Intellectual Property: setting the record straight
p2pnet news view | P2P:- The topic of IP (Intellectual Property) is extremely contentious; those defending the status quo (and the multinational corporations benefitting from it) consistently misunderstand/misrepresent the concerns of their opponents.
They brand p2p users as “theives” who “just don’t want to pay for stuff”. They usually find the “Public Domain” to be irrelevant, and sometimes explicitly regard the end of copyright terms to be “taking something” from them/their descendents. They expend a tremendous amount of effort to convince everyone that IP is ultimately about their “sacred right to property.”
Thus, advocates of p2p technology or “file-sharing” are placed at a tremendous disadvantage from the beginning. After all, almost nobody is willing to “call their bluff” and explicitly defend “piracy” or “lawbreaking”. Also, until and unless a given law becomes problematic, people aren’t very likely to question it’s existence or neccesity. It’s not so much apathy as ignorance — most people simply don’t care about stuff until it becomes impossible not to take a stand.
Opponents of p2p technology (the RIAA, MPAA, etc.) have quite a problem on their hands. By their own (possibly inflated) statements, p2p traffic accounts for a significant chunk of all Internet traffic
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/06/25/45-percent-of-all-traffic-is-p2p/
It’s also undeniable that millions of people in all countries use p2p and other technologies to share files with one another irrespective of the legal status of such activities.
http://www.p2p-blog.com/?itemid=62
To put it bluntly, from the point of view of those defending the Status Quo, a significant proportion of the world’s population are “scofflaws”.
Thus, the RIAA and other lobbying groups for the corporate megaliths “owning” the vast majority of copyrighted material lobby both for ever-longer copyright terms and harsher penalties, to no avail. P2p and other means of filesharing show no signs of stopping, and every move they make serves to discredit the very basis of IP in the minds of more people and groups.
That’s what this post is about: setting the record straight.
I was originally a staunch defender of IP laws. As such, I would often stop in here at p2pnet to take “pot-shots” at Jon Newton and some of the contributors.
(As the old saying goes, “Ignorance is bliss”: as a musician, I was ripe for the RIAA “party-line”.)
The problem is, I’m also a voracious reader. I made what in retrospect turned out to be one of the best mistakes of my life: reading Lawrence Lessig’s book “Free Culture.”
At first I read it as a skeptic trying to find holes in what I saw (at the time) as mere rationalizations for blatant greed on the part of p2p users.
But as I read, I couldn’t help but realize that Lessig puts forth an extremely persuasive case. His main argument about the nature of creativity and innovation is that “creativity always builds on the past”. To someone who grew up around Bluegrass/Folk Music “Jam sessions”, this idea is so obvious that nobody would ever think to state it explicitly. You never hear Bluegrass groups saying they “Cover” traditional material, for example.
Lessig — unlike anybody else I’d ever read before — delved into the history and reasoning behind IP laws — from the “Statute of Anne”, all the way to the Sonny Bono Copyright extension act.
He pointed out case after case where the only reason innovation happened was that IP “protection” was stopped. He was the first person I’d ever read to explicitly describe why the “fair use” and “first sale” doctrines exist at all.
I was already somewhat skeptical as to patent “protection” — the fact that capitalistic types — advocates of what they call the “Free market” explicitly defend what amount to State-backed Monopolies intended to prevent “unauthorized” innovation has always seemed at least a tad bit suspicious. Nowadays, it just seems hypocritical. Debate with apologists for patent law has only reinforced my already skeptical viewpoint in this regard.
After reading Lessig’s book, my opinions on this subject didn’t change immediately. I still - like so many others — believed that the basic principle behind copyright and patents was sound, and accepted the line of argument which states that unless the State grants such monopolies there will be no “incentive to produce.”
That began to change when I first started learning about (and using) various Linux distributions. Originally, I used Linux because it is a rugged Operating system (”Viruses” in the conventional sense of the term are virtually impossible, for instance.), but I didn’t really have any axes to grind in regard to the merits of “software freedom”.
During my rummagings in quest of Linux-related information prior to first installing a distro, I came across various videos where Richard Stallman talked about the merits (and perils) of patents in regard to software.
Stallman makes a persuasive case against software patents, viewing them as a form of subsidy granted to patent-holders. Patents “protection” is about one thing — punishing unauthorized competition. As he puts it:
Instead of speaking of “intellectual property”, which invokes that feel-good idea of property and ownership, we should speak of “intellectual monopolies”. For this is precisely what copyrights and patents are: they are monopolies granted by governments for a limited period as part of a bargain - that, in return, those who are granted those monopolies hand them over to the public domain once the term of the monopoly has lapsed.
Viewed in this light, it became ever more ironic when advocates of so-called “Free-market capitalism” defend IP “protection”. Patents are about preventing and punishing the competiton which “Free Market” advocates always proclaim as one of it’s best features.
The argument runs thus:
If inventors (or more realistically, corporate R&D divisions) aren’t granted an exclusive “market niche” where no other firm is allowed to compete with them, they’ll have no way to recoup their development costs.
