IntellectualProperty

 

scrumping.jpg

Scrumping

by David Holtzman

Several news articles this week that point out that roughly 1/4 of the 1 million Apple iPhones that have been sold are now unlocked. This is in spite of the fact that Apple has aggressively tried to stop this by mucking with the bootloader software to stop unofficial apps from executing.

Apple is doing this, of course, because they have a very lucrative deal going with AT&T which gives them $300-400 per account. Unlocked phones can be connected to almost any GSM cellular service, circumventing the Apple/AT&T monopoly. These worldly iPhones are available everywhere online for a 50% premium or so over the retail price.

I have a basic belief that business models that work by trapping people through legal or technological enforcement measures rarely work. It's too easy to get around and sooner or later causes a brand backlash.

Posted on January 30, 2008

mpaaisp.jpg

The thought border police

by David Holtzman

Wake up consumers and smell the DRMs before it's too late. The big media companies and their toadies are very clearly broadcasting their intentions and it's our own fault if they get away with it. Yesterday, Dan Glickman, the head of the MPAA, discussed the vicious idea of ISP filtering. The idea behind this concept is that the Internet Service Providers would have to use software to spot and expunge copyrighted material that is passing through their network. In other words, the company that you pay for your email and web access would watch everything that you send across the network and if it thought something infringed, remove it before you saw it coming in or sent it going out. And charge you for it. And slow down your bandwidth because of it.

What a good deal for consumers.

Of course, there're plenty of ways around this anyway, such as encrypting streams, hiding the pictures or video inside larger files, etc. So what will the ISPs be made to do then--ban encryption for their customers? This isn't as far-fetched as it might sound, I expect that the day is coming when use of personal encryption will be a crime.

Whenever draconian measures such as this are imposed on the public in an attempt to shore up a dilapidated and depressed institutional structure, it is a social inequity and more importantly, it never works.

Posted on December 10, 2007

candiandrm.jpg

DMC-eh?

by David Holtzman

Cory Doctorow at Boing-Boing has an opinion piece today talking about a pending Canadian bill in Canada that's structured similarly to the US DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The DMCA is not well-loved by American consumers although it has been quite supportive of the rights of copyright holders. The DMCA was used to shut down Napster and has frequently been used by TV networks like NBC to force YouTube to remove videos.

Canada's proposed law is probably worse the existing US one. The gist of the Canadian bill seems to be that if a device has functionality to prevent copying of the content, it will be illegal for anyone to circumvent that protection for any reason, even say, the perfectly legitimate one of backing up your owned content.

If the Conservatives pass this bill, then Canada will be transformed overnight from one of the friendliest countries for consumers to one of the least friendly. Plus the Canadian cult of independence almost guarantees widespread flaunting of this rule.

Posted on November 28, 2007

riaatrip.jpg


The RIAA trips up old people

by David Holtzman

The hoariest content piece of the old Internet that still survives today has to be Usenet, the mother of all bulletin boards. Originally it had it's own protocol with a dedicated port number and it survived by the unique strategy of having its contents passed around from machine to machine (more or less). A user would subscribe to the feed at some cooperative server.

Usenet thrived right up until two immigration lawyers, Kanter and Siegel, spammed it with legal ads, shocking all the old net heads who didn't believe that the Net could be commercialized. The Usenet feed, although still around in academia, has become corporate and distributed for a small subscription fee by the Usenet Corporation, who continued the good works.

Not for too much longer apparently. The Darth Vader of the Internet, the RIAA, has decided that its newest target is the Usenet company. Now Usenet.com does not own copyrighted material, nor store them (well mostly it doesn't); rather it acts as the facilitator for a large, decentralized network.

Because Usenet is decentralized, it would be difficult for the RIAA to sue its users because they can't track the song to the source. So they're suing the service.

When will someone stop these clowns? The RIAA is responsible for a great deal of frivolous litigation. And remember the RIAA is protecting the interests of the distributors and not the recording artists. Several artists like Nine Inch Nails and Tori Amos have broken with the traditional music industry over issues like these and disgust at the growing percentage of the take raked in by the distributor instead of the artist.


Posted on October 17, 2007

urigellergod.jpg

Geller, God and the DMCA

by David Holtzman

A battle has been smoldering behind the scenes in Web 2.0 companies--inappropriate use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to force material to be pulled from a website. There have been many recent cases of this. Earlier this year, noted fake psychic Uri Geller (remember the bent spoons?) used the DMCA to force Youtube to take down a video critical of Mr. Geller, mostly by showing him up as a fraud.

The DMCA was passed in 1998 and was supposed to make things easy for web site owners--if they were hit with a DMCA request to pull down an article and complied promptly, they were given a shield against being sued. This was supposed to be used for copyright infringement only, but people like Mr. Geller have found that it's the easiest way to force a site to remove a bit of content that may offend for other reasons.

Most recently, the Rational Response Squad (they were the same people that went after Geller) got into it with the Creation Science Evangelism ministry group over the same issue. Youtube happily complied with the Creationists DMCA-based demands and removed an expose video posted by the Squad. Now the DMCA doesn't require the content hoster to do any detective work to prove or disprove the truth of the DMCA claim, they just have to react to it.

The problem is that the DCMA, like so many other areas of intellectual property law, benefit those who can pay lawyers and by default, protect the copyright owner primarily, the hoster second and the poster, dead last.

Posted on September 26, 2007

To Catch a Virtual World Thief

by David Holtzman

I have an article in Business Week this morning discussing Second Life and the broader concept of intellectual property on the Internet. The article is here.

