Is Freeing Up Intellectual Property Not In Our Economic Interest?
from the says-who? dept
Andrew Leonard, at Salon.com, has written an article picking up on a few different recent stories concerning how the entertainment industry is still trying to overly protect pieces of intellectual property. One of the stories he picks up on is that documentary we wrote about recently that can't be watched anymore, because the licenses to some of the content in the film have expired. Leonard finishes his piece by saying the reason this isn't getting much of a response is because there's no economic incentive in the industry to free up this content and let it be seen. This, unfortunately, is a misconception about the discussion over intellectual property. Too many people seem to assume that the idea of freeing intellectual property is somehow "anti-capitalist" or bad for the economy, when it's much more likely that the reverse is true. The idea behind the market is to let the market decide the price of a good, and that doesn't change if that value is zero (which it can be if the supply is infinite, as is the case with intellectual property). Intellectual property laws, however, set an artificial barrier, making the market inefficient. So, if anything, it's these intellectual property protections that are causing problems in the market. And, as people are beginning to realize, it is absolutely possible to make money off of content that most think have no economic value. Opening up that "long tail" opens up plenty of new opportunities to make more money, because the market expands. The resources available to make new goods and services becomes much wider, and those raw materials feed into new, valuable offerings that do have economic value. So, while making a documentary available again may not seem to have direct positive economic value, that's short-sighted. Opening up that content makes it possible for someone to figure out a way to add economic value to it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What are you arguing?
Granted, the methods the government uses to protect this property can be arbirtary and increasingly difficult to enforce in a digital world, but to argue that the need for such protection doesn't exist doesn't wash with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
The problem with patents/IP etc is that they try to extend that far and further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
1) there's a general misconception (or lack of knowledge) about how money can or can't be made when using non-standard protections
2) There are alternatives available for protecting IP other than stadard copyrights, patents, etc.
3) There is a significant amount of IP that has been overly protected, a scenario which arguably leads to consumer backlash
4) The general public most likely does not understand or care about licensing or other intangibles - they simply want to share experiences and communicate with their peers and will develop methods to do that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
Except that this isn't actually true. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft involves someone missing something at the end, which is not true in the case of intellectual property.
You can argue that protections need to be there, but arguing that it's theft is simply wrong.
You say that owners should have the right to say who gets access to their creations and at what terms, but that's not true of physical goods either once they're sold. The buyer then has the right to do what they want with it. Unfortunately, the way intellectual property laws are applied, that right is taken away.
And, more oddly, completely unlike physical goods, intellectual property passes into the public domain after a period of time.
For all these reasons, and more, it's pretty clear that putting up a 1-to-1 analogy saying that intellectual property needs to be treated the same as phsyical property simply doesn't make sense.
My argument is simply that everyone who is so afraid of this "freeing" of intellectual property are actually hurting themselves, by closing off market opportunities. In other words, they'd be better off embracing this than holding back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
you say that sellers of physical goods do not have the right to determine how things get sold by buyers - but in certain cases, there are laws in the books to prevent certain types of resale - scalping football tickets, for one example (though im sure you'd argue that that should be legal as well and you may argue whether the ticket is a physical good at all).
But overall it's true that with physical goods, most usage rights get transferred to the buyer. however, if i sell you a chair with a proprietary and patented material or design, and you try to copy the design and then mass-produce a replica of the chair, that would be illegal according to US law. and if for some reason, there was a technology you had that allowed you to magically reproduce that chair at little to no extra cost and sell it around the world, I may think twice about what value I assigned to the chair.
as far as the fact that IP, unlike physical property, passes into the public domain after a certain amount of time, i can't argue that. as i said, the rules governing IP are arbitrary (as are most government rules, for that matter) but the arbitrariness is a direct result of the difficulty of determining what is valid IP and then protecting it.
frankly, whether copyright infringement is theft or not misses the point, and i apologize for not being specific enough. my main point was just because you can't touch it or smell it or taste it, IP is still property, and thus should have protections, usage rights, etc.
i am not a lawyer, nor a technologist, so my argument is more of a visceral one than an intellectual one. and i would agree with your assessment that businesses need to be more creative about how to profit from IP and less obsessed with how to protect it.
But to me, one simple fact remains: technology that is widely available today makes it very easy (and easier still in the future) for any piece of IP that can be put into 1s and 0s to be disseminated and copied, anonymously, repeatedly and without any value assigned to the product, even if there would otherwise be value were the product not freely available. and there need to be laws and rules designed to protect that property.
i am interested in hearing your reply. you obviously take this issue very seriously and have given it a lot of thought and am curious why we end up on very different sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
With technology, everything moves so fast and there are hundreds of people doing the same thing and coming up with the same ideas, it is not like the world 50 years ago. Being a small software company, one of our biggest fears is that one of our 'novel ideas' may infringe on someone’s patents (seeing that almost every single new product is hit with some patent infringement claims) and only those with large wads of cash can get by that 'wall'.
