Robert Scoble, a technology blogger I typically respect and follow online, has totally missed the point in his recent support of an anti-Intellectual Property rights editorial found here. Both authors, members of the tech industry, feel that pending (and, implicitly, the current) copyright law is nothing more that a prop for big media designed to pound teenagers who share MP3s online with massive lawsuits. Judging from the posted comments, most of the readers seem to support this opinion and view Big Music as the real problem.
Frankly, I’m stunned by the lack of comprehension both authors exhibit towards the importance of intellectual property, both for themselves and for our nation; they are flat wrong.
Forget about music. Forget about movies. Forget about kids ripping entertainment and sharing them online. This is not about big media (or in my case, really tiny media), this is about our nation’s most valuable resource - our ideas, our ability to innovate and the (according to the authors, apparently questionable) right to economically benefit from those efforts.
Over the last several decades, the US has shifted from a nation of steel mills, shoe factories and assembly lines to the most productive nation in the world due to our ability to dream, innovate and create new technologies. We are unquestionably the global leader in microprocessor design (Intel/AMD), software (even the mega-companies are too plentiful to list), biotech/drugs, healthcare diagnostics (MRIs, CAT scans), and dozens of other tech-driven categories. We are also the inventors to a lot of global brands, including Coke, Google, iTunes, Starbucks, Nike — you get the point. (And yes, at the risk of tainting this response, we are also home to Hollywood, game manufacturers and a lot of record labels) These are all IP-driven industries that exist because we, as a nation, view our ideas and innovations as important and valuable assets. Personally, I’m damn proud of this industrial transition, and am personally much better off for starting out in the tech world than I would have been if my fate would have been tied to an Eastern Kentucky coal mine or shoe factory.
Which is why I’m befuddled that so many smart people don’t realize that the protection of our intellectual property rights are so important to our personal, and national, well-being. The copyright law has been around for a very long time, and the penalties for violating those laws are intentionally stiff. Startups wouldn’t have a chance if their innovations weren’t protected by copyright, trademark and related IP laws - and as consumers we couldn’t purchase Nike, Coke, Starbucks, iPods or any manufactured product without substantial doubt to its authenticity and quality. Our physical goods retailers would become a Chinese-market overnight - a nation known for ignoring international intellectual property rights.
I don’t know Chairman Conyer, nor have I studied the proposed PRO IP more than what is available through the above links, but I do completely agree with this statement by Rep. Schiff:
“Intellectual property is not just the product of rock stars and movie stars. It accounts for more than 11 million American jobs and is a driving force in our economy,” said Rep. Schiff. “American intellectual property is leading the way all around the world and this bill will help ensure that we protect this work from being stolen in the black market.”
The threat to our nation is not kids swapping mp3s, or ripping DVDs to hard drives; it’s a much broader issue. In my opinion, the protection of our nation’s intellectual property rights is perhaps the single most-important function of our government, second only to national defense.
cjthomas @ gmail.com
14 responses so far ↓
JT // December 7, 2007 at 9:32 am
cjthomas - I agree with virtually everything you say here. Unfortunately, PRO IP was not written specifically to address these issues, otherwise I’d be a huge fan of it. While this law does create some mechanisms for dealing with these issues, too much of it specifically deals with kids swapping mp3s. And that’s the problem. They aren’t focusing in on protecting IP the way it needs to be protected, they are focusing on how to enable big media to sue individuals more easily. It’s a problem.
nsputnik // December 7, 2007 at 12:12 pm
No one is saying to abolish intellectual property all together. You seem to confuse copyright with trademark. It is trademark laws that protect consumers from purchasing bogus goods. It is against the law for a company to make an MP3 player and call it an iPod and copy the look and feel unless that company is Apple. This cannot be done by just anyone. It takes a lot of resources.
However, sharing data, mp3s, ideas is easy and free, and everyone wants to do it and can do it. An idea is worthless unless you have the resources and can execute on it properly.
In your argument above, you list several companies who make physical goods. Then you also mention media, aka IP. You know the difference. Physical goods cannot be easily produced, but media can be. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to put it back in. The bar has been raised. Everyone is going to have to work a lot harder on making their ideas a success.
There is plenty of innovation being done outside of media that does not rely on IP laws such as fashion and the restaurant business. Media companies can and should be forced to innovate in the same way without protectionist laws.
While some western industries obey their own IP laws, foreign countries will not. They will out innovate us, unhindered by such restrictions , and then America loses. We need to play their game.
You really need to read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. It has been made available free online in html, text, and as an audio book. I got it for free this way, but I liked the ideas so much that I purchased the physical book. This is the future of business strategy around IP.
cjthomas // December 7, 2007 at 2:06 pm
nsputnik,
Thanks for your viewpoint. I do understand the difference between trademarks and copyrights, and they extend much further than brand names.
Our national belief and laws support the concept that an individual has an intrinsic right to what they create - that is a powerful idea, and is the cornerstone for our creative culture. Without having to do anything, any photo or original work you create is implicitly protected by the copyright law - unless you willingly choose to place that item into the public domain. That’s an incredibly important concept, and it protects the individual from abuses by much larger, more powerful entities (even nations).