Posted on September 24, 2007

Master Chief.jpg

Master Chief, Mario and the Mouse

by David Holtzman

Microsoft's long-awaited Halo 3 comes out next week. One of the fascinating parts of this story is how a single video game can enhance the brand of a company like Microsoft, whose reputation as a consumer entertainment company was weak at the best. Halo made the XBox. And this is not a fluke. Sonic the Hedgehog made Sony gaming. Super Mario brothers made NIntendo.

It's interesting to note that these brands are all still thriving, even though the original games are in the past. The iconic brands of a video game have taken on a life of their own in the digital age. Donkey Kong, Mario and Luigi and even Master Chief will probably be around in some form for decades, maybe even longer. Microsoft is already making plans to merchandise the Halo brand, long after the game is done.

Brands are big business. In the Digital Age, nothing else has as much long-term financial worth as a recognizable brand. Just as the Mouse has made far more money for Disney outside of the original silent films (in 1928), so will these video game brands be the gift that keeps on giving, into the unforeseeable future, on computers that haven't even been thought of yet, invented by scientists who are not even born.

Posted on September 20, 2007

videopirates.jpg

The real Pirates of the Caribbean

by David Holtzman

A very interesting case is moving through the halls of International statesmen. Two Caribbean countries, Antigua and Barbuda have been actively pursuing their right to sell online gambling services to Americans by filing legal actions with the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Two WTO panels have ruled in favor of the tiny islands leaving the Bush administration with a difficult decision to make: comply or not. If they comply, then they're throwing open the window for all forms of Internet gambling to come in. If they do not, the islands' lawyer, Mark Mendel, has asked for a clever form of compensation to pay off the $3.4 billion in damages that he's requested--the right for the Islanders to copy American content, software, music and video, to pay off the USA's debt.

Since America has exhausted their WTO appeals, they're going to have to deal with this one. There's no great way out of this for the Bushies, but I'm tickled and eagerly waiting the outcome. If they make Internet gambling legal, then great. This will get government out of the business of legislating morality. If they balk and the islands start selling illegal copies of movies (totally legal within their own countries and internationally sanctioned by the WTO), also great.

From my limited libertarian perspective, it's a win-win.

Posted on August 23, 2007

frisbeedog.jpg

Doggie bags

by David Holtzman

The Malaysian government has trained dogs to sniff out illegal copies of DVDs. Really. In fact, the dogs do so well that they've been given a medal. Lucky and Flo, two black Labs, have been trained to sniff out the chemicals used in DVD manufacture. Apparently angry video pirates have put out a $28K reward on the dogs, but they've been protected so far.

The Reuters article ends on the laughingly absurd figure of $6 Billion annual losses to the movie industry from piracy. This number is predicated on the ridiculous assumption that the millions of copies of movies watched by college kids on 14" computer monitors are a substitute for actual purchases.

Posted on August 21, 2007

pottercopy.jpg

Illegal Potters abound on Web

by David Holtzman

The new Harry Potter book is leaking all over the Internet. I think that I shall decline to put in a link as to where, although I found a copy and I'm sure most people could if they looked hard enough. There are several sites publishing synopses, as well as a series of photographs of the book's pages, held out by someone's hand.

What's most interesting about this is that if any book in history should have been protected, it's this one. The publisher has used almost draconian measures with the bookstores and distributors, trying to stop even a single copy from appearing in advance of Saturday's "witching hour", when the real book will pop up simultaneously around the world in stores everywhere.

Nothing is safe anymore, IP-wise. Granted a human being had to get hold of the physical copy somewhere, but after that, it's easy to use the Web to distribute the illicit copy, regardless of it being text, video or sound. It will keep on happening and I suspect, will get much worse.

The only real solution is a new model for content sales and pricing, more liberal personal usage laws and a new and innovative approach to content encryption.

Posted on July 18, 2007

Swimming upstreaming music

by David Holtzman

dj.jpg
The day of reckoning for the music industry are fast approaching. They continue to shift and snap to maintain their position at the trough, but tougher, meaner, little piglets want to feed. A good case in point is the soon-to-be increase in royalties levied against groups playing streaming music on the Internet. The rate hike goes into effect on July 15th and has already been challenged by several prominent groups, most recently, NPR, on behalf of its sister stations.

The evolutionary aspect kicks in when you consider who benefits the most from these rate hikes, and who pays the lobbyists to get favorable legislative treatment. It's the music companies, not the artists. The middlemen. And I don't buy the argument that they take huge investment risks and are entitled to huge rewards. They do sign a lot of new acts that won't pay off, but they rarely market anything less than a sure thing and that's where most of the cost is.

There may not be a place in the New World Order for music distributors. They may have to join slide rule manufacturers, asbestos pot holder makers and members of the Senatorial Ethics Committee in obsolescence hell. Good.

Posted on June 01, 2007

Digg 'em

by David Holtzman

Matrix-pods.jpg
An interesting sound can be heard at Digg this week--a monster ripping noise as thousands of denizens of the Matrix rip those electrodes out of their chests. There has been an open rebellion by many Digg users in retalation of an apparent censoring by Digg moderators of a recently cracked HD key. The hexadecimal key, when fed into the right program unlocks all HD-DVDs released up until now.

The protests are taking the form of using their votes to point the front page of Digg to stories containing the hex number and other clever ways to force the forbidden number to the forefront.

There is no perpetual motion machine and every form of energy has a price. The seemingly free power supply of Web 2.0 sites, driven by the combined will of the great unwashed, can also be used to express displeasure. I predict that we will see more of the same in the very near future.

