The Impossible Job Of Being The Copyright Czar
from the balancing-the-unbalanceable dept
The administration's "IP czar" (more technically, the "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator"), Victoria Espinel, recently gave a talk at the Future of Music Coalition event in Washington DC, and while I had seen various reports about her speech, and had a few submissions asking me to comment, I wasn't quite sure what to say. Espinel basically said the same things she's been saying all along. Her job is to "protect the creativity of US citizens." And, to her credit, she doesn't just define that as big companies. While reports of her pressuring ISPs, payment processors and registrars to voluntarily block or disable accounts of infringers is... troubling, she is always careful to try to "balance" things. This was evident in the IP Strategic Plan she released a few months back. While it makes some suggestions that clearly makes industry interests happy, at the same time, it tosses some breadcrumbs to those concerned about how over-aggressive IP laws can actually hinder quite a lot of creativity.It wasn't until I read music critic Greg Kot's report on Espinel's speech, that I finally realized what the real problem is here: Espinel's job is impossible. Now I'll admit that I never thought the job made sense. The IPEC role was created by the Pro-IP law, that never made much sense in the first place. But, Espinel has been given a job that makes no sense.
Creativity is not something you protect, it's something you enable.
What you can protect are business models or specific businesses. But, Espinel seems to recognize that actually protecting certain businesses actually could harm certain forms of creativity. And, so she appears to be trying to walk a fine balancing line, of "protecting" certain industries (who, it must be admitted, are heavy political donors), while not stifling actual creativity. But, that's impossible. It rests on the idea that there is such a fine line and that there needs to be a "balance" here. But that's not how creativity or business models really work. Enabling creativity means avoiding protectionism, and avoiding restrictions. The business models shake themselves out. And while it may make life tough on businesses that don't adapt, it's silly to think that there should be a government job whose sole purpose is to keep a few companies alive.
So, if we must have an IP Czar, at some point, the internal conflicts of the job need to be sorted out. Is the job to enable and encourage creativity? Or is to protect a few companies? It can't be both. But, in trying to thread that impossible needle, the logical contradictions come through. As Kot notes in his writeup, Espinel decried the (industry-sourced) claim that 95% of downloads are infringing, but when he asked her a question about "this fundamental disconnect between the government's agenda and the way many citizens interact with their computers and cellphones in their daily lives," Espinel responded by saying "I don't see an inherent conflict. The majority of consumers don't want to engage in illegal content." But, Kot noted (not aloud, unfortunately), "didn't you just say that 95 percent of downloaders are doing exactly that?"
Such is the nature of the impossibility of the job that Espinel is in. She needs to convince the world (and, perhaps, herself) that enabling creativity and protecting a few industry interests are the same thing, when they're clearly opposed. It's the same thing as saying that 95% of downloads are illegal while still believing that people don't want to download unauthorized material. Something doesn't fit, and in the end, people are going to need to realize that enabling creativity is a lot more important than protecting the interests of a few companies who, all too often, get in the way of creativity.
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: balance, copyright, copyright czar, victoria espinel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If you think about it I'm sure you'll recognize that freedoms (including creativity) actually can be protected, that that requires some prioritizing, and the only impossibility is protecting freedoms while prioritizing business interests.
Of course we know the Masnick religion requires that you suck up to American authority so you can't actually say that, but trying to present your position as some kind of insight is a bit too pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm confused about this statement. When have I "sucked up to American authority?" I spend so much time on this site talking about how awful politicians are and what terrible things they're doing. I find this statement to be so bizarre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And in describing the job as impossible...I didn't read any sympathy there. I read that the Czar's job is pointless because its impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah but business models enable creativity
So while I know that there are many forms of creativity that can flourish without a business model, I also know that I like the forms that require one. When it's Friday night, I prefer big budget Hollywood blockbusters over videos of someone's cat riding around on a Roomba. When it comes to music, I like a concert with a professional band more than than the fellow busking (something that also requires money.) When it comes to reading, I prefer the writing of a professional author who gets a big enough advance to pay for real research over the ranting of some blogger sneaking time away from work.
I like the amateur, uncompensated creativity, but I really enjoy the professional work. That means I want the copyright czar to protect the business models so the business models can enable the creativity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Yes, but selling copies of the end product is not the only way to make money. Copyright is not necessary to protect all forms of income from art.
