Ad Age Explains How Copyright Is The Buggy Whip Of The Digital Age

from the time-to-move-on dept

Fri, Mar 19th 2010 4:07am — Mike Masnick

Michael Scott points us to a rather surprising (given the source) piece in Ad Age asking if copyright is "the buggy whip of the digital age." Of course, most regular Techdirt readers will not be surprised to find that I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. It's a tool for a very different system that isn't needed. If anything, I'd argue the situation is worse than with buggy whips. At least with buggy whips, they could just fade away as the automobile grew in importance. Buggy whips couldn't get in the way of the automakers. Copyright, on the other hand, is regularly used to stifle and hold back new forms of creativity and to silence expression.

The article itself, by Judy Shapiro, is really a conference report from an event called "The Collision of Ideas 2010," put on by the Copyright Clearance Center. It looks like they brought in a lot of fantastic speakers, highlighting how copyright law doesn't fit well with what content creators are trying to do, and how it's often being used to actively harm content creators. For example:

Mr. Hoffman, the filmmaker, gave a presentation where he confided how challenging current copyright laws are for artists. As an example, he gave us detailed insights into the challenges he had creating his critically acclaimed Sputnik documentary. He explained that half his budget was spent on copyright fees alone. Most unfairly, he had to pay exorbitant copyright fees to a network for old news footage they did not even have but which David himself had spent time to ferret out. David openly concluded that, "it was better to open the floodgates" and let anyone use his content than constrain its distribution.

Unfortunately, Shapiro is getting beaten up in the comments on that piece by folks who are doing the kneejerk thing of saying "but copyright is good, because otherwise who will create!" Still, it's good to see that this debate is reaching a wider and wider audience through conferences like this one and in the pages of AdAge. While you can always expect the kneejerk response from folks who have always been told that copyright must be good, the more people examine the actual issues, the more they'll recognize that as a tool, it's current design is woefully misguided and very much against the principles for which it was created.

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

Filed Under: buggy whip, copyright

37 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:01am

UK network E4 makes Something "Amazinger"
Indeed, many new ideas covered by patent, copyright and trademark should be regurgitated and seen as such:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuA_5ApLD9U

Could you imagine a product that someone made something amazinger could be sued?

Silly world we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:06am

Indeed, many new ideas covered by patent, copyright and trademark should be regurgitated and seen as such: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuA_5ApLD9U Could you imagine a product that someone made something amazinger could be sued? Silly world we live i
Indeed, many new ideas covered by patent, copyright and trademark should be regurgitated and seen as such:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuA_5ApLD9U

Could you imagine a product that someone made something amazinger could be sued?

Silly world we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:10am

seriously use canada
as a test bed OPEN copyright to this small tiny nation lesson the terms ...lets do an experiment
make copyrights 30 years even

i know an idea id love to try but cant afford the fees
what you bet i could make money from an idea OR at best lesson the tax burden tha people are payng fo rme to live on disability

YOU do this and more disabled and poor will create wealth all on there own

stay greedy america cause this WILL NOT WORK. OBAMAWOOD is great at speeches and propaganda. WHAT he fails at is the reality hes inherited the BUSH train wreck created by the worlds most greedy two term president in world history.

and how about that stat trek in the prekining
wasnt bad and i know i could do a hell of a lot better if i had ability too , ALL by myself with maybe 3 people or 4
and a tiny mask budget and makeup and i mean TINY.

THIS is who will create and we'll get better at it.
AND i dont need 20 million per actor either
i dont require unions
i dont require stunt men
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re: seriously use canada
  Rather than a place (canada) why not a time?
  
  Why not have a copyright moratorium week?
  (Maybe even day at first)
  
  Let's have a week every year where anything published or broadcast goes straight into the public domain.
  
  We'd soon find out if the claims of the copyright advocates about needing copyright to encourage creativity are really true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Planespotter (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:23am

Why do people think that they have the god given right to be paid over and over again for the length of their lives + 70 years? Jeez I wish I got paid for the PC I fixed last week everytime the lady used it.

Yes people should be compensated fairly for their creative endeavours but as is sooooo apparent the current system is just not up to demands of the 21st Century.