Posted on May 02, 2007

Movies want to be free

by David Holtzman

dvdpiracy.jpg
The Economist has an article this week (also mentioned in Privacy Digest), predicting that the end is near for DRMs (Digital RIghts Management Systems) or at least ones in DVDs. They cite last month's California ruling that Kaleidoscope, Inc., was in the right with their products that rip DVDs and audio CDs, store them on a hard drive (reencrypted) and then video-pump them around the house.

The movie industry disagrees with this assertion and has 60 days left to appeal the decision.

I have a thought for the protective movie industry...F**k you.

I have no sympathy for either the movie or the music business although I am generally sympathetic to copyright owners getting screwed out of revenue. I don't like the music industry because:


  1. They are not the creators, but the distributers. Distributers are always being disintermediated--that's the nature of technology. Most don't have the wherewithal to twist an entire legal system to preserve their obsolete status.
  2. The studios need to refine their business model. They make more from advertising and tie-ins than they do from box-office anyway. I'd like to point out that brand-based revenue like toys actually goes up from a higher viewership, pirated or not.
  3. The entertainment industry's attempts to constrain distribution of digital content is anti-consumer and bucking the trend of modern digital technology, which is all about seamless whole-house distribution and downloading to mobile devices.

The f**k you to the movie studios was deserved. If you want to know how scummy these people are, look at the above ad that they've been running.

Posted on April 30, 2007

A bigger piece of Apple's pie

by David Holtzman

Beatles.jpg
The first crack has appeared in the DRM (Digital Rights Management) armor hastily thrown on by the entertainment industry to fight the unseen dragons of piracy. EMI and Apple announced yesterday that most of their catalog already released digitally will be available on iTunes without DRM protection. This does not include The Beatles.

Granted that this experiment may fail. EMI may not see any measurable gain from it and drop the experiment. Or they mail see billions of copies of their music on piracy sites and rethink their decision. Other music publishers may see this as an aberration and not jump on the bandwagon, rendering the EMI decision a business quirk and not a trend. Apple may decide that they don't like it either. After all, DRM protects them more than the music companies, in some ways. Music purchased from iTunes cannot be played on other players because of the DRM scheme.

Yet, lets look at the big picture; the company and Apple split a bigger pie. DRM-free music will be $1.29, not $.99 per song and I predict that there will be no price resistance from consumers to paying it. Apple continues to establish its industry dominance by showing that they can crack the whip and get everyone to jump. If this works, then they're the ones to break DRM's back. The consumer clearly benefits because Apple will be providing higher quality music for downloading and of course, because there will be no DRM encoding.

If Apple's efforts are successful and that can be judged by watching to see if other music companies join in, then they own the digital music industry for years to come. This also sets the stage for the importance of Apple's iTV box, because they will eventually try to do the same thing in Hollywood.

Posted on April 03, 2007

Viacomm sues Google for a millio--no, a billion dollars

by David Holtzman

dr_evil_1.jpg
Most of you have probably seen that Google/YouTube was sued by Viacomm for $1,000,000 yesterday. The lawsuit contends that YouTube is guilty of "numerous copyright violations". YouTube, on the other hand, claims that copyright law shields them from liability as they have not encouraged anyone to post copyrighted material on their site. Viacomm counters with the contention that Youtube's value is, to a large extent, derived from illegal use of other people's intellectual property.

Whew. What a mess.

First off, anyone who thinks that YouTube/Google will end up paying a billion dollars in any circumstance is smoking something. The worst that will happen is that there will be a settlement in which Google promises to deploy filtering technology designed to take the onus of discovering the violations off of the shoulders of the content owners.

I worry about the affect on consumers though. When the same crummy trick was tried by the music industry against Napster, it became readily apparent that it was about money, not about principles, as the music industry blew up Napster so that they could install their own Napster-like organizations in place. Undoubtedly something similar will happen with video. But in the interim, lawsuits like the Napster and now the YouTube one scares the straights--the money flush consumer that will someday pay the content providers for the privilege of watching their videos. Be careful Viacomm! You may kill the golden goose. YouTube and its ilk have helped advertising and market awareness far more than they've cost companies like Viacomm any real revenue.

Posted on March 14, 2007

Pianist should be behind bars

by David Holtzman

hatto.jpg
A new use for the burgeoning MP3 software industry has been identified--detecting fakes. In a case that's rocking and rolling the classical music world, recordings by a prominent pianist, Joyce Hatto, have been found to be fakes--plagiarized from other performers' recorded works.

A British music lover loaded a Hatto CD into their computer and Apple's iTunes product did what it was supposed to do--it identified the music by passing it to Gracenote (an online music catalog), who automatically analyzed the music and determined that it was a performance of Liszt by a musician named Laszlo Simon, and not by Hatto. It does this comparing the track length and other musical externals.

The British music magazine Gramophone investigated and found out that it was true--the sound waves of the Hatto recording and the Simon recording were identical. Once researcher who examined several other Hatto pieces concluded that ""We have yet to investigate a Hatto recording that has not proved to be a hoax."

Wikipedia has a nice table detailing Hatto's "career" recordings juxtaposed with the likely actual performer. In some cases, someone apparently made an effort to hide the deception by slowing a little bit down or something similar.

Hatto is dead, but her husband William Barrington-Coupe, who was also her publisher, denies any wrong-doing.

Obviously he's lying.

There are millions of variables involved in musical performance and a small change in one will affect the resulting recording. Different pianos sound slightly different in different weather and different pianists have a different style which would show up, if not audibally, certainly visually in a recording.