If the Richard Stallman’s of the world elect to voluntarily place their works into the public domain, so be it. But you’ll notice that not even GNU is truly in the public domain - it’s licensed by a legal agreement that puts certain restrictions on the use (and reuse) of the transferred copyrights/IP. Why not just give it away? Because the GNU organizers wanted to share their efforts with certain restrictions, and the right to make those decisions (and thus selectively license their works to the world) is made possible by the same copyright laws that music and other entertainment media are protected under. (It’s a pretty darn big law.)
It’s cool that Lawrence Lessig made his book freely available, and it’s great that you decided to pay him for it. I’m very proud that our society, and it’s laws, enabled both of those decisions to be freely made by both parties. Freedom of individual choice is a marvelous right.
I fully disagree with your opinion that the same foreign entities who ignore IP laws will eventually out innovate us — why should they? It’s more efficient for them to steal the ideas and labors of others. Without a cultural and governmental protection of intellectual property rights, a society can’t afford to invest in the development of new ideas, technologies and products. It’s just too damn expensive - and the harder the problem, the more time, effort and resources it takes to solve.
You may not realize this (most people don’t), but the copyright law was established to foster the free exchange of information. As a nation, we recognize the need for information to flow freely so that additional advances can be made using the knowledge, discoveries and accomplishments of others. But we also recognize the right for an inventor, author or artist to be compensated for their works. Unlike trade secrets, which are locked in vaults and rarely see the light of day, copyrighted works (and patents) are open for examination and review by anyone; in fact, the exchange of information is so important that all copyrights and patents eventually expire — thus all of the fruits of our society eventually are returned to the public good. How cool is that?
I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I maintain that a strong intellectual property policy is the key to information exchange and innovation, not its demise.
Chris
nsputnik // December 7, 2007 at 3:20 pm
The innovation of foreign countries I am talking about is ignoring our IP laws, what you call stealing. While we, here in the US, are forced to pay licenses for ideas that are patented, are forced to pay for lawyers do defend our fair use of media. Enforcement does not exists when foreign take advantage of our adherence to IP law. I suppose we can start a war with China now, because this is where this rhetoric will end up.
Thanks to the Sonny Bono Act, public domain works now take 75 years to expire. I do understand that copyright and patents were established to foster the free exchange of information. But patent trolls and big media companies are stretching these laws to assert their oligopolies, and at the expense of individual creativity and expressive freedom. This is not in the interest of the greater public good. In response to technologies that just cannot be stopped, they are trying to impose draconian restrictions on speech with penalties greater than murder in some cases.
Creativity was happening before strong IP enforcement and it will continue once strong IP enforcement reconciles with current technological realities.
Our nation was founded on piracy and taxation against Brittan. History is repeating itself today.
I urge you to read Free Culture, or at least the TechDirt blog.
Jeremy Toeman // December 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm
nsputnik - great points all around (especially the Free Culture ref!)
Chris - I think it’s important to differentiate the PRO IP act from the topics you raise. Should we protect IP from foreign entities who would otherwise steal it? Yup. Does this bill do that? Kinda, but not so much.
Should we create free reign for big media companies to sue Americans, schools, parents, and anyone else they want who they feel even minorly infringes on their copyrights? I know how I feel about that…
Also, using the original intent of copyright laws as part of your argument is fair, but its akin to using the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership. These laws were applicable at the time they were written, but might not be implemented the same in today’s society. And THAT is Congress’ job to fix. PRO IP does not fix anything, it makes the problems worse.
cjthomas // December 7, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Our nation was founded on piracy?
Copyrights expire 75 years after the death of the author, at which time they enter the public domain. Public domain works do not ever expire.
Finally, we are at war with China - it’s a trade war, and fundamental intellectual property rights are the key issues.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060110_3904_db039.htm
how hard is it to effect change? at jeremy toeman pontificating // December 7, 2007 at 3:37 pm
[...] Under the wire (where a good debate in the comments is currently occurring) [...]
cjthomas // December 7, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Did anybody actually read this:
http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=887
Specifically, the PRO IP bill does the following:
* Titles I and II strengthen the substantive civil and criminal laws relating to copyright and trademark infringement.
* Title III of the legislation establishes the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER), in the Executive Office of the President, to enhance nationwide and international coordination of intellectual property enforcement efforts.
* Title IV provides for the appointment of intellectual property officers to work with foreign countries in their efforts to combat counterfeiting and piracy.
* Title V of the legislation authorizes the creation of a permanent Intellectual Property Division within the Department of Justice. The purpose of the new IP Division is to improve law enforcement coordination. This is accomplished, in part, by transferring the functions of the existing Computer Crime and Intellectual Property section (CCIPs) that relate to intellectual property enforcement to the new IP Division. In addition, Title V provides DOJ with new resources targeted to improve IP law enforcement, including local law enforcement grants and additional investigative and prosecutorial personnel. It also requires that DOJ prepare an annual report that details its IP enforcement activities.
