Image by ramesh.rasaiyan via Flickr

Techdirt discusses why you shouldn’t be concerned if someone “steals” your work and sells it, noting that “it’s not necessarily a bad thing”:

If someone actually figures out something that works well, then that’s useful info to us, and would allow us to then incorporate those findings into our own offering. That’s actually good for everyone…

via Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research? | Techdirt.

I don’t disagree with this reasoning, at least in the case of the professional production of intellectual property (not necessarily for profit), and most especially when the producer continues to produce content. Thus, this idea makes perfect sense in the case of Techdirt (or most media companies, Twitterers, blogs, newspapers, and so on), since their real value is not in any one particular story, but rather in the relationship between readers/consumers and producers/innovators.

I do worry about “one-off” artists — painters, designers, novelists, musicians — anyone who may invest countless hours in the production of a single item that can then be easily reproduced at virtually zero cost. (Note that my above points would apply to a music label, perhaps, or even a movie studio, since they produce a constant stream of content which can create relationships.) How do we encourage the small-time innovator who may not produce more than a few works? How do we keep free-riders (I might include music labels and publishers in this list…) from discouraging true, one-off innovations by people who may not be interested in innovating in business as well?

I do not have a good answer to this, but I think it’s an important question. (I also think this possibility is used by media companies to “hide the ball” when it comes to their desire to hold onto profitable IP.) If we don’t find some way to resolve it, I suspect we may never have proper IP reform that works for the “little guy.”

Ah, the challenges of equating production with copyright (a very Lockean concept, incidentally):

The problem? The city and the court reporter who recorded the transcripts would have charged a much higher fee for a copy of the transcripts, and felt that the lawyer’s use of the law to gain access was somehow unfair. The court then ordered the lawyer to pay the court reporter over $4,000 to make up the “difference.” The lawyer, however, appealed, and the appeals court has thrown out the lower court ruling, saying that forcing the lawyer to pay the higher fee would mean that the court reporter effectively was given a copyright to the transcripts

via Techdirt.

It may not be “fair” to the court reporter that his or her work product should be available for less than they wish to sell it for — but the point of copyright and IP is about balancing public and private interests (and in promoting progress, in Constitutional terms), not about awarding ownership to producers. The court reporter was already paid for their effort and work, after all. The public interest then is best served by not awarding future monopoly ownership to them. Which is, I expect, pretty much what the appeals court decided.

If the real purpose of copyright law is to “promote the progress,” then why not make sure it’s doing so? In other words, why not have actual evidence-based copyright law? There’s a lot of historical evidence that can be looked at, and different ideas around copyright law can be empirically tested. If it doesn’t promote the progress, get rid of it. If it does, then shouldn’t that make almost everyone better off?

via Could Evidence-Based Copyright Law Ever Be Put In Place? | Techdirt.

Of course, how to collect, measure, and evaluate this evidence is not simple. Law & Economics provides one powerful path, and tends to support changing current copyright law. Even if evidence is controversial, at least it gives us a shared foundation to discuss appropriate copyright approaches. So why is it so hard to find studies that provide such actual evidence, as opposed to supposition and imagination?

What does it mean to our culture that we have imposed the most draconian restrictions on the reuse of intellectual creations than at any other time?

1. We are the first generation to deny our own culture to ourselves.

2. No work created during your lifetime will, without conscious action by its creator, become available for you to build upon.

via The Public Domain in 2 Twitter sized bits.. | The Public Domain.

Mike Masnick at Techdirt adds to this:

For people who don’t recognize the importance of the public domain and the nature of creativity, perhaps this seems like no big deal. But if you look back through history, you realize what an incredibly big deal it is — and how immensely stifling this is on our culture. And then you realize this is all done under a law whose sole purpose is to “promote the progress” and you begin to wonder how this happened.

via Copyright Length And The Life Of Mickey Mouse | Techdirt.

The changes and restrictions of copyright are unprecedented. Yet our technological progress — and cultural output, at least — has grown exponentially over time, even as our IP restrictions have increased. Is there a correlation or connection?

I believe over-restrictive copyright hampers innovation, but I also believe it’s not a simple equation. It’s about balance, and I’m looking for evidence to find the “sweet spot” that balances the rights of creators with the utility to end-users.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Current themes evident in copyright arguments from 100 years ago (inpropriapersona.com)
• Copyright Length And The Life Of Mickey Mouse (techdirt.com)
• Does Copyright Foster or Hinder Innovation? (inpropriapersona.com)
• What does it mean to be in the public domain? Thoughts about the AP licensing scheme. (inpropriapersona.com)

I first heard about this on NPR, and it boggled my mind as to how the AP could ever think this would work. Techdirt, of course, has a nice write-up of the issue and the problems:

DRM has failed in almost every instance it’s been tried. Not only does it fail to actually prevent copying, it tends to piss off legitimate users and limit value rather than enhance it. And yet… people keep trying. But, honestly, I can’t think of anything as pointless as the latest move from the Associated Press which appears to be an attempt to DRM the news. That’s not what they call it, but that’s what it sounds like

via Associated Press Tries To DRM The News | Techdirt.

I get the frustration on the AP’s part. The world is changing, and they haven’t figured out to prevent that. They can try for legal changes, try DRM, or adapt. Adapting is hardest, but the only way to succeed long term.

Honestly, legal changes are the next best thing in terms of buying time to adapt. DRM-like approaches tend to frustrate and annoy even legitimate users. If your product is valuable, someone will go around your limitations. If they don’t — you’re dead, because the market just decided your product isn’t worth it.

How to adapt, though, is not clear.

Techdirt has an interesting article up about the myth of the “original creator” — the idea that copyright and IP protects individual creators working in a vacuum come up with new, unique ideas that are not based on anything that precedes them. This is, as any author, musician, or inventor knows, not the way it works in practice.

It’s nice to see more and more people recognizing and speaking out about these things. The idea that there is a single “author” or “creator” who deserves to get money any time anyone else builds upon his or her works is something that should be seen as increasingly ridiculous as people recognize that all works are created based on the works of others, and it’s inherently silly to try to charge everyone to pay back each and every one of their influences in creating a new work.

via The Myth Of Original Creators | Techdirt.

Even though many people think of this idea as foundational to the justification for copyright, it is not only not the way creation happens, but also ignores the fact that many copyright and patent owners are not the original creators of the work. A justification of original creation actually supports a “moral rights” approach to IP — taken more by Europeans, and especially the French — not the American approach, which focuses on ownership of rights and monetary rewards for supporting innovation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does Copyright Foster or Hinder Innovation? (inpropriapersona.com)
• Copyright as Antidote to DRM (inpropriapersona.com)