Something similar is being done by schools with student term papers. There are also companies involved in developing picture fingerprinting to spot copyrighted materials that are being illicitly used on the web. It seems as if we're headed to a world where plagiarism is a thing of the past, where everything is recorded, everything attributed and thieves will get smoked out early in the process.


Posted on February 22, 2007

Hi Gene

by David Holtzman

edison.jpg
Michael Crichton in today's New York Times makes a very convincing case against patenting of genetic patterns. I confess that I'm not very savvy on this issue, but if most of what he claims in this op-ed is true, I'm appalled.

He explains that the genetic markers for some diseases (20 of them so far) like Hepatitis C are patented. Researchers wishing to develop a cure for the disease have to pay royalties to the patent-holder.

Crichton blames the overworked patent office for misreading a Supreme Court ruling and issuing these kinds of patents. Two Congressman, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, have introduced a new bill to make these kind of patents illegal.

I worry about the twisting of the intent of patents. Historically they were granted to innovators and inventors to give them a reasonable period in which they could recover their investment and reward them with some profit for their risk-taking. Fine by me--that makes sense. The point of patents, like certain tax measures like capital gains treatments for long-term investments, reward the person who does the work.

But what about genes? They are discovered, not invented. Not only that, but it seems to me that the whole idea of allowing patents on these patterns has the opposite from the desirable effect--stifling innovation and punishing creativity.

We have lost our way. Just like copyright law has become a wealth creation device for the already wealthy, so has patent law become something that big companies use to squash the little guy. IBM, for instance, has over 40,000 patents. The much venerated Thomas Edison only had 1093 patents in his lifetime.

I hope that this bill passes. It's unfortunate that truly important issues like draconian intellectual property laws or global warming get virtually no press, no debate and no solution.

Posted on February 13, 2007

Whores and fan dancers-the media

by David Holtzman

sallyrand.jpg
I am constantly amazed by the arrogance of the media. As we move into an era where the plunk of every new digital gadget placed on store shelves is another tap, tap, tap cracking the shell of content protection that big media has extruded around their precious. Ipods, Tivos, USB thumb drives, DVD burners--what do they all have in common? Extracting and distributing proprietary content.

Steve Jobs, Apple's erstwhile CEO, yesterday called for the death of DRM, or at least on iTunes. He's like the cadaver procuring body snatching villager who sees the armed crowd heading to the castle, grabs a torch and leaps to the front of the mob, screaming "Death to Dr. Frankenstein!" He knows that content control is doomed and wants to be on record now as leading the charge.

The movie people make a little noise, but don't seem to care too much. The music people are the squeaky wheel that needs to get greased, and hopefully in a highly unpleasant way and in a painful location. They sue housewives, use lawyers the way Homer Simpson uses doughnuts and generally destroys what little credibility remains in their industry.

The print people however, have flamed out in their own unique way. They are so smitten with advertising revenue, that many print periodicals have rendered their online versions unusable.

Take the Washington Post, for instance, my home town newspaper. First they won't let you read past the front page unless you lie creatively on their demographic signup form. And they don't just want to know your name and occupation--they ask for blood type, which side you dress your trousers and your opinion on who made the better captain; Kirk or Picard. Then after you've given them the information (please don't tell them the truth!) they occasionally throw in ads that obscure what you're reading. Yep. Ads that pop up and block the screen, jump pages that you have to look at before the main content and unless I'm greatly mistaken, audio that comes out of nowhere and talks to you when you're trying to read an article.

The Post is hardly the only media whore, but they do stand on a very visible corner and as such set the standard for the others. The music distributers need to get the hell out of the way and let the artists interact with their customer base. Print media needs to come up with a better business model than playing Gypsy Rose Lee with their content, forcing readers to squint for a look at the naughty bits past the fluttering of the advertising fans.

Posted on February 08, 2007

Youtube we barely knew you

by David Holtzman

santa.jpg
YouTube has been asked by Viacomm to remove over 100,000 videos that pertain to copyrighted material owned by the media company.

Viacomm owns such properties as Comedy Central and by extension The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and South Park.

YouTube is complying. It's stated policy is that while it will do no policing of posted material, it will remove videos after received a verified copyright complaint.

Let's look at this cynically...Why would Viacomm want to stop millions of people from watching their television shows and increasing the propertys' popularity? They wouldn't, of course. They are negotiating. Like the revival of Napster as a whorish shadow of what it once was--the Costco of pirated music--the media companies are mad because they're not in control of their property, not because people are watching it. They have not yet come around to the idea that popularity of a video, detached from its original distribution source is potentially okay. I say potentially, because they will have to reinvent their business model since it's too easy to strip ads out of Internet downloadable videos.

Back to Viacomm. One of the biggest video downloads on most video sites are South Park reruns. Presumably they're on the Youtube chopping block, too. Yet, the show owes its existence to Internet distribution. Parker and Stone's careermaking video, the Spirit of Christmas, about Jesus fighting Santa Claus was not only hilarious but so widely distributed around the Net that I made special accomodations for it as a shared file at Network Solutions where I worked at that time, so people wouldn't squirrel away copies of the huge file in their personal area. I say "huge", when of course it was nothing in today's terms.

Viacomm and the other media dinosaurs will come to grips with the new world of digital media distribution, in which you lose the battle (control) and win the war (popularity).

But what about YouTube? My advice is that if they are not to become inconsequential by being exsanguinated by sharp-toothed intellectual property lawyers, they will have to make a stand. I propose something radical--move your servers to some other country and thumb your nose at the Man. For an example, check out www.peekvid.com.