"Furthermore, paying the artists something allows them to develop their talents more fully because they don't have to work a day job. "
I don't recall anyone arguing that artists should work for free. Furthermore, we're seeing plenty of examples recently where money collected "for artists" never gets to them, or not the smaller artists if it does get somewhere. Copyright does not always protect artists' income.
"When it's Friday night, I prefer big budget Hollywood blockbusters over videos of someone's cat riding around on a Roomba"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dicotomy
"When it comes to music, I like a concert with a professional band more than than the fellow busking (something that also requires money.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dicotomy
When it comes to reading, I prefer the writing of a professional author who gets a big enough advance to pay for real research over the ranting of some blogger sneaking time away from work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dicotomy
"That means I want the copyright czar to protect the business models so the business models can enable the creativity."
...and if the business model is unworkable in the modern era? There are business models out there that do not depend on copyright "protections" to succeed, and others that would actually benefit from weaker standard copyright. Why do you only support propping up the outdated one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Yeah, but they have major problems of their own. Giving stuff away for free forces the artist to beholden to the large corporations paying for the ads. Charging for t-shirts forces the artist to be a t-shirt designer first and an artist second. And don't get me started on how un-green it is to fill the world with t-shirts or other scarce physical goods just to make a buck.
Intellectual property is a cleaner, greener, and more democratic mechanism to enable artists. It may not be perfect, but it has many advantages.
And you might want to actually read the wikipedia entry on false dichotomy one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
No business model is perfect, and no model is applicable to everybody. Some will be happier with a label and that's fine. But, there's a wide world of other possibilities, and many of them do not depend on selling copies of songs.
"Giving stuff away for free forces the artist to beholden to the large corporations paying for the ads"
Not if they use a business model that doesn't depend on ads for the revenue. Free != depending on ads.
"Charging for t-shirts forces the artist to be a t-shirt designer first and an artist second."
If they don't like that, they are free to hire somebody to do it for them. Another false dilemma - somehow in these arguments people imply that if they don't use the current model, they have to perform every single duty themselves. They are free to hire help and representation if they feel it's necessary, but they don't have to if they don't.
Besides, really? How long does it take to design a few t-shirts compared to writing and recording decent album, or going on a reasonably long tour?
"Intellectual property is a cleaner, greener, and more democratic mechanism to enable artists."
Bullshit. Even compared to your ads example above, how many artists are not "beholden to the large corporations" under the current model? Intellectual property is something that's largely owned and operated BY the corporations in the first place.
It has it's place, but the last 50-60 years have proven that an artist cannot depend on it alone to make a living, especially in the modern world.
"And don't get me started on how un-green it is to fill the world with t-shirts or other scarce physical goods just to make a buck. "
Scarce goods do not have to be physical goods, nor mass manufactured. Try using some imagination, please.
"And you might want to actually read the wikipedia entry on false dichotomy one day."
Which part am I missing? Two options were presented as though they were the only options, yet in reality there's many different options between the two extremes. How does that not match up to the definitions of false dichotomy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Wrong. Copyrighted material begins belonging to the artist and at least the artist has something to sell. I can tell you from personal experience that my friends have built homes and earned a living ONLY because the corporations were forced to pay them for the copyright to their work.
Without copyright, the big corporations will take the art work and pay the artists nothing. That's what's so hilarious about the so-called artist friendly people here who lock on to some lawsuit over a mashup and decide that the entire copyright system is anti-artist.
Wake up. If BoingBoing just steals the images it needs to make its blog look better, do you think a big corporation is going to be any different? Do you think the big corporation is going to pay for photos or art when it can use the Creative Commons license and pay nothing?
Today's BoingBoing theft:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/14/will-eating-a-half-a.html
http://www.kk.org/quanti fiedself/2010/10/will-butter-make-you-smarter-i.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Intellectual property is a cleaner, greener, and more democratic mechanism to enable artists.
"More democratic" in theory, but not in practice - since in order to sign with a publisher in many fields, you have to grant them exclusive rights to your material. Meaning: they control the copyright, and not you.
