Copyright Expert William Patry Shuts Down Blog, As It's 'Too Depressing'

from the sad-day dept

It was really disappointing, if entirely understandable, earlier this year when the until-then-anonymous "Patent Troll Tracker" had to shut down his blog. Prior to that, it had been one of the only sources (and in some cases the only source) to report on some important cases and trends in the patent world. Unfortunately, it appears the same thing is now happening in the copyright world. William Patry, recognized around the world as an expert on copyright, has shut down his blog. Tragically, he didn't just stop writing it, he's deleted the entire archive -- so even posts of his that we pointed to just last week no longer are live. This is really unfortunate -- and there seems to be no reason he couldn't have allowed the archives to live on.

As for the reasons for shutting it down, his first is that he was sick of people taking the word on his personal blog as the position of Google, since he works there. When he started the blog, he did not work there, and since he joined the company he was quite explicit about that fact and never commented on cases or stories that involved Google or even other cases involving companies involved in lawsuits against Google. However, too many people would take what he said as the "word of Google," unfortunately.

Much more importantly, however, he notes that writing about the state of copyright these days has become "too depressing." This should really open some eyes. Patry has always been a supporter of the copyright system. But he's become depressed with how the system has been changing, such that he finds himself constantly writing about changes or abuses of the system. Even (as he puts it) being a "centrist" on copyright issues, he's seen how far in one direction certain interests are trying to pull copyright, and it means he's constantly pulling hard in the other direction, making him seem less like a centrist and making him depressed for having to write so negatively about things happening in the copyright world.

Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.

It is profoundly depressing, after 26 years full-time in a field I love, to be a constant voice of dissent. I have tried various ways to leaven this state of affairs with positive postings, much like television news shows that experiment with "happy features." I have blogged about great articles others have written, or highlighted scholars who have not gotten the attention they deserve; I tried to find cases, even inconsequential ones, that I can fawn over. But after awhile, this wore thin, because the most important stories are too often ones that involve initiatives that are, in my opinion, seriously harmful to the public interest. I cannot continue to be so negative, so often. Being so negative, while deserved on the merits, gives a distorted perspective of my centrist views, and is emotionally a downer.

This should be a huge downer for everyone else as well. While Patry and I disagreed about the extent of reform needed in copyright, he is one of the sharpest minds on any issue having to do with copyright, and having him silence himself means that the forces he was sick of fighting -- those who are constantly stretching and abusing copyright -- have just won yet another battle. That makes it that much harder for the rest of us to stop certain industries from continuing to stretch, twist and abuse copyright, not for good reasons, but merely to prop up their own obsolete business models. One hopes that others in the field will step up and help prove to Patry and others that this isn't too depressing -- and that this is a battle that can be won -- but no one will be able to fully replace his regular insightful opinions on the subject.

Filed Under: blog, blogging, copyright, william patry

Copyright Battles Are About Controlling New Technologies

from the seems-like-it dept

Copyright guru William Patry has a really interesting post remembering Harvey Schein, the man who oversaw the American launch of the Betamax VCR as head of Sony's American division. That was, of course, the product that produced the famous Sony decision upholding the legality of the VCR and its "record" button. The Betamax precedent is widely seen as a foundation of the modern consumer electronics industry because it gives manufacturers confidence that they can build useful media tools without worrying about liability should their customers use the tools to infringe copyright.

Patry mentions an aspect of the case that I hadn't realized before: MCA/Universal, the lead plaintiff, wasn't just worried that the VCR owners would tape shows rather than watching re-runs. It was also planning to release a laser disc technology called Disco Vision. MCA/Universal apparently worried that a successful Betamax VCR would have undercut the market for laser discs. Schein is quoted as saying "I don't think it was accidental that the company that took the lead in fighting the videocassette held all the patents on the videosdisc."

This will sound eerily familiar to anyone familiar with more recent copyright controversies. For more than three decades, Hollywood and the recording industry have consistently tried to use copyright law to stop any technology they didn't control. In 1992, the music industry persuaded Congress to mandate cumbersome DRM for digital audio formats, stunting the development of that technology. In 1998, the music industry unsuccessfully tried to sue the MP3 player out of existence. Also in 1998, at the behest of the copyright lobby Congress enacted the DMCA, which gave content creators unprecedented control over the design of technological devices. Hollywood has used the DMCA to effectively outlaw set-top boxes that act as DVD jukeboxes.

Of course, in every one of these cases, the copyright lobby's arguments have focused on the threat of "piracy." But when they've won, the practical result has been to give content creators the power to control the evolution of media devices. And when Hollywood and the record labels control technological progress, the results aren't pretty.