Posted on February 05, 2007

Yippie-ki-yay, MPAA

by David Holtzman

piratekey.jpg
Slashdot has a bit about the MPAA having been caught uploading fake torrents so that they can collect IP addresses of the downloaders along with ISP information. BitTorrent is a very popular technology for breaking apart files and multicast distributing them for download--in short, the most effective way to illegally download copyrighted material on the Internet today.

There's no attribution so it's difficult to tell if the story's real, but I believe it. The MPAA has been running one of the most creative scams in American business history for years. Publicly, they cry about privacy (in a non-Johnny Depp kind of way) and claim to lose over $2 billion a year from online thiefs. Privately they cut deals as fast as they can to use the technology that they're slamming as a future distribution mechanism to sell their product, ironically safe to do so because the downtrodden hackers have established a culture that knows how to do so. This is similar to Napster, who turned to the dark side as a pimp for the music industry. Warner Brothers has made a deal with BitTorrent, for instance, to sell movies over the service.

I don't buy the $2 billion figure and never have. The people that I know who are willing to watch a movie that they've downloaded onto their computer are not doing it in lieu of going to the theatre. When people decide to go out on a Friday night and see a movie, it's more about the experience anyway. If they've seen one already (say on their PC), then they'll pick another one instead--viva la Multiplex.

The MPAA has scammed and bribed Congress to support them. They've waved those flagrantly offensive Interpol messages in front of our faces everytime we watch "Dude, Where's my car?" I'd like to make these idiots have to watch a mandatory 30 second video warning that corporate espionage and shady accounting practices are illegal every time they opened the door to their office.

The war has started. The armament is encyption and the battlefield is intellectual property.

Posted on January 12, 2007

King Art

by David Holtzman

warhol.jpg
The Washington Post has an interesting commentary on Second Life and intellectual property ownership. they point out that Second Life is the only online virtual world that allows its users to own the IP of what they create. Not the objects, the IP. They give the example of a young lady who makes $60K a year by designing virtual dresses. She has thousands of designs which can be purchased for "Linden dollars" (online currency), that can converted into US currency. Legally, according to Second Life's Terms and Conditions, she sells the design or template for the dress, not the dress itself.

Most similar sites have draconian Ts&Cs, claiming that they own the rights to whatever their users create. Creative and entrepreneurial types are disincentivized to work in such a system.

One woman on Second Life makes $250,000 a year from buying and selling real estate.

The real point here is that the online world is fast becoming an expression of thought and design and those who are the movers and shakers in this new world order won't do business in worlds with restrictive legal covenants, any more than many of us are willing to live in a planned neighborhood where we need to apply to a committee to paint our house a certain color.

I can even generalize more--the coming wave of tech is not about things, but about design. Software v. Hardware, schemas v. data, content v. context. If you want to make your future in the new digital world, train yourself by learning how to write or draw. Artists are poised to take over what the engineers created.


Posted on December 26, 2006

Blogging and snogging

by David Holtzman

doogie.jpg
An unlikely champion of Fair Use is emerging in the form of weirdly plastic, celebrity fluffer and blogger, Perez Hilton. Hilton's website is a tell-all blog that dishes out the dirt on celebrities. His specialty is outing believed-to-be-but-still-in-the-closet homosexuals. In the last few months, he has purportedly outed Jodie Foster, Queen Latifah and Clay Aiken as well as triggered off voluntary admissions from Lance Bass and Neil Patrick Harris (Doogie Howser).

But that's not what is putting him in the crossfire of the IP lawyers. It's his use of paparazzi photographs that has caused him to be hit with a $7.5 million lawsuit. He is claiming, naturally enough, that the Fair Use exemption allows him to use these pics (he draws little hearts and arrows on the shots and then makes bitchy comments about them in his postings).

I don't like the fact that he doesn't clearly attribute the authorship of the pix, but I find myself strangely supportive of his right to use them. The digital world needs to have much less sharp elbows when it comes to cross-fertilization of intellectual property and if Perez is the guy to do it, then great. I realize that the paparazzi make their living out of of these shots, but hey, dung beetles do not have an exclusive right to dung. These guys sell their shots on the basis of shock and initial exclusivity, neither of which attribute is diminshed by Hilton's usage.

Posted on December 18, 2006

Teach your children well

by David Holtzman

plagiarism.jpg
The Washington Post had a story last week describing a rise in student resentment against the growing usage of automated plagiarism checking by companies like California-based Turnitin.

For a fee, Turnitin is given copies of papers that students do and add them to their 22 million paper database. Presumably they use text-matching heuristics to query for semantically similar or at a minimum, exactly copied reports.

The protests stem from the way that the technology works. Many students feel that the schools have no right to use their (the students) intellectual property in that way.

I agree.

I have several problems with this system, although as a some-time professor, I can appreciate the need. I do not like the idea that these papers find a permanent digital home. Someday they might prove embarassing to the student writers (and please don't tell me about computer security--there is no such thing).

I also wonder what we're teaching. Why is America so hell-bent on bringing back the dunking chair? There seems to be an overreaching emphasis on punishing people who get over on the system, whether they're terrorists, scofflaws or in this case, our own children. Isn't it better to, as CSN&Y put it so many years ago -- "teach our children well"? A compulsive plagiarizer will almost certainly get caught before their four years are up. This kind of technology will be most effective at catching the one-time cheat or maybe stopping the old fraternity practice of maintaining a file cabinet of proven papers, sorted by subject and letter grade received ("you want a paper on the French Revolution? $100 for an 'A', $35 for a 'B').

