Lessig On IP Protection, Conflict

cdlu writes "According to NewsForge [part of OSDN, like Slashdot], Stanford University law professor, author, and Creative Commons chairman Lawrence Lessig sharpened the definition of the ongoing legal struggle over intellectual property while talking at the Open Source Business Conference on Tuesday. According to Lessig: 'Contrary to what many people see as a cultural war between conservative business types and liberal independents, this is not a 'commerce versus anything' conflict. It's about powerful (business) interests and if they can stop new innovators'."

Comments

A threat to "developed nations"

[bizcoach]

According to Lessig,

Growth in creative industries such as radio, television, movies, publishing, music -- and, yes, software -- is threatened when "a few powerful interests control how culture develops."

Hence, if we in the so-called "developed nations" don't fix our legal systems, third-world countries, where "intellectual property law" cannot be enforced for lack of a functional legal system, will become the leaders in creative industries, including IT, right?

Re:A threat to "developed nations"

[Anonymous Coward]

Intellectual property is an artificial concept, especially now that digital media allows us to make unlimited copies.

It's always been an artificial concept. That doesn't make it necessarily a bad one.

free copies all over the place, and the publisher gets nothing more than a big headache

And the author also gets nothing but a big headache. What a great way to stimulate people into writing....

Re:A threat to "developed nations"

[10101001 10101001]

Most authors want their readers to value the work they're reading. It's a sad but true fact that people don't value what they get for free.

I value Linux. I value a lot of the free newspapers I read online. I don't value them by paying money necessarily, but there's more to value than just money.

As an author I want as many people as possible to read my work. But I'd like to get something in return. Not to "profit hugely" but maybe a buck so I can buy a cup of coffee for having given someone a few hours worth of entertainment - which I don't think is unreasonable.

So, you'd be happy getting say $0.59 per book, then? Fine, that's a fine price to me.

Without any kind of IP system (and I'm not saying the existing one works very well) then creative endeavours are relegated to being hobbies, and the quantity and quality of the output will be significantly reduced.

Considering you just want a cup of coffee, it sounds like book writing would have to be a hobby. Without being relatively successful, you can't begin to hope to live off of $0.59/book. In fact, simple math shows you'd have to sell at least 50,000 books just to make $30,000 (which should be enough to live off of).

However, this argument about IP laws sounds just like what pharmaceutical companies keep saying: keep paying whatever we tell you or you might just not get another miracle drug. That's now how economics is supposed to work. IP creates monopolies which authors can use to possible take hostage current or future intellectual works. There's no innate right to IP of any sort, and there's no reason why that sort of conjectured threat should lead to current or future protection for the bearer.

It's the author who's screwed having spent a year of his/her life writing a well crafted piece of fiction only to find there are copies available for free over [insert p2p of choice here] without any recognition going to the author for writing the piece in the first place.

Ignoring that not all copyrighted works are "well crafted", unless people are changing the author's name on the book, the author is getting recognition. It's not money, admittedly. Maybe this same person wrote the best book in the world, but people still overlooked it. Creating creative works is a lot like a lottery: except for the direct results from writing it (feeling better, feeling you've expressed oneself, or whatever other direct justification for writing is), everything else is just luck. Would you want copyright owners to be able to sue publishers over money the expect even though no one's reading it (free or otherwise) because it's crap, but the author thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread? All these hypothetical points try to get around the core issue of whether copyright is doing its job by sugar coating it with the image that authors should be well paid.

The truth is, maybe they should and maybe they shouldn't be well paid. Maybe the result of less anal copyright laws will be less creative works, but copyright is designed as a trade off in free speech for some advancement in the arts and sciences. There's no proof that the extended copyright or even most of IP laws as they stand are increasing the quality of creative works, just the quantity (since more things inherently qualify, and there's a motive to make more of the same stuff that sells). IP laws might cover plagiarism, but then one could claim fraud laws do too (or could be spelled out to be made to). It'd be nice to get more than just conjecture that swings from coffee drinks to something that's a full time job.

Re:A threat to "developed nations"

[Cognitive Dissident]

China and Brazil have already had their eyes opened on this score. They are both large, resource rich countries.