Hopefully as more and more attention is brought to this some change can be made to simplify the system and benefit both content creators and the end user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:45am
  
  Re:
  they only get paid if someone keeps using or buying. that use or purchase indicates that someone values it. should mcdonalds have stopped making money on big macs after the first million were sold?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard, 19 Mar 2010 @ 6:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Absolutely not, but the guy who designed the latest big mac wrapper isn't exactly deserving of a cut of every one sold either.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Planespotter (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Value? no not neccesarily, some copyright prohibits format shifting so they HAVE to buy it again, so now we have the same person paying for, in essence, the same product twice. They don't value it any more just they want to listen to it in a different way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 6:31am
      
      format shifting
      that is one part of the law that really bugs me
      if i have it on vhs i might by it on dvd but only because of the special features, and other extras and even then if you think im buying it new from the studio you're insane
      $30??!
      hell no
      15 if that from a third party seller on amazon or something
      and if i have it on cassette ill spend $30 buy a usb tape drive and rip it.
      i will pay for value added content like all the extra stuff on a dvd besides the movie/ tv season
      but i will not pay for a new format
      if thats all im buying
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Your analogy is garbage - Big Macs require resources to make repeatedly; copyrighted works don't.
    
    Stop talking.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dementia (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 1:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    On the physical good they were selling? Yes. On the concept of the Big Mac? Well, that is certainly debatable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:24am

Judy Shapiro is senior VP at Paltalk and has held senior marketing positions at Comodo, Computer Associates, Lucent Technologies, AT&T and Bell Labs. Her blog, Trench Wars, provides insights on how to create business value on the internet.

i dont think this is ad age saying this just a guest columnist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:30am

I hope someone changes the author of comment #1. The content is still pertinent to this conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:42am

Author? No, I meant the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:50am

This is a super weird conversation about Big Macs and Nameless.One and weirdness.

Am I the only one here? I don't disagree with Mike, but it just seems there's other problems. I am really confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 6:47am

Tango Delta Company....Fall In!
"Unfortunately, Shapiro is getting beaten up in the comments on that piece by folks who are doing the kneejerk thing of saying "but copyright is good, because otherwise who will create!""

What an beautifully subtle call to commenting arms :)

Mike Masnick's army of hacker raporist grandma lickers to the rescue!

Seriously, though, before I go join the front lines at that article's comments....can we call ourselves Tango Delta Company? That just sounds cool....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: Tango Delta Company....Fall In!
  i vote for Whiskey Tango Foxtrot company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:08am
    
    Re: Re: Tango Delta Company....Fall In!
    Hmm, I was just going for a TD acronym...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:26am

WTF
Copyrights are supposed to keep others from making money off the content creator. The laws were not written to keep people from sharing content for free.

The more I hear arguments on this topic, the more it seems clear that its not so much the content creators that have a problem with file sharing or copyright laws, but rather the people who get paid from what the content creators create.

I can't really blame them though. If I was getting paid for the work that someone else was doing, I would fight for that compensation too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiter (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 8:10am

loved this comment
I always think it's funny when artists who depend on copyrights say "I deserve to get paid for my work, just like everyone else." Reality check: virtually no one who get paid for their work does so because they have exclusive monopoly power over the exploitation of their work product. "Getting paid like everyone else" means working for someone who gives you a salary or an hourly wage, and that's the end of it. Or it means selling something to someone who can do whatever they like with what is now their property, free and clear, and that's the end of it. When you license the use of something, you're not really selling it at all. It's more like renting it out, or leasing it on specific terms. You still retain full ownership and control, and can go on dictating exact parameters for use - including the obligation to pay royalties forever (or at least until your copyright expires, seventy years after you die). The only reason you can do this is because the law has granted you special powers. Specifically, you have been given a legal monopoly over the exploitation of your work. This is a rare and special power. Most people have nothing like it. Their work is done for hire, and once they've been paid, they have no further say. That's how 'everybody else' gets paid. Is this really what you - as an artist - want? More importantly, do you understand *why* certain types of work have been given this special protection? Do you realize that there's a social quid pro quo involved, and that - if certain conditions aren't met - then the privilege can be taken away? Do you even know what these conditions are? Or are you - like most artists - totally ignorant of the legal, cultural, and social grounding for your privilege? Indeed, do you have *any* idea how dangerously close the copyright protected industries are coming to abusing their own charter our of existence? What will you do then? Go back to getting paid 'just like everybody else'? Do you even know how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 8:46am

Some artists don't need copyright to create. Some artists place their work in the public domain.