America has a bad habit of using extraordinarily expensive technology to stop outlying cases of non-problems. It's like our institutional administrators can't stand the thought of even a single student getting away with copying a paper. In these days of the "No Child's Behind Left Behind" Act and the steadily declining funding of our educational system, we can no longer afford to indulge the neuroses of our self-righteous bureaucrats who maybe, somewhere deep inside, wish that they had been smart enough to cheat once in a while, too.

Posted on September 26, 2006

Prey for the music industry

by David Holtzman

vulture.jpg
Universal Music Group is making noises that sound like they're going to sue YouTube (and maybe MySpace).

The issue is the hoary old issue of intellectual property. Some of the millions of videos that YouTube hosts contain copyrighted music in the background (most of them, actually). UMG's position is similar to that of other vulture distribution companies: they want every usage of the works to be either paid for or discontinued.

I say "vulture", because I have very little respect for the middlemen in the Entertainment industry. As technology continues disintermediating the distribution channels, the music companies use every trick at their disposal to cling on to their meal. The usual technique is lawyers. In America, if you have more money than the other guy, you beat him about the head with lawyers. It's okay, hit harder, it might do some good and the lawyer likes it.

A judgement day is coming for this issue of fair use. If UMG and others have their way, the whole idea of user-generated content that is currently firing up the Web will disappear. The chilling effect of being sued by some bloated conglomerate for using a couple of minutes of a Whitesnake song in a home video is enough to encourage most people to desert from the digital revolution before it really starts.

We need a new model. Fair use needs to be redefined to reflect the reality of consumer electronics and today's Internet. The DMCA needs to be rewritten.

Congress should address this issue, but will not. Unfortunately there are no highly paid lobbyists on K street that have "The People" on their business cards.

Posted on September 15, 2006

Customers not Copies

by David Holtzman

aguilera.jpg
The entertainment industry has been sighting pirates on the horizon for many years. People who work in this industry sincerely believe this is happening. Many other people do not. I believe that there are concerted forces at work to copy material and sell it without paying the creators, but I think that there are a few large cartels doing this in a systematic way, which makes the series of little-guy lawsuits by the studios not only grotesque and unfair, but largely ineffective.

I believe that part of the problem comes from the way that Hollywood looks at their product--they see themselves as selling "copies" of a physical product. They perceive their goods as taking up physical space, competing for shelf space and costing money to duplicate, ship and arrange for returns.

I believe that they should think about customers, not copies. If they can collect $20 from everyone who listens to a new album (is that still a meaningful word?), then they will make money. Trying to get the second $20 if the original buyer wants to copy the music onto an iPod or onto a satellite radio system is what's causing all of this grief. Most consumers intuitively feel that they have the right to do so anyway. The business model should reward music and movie producers for the number of consumers familiar with the work, not the number of units shipped.

How do they make money? They already are. You can't look at a musical album as a shipped piece of plastic in a cardboard sleeve. It's the sum product of road shows, music sales, ringtones, online music, pay-per-view concerts and the like. If normal people are not aware of the album, if there are not enough fans, they won't make any bucks for the music anyway. It's all about customer awareness.


Posted on August 04, 2006

Hogan takes on the fascists

by David Holtzman

hogan.jpg
Wired has an article about software developer, Shawn Hogan (CEO Digital Point), who received one of those calls from an MPAA lawyer claiming that he had downloaded an illegal copy of "Meet the Fockers" from BitTorrent, and demanded that Hogan pay $2500 for a settlement. Hogan refused and is planning on contesting and taking it to trial to challenge the legality of the MPAA strategy.

Good.

The heavy-handed tactics of both the motion picture and the recording industries have made intellectual property theft ethically acceptable, which was not the case before. Even if people are a little worried about lawsuits, they will wait until they're sure that the technology of fileswapping is untraceable again and then they'll be back in business in a big way.

I can't wait to see the discovery process uncover the methodology of how the MPAA is linking IP addresses to individuals, so that they can nail the individual "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There's plenty of ways that someone can hide their identity well enough to avoid being positively identified in a lawsuit--I think that the MPAA is bluffing and they're suing based on a "good enough" standard, figuring it will never go to court.

Posted on July 27, 2006

Catching infringers for cash

by David Holtzman

ronaldbusted.jpgI have a suggestion for harnassing the power of the web to do good. What about offering a bounty empowering citizen do-gooders to keep an eye out for copyright infringement? A prominent brand like Coke or McDonalds could have a reward page where they pay off for each righteous catch. They wouldn't even have to pay cash--many people would be more than happy to get free promotional stuff. Some rules would have to be figured out to stop people from doing their own infringing just to get a free Ronald McDonald skeet shoot set.

The power of this is one of the fundamental Internet lessons--any business that create a financial flow that causes large groups of people to do something can move mountains. Imagine tens of thousands of people scanning the web every morning looking for infringers.

Posted on July 18, 2006

Leave the gun, keep the cannoli

by David Holtzman

clemenza.gif
In the last month, I've played both the Godfather and the From Russia with Love video games. They are different, in my mind, than other games that I've played before, because they wrap part of the real films into the game.

The Godfather even uses Marlon Brando's and Robert Duvall's voices (among others). Famous cut scenes from the movie are interspersed as "rewards" for successful gameplay. You play as an unknown thug, running errands for movie characters like Clemenza. There are two problems with the game. First is that for some unknown legal reason, they could not use Al Pacino's voice and apparently not his face, because they obviously went to great pains to create a new character that wouldn't trigger a lawsuit. The second problem is that the game sucks. Really sucks. On a scale of 10 to -1, where getting drunk at Mardi Gras is a 9 and Disney World is a 5 and kissing your grandmother and feeling tongue is a 2, then playing the Godfather video game is a 1. Yes, it's that bad.

