the right to decide who gets to make money, because the same thing can happen to you.
I believe that the real issue here is not copyright, which is a fair and just concept, but the distribution of copyrighted material. At the moment, we pay far more for the distribution and packaging aspect of music, literature etc than we do for the actual content. Most artists get only a small percentage of the final selling price, and somehow we keep paying for books and music that are long out of copyright. Mozart, anyone? It's the publishers that make the money, not the artists.
So when the ability to charge for distribution goes away - what remains? An obvious way for copyrighted material to be distributed is over the web, where popular artists can sell adverts to make up for lost revenue. If the selling price is low enough, ie the current 10% that the artist gets instead of the $$ that we pay, then far less pirating will happen. And if the content is available globally instead of in controlled areas (DVD, anyone?) then there is also less incentive to pirate.
TV and radio have been making money from selling adverts for content for years, and it has so far been the way of the web. A little leakage from copying is probably inevitable, but if it serves to increase the popularity and recognition of the artist concerned, then that can only be an advantage. Remember the good ol' Grateful Dead - so much for home taping killing music.
IP is more about plagiarism than copying. If the artist retains copyright then ripping off tunes or copying words will still be actionable, but the distribution issue should just go away.
Put the blame on meme
Mozart died broke.
I truly wonder if, after having broken down the current reward structure for IP with our shiny toys, we can't come up with anything better than returning to a centuries old model. Did patronage give listeners more choices? I don't know.
And about the whole "Let them play live!" thing, that throwback to ancient times really doesn't work for modern day artists that use the studio as their instrument. The more raves you have to play to make ends meet, the fewer time you have to make new creations. And lord help people whose main talent is not performing in any way, but composing, mixing, or producing. "William Orbit will now play 'Strange Cargo IV' for you. Please turn off all mobile phones." Right.
We've got to do better than making art disposable and hope some rich guy picks up the trash. I am thinking that a connection between PayPal and Napster ("You have listened to this mp3 10 times. Click here to voluntarily pay 50 cents to the artist. Click here to add the original song to your custom mix CD for $1,-. Cancel and keep listening") might go a long way to making us honest again and keeping music afloat.
How do we [Software Engineers] fight change like that? Do we have the ACM hire a bunch of lawyers to form the Software Engineer Association of America [SEAA] and sue the pants off of the creaters of this machine? Do we hire lobbyists to push laws that restrict it's use so the SEAA can go "cease and desist" crazy? You can, but not me. It would be like you're on the Titanic and throwing rocks at the iceberg because you're mad that it ruined your ship. No thanks, I'll be busy finding something that will keep me afloat until a new ship comes along, thank you very much.
If I remember correctly, the Copyright on works published today will expire 96 years after publication, for corporate works and works published under a pseudonym. It's 120 years for works published by an individual.
Of course, I wouldn't rely on copyrights expiring so soon -- copyright terms have been consistently retroactively extended several times over the past 30 years, and there's no sign of the trend stopping.
The net effect of this has been that no copyrighted works have passed into the public domain since World War I (unless the copyright holder allowed the work into the public domain themselves). Compare this with the original copyright term of ... uh, what was it ... 14 years?
When the institution of Copyright was created, you could reasonably expect contemporary writing and art to pass into the public domain within your lifetime. This allowed artists to draw on more or less contemporary work unhindered (all art is necessarily derivative). No longer.
One could argue that this is one reason for the current stagnation of the arts...
DNA just wants to be free...