The rest is pure bunkum. Publishers, labels, and studios are much more dependent for their profits on the sale of physical goods (books, CD's, DVD's, etc). The idea that signing with a publisher is "greener" than other options is utterly laughable.
Do you think the big corporation is going to pay for photos or art when it can use the Creative Commons license and pay nothing?
The only people who can use a Creative Commons license are the copyright holders.
Which means that if the big corporation uses a CC-licensed work for free, that work was voluntarily offered for free by the artist.
Which means that what you're really complaining about is artists' rights.
Why do you hate artists so much?
Today's BoingBoing theft:
It's not "theft." It is clearly fair use.
Not only that: kk.org publishes an RSS feed for "the Quantified Self." The sole purpose of an RSS feed is so other sites can publish the RSS content in its entirety.
The entire article - including the picture - is in that RSS feed. Go see for yourself if you don't believe me.
Not only is BoingBoing's use fair use, it is doing exactly what the author intended with the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Giving me a million or two will free up a lot of my time so I can be creative too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Huh? Who said anything about not getting money? We've explained how creators who ignore copyright, but put in place better business models can make MORE money. So your entire comment is based on a false premise.
Furthermore, paying the artists something allows them to develop their talents more fully because they don't have to work a day job.
Again, who said anything about not paying artists? Do you even read what we write?
So while I know that there are many forms of creativity that can flourish without a business model, I also know that I like the forms that require one.
Again, what?!? We spend so much time showing how there are all sorts of business models. No one said anything about no business model. In fact, we've said the opposite. Rather than relying on one single (not very good) business model, we suggest much more profitable business models.
When it's Friday night, I prefer big budget Hollywood blockbusters over videos of someone's cat riding around on a Roomba. When it comes to music, I like a concert with a professional band more than than the fellow busking (something that also requires money.)
Good for you, but no one said that all content would be amateur content. You're responding to a strawman.
I like the amateur, uncompensated creativity, but I really enjoy the professional work. That means I want the copyright czar to protect the business models so the business models can enable the creativity.
One of the most ridiculously ignorant statements I've seen in a long time. Business models don't thrive by protectionism. Learn some economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
All business models depend upon the rule of law and the rule of law requires, from time to time, that the police show up and crack some heads. If you don't believe this, just turn back in time to moments when social control broke down and people just looted the stores. Did the stores lovingly restock their shelves and dance a jig because of all of sharing? Most of them just closed and the others hired police and security guards to -- as you so quaintly put it-- give the residents a "reason to buy".
You really should think about what you're typing. Protectionism is, by definition, designed to protect some local business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Your level of ignorance and confusion increases each time you post.
Seriously. Learn economics. Learn the difference between rivalrous, excludable goods and non-rivalrous, non-excludable goods. It'll help.
You really should think about what you're typing. Protectionism is, by definition, designed to protect some local business model.
Indeed. The point was that economics has shown time and time again that business models that are "protected" with protectionism lead to smaller markets. Are you refuting basic economics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Of course not, although I would suggest that you're a bit too certain that there's such a thing as "basic economics" or that you-- or anyone-- know what it may be. If anything, the recent crash suggests that market economics isn't what the PhDs thought it might be.
But again, you're revising your words and missing your point. You said before that "business models don't thrive by protectionism". Now you're suggesting that the question is whether the businesses are bigger or smaller.
First, it's obvious that businesses thrive under protection. Look at the US car industry when tariffs kept out the competition. Wow. Those were some sexy, fun, wonderful cars. It sure looked like it was thriving back then.
The point you're trying to make is that the world is better off when there are no trade barriers because then the best workers dominate, something that seems to help the end users. But is that really best for everyone? Ask the US workers who used to have union jobs with nice benefits before the jobs were offshored.
But that has little to do with what I'm arguing. I've been saying all along in these comments that the law always protects business models and these business models support the creators to build things. I'm not debating between buying something from Chinese or American workers, I'm saying the choice is between looted, burned out stores and well-stocked shelves protected against shoplifters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
This has got to be the most ridiculous argument for copyright ever. So...copyright prevents looting and murder?
What about for the thousands of years of human history when there was trade and commerce, at least on some level, and no-one had invented copyright yet?