From Russia with Love is a better game, although it's quirky, too. First off, there's the well-known James Bond theme and the infamous shoot-em-in-the-eye opening sequence. The game plot at first seems to be off from the movie, but the next thing you know Robert Shaw is killing the fake James Bond at the SMERSH training camp, stripping off the rubber Sean Connery mask. The game is really, really good at tracking the movie and is probably one of the closest true "interactive" games. I have never cared for the gameplay in Bond games and this isn't much of an exception, but the movie part is amazing. They've replicated much of the movie, scene for scene by rendering the film into game animation. This has the added advantage of permitting them to use the actors' voices from the movie, since the action matches the original film.

The future of this kind of mixed genre should be very interesting. For one thing, this provides another way to milk a few more bucks out of a movie. Sure, lots of them are using video game tie-ins already, but sooner or later, a so-so movie is going to spawn a great game franchise, the way that the so-so Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie became a much better television series. See a trend here? Movies to games. Games to movies (Super Mario Brothers, Doom), comic books to movies (Hellboy, Spiderman), movies to comic books.

The most valuable thing in the very near thing is recognizable brands that can drive content, because content is technology agnostic. Create a new copyrighted character, get it in peoples' faces and my boy, get rich. Hello, Mickey Mouse. Hello, Superman. Hello, Kitty.

Posted on June 29, 2006

Locking up DVDs

by David Holtzman

Yesterday's entry was cheap and dirty for me--I put up a link to an article that I had running on Business Week Online about the coming DVD wars. I was surprised by the number of comments on the BW site and thought that I might pursue the issue a little further.

Since we're talking about war, let's try and understand that most basic of battle conditions--when do you win? Under what circumstances would Sony and the other movie studios feel that they were victorious? I would suggest that it would be when the pirated movie (and music) industries were defunct. But that's not enough, because they don't want to alienate people on movies in the process, right? They still have to have a thriving business. So they have to stop all copying of movies and leave consumers happy in the process. That seems reasonable.

Now here's the problem...we (consumers) are buying devices that require movies to be copies. Think about using an ipod in an environment where you couldn't copy music. The same thing is about to happen to movies. As storage gets cheaper and people get more accustomed to using, transporting and streaming digital content, they're going to demand the ability to move their paid-for films into any device that they own that can display it.

That desire is completely at odds with Sony's win conditions. This is a battle that they can't win. The demand for copyable films will soon force this conflict to a head. I'd guess in about 3 years.

The answer here is obvious, they need a new business model.

Sony needs to change their win-lose scenario into a win-win one. Who cares about copying? They should focus on sales. If movies are copied onto say, three digital devices, then locked up, we'd all be happy.

What if someone invented a device that would "lock" a DVD into a carousel and permit copying anywhere on a home network as long as the device authenticated that it still had the original safe and secure? Something like would be a better win for Sony. They should focus on what's important, number one-please the customer. Number two-increase sales. Number three-stop pilferage.

Posted on May 31, 2006

Business Week article on DVD protections

by David Holtzman

I have an opinion piece in Business Week today on the new DVD formats and their "copy-protection" schemes.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060526_680075.htm

Posted on May 30, 2006

Fair Use, Fare Thee Well

by David Holtzman

pirate.gif
XM radio just got sued for a new recording feature that it's offering on some of its radios. The new Inno radio from XM is able to search for music by name and record up to 50 hours of tunes.

The lawsuit by a coalition of the recording industry alleges what you think that it might--that XM is assisting in piracy.

I have two words for the recording industry: "grow" + "up".

The lame claim that artists are not being paid for their work falls on deaf ears, especially when I'm in Los Angeles and see fat recording executives driving in sports cars, sporting more bling on their fingers than Paris Hilton. Sure, the artists should get paid for their efforts. Who says that they aren't?

The right solution is to change the compensation model and cut back on the slice of pie going to the middleman--the vocal and litigiously challenged recording industry.

I empathize with XM (Sirius made an accomodation and wasn't named in the suit). But the one that I really feel bad for is me. What ever happened to the Fair Use Doctrine?

The music industry (and the movie people) are cutting back on our right to copy digital material that we've bought. Hey, I buy most of my music and I always buy or rent my movies. The problem is that today's digital world wants to swap the material between devices. It's made for that. If I buy a Neil Young CD and play it at home, I have to copy it to use it on my ipod. Newer car radios make me copy it to a hard drive there. I don't want to carry a CD around with me anymore, that's why I went to digital.

Somebody needs to stand up to the bullies of the entertainment industry. Who will champion the rights of consumers now that Ralph Nader is clearly crazy? it's a shame that we can't count on Congress. I guess that we're have to turn to the consumer advocates of the new millenia--the hackers.

Posted on May 17, 2006

Old pirates live on

by David Holtzman

fast5.JPG

CNET references a page that's pretty funny in retrospect--an archive for older anti-piracy ads, mostly aimed at floppy thieves.

Kind of points out how timeless the problem is and how silly too.

Posted on May 09, 2006

Branded in Hong Kong

by David Holtzman

nec.jpg
A harbinger of things to come...what's a brand worth? NEC has some insight into that question. They've recently discovered the knock-off de tuti knock-off, even for Hong Kong--an entire fake NEC brand. A group of enterprising pirates were selling fake NEC appliances, but in a big way. They had contracted with over 50 electronics factories to build copies of NEC products and lashed together a consumer distribution network to sell them. Police raids found that the cloned company had been giving out fake NEC business cards and collateral sales material, had commissioned R&D studies and even produced official-looking documents granting distributors exclusive rights.

