Copyright and Intellectual Property (Blog)

[Savage]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Copyright and Intellectual Property

[Shamou]

You may have heard this one...

"Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana." - Bill Gates

.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Shamou

You may have heard this one...

"Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana." - Bill Gates

.

Shelf life tends to be more of an issue for software and technical IP and time-bound information. The central issues of personal development haven't changed much since the time of Socrates. I can't say that will be true going forward though.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Shelf life tends to be more of an issue for software and technical IP and time-bound information. The central issues of personal development haven't changed much since the time of Socrates. I can't say that will be true going forward though.

My “Socrates” is a little rusty… but I believe that Benjamin Franklin is the father of the whole modern “Personal Development” movement…

But, if you play your cards right… you just might be the “Bill Gates” of PD… that is... the one who takes it into Cyberspace...

.

[Kazeko]

Steve and forum readers, here's one copyright question which I'm concerned about most of all.

If, for example, Steve, you post a new article, and someone who wants to steal it, posts it quickly enough on his/her site and then claims the authorship - what to do?

If the person says, that he/she is the content author and you are the thief, and takes all the actions against you, which Steve describes (sends e-mails etc.) - how to prove your authorship and to protect your rights?

The described person even can be tricky enough to change post date and time, web logs, and to do some other "hacks" to prove his/her false authorship, and/or to provide enough "social engineering", "networking", or other social power to literally smash you, or even to send you to jail.

So, what's the solution?

P.S. It's sad that the described reason is one of the main obstacles, which prevents me from starting bloggind. Some time ago I translated one of Steve's shareware articles and posted in on my small site, with Steve's kind permission. Then, I shut it down for my own reasons, and then, recently, I have found my translation, slightly changed, on popular programming site, signed by other name... And there's no way to prove, that it's my translation - exept the text file I have......

[shnu]

Steve wrote, in his article: Keep in mind that even lists and other compilations are copyrightable, so if a blogger posts nothing but a list of links to other sites, that list is still automatically protected by copyright.

This is not quite right. Compilations are copyrightable, but their status is different from other works, and is more difficult to establish. Check out Mike Goad's summary of what the originality & creativity requirements mean in What is Required for a Compilation to be Eligible for Copyright?, in particular the emphasis that the mere fact work has been done putting togther the compilation cuts no ice. It's touch and go whether the blogger's list of links would qualify.

[Natsu]

Now I've blown things up. I sent all my readers to the articles about the states of consciousness, but they didn't read it. So I translated it and posted it in my blog (with a proper link to Steve's site). Luckily, my blog is not monetized.

[Michelle]

I just don't get how people can be so stupid as to think it okay to copy-paste what they read. This has happened to me on several occasions as well - mainly by well-meaning individuals who like what they have read - and oftentimes people simply do not understand why I am not flattered that they have passed on my content.

[swampdog]

I think about this issue quite a bit. I am a very avid music listener, and I strongly believe in supporting musicians. However, the reality of the situation is that it's up to the user to decide what fair use is for the vast majority of cases. Should I copy a cd for a friend? Should I make a compilation cd for a friend? Should I download music from non-pay sources? It's really up to me. Even the risk of downloading from non-pay sites can be mitigated (I think).

My personal rules have changed over time. Some years ago, I couldn't legally download a song or two from the web, but say I wanted to put Van Morrison's Brown Eyed Girl on a compilation cd. I didn't want to go buy a whole cd, but the option of paying $1 or so for a single download didn't exist, so I'd (with some guilt) download a song that I'd heard a million times on the radio. I like to listen to vast ranges of music types, and by downloading illegally I could try something out that I might later spend money on. Now I can use Rhapsody to legally try artists that are recommended one way or another and I probably spend more on music than I did before the digital explosion.

There are choices I've made that I'm less comfortable with. I let an exchange student staying with us load some of my old cds onto her mp3 player - theoretically the chances of both of us playing the song at the same time are slim, and theoretically we could swap the physical cd back and forth whenever one of us wants to hear a tune (until she returns to Slovakia), but realistically I have 2 copies of the same song without paying. I don't think I'll do that again.

