NYTimes Draws Connection Between Beastie Boys Lawsuit & Patent Trolls, Realizes IP Hinders Innovation
from the about-time dept
Following the unfortunately-timed sampling lawsuit against the Beastie Boys, I expressed hope that the high-publicity situation would call more attention to serious issues in copyright law as it pertains to sampling and other forms of art that directly build on what came before—though I haven't exactly been holding my breath. To my surprise, though, it seems like the story has had an even more profound effect over at the New York Times: a recent piece uses the Beastie Boys lawsuit as a starting point to talk about oppressive copyright laws, tech patent trolls, and the fact that more intellectual property does not automatically mean more innovation.
Most of the article won't be anything new to Techdirt readers, but it's great to see these essential topics getting more attention in mainstream news sources—especially coming from a journalist who has previously espoused the RIAA/MPAA's bogus piracy stats:
Patents on inventions, like copyrights on songs, are not granted to be fair to their creators. Their purpose is to encourage innovation, a broad social good, by granting creators a limited monopoly to profit from their creations. While companies like Apple may believe they are insufficiently compensated for their inventions, the evidence often suggests otherwise. The belief that stronger intellectual property protection inevitably leads to more innovation appears to be broadly wrong.
...
Like “Paul’s Boutique,” the software that drives smartphones is composed of a vast array of ideas from multiple sources. Everybody infringes to some extent on everybody else. Overly strong intellectual property laws that stop creators from using earlier innovations could slow creation over all and become a barrier for new technologies to reach the market.
There are a few oddities to the piece—it's not always clear on the distinction between copyright and patents, and it also makes the assertion that "software patents will never be banned, of course"—despite the very real possibility that software patents will be massively restricted in the future. But what's really great to see is the understanding from NYTimes that these issues are connected: an anti-competitive attitude and the "ownership mentality" are endemic to intellectual property as a whole, not just the specifics of certain areas of law, and the problem really does need to be addressed at that basic level, starting with the incorrect assumption that more IP equals more innovation. Now if only lawmakers would start listening.
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: beastie boys, intellectual property, new york times, patent troll, smartphone
Companies: apple, tuf america
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fair Use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fair Use
I can imagine some RIAA asshat suing over somebody's sample-using song making their song more valuable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It does, kind of.
As it turns out this results in a massive net decrease in human innovation overall. But it protects not just the revenue companies generate for currently-available technology (that's heavily IP-encumbered), it also makes it staggeringly difficult to innovate outside of those environments.
Where this is really hurting us is interoperability (which is, in part, how this protects corporate profits). Companies in general have little interest in making their products work together, and the greatest and most widespread interopability successes have occurred when they were forced (kicking and screaming) by innovation happening outside of their walls that results in technology consumers want.
Phrased more simply, if MP3s hadn't existed and been widely available royalty-free (or royalty-reasonable) before solid state portable music devices we would today have our music in whatever formats Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Creative, etc. woud have developed and protected with copyrights and patents - and none of it would have worked on each other's hardware.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is what IP law produces, nothing it doesn't go to the finish line, it rewards incompetence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
infringement
Yeah, that's what we used to call "culture."
Fortunately, our corporate conquistadores have done away with this inefficient, unprofitable system, and replaced it with the gentle, guiding pressure of their iron boot stomping on our upturned faces.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"All copyright law is hereby repealed, and all existing copyrights are null and void effective immediately. All formerly copyrighted content is hereby placed within the public domain for all time. Any attempt to reinstate copyrights is punishable by fines of up to $30,000,000,000 and immediate dissolution of any corporate entity involved. In addition, mandatory courses on current technology and its applications will be enforced for all individuals holding public office and legal positions. Not taking the required courses will result in fines of up to $10,000,000 and immediate expulsion from office."
Hey, if it's good enough for the RIAA...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who'd a thought!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fair Use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Fair Use
Sampling is the most obvious example, but you needn't look far for others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Fair Use
For me what most call piracy is fair use. For me piracy is selling DVDs with the content on the streets, flea markets and whatever. And I strongly discourage ppl from buying that type of goods. The issue is, everybody calls file sharing piracy when it is clearly not. The problem with your way of addressing the issue of fair use is precisely this, they will keep yelling that 1 download equals 1 lost sale and this is a BLATANT lie.
It is simple if you talk about samples and mash ups. But let's take parody as an example. A studio exec may think a parody harms the image of a movie thus depriving them of further revenue. How do you measure that? And in fact it may be true for some cases in my opinion. Can you see the problem it createS? And again the burden of deciding goes to a judge that often will have no clue on how to evaluate it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They would but the RIAA's & MPAA's payoffs are clogging up their ears.
[ link to this | view in thread ]