(Of course, this argument ignores the fact that corporate lobbyists have been successful in increasing the terms of such “protection”, and getting the State to pre-empt/punish competition for ever longer periods. It also rests squarely on the notion that (at least in regard to innovation) “the market doesn’t work.”)
As a musician and (hopefully) creative artist for the past twenty years, I’ve also seen firsthand the convoluted, bureaucratic morass involved in clearing the “rights” to a given composition. Copyright — far from acting as an “incentive”, more often than not acts to supress further creativity.
In many ways, the fundamental question of our time is: will innovation, technological advancement, and fhe free exchange of information be sacrificed to prop up the (failing) “business-models of a few corporations? Do
For an extremely thorough indictment of “Intellectual Property” as such, go to http://www.ip-watch.org/
Another great source of information is the book “Darknet”:
You like movies? Go to:
http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/
Or
IP “protection” is about suppressing innovation and providing a passive income-stream to people who may or may not even be related to the original creators. Why else would a multi-billion dollar corporate megalith’s spokes-drones be so adamant that virtually any use of a traditional childrens song should be monetized?
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
Gary Fung of Isohunt still seems to believe that the ever-increasing threat of copyright’s protection-racket can be “reformed”. Pardon me for being a “hard-liner” here, folks, but I seriously doubt that a corporate lobby which has hitherto successfully transformed a term of 14-28 years into more than a century with complete disregard for what the Public domain is and does, is going to relinquish that willingly.
Corporate lobbyists (and their unwitting apologists) simply don’t get it: the “Sonny Bono” nonsense was a clear instance of government caving in to a corporate lobby to the detriment of us all. Evidence continues to mount that IP is a “Faustian Bargain” (in that it’s apologists see such monopolies as a “fundamental human right”, and seek to prevent such “protections” from expiring, and FREEING the content for future use.
Of course, they can’t succeed. Every “victory” they win ultimately breeds more resentment and demonstrates that their efforts are ultimately indefensible.
Cory Doctorow explains what’s at stake far better than I ever could in this article:
http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2008/11/cory-doctorow-why-i-copyfight.html
The solution?
Well, p2p, of course. But there ARE other fronts to this battle.
If you’re a student, please consider joining (or starting) a chapter of “Students for a free culture”. For details, go to
http://freeculture.org/
Or maybe we should think about taking IP apologists up on their rhetoric, and becoming “political”.
The spread of so-called “Pirate Parties” in various countries demonstrates that skepticism (if not outright contempt) for the colossal farce “Intellectual Property” has become won’t die down anytime soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
Most of all, don’t believe the hype and scare-tactics of organizations like the RIAA. If people were willing to brave fire hoses and police-dogs to protest racial segregation in the 1960s, we should be willing to tweak corporate lobbyists from the comfort of our own homes.
As Gary Fung of Isohunt fame so aptly put it:
“When the majority of society has no ethical conviction of wrongdoing when they violate copyright law, it’s not society that’s wrong, it’s the law. Because no one can really own ideas. Newton once said, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” It’s how the arts and sciences work. We share, we inspire and we remix.”
http://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-founder-gary-fung-on-copyfight-081109/
More importantly, when jackbooted, we respond. The tide is turning. The days of rampant pandering to corporate lobbies are on the way out. People will not sit idly by and watch the greatest communications medium in human history gutted simply to subsidize the modern equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers.
We’re not ALL so stupid as to believe that corporate lobbyists have “good intentions”. Jack Valenti’s idiotic statement comparing the VCR to the Boston Strangler will make a fitting epitaph as the RIAA and their member corporations continue to destroy themselves.
Ps.: The p2p “controversy” itself is — as I’ve said before — merely a subset of, for want of a better term, can best be described as “corporatism” — a steadily-increasing symbiosis between large corporations and governments. Sadly, the proponents of this emerging “corporate feudalism” masquerade as defenders of the “Free market”.
Learn more about Corporatism at: http://www.corporatism.org/
Henry Emrich - p2pnet
[Emrich says he's, "just some guy," sometime musician, wannabe writer, sporadic blotter, and (hopefully) good-natured person. He and his wife live in Pennsylvania with two cats, and, "entirely too many record albums".]
Did you enjoy this story, or find it interesting/useful? Help keep the posts coming by donating. No amount is too small. Cheers! And thanks.
News 1130 - , November , 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
For heaven’s sake, kill those scare quotes! It makes a “silly” argument even less “persuasive” to when it is “scattered” all “over” with scare “quotes.” (It also makes it look like you have no idea what you’re trying to say.)
December 1st, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Rather than attack the punctuation, why don’t you counterpoint or comment on
the content of the article itself ?
I have no problems reading or understanding it.
Is there some specific point in the article you take issue with ?
Not everyone is a ‘writer’.
Some just do the best they can, and Henry seems to have gotten his point across
just fine.
Again, is there something in the article you wish to discuss further or take issue with ?