I could go on here, the point is, unless I do something egregious it's my choice. There's some black, some white and a huge gray zone. I happen to care about the issue and try to be responsible, many do not. Those who succeed (and will succeed going forward) are those (like Steve) who understand that the world has changed and provide a business model that supports their customers' needs at a reasonable price. Successful business models are ones where people realize they have ceded certain levels of control to the user, monitor for egregious abuses, and specify clearly what THEY think are fair uses.

This is already too long so I'll leave off my rant about RIAA being the body driving so much of the control wars - they are primarily concerned about the labels and not about the artists, they don't understand technology, they don't understand their market and how it's shifting, they don't try to establish guidelines for fair use that recognize the user's power in the situation, etc etc etc etc.

[John Wesley]

As a blogger I found this post both useful and comprehensive. Often I get people lifting my content 100% and I wonder what they're thinking. I usually don't bother doing anything about it as long as they give me credit and a link, but that might change. I just hope the duplicate content factor doesn't hurt me with the search engines.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by shnu

This is not quite right. Compilations are copyrightable, but their status is different from other works, and is more difficult to establish. Check out Mike Goad's summary of what the originality & creativity requirements mean in What is Required for a Compilation to be Eligible for Copyright?, in particular the emphasis that the mere fact work has been done putting togther the compilation cuts no ice. It's touch and go whether the blogger's list of links would qualify.

You're right. I should have worded that section differently. I made some edits to clarify. I'm mainly referring to content like "74 links to help you make money blogging" where it's a lengthy and unique list that adds a lot of value and which includes the compiler's personal commentary about each link. I believe such a work would be protected. I'm not referring to minor "here are my links of the day" posts.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

As a blogger I found this post both useful and comprehensive. Often I get people lifting my content 100% and I wonder what they're thinking. I usually don't bother doing anything about it as long as they give me credit and a link, but that might change. I just hope the duplicate content factor doesn't hurt me with the search engines.

It's definitely not easy figuring out the best way to handle such situations. I had to deal with similar issues when selling shareware games. For example, Chinese sites would pop up that illegally sold the full versions of games for a fraction of the price -- then those customers will contact the original developer for support. It's easy to undercut the price when you don't have to cover the development or support costs.

On the other hand, free distribution of the demo versions was of great benefit to the developers.

[gberardi]

While some people take issue with the concept of intellectual property and believe that all content should be free, I don’t count myself among them. In fact, for the most part I consider the anti-copyright fanatics rather juvenile and intellectually immature.

You know what I find funny? The only time I ever hear about people who say "all content should be free" is when people argue against the statement. In fact, when I searched for the term, I didn't see one for-all-content-being-free supporter. I did find a false positive in which the author of a forum post clearly meant to say the word NOT, and in another section, "all content being free" was in reference to purchasing a game and then getting free content for the game in the form of new maps, which is clearly not "all content being free" as most people argue against.

Another post on a blog uses the phrase in a sarcastic tone.

I did finally find (on the 4th search page) DulciTheory #7: Chords in the keys of G and A which has the following text:

I have a VERY strong belief in the web as it was conceived by its
"maker" Tim Berners-Lee. I think 95% of all content should be free, so
all the content on my web site will be totally free for the forseeable
future: no toll booths and no passwords into "special areas". I may try
and figure out a way to offer up something extra-cool for people who go
out of their way to make a sizeable contribution to my efforts, though
this will more likely take the form of free CDs, books, or even
dulcimers!

It doesn't sound much different from Steve Pavlina's business model: all content freely available.

It seems to me that the people who talk about "all content should be free" are arguing against people who aren't making an argument. Then again, maybe all of these people who think all content should be free are just not that popular or vocal, but then why is there all the noise arguing against their position?

Quite a few of the websites that do argue against the statement mention that there are a lot of people who support it. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to find them if it were true? Perhaps I just haven't been using the right search terms?