I'm not saying you're wrong but PLEASE write your arguments better. Its too easy to shrug off what you're saying when you say that last sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
This isn't a debate between your economics and my so-called ignorance, it's a debate between two different economic models. On my side, I have the intellectual tradition that claims ideas like (1) property rights encourage production and (2) the commons decays when taking outweighs giving.
On your side are some sketchy, modern papers that note that some experiments like open source software haven't been a complete disaster. This is certainly true, but even these more flexible experiments rely heavily on legal muscle to defend the business model. Lawyers are out there defending the creative commons and the GPL all of the time.
On my side, I have Adam Smith and practically every economic professor ever. On your side you've got the Soviet Union and stoner law professors with tenure. Which side really lead to a thriving economy.
All of this began because you have some strange idea that copyright doesn't "enable" creativity. Every artist I know loves to get a big advance from a publisher-- an advance that can only be made when the publisher knows that copyright will exclude free riding. That's how copyright "enables" artists by letting them work without sweating all day at a regular job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
He can either write more songs, or just let the money trickle in from the agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
(1) is true *under certain conditions* with one of the main ones being *actual scarcity*. It does not function properly under abundance. (2) is also true *under certain conditions* and many of the commonly believed ones have been proven untrue (see last year's Nobel Prize winner in Economics).
On your side are some sketchy, modern papers that note that some experiments like open source software haven't been a complete disaster.
Um. First I don't even know what you're talking about, but no, that's not what I relied on.
On my side, I have Adam Smith and practically every economic professor ever. On your side you've got the Soviet Union and stoner law professors with tenure. Which side really lead to a thriving economy.
That's funny. Totally, ridiculously untrue, but funny. Smith's work agrees with mine. As does the work of numerous Nobel Prize winning economists. I know of know Soviet Union or stoner law professors with tenure who agree with me so I'm not sure who you're discussing.
Thankfully, most economics professors, including multiple Nobel laureates seem to agree with me.
Based on your comments, though, I get the feeling you seem to think I'm advocating something I am not advocating. Which is sorta weird. It suggests you can't read.
All of this began because you have some strange idea that copyright doesn't "enable" creativity. Every artist I know loves to get a big advance from a publisher-- an advance that can only be made when the publisher knows that copyright will exclude free riding. That's how copyright "enables" artists by letting them work without sweating all day at a regular job.
Again, you are confused and look foolish and unable to comprehend what I have said. I did not say that copyright does not enable creativity. I said that copyright enables *less* creativity than other business models. And if you believe advances are only possible with copyright, you're even more foolish than I thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
No. I don't feel like saying again, "Which better business model?" All of the so-called better models celebrated here are either unworkable or thinly veiled reworkings of old business models.
A week or so ago, we got to hear about the wonderful Minecraft, a game that's shipped as crippleware and uses server-side DRM to unlock the full set of features. Oh wait. I'm sorry. I've got the terminology wrong. They're giving away the game for free and enabling extra features as a "RtB". But hey, they're making money at 1/1000th of the rate of the big companies and so it must be "better".
Selling some physical good is wasteful and it often doesn't work for many forms of art like book writing.
The ad supported idea is very old. The sponsored art or the patronage model are even older.
All of these depend heavily on legal muscle. The GNU GPL? It requires copyright to work properly. Advertisers will stop paying if the so-called sharing crowd strips away the ads. T-shirts need to be overpriced to yield a profit for the artist and that's why the artist needs to crack down on pirated t-shirts.
I could go on and on. I'm sure some people will eke out an existence by giving away things for free and a few might stumble onto riches, but I don't think that the rate of success proves that these models are in any way better. They might co-exist and be semi-successful, but get a clue. Cory Doctorow's books sell a tiny fraction of the other big name authors-- just look at the amazon rankings. MySQL didn't buy Oracle, Oracle bought MySQL. Google may give away a few open source projects, but they don't share any part of their search engine or the ad code. Microsoft could care less about open source.
These models aren't better for any content creators, they're just better for the people who don't want the content creators to get any piece of the pie: the hardware companies and the search engine companies. So be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
So book writers can't sell books? Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Ha! So, you mean the fact that many more musicians are making more money with those models is all in their imagination? And all of the studies showing much greater aggregate money being made in the music industry is also a lie?
Sorry, clueless Bob. I'll go with the data.
