Hacking Policy Through Innovation, Not Lobbying
from the play-by-silicon-valley's-rules dept
As we continue to build The Copia Institute, we'll be writing a weekly column & newsletter discussing bigger issues around innovation and abundance. These pieces will be cross-posted here on Techdirt, but we invite you to check them out on the new Copia website as well.One of the first questions that comes up when I first tell people about the Copia Institute, is "how is this different than 'x'?" with "x" being any number of organizations, from activist groups to trade groups to DC lobbying organizations. And the answer is that we're not any of those things. In fact, while we know many people in such places, and will likely have opportunities to work with them in certain cases, we're focused on doing something very different: letting innovation lead the way, rather than policymakers. That's not to say we're not interested in policy questions, we're just looking for ways to innovate solutions to them rather than waiting for policymakers in distant cities to come up with some new regulation.
Over and over again we've seen policymakers and people from the policy world show up in Silicon Valley and talk about how entrepreneurs need to spend more time "bridging the gap" between DC and Silicon Valley, or something like that. But, almost inevitably, this isn't very effective. There are, certainly, connections to be made, but too often the "connection" that policymakers are talking about is getting Silicon Valley to "play the DC game." And very, very few entrepreneurs and technologists are truly interested in playing that game. To them, it's the antithesis of why they're innovators in the first place. They didn't come to Silicon Valley to change the world just to have to convince a large group of lawmakers (or worse, administrative bureaucrats) to put in place some particular piece of legislation.
They came here to actually innovate.
And this is not to say -- as some people like to -- that the way to treat policymakers is to ignore them, or just tell them to get out of the way. Rather, we think that we can create the best of all worlds by getting entrepreneurs and technologists and innovators to do what the do best and that means coming up with innovative policy ideas that don't necessarily involve waiting for policymakers to create some sort of regulation.
We see examples of this innovative "policy without policymakers" all the time -- and it's what helped inspire the creation of Copia in the first place. One example: fifteen years ago, a group of entrepreneurs, academics, lawyers and activists realized that copyright law and the internet did not mix. And, at the same time, they knew that there was no way Congress would get around to real copyright reform that fixed that. So they built a very innovative solution: Creative Commons. It didn't fix all the problems, but it did create a really useful tool that is widespread today: a very simple licensing mechanism that encouraged content creators to freely and easily license their works, and that allowed the better sharing of information. It has had a profound effect on how content is shared online today -- and it did not require Congress to do anything.
Similar examples are found with things like Twitter's Innovator's Patent Agreement that prevents any of Twitter's patents from being used for trolling. Or the recent "license on transfer" (LOT) program that a bunch of tech companies came up with a year ago.
Sure, in the long run, having good copyright or patent reform would help even more, but that clearly wasn't happening in the short run, so innovators did what they do best: they innovated solutions to help out in the meantime.
Copia's main focus is on bringing together innovators, entrepreneurs, and technologists and looking at the big opportunities and challenges they face -- and looking for ways to innovate solutions that don't require lobbying and waiting around for policymakers to negotiate and bicker and trade. Instead, we're focused on getting actual stuff done -- creating useful programs that can accomplish things today.
That doesn't mean we'll sit out legislative or policy debates. We'll still be actively involved in those, and making sure that our members are well aware of what's happening. But we'll let the existing trade groups, activists and lobbyists focus on those battles most of the time. We're going to keep looking for ways that we can actually get stuff done in a way that Silicon Valley appreciates: by innovating, rather than waiting for someone to give us permission.
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: copia, hacking, innovation, lobbying, policy
Companies: copia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The problem with Innovation
That is why you must convince the ruling class to allow us mere peasants to create innovation. Even if the innovation doesn't affect the legislators, it certainly affects their friends, or those who put money into their pockets while whispering things into their ears about how wonderful inefficiency is.
The Internet upsets information monopolies. (Encyclopedias, dictionaries, other reference information, public domain information that you must pay a price to obtain, etc) The same as libraries, but at your fingertips, any time, anywhere.
The Internet allows artists to sell their content directly to consumers cutting out the exploitative and vastly inefficient dinosaur middlemen.
The Internet allows the creation of cloud services, that upset less efficient businesses. (Example: Uber, Lyft. But I could also repeat: Netflix, Amazon Prime)
And these are just the most obvious examples.
Innovation like self driving cars is going to upset so many people that we may never get self driving cars. Self driving cars are the realization of a dream -- come true. Saving vast amounts of wasted human intellect and productivity. Yet we may never get them because: taxis could become Johnny Cab (self driving, while spewing inane small talk), insurance companies want more accidents, car ownership may decline affecting dealers and auto makers.
Innovation like electric cars threatens big oil -- despite that we should have begun serious work on electric cars, decades ago. Why did GM wastefully destroy all those beloved and perfectly working electric cars when California changed its law to no longer require a minimum percent of EVs?
Innovation like SpaceX threatens fat dinosaurs sucking at the government teat.