The public domain is the rule and copyright is the exception.

The length of copyright lasts way too long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 8:56am

i have to laugh
Copyright is bad not good Artists would have more incentive to create without it they only have to do a couple of good songs and sit back and watch the money roll in if they did not have that they would have to keep on creating. or perhaps im preaching to the choir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freeHat (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 9:15am

A producer complaining about production costs - shocking!

I'm assuming this footage he wanted to use for his Sputnick piece cost money to produce. And we're talking old school production with real film and a real crew with real costs, not youtube pinheads tossing ping-pong balls around.

It sounds like he's simply a scrounger wanting to make money off of other people's efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  If you want money, work.
  
  If you want more money, do more work.
  
  If you don't do more work, you don't get more money.
  
  Reusing old footage requires no work from *anyone* involved in said footage, yet they deserve more money?
  
  Logic fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  If copyright lasted a reasonable amount of time then that footage from 50 years ago would be in the public domain.
  
  Some of the footage was taken from YouTube but he made the mistake of trying to track down the original rights holders who didn't even know that the footage was theirs until he told them it might be. They consulted their lawyers and what do you know, that will be $10,000 licensing fee for our old black and white footage about the space race back in the 1950s.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 10:06am
  
  Re:
  The raw material for new culture is, in fact, old culture. True story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 5:35pm
  
  Re:
  Hint: Every business ever makes money off of other people's efforts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CommonSense (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 4:45pm

I know who WON'T create...
...with the current copyright situation, but who otherwise might:

"He explained that half his budget was spent on copyright fees alone. Most unfairly, he had to pay exorbitant copyright fees to a network for old news footage they did not even have but which David himself had spent time to ferret out."

Anyone who can't afford or is to lazy to go through that much hassle. I can't understand how, with a direct quote from a mouth of experience, people can still claim that no one would create without copyright. There would likely be more, and it would likely be better, without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 19 Mar 2010 @ 6:35pm

As an publisher I have had enough with people stealing my content! Those places called "public libraries" are nothing but piracy centers! People read the entire book for free and I get no money at all! People that go into a bookstore and read more than one page are stealing. It is plain and simple. If you want to read more than one page of my book then the rate is $1.00 a page. My calculations show that I have lost $50 trillion in income. We publishers need to lobby congress and provide more laws that restrict what people can do with a copyright holders content.

My suggestions:
1) Shutdown public libraries.
2) Shutdown used book stores.
3) People should pay $1.00 per page for any book they read in a bookstore.
4) Outlaw lending a book to someone else.
5) Shutdown the entire Internet since the Internet is nothing but piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike allen (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 3:26am
  
  Re:
  i hope you got your sarcasim hat on if not then you are obviously a **AA troll
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 1:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Please leave the internets immediately.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fotboll is fun!, 18 Sep 2010 @ 4:33am

In fact copy-right is a good thing...well, for those who make huge benefits out of it!!! But I do agree that it only puts huge expenditures on the artists as they have to pay for that issue...
It depends which point of view you are looking at it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SUBIN SEBASTIAN, 2 Oct 2010 @ 1:56am

COPY- RIGHT IS THE ONLY THING THAT UNPROTECTED LOW IN THE WORLD.WE HAVE TO PROTTECT OUR LOW AND OUR RIGHTS, IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE ,WE CAN'T MAKE ANY PRODUCTS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theft of girlfriend, 7 Oct 2010 @ 11:05pm

Copyright is bad not good Artists would have more incentive to create without it they only have to do a couple of good songs and sit back and watch the money roll in if they did not have that they would have to keep on creating. or perhaps im preaching to the choir......thats aalllll..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anthonys peso, 20 Oct 2010 @ 6:59am

t seems weird to hear how much time is spent on legal matters (unless of course you are a lawyer!) No one is debating that if your content gets used - you should get paid.
The question is how to do it without making everyone go through technical hoops. Copyright was good in its day -- but it does not mean that's the only way to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rajan, 15 Dec 2010 @ 8:45pm

copy right
The era of digital publishing is really different from the period of print media. The digital world really has opened up the ;Global Village' idea. For achieving this great idea some personal compromises are necessary. The idea of copy riht will invite unwanted legal problems which cannot be tackled by all class of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sprearson81 (profile), 8 Jun 2012 @ 6:36pm

Spot on points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]