As for "thinly veiled reworkings of old business models," I'm sorry, was there some requirement that a working business model needs to be entirely "new"? I've said for years that the good business models build on older business models. What they don't do, however, is rely so strongly on copyright.
But hey, they're making money at 1/1000th of the rate of the big companies and so it must be "better".
Um. You missed the point -- which we explained to you at the time. They're making a TON more per person, and without the same overhead structure. In terms of profit per person, which game do you think makes more? Seriously.
And please, give up your ridiculously, laughable, wrong attempt to pretend that what he's doing is DRM.
Selling some physical good is wasteful and it often doesn't work for many forms of art like book writing.
Huh. So all those physical books on my shelves are in my imagination too?
And you accuse *me* of not thinking when writing. Huh.
All of these depend heavily on legal muscle. The GNU GPL? It requires copyright to work properly. Advertisers will stop paying if the so-called sharing crowd strips away the ads. T-shirts need to be overpriced to yield a profit for the artist and that's why the artist needs to crack down on pirated t-shirts.
Your cluelessness is showing. Actually, your elitist ignorance is showing. People buy stuff because the WANT TO SUPPORT THE ARTISTS. So, the pirated shirts don't matter. When we did our t-shirt sales, someone pirated the designs and sold them for $5 less on eBay the day we launched it. We didn't crack down because we knew people wanted to buy them from us.
My goodness, do you hate consumers. It's sad really, but it might explain your own troubles.
I could go on and on. I'm sure some people will eke out an existence by giving away things for free and a few might stumble onto riches, but I don't think that the rate of success proves that these models are in any way better.
Economics proves these models are better. Learn some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Uh, the greater aggregate money is coming from old school systems like iTunes, not from tip jars. It's entirely possible that the growth of iTunes is so large that it obscures the loss to piracy. Yet you want to assume that somehow more iTunes revenue means that piracy is good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
itunes is old school? It was only introduced in 2001. That was only NINE years ago. Although in today's world, that is an eternity ago.
For me, cassette players, cd players, boomboxes, they're old school because they're from the seventies, eighties and nineties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah but business models enable creativity
Again, I already responded to you saying that I don't think tipjars are a very smart business model. Why do you keep pretending I have said that?
And, no, you're wrong. We've actually discussed how much money comes from iTunes, and it's a tiny portion of the market. What's making up the difference has almost nothing to do with iTunes. Not that there's anything wrong with iTunes in general. It's selling convenience -- one of the scarcities we've talked about.
Again, you come across as thinking I'm advocating something which I am not. (Btw, you can sell convenience even without copyright! Shhh... don't tell anyone, you might learn something).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a little confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a little confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a little confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why isn't someone protecting my business model of doing nothing and getting paid a million dollars a day? We need a Czar for that!
But seriously, it is not the governments job to make failing business models work. Under capitalism, if you can't make money, you fail. Your business dies. The end. Other (smarter than you) will come by and do a better job and actually be profitable (and lots). Creativity is a very scarce resource that, when properly applied, can make one very rich, even without the artificial protections granted by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's your problem - in the US, we are a democratic state, not a capitalist one. In a democratic state, if you cannot make money, you try to convince government officials that they should support you through tax dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We pay people who do not have jobs, pay companies that cannot support themselves, pay banks that make poor investments, and buy car companies that cannot compete with foreign auto makers.
It seems like those of us who actually work for a living are really just saps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Join the tea party already ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
... Oh, I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure it is. That's the one of the big jobs of government. If punks are taking a car dealership's product out for joy rides-- they're just sharing them man-- the government steps in and protects the business model of charging for the cars. If someone tries to defraud the insurance system, the government puts them in jail to protect the system.
What planet are you from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If punks are taking a car dealership's product out for joy rides-- they're just sharing them man-- the government steps in and protects the business model of charging for the cars."
Not sure what this means. If you mean that they stole the car, that is a crime, and is punished according to the law. This is not a failure of the business model.
"If someone tries to defraud the insurance system, the government puts them in jail to protect the system."
Also a crime, punished according to the law. Also not a failure of the business model.
It IS the governments job to protect its citizens from lawbreakers. But it is not the governments job to bail out failing industries by passing laws that only benefit them or by spending enormous resources to protect their failing business models (while also failing at that).