December 1st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I’m with Dreddsnik.
There’s nothing wrong with the writing, or the punctuation.
Quotation marks have certain purposes, and were used here appropriately.
If you don’t see the sense in why they were used, it is not the writer that has a problem, in this case.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
“If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
Heh, talk to a calculus instructor. I imagine any mathematics professor will tell you that he was making fun of the “other” inventor of calculus. Newton was kind of upset that he published most of his best stuff after he died (yes I’m poking fun), while Leibniz reinvented 99% of the wheel and went ahead and published before Newton. The English and German speakers still argue over rather it was plagorism or just plain getting scooped. The meaning could thus also mean he stole Newton’s ideas, who just so happened to be a lot taller than Leibniz. Both meanings can apply sometimes.
A good article, with lots of nice links.
Oh, here’s a good article to read if you’re interested the origin of that quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_and_Newton_calculus_controversy
Enjoy!
February 9th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Just in case you want to accuse me of “not understanding p2p issues”, it shouldn’t take too long in google to find that among my main associates is the creator of the gnutella network
I just want to inject some reality into this article. P2p is a good thing. It makes the seemingly impossible happen in real time. Just like I don’t blame GM when someone gets run over by an idiot driving a camaro thru a red light, P2P itself is not to blame, but somehow tying P2P with freetardism is messed up.
“The topic of IP (Intellectual Property) is extremely contentious; those defending the status quo”
The status quo huh? Ignoring that the pro-IP rights side is happy to use new technology, embraces it and in fact creates it quite often right?
Or did you mean someone else?
“(and the multinational corporations benefitting from it)”
Libberwhack red-herring, I suppose the record companies blew up the WTC on 911 too right? Lets throw a few more in like big pharma and MMR causes autism while we’re throwing out the canards
“consistently misunderstand/misrepresent the concerns of their opponents.”
Evidence?
“They brand p2p users as “theives” who “just don’t want to pay for stuff”.”
They who? I haven’t seen any anti p2p behaviour from the pro- IP rights side. Oh do you mean calling someone who uses p2p to steal a thief? Yeah, those are thieves. Do you have another word for taking someone’s stuff without their permission?
“They usually find the “Public Domain” to be irrelevant,”
evidence?
“and sometimes explicitly regard the end of copyright terms to be “taking something” from them/their descendents.”
You mean they expect those who they contracted with to live up to their end as well as they did? Hmm, terrible that
“They expend a tremendous amount of effort to convince everyone that IP is ultimately about their “sacred right to property.””
Not quite as much as the time expended to convince everyone that IP is free for the taking…still working out who “they ” is
“Thus, advocates of p2p technology or “file-sharing” are placed at a tremendous disadvantage from the beginning.”
hmmm, seems all the p2p sites are still up….evidence?
“After all, almost nobody is willing to “call their bluff” and explicitly defend “piracy” or “lawbreaking””
Noone but Washington post, New york times, technorati, ars technica, hardware manufacturers, bandwidth providers, wired, etc etc etc etc
“Also, until and unless a given law becomes problematic, people aren’t very likely to question it’s existence or neccesity. It’s not so much apathy as ignorance — most people simply don’t care about stuff until it becomes impossible not to take a stand.”
No, they’ll just go on ignoring the law, stealing and violating the wills of the content creator
“Opponents of p2p technology (the RIAA, MPAA, etc.) have quite a problem on their hands.”
Any evidence of this opposition. Lets see ONE SINGLE example of anti p2p behaviour by these groups when it wasn’t directly in response to theft
“By their own (possibly inflated) statements, p2p traffic accounts for a significant chunk of all Internet traffic”
The sky is blue, imagine that
February 11th, 2009 at 2:02 am
1. When has the RIAA (or their member companies) actually “used’ p2p technology?
They attempt to get anything they don’t control banned.
2. “Libberwhack Red-herring?”
What in the HELL does that even mean, genius?
I mean, the companies comprising the RIAA and their sister organizations ARE “multinational” in scope, and they ARE corporations.
And as far as your disingenuous little “I suppose they blew up the WTC”/accusation of “Freetardism”: pull your head out of Bainwol’s ass, M’kay?
I stopped reading your idiotic “response” after the WTC thing, primarily because it just smacks of the type of strawman bullshit that IP apologists do. Here’s a tip: questioning Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians does NOT equal “anti-semitism”, although that’s the common strawman used to trump critics.
The fact is, Mr. “Guerilla Network” associate (Gee whiz golly gee, the local Wal-Mart has a lot of “associates” too!):
Read up on some history: copy”right” was (mistakenly) created as a TEMPORARY monopoly (14 years) which — like patents — was INTENDED to expire, NOT intended for corporate megaliths to keep buying themselves extentions every twenty years.
So pull your head out of Bainwol’s ass (like I said). P2p IS a “wonderful thing”, that’s basically the ONLY thing you had right in your response.
But hey, what does a “freetard” like myself know, eh?