[seeker5]

What about if you type up a page or two from a 200 page book that is not available online? Sometimes there are very interesting stories from a book I'm reading that illustrate an interesting point that I'd like to type up and put on a blog. I've done it before on a small personal blog, with full credit, but I was uncertain whether it would be considered infringement or not. Is it copyright infringement? Or is it fair use since 1 or 2 page out of 200 page is 1 to .5% of the book? If its infringement, does it mean if I reword the story it wouldn't be infringement?

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by seeker5

What about if you type up a page or two from a 200 page book that is not available online? Sometimes there are very interesting stories from a book I'm reading that illustrate an interesting point that I'd like to type up and put on a blog. I've done it before on a small personal blog, with full credit, but I was uncertain whether it would be considered infringement or not. Is it copyright infringement? Or is it fair use since 1 or 2 page out of 200 page is 1 to .5% of the book? If its infringement, does it mean if I reword the story it wouldn't be infringement?

By default, it is infringement. Of course, the fair use argument can be made, and I believe that quoting sections of text from a book has such a long history that you can find standards for what is considered appropriate.

Would 1 page out of a 100 page book be ok? What about a 50 page book? A 13 page e-book? There is no specific definition of the line that you shouldn't cross. In the end, it might just be easier to get permission from the author if you are not sure.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by gberardi

You know what I find funny? The only time I ever hear about people who say "all content should be free" is when people argue against the statement.

That's because the supporters don't use the word content. They'll refer to something specific like music or software. I've certainly seen my share of such debates.

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That's because the supporters don't use the word content. They'll refer to something specific like music or software. I've certainly seen my share of such debates.

I haven't seen "all music should be free", but when I see "all software should be free", the word free isn't being used to refer to cost.

All markets should be free.
All people should be free.
All software should be free.

Like that. Whenever I see a debate around the phrase "all software should be free", it is usually because one side or the other misunderstands what it is supposed to mean.

[rohnin]

How do polarity relate to this issue? I read a lot of fear-based arguments in that blog post. How about relaxing a bit?
Maybe ParEcon could be a good economic model? How would that apply to this?

[CannibalSmith]

IMHO, the best way to translate Steve's site would be a wiki. That model has proven itself numerous times, the chief example being the Wikipedia itself.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by CannibalSmith

IMHO, the best way to translate Steve's site would be a wiki. That model has proven itself numerous times, the chief example being the Wikipedia itself.

A wiki is not a method; it is a technology.

[The Wise Turtle]

I like to try to work with the reality of the universe - and the reality that I see is that everything we have and do and are came from somewhere else, and eventually goes back to somewhere else. We may feel like things and ideas belong to us for a while, but ownership is really an illusion, we're simply borrowing things for a while from the Universe. Ownership seems to me like a futile quest for power that we can never have. Only when we embrace the powelessness, drop the attachments, and admit that we already have more than enough stuff and ideas right now, will we be happy. We can continue to have goals and work for a better life, while we also appreciating that we already have more than enough wealth and happiness. Being satisfied with your life right now doesn't mean that you stop living, it simply means that you are happy right now. And isn't that the point? I say, enjoy the trip, don't waste it being resentful!

Unfortunately, the messages that the mainstream media regularly try to feed us are of inadequacy, emptyness, and addiction, ensuring that we play the part of obedient little robots who continue to buy their products no matter how lame they are. We don't have to buy into it, though! We can learn to pay more attention to our own needs and desires, and seek out what we truly love - the good stuff that honestly makes life worth living.

I'll also note that copyrights come from fear. And, in my experience nothing beautiful ever comes from fear. (Realizing this right now, I'm making a mental note to take all my copyright notices off of my work...)

If you take something that was mine, clearly the universe wants you to have it. It's all good, since I already have more than I need. I don't need any extra stuff dragging me down.

And finally, I've figured out that everything I do, I do because of love. Things may not always come out the way I expect them to, but they are always done because I want to bring more joy to everyone's lives. I put up copyright notices on my work because I love myself and wanted the personal rewards that came with attaching my name to my ideas. And I'm now taking down my copyright notices because I love my ideas and want to offer them to the world unconditionally, without any strings attached, and I no longer need the personal rewards that come with my name being attached to my ideas. So it's all good.