More specifically, it is not the governments job to protect a business based on selling goods that are infinite while pretending and wishing very very hard that they aren't. That is a business model destined to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
. It is a business model. A car company could very well plop the cars on the street with the keys in the ignition and put ads on the doors. Then the police wouldn't need to do anything and you wouldn't need to call it "theft" or deploy words like "crime." But that kind of communal property usually breaks down and so no one really does that.
Copyright infringement is already a crime and yet everyone around here yaks up their breakfast whenever someone tries to dispense the least amount of punishment to the poor, innocent couch potatoes who are too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song.
So ask yourself this: why am I so ready to enforce some property laws but not others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Physical property:
- You can touch it (however, there is some "physical property" that would be awkward to touch).
- It cannot be copied easily or effortlessly or without cost (it costs AT LEAST some raw materials).
- It can be damaged.
- It can be stolen. By stolen I mean, if person A has one of X and person B steals it, now person A has no X and person B has one X.
"Intellectual property":
- You can't touch it.
- I can be copied easily, effortlessly and at no cost (other than electricity probably).
- It cannot be damaged (the media it resides on can be damaged, however).
- It cannot be stolen, since no one "owns" "intellectual property". You can't put a tag on information and say "that one is mine!". Even if you could, someone else could just copy it with no tags attached. Notice how you were not affected in any way, since your copy is intact.
I think your confusion rests in the fact that you are treating "intellectual property" the same way you treat physical property. That is a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On my side: big thinkers like Thomas Jefferson
On your side: pot-loving academics and super cheap couch potatoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, can't help but notice that your main supporters have been dead for about 200 years. We live in the here and now, not in the distant past when copyright might have made sense. "My side's" supporters might be vegetables that are high on pot, but at least they are alive TODAY.
Finally, I'll say this again: it is not the governments job to support anyone's business decisions or to bail anyone out. The copyright clause was supposed to promote progress, not make people rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 anybody.
Emphasis mine. From Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson.
Also: Copyright is not granted in the constitution. What is in the constitution is the right of Congress to create copyright laws. If Congress decided to eliminate copyright tomorrow, it would not be unconstitutional in any way.
And laws against e.g. theft or fraud are not there to "support business models," because they don't apply only to businesses. Unlike copyright, at least before 1996.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Come Again?
What copyright does limit are the couch potatoes who can't be bothered to pay 99 cents for a song and want to hear nice, soothing rationalizations about how they're really being "creative" when they match one picture of album cover with the song and then upload the creation onto YouTube.
There will be a long debate about where to draw the line about people who reuse substantial blocks of text/music/video, but these only affect less than .00001% of the files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Come Again?
I love how easy it is to turn the pro-copyright peoples arguments back in on itself. Copyright is so self defeating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come Again?
Creativity means creating something new. I fail to see how sitting on your fat bottom while "sharing" someone else's hard work is creating anything at all except more fat on your bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Come Again?
Again, 99.9% of the people who will be targeted by the RIAA are not doing anything remotely considered creative by anyone except perhaps the looniest posters here. Yet we're sitting around arguing whether copyright is really hampering "creativity".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Come Again?
What about remixes? You can't do them, yet, most are VERY creative, even if they are __based__on__ original works. It that promoting creativity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come Again?
Have you seen the tons of Hitler rant movies? Some of those are pretty creative, and yet, they also created nothing new (well, its nothing new after the first million).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come Again?
Not a fan of Marcel Duchamp, I guess?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulatory Capture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
damn facists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is so simple. You have to think of the two parties involved. The creator and the purchaser. The Creative Copyright is issued to the person that actually created the work with appropriate 'fair usage' laws that encourage creativity. The creator can be a company or corporation.
When the 'Work is for hire' or the usage rights are licensed then the work would be protected under a Contractual Copyright with terms and conditions. Creative Copyrights should not be transferable, you should never lose them. They belong to the creator and they should protect the creator only.
We need another system that protects the purchaser for a period of time agreed to between the Creative Copyright holder and the Contractual Copyright holder. This purchase is only a license and failure of the purchaser to abide by the rules of the Contractual Copyright can be sued or forbidden to continue using the work.