I could go on. But there are major problems with innovation. That's why we should not do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with Innovation
The biggest problem I see with self-driving cars is where is NASCAR going to find drivers in 50 years or so? Remember, they got their start with bootleggers.
OK, that last paragraph is sarcasm for those with malfunctioning sarc meters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
Both lawyers are locked in a steel cage suspended from the court ceiling until one wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with Innovation
And yet Wikipedia has come to dominate without requiring any policy changes.
But I could also repeat: Netflix, Amazon Prime
Netflix has also come to dominate without requiring any policy changes.
Innovation like SpaceX threatens fat dinosaurs
SpaceX is doing just fine without any policy changes.
Of all the things you've mentioned, only Uber and Lyft are hindered by current regulations. Your examples most contradict your premise that "you must convince the ruling class to allow us mere peasants to create innovation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
> Netflix has also come to dominate without requiring any policy changes.
> SpaceX is doing just fine without any policy changes.
Without regulation to stop innovation, the innovation happens. Unless the ruling class can hinder innovation, it upsets existing business models. Examples: There was a thriving industry that supported the manufacture and maintenance of everything related to horse drawn buggies. There was an industry that sold lanterns and oil before the scourge of electric lighting came along.
That is why the ruling class should must hinder innovation, to protect the rich. Things must change such that the peasants must get permission from the ruling class in order to innovate.
(sad but the way some people seem to actually see it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
And yes they all involved policy and lobbying except wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to fix Creative Commons
An innovative way to fix creative commons (and maybe also open source licenses) is to legislate that ALL copyright licenses (like CC, and GPL, etc) require that some amount of money be paid for use of the license. That way politicians can rationalize that they have added value* to the economy.
* here's another idea to add value to the economy: break all the shop windows on main street -- those businesses will have to pay the glass companies for repairs -- thus stimulating the economy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to fix Creative Commons
just in case it is not clear that the above is sarcastic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rush to pay $899 per year for vague benefits!
Around here, you'd get a year of 50Mbit cable, internet phone, and better-than-basic cable TV for that. I guess Copia is only for the 1 percent.
Ethical questions that the 1 percent don't even consider: Is this advertising "paid" for by "Copia" to get money into waning Techdirt? If not paid, why not? Any other corporation doing that is spam. Is it even legal to cross-promote supposedly separate entities? Discuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rush to pay $899 per year for vague benefits!
Awesome offer. And Your bosses can even fire the legions of trolls they have and save money in the long run!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a window of opportunity for innovation between the proof of concept and the proof of power when innovation is ascendant. Once that window closes, innovation must compete with regulation and it is not a fair competition. Innovation might be nimble but regulation has the relentless tenacity, longevity, and resources of bureaucracy. Within that window of opportunity, new technologies must define and demarcate power so that once that window closes, they can assert themselves (Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't disagree -- nor is that what we're arguing here.
We're not saying "regulate or innovate." We're saying that innovators aren't interested in going through the full process required to manage the regulatory/policy environment. So our goal with Copia is to focus on the aspects they can and will impact.
This is not a rejection of the policymaking field at all. Just a recognition of the simple fact that innovators DON'T CARE about that enough, because it's a totally different mindset.
I think you misread what this post was about.
The Internet is a case in point. It ran largely unregulated for a long time and off the radar. Once it was clear that it was not a fad, regulators slowly began applying existing law to it. Drones and 3D printing are more current examples.
Again, don't disagree -- but that's not the point of what we're saying.
You seem to be treating this as an anti-regulatory screed. It is not.
We're just saying that Copia's focus is on things innovators can have a real impact on today. That's it.
There is a window of opportunity for innovation between the proof of concept and the proof of power when innovation is ascendant. Once that window closes, innovation must compete with regulation and it is not a fair competition.
Again, that is unrelated to the point we are discussing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're going to try pushing Copia into Techdirt along with Daily Deals? Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're going to try pushing Copia into Techdirt along with Daily Deals? Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can avoid the stupid comments and see all of articles on front page with lite option.
1) Ignore them entirely
2) What youre doing. No wonder she calls you fanbois.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can avoid the stupid comments and see all of articles on front page with lite option.
Theres only 2 way s to handle torlls
1) Ignore them entirely
2) What youre doing. No wonder she calls you fanbois.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can avoid the stupid comments and see all of articles on front page with lite option.
Theres only 2 way s to handle torlls
1) Ignore them entirely
2) What youre doing. No wonder she calls you fanbois.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can avoid the stupid comments and see all of articles on front page with lite option.
Theres only 2 way s to handle torlls
1) Ignore them entirely
2) What youre doing. No wonder she calls you fanbois.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can avoid the stupid comments and see all of articles on front page with lite option.
Best system for knowing what I should take away in least time.
That lite view also lets you see all comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I skip the stupid articles and read just the flagged comments!
That lite view also lets you see all comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Step 2 was an experiment, and it was a good learning experience all around. Part of innovating is experimenting -- and if all of your experiments succeed every time, it means you're not really pushing yourself far enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]