Filed Under: betamax, control, copyright, harvey schein, technology, vcr, william patry

Recording Industry Testing Out New Theory: It Deserves More Money Because It Lets You Transfer Music

from the the-audacity-of-greed dept

William Patry has a long, but fascinating, discussion on the latest trick being used by the recording industry to try to squeeze more money out of you: telling governments that because it's now willing to let people transfer the music they legally purchased between devices, it deserves extra money for it. To back this up, it's claiming that there's obviously value in being able to transfer music around, otherwise why would people want that ability. The audacity of such a statement from the industry shouldn't be understated. After all, this is the same industry that has, for years, ignored pleas from fans all over the world to get rid of DRM because it would make digital files increase in value. And, now, that the industry has finally been forced to recognize this, it seems to be claiming that all of the value belongs to the industry itself, and it's the government's job to hand over that "value."

The reasoning for this seems to go back to the psychological explanation for why the recording industry keeps getting itself into trouble (and it's similar to the story we had recently about bloggers worrying about a new aggregator). They assume that all of the "value" needs to be captured by them, and not anyone else. In economics, this is effectively an industry telling the government that it needs to be compensated for all of the positive externalities it created -- even if it's better off at an absolute level. Basically, the industry is so overvaluing its own content, that it assumes that any additional value that people get out of music, even if it's through no effort of the recording industry itself, should be entirely converted to more revenue for the industry. As an analogy, it's like your automobile maker demanding an ongoing cut of your salary, since without the automobile, you wouldn't be able to drive to work. Unfortunately, though, unless you're a copyright wonk, you might not even notice that the recording industry is trying to do this. Instead, it presents its case in a logical fashion, focusing on how much "value" it's suddenly creating by "allowing" people to transfer the music they already legally purchased to the device of their choosing.

Filed Under: copyright, externalities, recording industry, taxes, value, william patry

Is A Photograph A Derivative Work Of The Object In The Photo?

from the you-would-hope-not dept

There's an interesting discussion going on over at William Patry's blog, questioning whether or not a photograph should be considered a "derivative work" of the object or objects in the photo. The courts appear to be somewhat split on this. The importance of this concerns whether or not the photograph itself can be covered by copyright -- and also whether or not the photograph can be considered infringement itself. If the photo is considered an unauthorized derivative work, then it's entirely possible that whoever holds the copyright on the object in the photo could claim that the photo itself is infringing. Remember, in the past there's been some concern about the legality of photographing copyrighted sculptures. A derivative work is supposed to be for something that "recast, transformed, or adapted" the original work, and is normally used for something like a translation of copyrighted material. However, does a photograph really recast, transform or adapt the object? Or is it an entirely separate work?

Filed Under: copyright, derivative works, photographs, william patry

Pro IP William Patry Explains How Pro IP Bill Is Very Anti IP

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white dept

Last week, we wrote about just how awful Congress' proposed "PRO IP" law was, suggesting that it would help to kill off creative industries by giving excessive power to enforce obsolete business models. Of course, I'm somewhat skeptical about all intellectual property laws, as there's enough evidence out there that they're not needed in most cases, and only serve to distort markets in unnecessary ways (and there's very little evidence that they actually serve their purpose of creating incentives for the creation of new content). Thus, you would expect me to have problems with a bill that would drastically strengthen copyright, since that's clearly going in the wrong direction in my book. However, to get another opinion on the bill, why not listen to William Patry, a man who is clearly in favor of intellectual property laws, having been a copyright lawyer for 25 years, including representing copyright holders and various trade associations, as well as working in the US Copyright Office. He has written up a great piece explaining why the "PRO IP" bill is very "anti-IP" when you understand the details:

"The question is not whether copyright is a good thing: properly calibrated copyright is very good, indeed essential for certain classes of works. Sir Hugh and I are both pro-IP in this most important of senses. But an excessive amount of something that is beneficial in measured doses can become fatal in overdoses, and copyright is already at fatal strength. Yet, when they are not alienating their customers, copyright industries spend the rest of their time in efforts to obtain new, powerful, undeserved, and unnecessary remedies. Content owners act as if obtaining more and more and more will save them: it won’t, quite the reverse: it only continues an unfortunate trend of making copyright law and content owners among the most despised elements in society. While proponents of such efforts describe themselves as being pro-IP, they have the opposite effect by bringing disrespect on the entire system. I call that being anti-IP, not pro-IP."

And that's somewhat near the beginning of the piece. It's worth reading the whole thing.

Filed Under: congress, pro ip, william patry