-Turtle
feeling good, thanks!

[Kiba]

I am one of those fanatic that Steve Pavlina is talking about.

As a blogger, I licensed all my contents under one of the most liberal if not the most liberal creative common license. In doing that, people have a lot of permission to do whatever they want with the contents I provided, as long they attribute it to me. They can sell it, redistribute it, or modify it, etc.

This somewhat extend from my Free software ideals(NOT about freeware). I also programed video games and give away most of my rights to control via the copyright license GPL.

Most bloggers would freak out about this if the copyright law changed to fit my views. Most proprietary vendors, freeware, shareware, and otherwise would freak out about this.

I don't advocate a world view that everything should be FREEBIES. It is more about liberty. I should be able to share my copies with the world, and if I wanted to, sell it, etc.

As a consquence of this fringe belief, my morality change.

I no longer believe that "pirating"(I called that copyright infringement) musics is wrong, or downloading movies, etc.

At the same time, I advocate that it is immoral for creators to control the distribution of their work(beyond frauds).

I see no reasons to fear copyright "pirates" or feel wrong about copying a movie off the internet.

But in order to prove that I am correct, and Steve Pavlina and virtually everyone else here wrong is to show an entire economy that thrive around an almost nonexistant copyright law. I know no examples.

I also know that my belief is on the fringe. The extreme. I been ridiculed as "communist", "tree hugging hippie", and as an idealist who don't know about the real world. I have my share of these debates.

I made no money from my blogging or my programming work. In about four years, I will be graduating out of high school, leaving for the working world. I know that I need to make some sort of living.

To show that I am truely serious about this, I must make a comfortable(Aiming for 200,000 dollars per year) living off writing Free contents and Free softwares. And to help other people repeat that same success.

It may not prove Steve Pavlina and the public wrong, but at least it is a start.



(P.S, I think I might dream in the past, the desire in seeing Steve Pavlina's position on copyright. I guess I got my wish if this was true.)

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by Kiba

I also know that my belief is on the fringe. The extreme. I been ridiculed as "communist", "tree hugging hippie", and as an idealist who don't know about the real world. I have my share of these debates.

I made no money from my blogging or my programming work. In about four years, I will be graduating out of high school, leaving for the working world. I know that I need to make some sort of living.

To show that I am truely serious about this, I must make a comfortable(Aiming for 200,000 dollars per year) living off writing Free contents and Free softwares. And to help other people repeat that same success.

It may not prove Steve Pavlina and the public wrong, but at least it is a start.

Do you have a plan for making a living? $200,000/year is a tall order even for the people who can leverage copyright to earn the money. I would be interested in following your journey. Do you plan to blog about it?

[elai]

Have you looked at The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights ? It seems like your arguments for it don't take those cases in mind.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by gberardi

Do you have a plan for making a living? $200,000/year is a tall order even for the people who can leverage copyright to earn the money. I would be interested in following your journey. Do you plan to blog about it?

Actually, I hear that Richard Stallman hasn't done too badly. His intention was never to make no money, after all; he expected all free software developers to have plenty of gigs where they provide value and are paid in return. That's not to say it worked (except maybe in the case of, say, RedHat), but it was his expectation.

[John Prophet]

One way that I like to approach this, is from an individualist standpoint (actually, that’s how I tend to approach everything). If I create something, take the trouble to bring something into this world, then, does that mean that anyone else should automatically have a right to it; by virtue of its now more substantial existence? And what about all of the ideas which I choose to keep to myself, for whatever reason? Is my refusal to contribute these ideas to the existing pool of knowledge, by taking the trouble to present them in a form which others can see and understand, somehow “short changing” the rest of the world? If a musician creates music in order to gain from it, financially or otherwise, shouldn’t that music be his to hold onto, and to use for his own benefit as it was intended?