Stealing a physical item is a very clear issue, IP and patents is an entirely different ball game. What it really all comes down to is "who is abusing who?" patents and IP laws were created to protect those who come up with it, not give them a means for extortion and abuse of the rights provided - that is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
That's the crux of the issue. The technology makes it easy, and people are doing it. So far, every attempt to stop it legally has had the reverse effect.
Sure, it would be great if you *could* stop copying like this. But you can't. And attempts to stop it legally have the reverse effect, while also pissing off the people who want your product.
From a business standpoint, this is simply pointless. Meanwhile, all historical evidence suggests that coming up with new business models that embrace what the technology allows us to do opens up new business models that offer a much higher ability to profit.
For an analogy, take the automotive industry. When it first came about, horse and buggy makers freaked out, realizing it would kill their *existing* business. They forced through silly laws like the one where any automobile had to have someone walking in front of it waving red flags.
That is, instead of admitting that the technology had changed the market and that it was in their best opportunity to embrace it and change, they fought it... and they lost. They will always lose, because consumers determine how the market develops. The problem in that situation is that the buggy makers considered themselves to be in the buggy business and not the transportation business. For that reason, they missed the opportunity to expand into much wider opportunities in automobiles, and instead tried to protect the dying "buggy business."
With intellectual property we're facing the same thing. Companies misinterpret their business. The recording industry thinks it's in the CD selling business -- not the "entertainment" business. Patent hoarding companies think they're selling licenses -- not innovation.
The list goes on and on. However, technology has forced the market to change. Consumers realize this and are responding accordingly. It's the legacy businesses that don't recognize it... and are suffering accordingly.
The simple point is that you can create all the IP protection laws you want, but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of what's happening in the market and what people want. Those fighting the legal battle are losing on every front and making things worse as they go. A strategy that embraces opening up lets them update their business model to match what the market is telling them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
not so sure this is true - the strategy the music industry has taken - lawsuits against transgressors combined with baby steps into digital downloads - seems to have a done a decent job at generating revenue (the biz is far from healthy, of course, but unauthorized downloading seems to have at least stabilized and services like itunes and napster have shown some real traction despite imperfect protection schemes - the sales declines in the industry may be more due to blah product than technology)
i guess i just still don't understand the solution side of the equation - how can a company in the biz of producing IP embrace a technology that threatens to commoditize all content, UNLESS it also simultaneously works to buttress the legal protections such property has always enjoyed. the answer may be that i am not creative enough to see the biz model that can ensure that the technology is used in a way so that content can maintain some semblance of value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
But you correctly site instances, itunes and napster, where consumers are willing to pay for IP despite their being an easily accessible "free" download elsewhere. This is where the argument, "why would I pay for something if I can get it for free?" breaks down. Because, it seems, inherently people are willing to be fair. People give money to NPR and PRI because they like the service - they feel it is fair. The mozilla Firefox project is another recent example of a large number of individuals willing to give money to a product that was made freely available: $250,000 in ten days. Not bad. And the BBC is undergoing a massive archiving project that will be protected under a Creative Commons License.
Maybe it's just a matter of perspective. Content can still be protected, but maybe they can be protected differently. And maybe, as a result, more money will be made by more people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
Political or non-political really makes no difference in my example.
I have friends that have given to anything "Non-Microsoft" because they hate MS so much.
I have friends that love Arm&Hammer so much they'll always buy their baking soda, toothpaste, and dishwashing soap.
Remove the political factors from your NPR/PRI examples and move things into the commodity realm and the "fairness" theory breaks down.
Why remove them? People will always pay or not pay for things in a subjective manner, especially IP. Marilyn Manson or Toby Keith, makes no difference.
They are paying for ease of use and security.
This may be true and probably part of the problem the RIAA doesn't recognize - people are paying for the ease and security of downloading a file rather than for the quality of the product. It's pretty easy and secure to buy or order a CD.
Would people donate to a plain non-political radio station that provides quality content like they donate to NRP? Doubtful, because they can just turn the dial and get it for free.
Why is it doubtful? People will gravitate towards quality if it delivers something to them. There's plenty of free crap out there, but I don't partake in it simply because it's free. Do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are you arguing?
Though, if you wanted me to do it on the content, I would back him for that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
My apologies for the condescending tone of this lecture. It seems necessary, however, since the point never seems to sink in with you corporate lackeys out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]