Add India to that list. The Indian government was outraged at a US company patenting Basmati rice. That variety was developed in India by Indian farmers over a period of centuries. But some US corporation has filed a patent and apparently won the right to control the name 'Basmati Rice' and prevent even native Indian growers from using the name or selling this variety of rice in the US! Lots of other countries in the world are getting fed up with Stupid Lawyer Tricks in the US.

http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html

http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/latest/lost.htm

This has happened before

[ewn]

According to this wiki Hollywood was built this way:

"Thus, filmmakers working in California could work independent of Edison's control, and if Edison ever sent agents to California, word would usually reach Los Angeles before the agents did, and the filmmakers could escape to nearby Mexico."

Lessig the Grey vs. Creative Commons

[turnstyle]

From something I sent to Dave Farber's IP:

Given the recent Grey Tuesday brouhaha that followed the release of DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album, it's worth pausing for a moment to take a look at the Creative Commons:

"We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them -- to declare 'some rights reserved.'"

Among the rights an artist may choose to reserve when configuring their Creative Commons license is "No Derivative Works," explained in cartoon here:

http://creativecommons.org/images/comics/10.gif

Indeed, the Creative Commons' leading example musician is Roger McGuinn who: "chose the Creative Commons license that maximizes a combination of free distribution with artistic control and integrity." -- note that Roger McGuinn chose "No Derivative Works."

However, the Grey Tuesday movement seeks to take that right away. Notably, Larry Lessig (Creative Commons Chairman of the Board) commented in his blog:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001754.shtml

"Should the law give DJ Danger Mouse the right to remix without permission? I think so, though I understand how others find the matter a bit more grey."

"Should the law give DJ Danger Mouse a compulsory right to remix? That is, the right, conditioned upon his paying a small fee per sale? Again, I think so, and again, you might find this a bit less grey."

So, what exactly does Creative Commons mean by "some rights reserved" -- would it perhaps be more accurate if they said: "some rights reserved until we can cook up a new compulsory license to take those rights away"?

A big step in the right direction...

[ShieldW0lf]

...would be to prevent the transfer of ownership or licensing rights.

Want to keep it, fine. Sell copies at a profit, fine. License it out for commercial use, fine. Sell ownership to the big immortal mulitnational that owns everything else? Sorry, not permitted.

This doesn't kill the distribution and marketing industries, just puts them in the service of the artists, instead of the other way around. Bang, no more monopoly is possible, yet artists get rewarded.

There would no longer be a motive to remove things from circulation the way the big media companies do... that only comes from the fact that song a and song b are competing for market share, but media company x owns both, so they kill b to focus on a. If ownership fell only to the creators, they'd be more inclined to give away the non-marketables as a way of promoting themselves.

I leave the excercise of how to deal with collaborative works for someone who isn't sleep deprived and fuzzy-eyes from too much coding :P

Illusion

[Mark_MF-WN]

Unfortunately, America will never LOOK like a third-world nation. Rich Americans are still making all the money, so America will still have a high GNP. It's just the other 99% of US citizens who ultimately suffer. And since most Americans are quite gullible, it'll never occur to them that their poverty is not of their own doing.

Expanding Creative Commons

[Anonymous Coward]

There are indications that this struggle, which has mostly involved copyright, is about to move more heavily into patents. One well-placed patent, for instance, could do more harm to Linux or open source than a thousand alleged copyright infringements. You can't just rewrite the code to get around a patent dispute.

It might be a good idea for Creative Commons or a group like them to move into the patent arena in a big way. Two ideas would be particularly helpful.

1. A "prior art" registry. It would include ideas their posters think is new with bullet-proof date stamping and public access. This would keep those ideas from being patented. It would also allow people to post descriptions of prior art they are aware of dating back several decades, along with contact information where that prior art can be documented. That could be used to fight dangerous existing patents or patents-to-be. With a bit of pressure, patent office examiners could be forced to use the database before issuing a patent. It would save a lot of grief.

2. A open source patent portfolio with a GPL-type license. Corporations could acquire the right to use patents in the portfolio in exchange for licensing the use of their patents in open source. This would approximate how corporations like IBM avoid patent suits. Patents could be obtained by donation or by developing ideas into patents.

Acting now could save a lot of trouble later.

--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle

http://www.InklingBooks.com/