The Copyright office needs to build a database of information that compares the material to be copyrighted. Almost all of the material submitted has at least one digital copy included. That digital copy could be scanned and compared with other items in the database. This same attention to details wouldn't hurt the patent office either. This is the so-called digital age. This copyright database would also allow people the ability to look up the copyright holder and get permission or not to use the work. Copyrights need to be taken out of the hands of the lawyers. We need a system where lawsuits are the exception not the norm.
We need to split it up. One protection for the creators and another for the purchasers. The two will never blend and have to be separated. The mere fact of creativity for pure profit muddies the work for many creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The quote is that 95% of downloadS (files) are illegal. This does not map to 95% of downloadERs (people) are doing something illegal, especially if many of the unauthorized downloaders are extra greedy.
Still, Espinel and the recording industry are faced with a dilemma -- they have to explain why unauthorized downloading is such a perversion that only a few people will be inconvenienced by a persecution, while simultaneously arguing that the practice is so widespread that it is destroying the industry. (If enough people are doing it, it is not a perversion any more.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with czars overall
What have ANY of the czars done in US law? Look at em...
What can the drug czar do to fix the drug trade? You have LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) that puts together a lot more information than the czar is doing.
Look at the economic czar... And yet, the GAO does a much better job of oversight and accountability than the rest of the government.
Then we have Victoria Espinel... I really feel for her. I'm critical of her position that she can truly do anything in this position. I think what may happen is that her predecessor is going to fall right in with the MPAA rhetoric and then all hell breaks loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problem with czars overall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Problem with czars overall
It's time for a nap now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holly cow! all the 2 gigabytes I download surfing the web are mostly illegal?
ps: And some people say just surfing the web doesn't need bandwidth, those people never bother to look at the connection monitor to see how much they download from a single website full of images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good points, but...
It' a hard job, but not impossible. The real reason for the creation of IPEC, as I see it is to have some kind of coordinating body that can help the various agencies and regulatory bodies think through the complexities of IP in the digital era. Just like consumers used to rarely interact with copyright, but are no implicated almost every day, so too are government bodies that used to operate according to mandates that had little to do with IP. That's no longer the case.
If you view the office in that way, it makes more sense.
I completely agree that it is difficult to recognize and respond to the concerns of such a wide range of stakeholders. I mean, you're a stakeholder. I'm a stakeholder. UMG is a stakeholder. That's pretty nuts.
I'm cautiously optimistic that if we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater that we can grow a legitimate digital marketplace that scales, is transparent and equitable to creators and doesn't require heavy-handed approaches to enforcement that may only serve to further disenfranchise consumers who can already exercise "free" as a choice.
To get there we need a combination of thoughtful policy on not only IP but telecommunications, as well as a conceptual rethinking of investment in the arts. Might not hurt to have the marketplace come to some hard decisions about licensing efficacy and barriers to certain kinds of uses, but I know that's still heretical in some quarters. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good points, but...
If the IP Czar is to try and balance input from all stakeholders, why are consumer groups denied access to the ACTA process?
For that matter, why is ACTA kept secret from the public? We know why mainstream media has no interest in covering (exposing) the negotiations, but there is no justification for actually withholding information from the public.
Lastly, if there were actually an attempt to make IP enforcement fair and balanced, why on Earth would the U.S. block the Senate from negotiating the treaty by calling it an Executive Agreement?
I admire your writing, and your effort, but I'm just not seeing any support for stakeholders outside of the supply side here.
If Victoria really want to come off as having factored consumer interests into IP enforcement policy attempts, she needs to try a hell of a lot harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Individual Creators Need Protection
http://www.c-registry.us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Individual Creators Need Protection
Who is defending individual creators now? From what I've seen, unless it is an individual on individual suit, the individual creators are steamrolled en masse by copyright holding corps with lawyers in legion.
Most here support copyright reform and alternatives which would favor the actual creator over some fence company set up to feed off the creativity of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Individual Creators Need Protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Individual Creators Need Protection
Copyright is interesting in that it protects everyone. Even the scribbling of a 3 year old child is instantly a copyrighted work upon creation. Copyright is the core defense that creators have against big bullies. And although individual law suits are one option, wouldn't it be great if there were some middle ground between all these extremes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Individual Creators Need Protection
Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Individual Creators Need Protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Individual Creators Need Protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]