Steve obviously creates content in order to help others, but if I create something solely for my own benefit, then isn’t it wrong, by any standard, to steal or otherwise take my creations and ideas out of my hands, and to put them into those of others? The way I see it, content and ideas are valuable commodities just like anything else in this world. This is what Steve’s Bertrand Russell quote was getting at; ideas/ content / entertainment are not things which most people can produce on their own. You could compare this to any type of product which people produce. If I’m a farmer, growing corn, and you want some corn, for whatever reason, then you have to produce your own, or pay me for the trouble (time, effort, skill, materials etc.) it took to create mine. You have no inherent right to my corn, even if it’s just sitting there in a field, right in front of you. And you sure as hell don’t have a right to the content that I create and post on my site (which, of course, is even less vital to your basic survival needs, then my hypothetical corn would be).

This is the basis of most modern societies. Forget Capitalism, even the barter system worked on this basic principle. You don’t get something for nothing. This is not what many folks like to hear, and it seems that there are many parasites out there who are always looking for an excuse to get something without having what it takes to rightfully obtain it. Just because site content is intangible, doesn’t mean you have any right to it at all! I believe that this is what the copyright discussion is about, on its most fundamental level. Basically, you either have to have what it takes to create it yourself, you have to pay others for it, or you’re a criminal. Those are your options. You have no inherent right to anything in this life, including continuing to live at all. Even that must be earned. Though, I have to say, that I’d probably be a lot more sympathetic towards someone stealing my corn in order to survive, then someone stealing my site content, for less admirable reasons.

[The Wise Turtle]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

If a musician creates music in order to gain from it, financially or otherwise, shouldn’t that music be his to hold onto, and to use for his own benefit as it was intended?

The should and shouldn'ts of our beliefs are what get us into trouble every time :-) The thing is, reality has a way of always being right, no matter what we believe should be right.

Originally Posted by John Prophet

You have no inherent right to anything in this life, including continuing to live at all.

Ultimately, the only rights you can be absolutely sure you have are the ones you've already got. If you're alive, you know you've got the right to be alive, for now anyway. Same with material goods and ideas, if you have them, you have a right to have them, since you clearly do have them. Until you don't. Reality is nice like that, it doesn't mess around with should and shouldn'ts And it doesn't care if you've "earned" anything either. Reality has no need for games. It just is what it is, and no matter how much you try to argue with it, it still is what it is...

-Turtle
who's being uber philosophical this morning, again

[John Prophet]

Turtle, you do have some good points, in a way. Reality is all that really matters in the end. However, when dealing with laws, all you have to work with are principles. But it’s true that all that really matters is what actually happens.

I believe that where you and I part ways, is whether you should try to control or be proactive about how things turn out. I sense some complacency in your attitude, which I cannot agree with. Although, I might be wrong, it sounds like you’re saying (in general, not just about copyright laws) that you should just sit back and let what will happen, happen. Personally, my attitude is: the more power I can obtain, the better. I suspect that most people on this forum have a less extreme attitude, then either of us.

Just remember that people can and do control their own lives (and sometimes those of others). If you’re not proactive about your existence and protecting yourself, then you’re putting yourself at the mercy of others, who will choose to wield whatever power they can (like me, for instance; that thought should be motivation enough, lol). I still think it’s just a better overall policy to do what you can to protect your own corn.

[CannibalSmith]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

If I’m a farmer, growing corn [..]

Flawed analogy.

I think I just realized the essence of the problem. Which is: it is impossible to distinguish a deliberate copy from a coincidentally identical pattern.

Audiovisual data, and all other data are patterns that we create. It is not ethical to copy someone else's pattern. It is ethical to create an identical pattern from scratch. Because it is unknowable if a certain pattern is a copy, a completely fair solution is not possible.

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Actually, I hear that Richard Stallman hasn't done too badly. His intention was never to make no money, after all; he expected all free software developers to have plenty of gigs where they provide value and are paid in return. That's not to say it worked (except maybe in the case of, say, RedHat), but it was his expectation.

Except Stallman hasn't abolished copyright from his life. The GPL is based in copyright, and he uses copyright to ensure that his works are attributed correctly. Get rid of copyright, and now he can't ensure that Free Software remains Free.