"The audience is our collaborator. We should be encouraging their collaboration, not treating them like thieves." -- Jeff Tweedy, Wilco band leader
Spectrum of philosophies on intellectual "property" and copyright.
from trade secrets (Apple v. 19-year-old blogger; Digital Rights Management code >> to copyright with strict license and heavy penalties (copyright in 2005) >> to copyright with weak license (copyright in 1789) >> to public domain >> to GPL (General Public License or GNU Public License) & copyleft
open source
open source for ultimate profit product (Eric Raymond) v. open source as an ideal (Richard Stallman), to give to society, libre/freedom, as in highways and parks (not free as in free beer 'til the keg runs dry)
both open source ideologies v. proprietary, pay-to-play, pay-to-use commercial content
Fortress v. Central Park (or jazz) | Microsoft v. Linux | MGM v. Grokster | IE v. Firefox
Key: Internet was developed on the Jeffersonian, Stallman-ian model. Extraordinary freedom. "View Source" -- peer-to-peer -- protocols (like http and ftp) rather than hard wires (remember old LANs? AT&T's phone lines and switchers? Cablevision?) -- packet-switching -- end-to-end with no center -- network of networks. Dumb networks, smart applications v. smart system and dumb applications (plug and play, like your TV).
Dumb v. smart? Microsoft behaves, develops, releases, innovates strategically, in a manner that best serves Microsoft and its stockholders. That's not good or evil; that's capitalism. Open code can't behave strategically. It has no hostages. Why would IBM embrace open source? Why would it contribute $1 billion to develop Linux and Apache servers? Because it has to. It's lost the OS war, so it is embracing freedom, as in free highways and roadways for commerce. It wants to make money by selling the trucks, the equipment that will move on those "free" highways and roadways. So it's paying to pave them. The better the software, the better the servers. The better the servers, the better the equipment can perform. This benefits the whole world of open source developers.
Adam Smith: "Innovation is best when ideas flow freely."
Key 2: If a resource is limited, like oil or cigar tobacco, then you need a system of control to make sure I get my cigars! You want continued production and protections against overuse. However, if the resource is unlimited (non-rivalrous), you need a system to assure it IS created. Source code. Software. Ideas. Cannot be depleted. It's why we drew up copyright law.
We're watching social, political and commercial entities and institutions exert controls on the Internet, collectively reducing innovation. The real struggle is old and new. An environment designed to enable the new (Jeffersonian copyright) is being transformed to instead protect the old (Mickey Mouse).
How did we get here?
Thomas Jefferson: "Ideas cannot be owned." "He who receives an idea from me receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me" (letter, 1813).
Copyright as a creative incentive to drive ideas into the marketplace, to express them, by giving the creator a monopoly for a limited period of time (15 years). Today? DMCA Sonny Bono Term Extension Act (1998): life plus 70 years.
Case study: copyright when Mickey Mouse made his debut in "Steamboat Willie" (1928) v. Mickey Mouse in 2005
"Steamboat Bill, Jr.", starring Buster Keaton, also in 1928. Mickey was a parody. Keaton's short was derived from a song, "Steamboat Bill." Disney's method: borrow (Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Robin Hood, Peter Pan ....). That's ripping and mixing, baby. Mickey Mashup. Copyright in 1928 allowed, even encouraged this.
Case study II: Edwin Armstrong & FM Radio
What's going on?
Yochai
Benkler's "layers" |
| Physical (computers, hardware, wires, infrastructure radio spectrum) |
| Code (software, applications) logical layer |
| Content (stuff: Mickey, blog posts, journalism, IM chat, Yankees game) |
Operationalized:
Central
Park |
Rome's
Forum |
Cell
phones |
DVD
& cable TV |
|
| physical | free |
controlled |
controlled |
controlled |
| code | free |
free
|
controlled |
controlled |
| content | free |
free |
free |
controlled |
Operationalized
II: RIAA & MPAA
(Why are these two so concerned about all things digital? Because
historically they have controlled all three layers. The Net is about not having
these controls.)
Fighting
to retain control |
|
| physical | Player
technology to limit use (commercial messages, recording) |
| code | DVDs
on which the code dissolves after X-number of viewings |
| content | Illegalizing
file-sharing, re-mixing, changing using copyright |
The question (as I see it): Do we want a world of ideas -- an information and knowledge commons -- or do we want a world of products and goods? The Internet is at the nexus of these two worlds, so there is a battle royale over its heart and soul. Born in the world of ideas, there are powerful forces trying to wrest it away and make it captive to a world of "property" and goods. To the extent there is control, innovation will be lost.
Benkler: "The emergence
of the digitally networked environment makes
possible the development of a robust, open social conversation in which all
can participate as peers. This technological and economic possibility
is not,
however, preordained. Decisions about the organization and regulation
of
the content, logical, and physical layers of the Internet will determine
whether the digital environment will eventually, in large measure, replicate
the mass media model, or whether it will indeed change the deep structure
of our information environment."
More on MGM v. Grokster
Some other issues:
Sources:
Yochai Benkler, "From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access," http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v52/no3/benkler1.pdf.
Larry Lessig, "The Future of Ideas" (New York: Random House, 2001).
Larry Lessig, "Free Culture" (New York: Penguin Press, 2004). Available in full online.