======
cjthomas: frankly, this seems pretty OK to me. Imagine, a government attempting to address modern issues, such as foreign IP theft, in an effort to protect the efforts of it’s citizens.
Jeremy Toeman // December 7, 2007 at 3:52 pm
It’s little comments like these that show you how your rights as a citizen are diminishing:
“In addition, Title V provides DOJ with new resources targeted to improve IP law enforcement, including local law enforcement grants and additional investigative and prosecutorial personnel.”
These are the UNBOUNDED laws that put power into the hands of the government that you, as a citizen, never opted in.
-
Further, the 75 year limit on copyright isn’t what you think it is. PLEASE take the time to read Free Culture and learn more on the topic. You write well and have good insight here, but are missing a lot of the details as to how these laws are actually enacted. It’s important to get better educated and understand how we as individuals are losing rights. And I’m not talking about “stealing music” or China. Individuals losing rights is against the fabric of the constitution AND what this country supposedly stands for.
cjthomas // December 7, 2007 at 4:26 pm
So I’m confused - you would prefer we have laws without allocating sufficient resources to actually enforce them? And that process erodes our individual rights?
Man, I totally disagree.
I’m sure ‘Free Culture’ has some interesting opinions, and I will read it someday. But I’ve spent a lot of time dealing with these issues on a professional basis, and I’ve also had the pleasure of dealing with them from a legal perspective; I was sued in federal court for copyright infringement [later dismissed], and frankly I have a pretty darn good understanding of the current law, the intent of the law, and a tremendous amount of respect for why the law is appropriate and necessary. And I am very clear on the copyright limits; as a publisher of works on a deceased writer, his material will enter the public domain 75-years after the date of his death. The law is very clear on that matter.
I have no intentions of this falling into a flame-fest, and frankly love the fact that we can have this open, uncensored discussion. So I am happy to agree to disagree.
Jeremy, I would like to openly commend you on one fact: you voiced your opinion to your congressional representative. Kudos. Government serves the people, but unless people vote and communicate important matters to their elected officials, and otherwise participate in our democratic society, the system will fail. I respect the fact that you stood to be heard, although I do not necessarily agree with all of your opinions.
Happy weekend,
Chris
nsputnik // December 7, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Sorry, I meant: ” Thanks to the Sonny Bono Act, copywriter works now take 75 years to enter the public domain.” I got a little excited there.
Why should we spend our taxes to make more laws that make more criminals? Big media companies have lawyers that they pay to go after infringement, and for the most part (with the exclusion of overzealous like the RIAA and MPAA) this system works. Why do I, as a tax payer, need to pay for the defense of big business who are ignorant to the realities of how people use digital technologies? We should make them innovate, not rely on bureaucracy so that big media business can be lazy and fat.
All of the points of the PRO IP bill look good in theory, but in practice they have chilling effects. This is really no different than the war on drugs which just got slammed by Rolling Stone as not being worth the effort, and not being in the public interest.
In the 1800, US publishers published the wittings of British authors without paying royalties.
http://www.answers.com/topic/publishing-industry
dbthomas // December 7, 2007 at 7:33 pm
One issue as I see it is the big media companies have failed to see the digital wave coming and thus have failed to keep up with the times. They have failed to offer music and other IP in ways that make the consumer willing to buy it. For me, one issue is cost. While 99 cents per song seems cheap a huge library would really be quite expensive. Given the vast and huge potential markets offered by the internet pricing that is very attractive as well as ease of purchase would offer motivation for consumers to quit taking IP free.
However, the failure of the media outlets to be technically innovative (a lack of understanding within the management structure of evolving technologies?) does not alter the IP status of the product nor the consumers obligations to not steal IP.
I have read some of the arguments that favor free IP sharing and indeed an argument that it is easy and everyone wants to do it.
However, does that make it right? Additionally, IP covers far more than just media. I develop computing products for customers and these products often contain substantial IP. Since everyone engages in free downloads, it is easy and it is free, how could I expect to maintain my edge if my IP is shared by a unscrupulous consultant or user who simply shares it?
If someone freely makes a choice to be a artist, and by being a artist, that is their vocation then in effect you are taking their work without compensation and that is stealing. I don’t see to many people working Pro Bono.
I am disturbed by the notion that it is easy, free and everyone does it. That is not justification.
The solution is for the media companies to find a market solution that is both consumer friendly and protects IP.
Otherwise the chilling effect is the destruction of innovation. Why waste your time if the results zero?
The Paid Link Stages Of Grief | guide // December 9, 2007 at 1:05 pm
[...] Chris Thomas argues that Toeman and Robert Scoble are wrong to argue against PRO IP. Toeman agreed with most of Thomas’ argument, but pointed out that PRO IP isn’t focused on protecting IP; it’s focused on making it easier to sue and penalize individuals. [...]
PRO IP Bill Slammed By Bloggers - seodirectorysite.com // December 13, 2007 at 8:03 am
[...] Chris Thomas argues that Toeman and Robert Scoble are wrong to argue against PRO IP. Toeman agreed with most of Thomas’ argument, but pointed out that PRO IP isn’t focused on protecting IP; it’s focused on making it easier to sue and penalize individuals. [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.