Interestingly enough, the copies were of high quality.

So, what's a brand worth? Obviously enough to do all that. The pirates had done all of the corporate heavy lifting themselves; they'd contracted with factories, built distribution networks, established a channel strategy, even launched research efforts for future products.

If they'd changed the designs a little and called it, say, "Daves", instead of "NEC", they'd have had a real company and it would have been legit. Yet it was worth it to them to take the risk, knowing that they'd get caught eventually. Why?

Brands are big bucks. This case illustrates why. That last little touch on electronics manufacturing...gluing the little logo on the case, is the most valuable piece of the pie. The brand adds more value and increases the price point more than better design, cheaper distribution, or in fact any other single part of the process.

Posted on May 02, 2006

Diluting the DMCA

by David Holtzman

According to CNET, Congress is readying another go at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Going against increasingly vociferous public sentiment, their approach is not to weaken it, but to strengthen it. The Bush Administration's draft bill, backed by key Republicans including Lamar Smith, will make it a crime to possess any software or hardware that could be used to bypass copy-protection. It's already a crime to to sell such devices.

You would think that Congress must have a strong reason to support such unpopular legislation, wouldn't you? The more cynical among you might suspect that it's the fat political contributions made by groups such as the RIAA. But it's more than that. According to Attorney General Gonzalez, proceeds from piracy are used to fund...(drum roll)...terrorism.

Yes, that's right. The monster under the bed for the new Millenia, the terrorist, raises his ugly head again. Just as the attack on P2P file sharing systems is ostensibly to stop trading in child porn, arresting kids who copy computer games or DVDs protects our country against terrorism.

Modern technological gadgets have separated the content from the wrapper. It's almost necessary for consumers to break the "copy protection" on CDs to use iPods and the same situation will shortly be repeated with DVDs as video servers become affordable.

I, for one, am tired of this greedy fear-mongering approach by the Republicans. I can just see Tom Delay in his future jail cell, requesting better accomodations because he had been threatened by terrorists.

The DMCA, bad is it was, allowed for consumer fair use copying that has in most part, been ignored by the escalating and very public RIAA lawsuits supported by their partners-in-slime, the Bush administration. And as bad as the Bush White House is, the Bush Justice Department is worse. Since Ashcroft, it has smelled worse than a stopped-up toilet in a sewage plant. They have effectively dismantled the 40 years of civil rights support and have flipped from being the defender of the defenseless to the enforcer for the elite. The best that money can buy.


Posted on April 24, 2006

Crabby apples

by David Holtzman

yoko.jpgapple.jpgToday in London, Apple computer defends its trademark against Apple Corps, Ltd, a British music company. Apple Corps, Ltd is owned by the remaining Beatles, George Harrison's estate and Yoko Ono. Apple music contends that Apple computer has violated the terms of a 1991 agreement in which Apple Computer agreed to limit its music business. Apple has sold 14 million iPods already and the iTunes music store is more popular than the Dummy book series in the Bush White House.

The heart of this disagreement is the business overlap of music. Trademark law allows multiple uses of the same name as long as there's no confusion. Computers and music didn't appear to intersect 30 years ago--they do now.

Technology is the culprit. It's a lot harder for a company to specialize narrowly enough today to guarantee that they'll never overlap into someone else's business area. If that someone else uses the same name, you have a far distant collision in the not-so-soon future.

The other problem is that the Internet gives everybody the same backyard. It's too easy to view every sizable company as global, reducing the effectiveness of the argument that there would be no market confusion because they don't overlap.

The solution in the digital age is to pick a name that's made up, preferably with an umlaut or something. That's why you have Accenture and Fruszen Gladje, Compaqs and Frisbees. Any IP lawyer will tell you that that's the best naming solution. Of course, you can also use the poor man's Intellectual Property lawyer, the Domain Name System. If the name is free, than it's almost certainly trademarkable.


Posted on March 29, 2006

Fair or foul?

by David Holtzman

The Associated Press filed a story out of St. Louis that Major League Baseball is being sued by a fantasy baseball league over whether or not they have the right to use post season team and player statistics. They had been licensing them from MLB, but last year the sport declined to renew the license because it had a better deal elsewhere. Recreating the statistics is easy, but what's at stake is who owns the intellectual property rights to the numbers themselves? There's a lively debate going on in Slashdot about it.

At first glance this seems silly. Of course the stats should be available to anyone who wants them. But I thought about this and wondered why? Most of us rebel against the idea because it conjures up a chilling world where everyone owns meta information. Each of us become a component popped inside some kind of marketing machine--maybe we lose the rights to our own shopping patterns. It could happen.

On the other hand, from MLB's perspective, it's lost revenue. They feel that they should be able to make money out of it for their investors. After all, they certainly trademark rights in the team, the mascot, the players' images, even the words "Major League Baseball". You can't broadcast a game or even a piece of it in any media without their approval, so why not statistics?

In my opinion, there's two reasons why not. The first is that it becomes part of the historical record. As a society, our history belongs to everyone as part of the common experience. The implications of a capitalist history are truly Orwellian.

The second reason is to go back to the reasons that we have intellectual property protection. IP is not supposed to be lottery ticket material, found money falling from the heavens. Rather, it's meant to protect the innovator long enough to recoup a risky investment and make a reasonable profit. It's society's way of giving us ice cream for cleaning up our room. Given this background, I see no work or investment involved in having games that generate statistics. They're part of the historical record and it's just too bad for MLB.

Posted on January 16, 2006

A tale of two cities: CES and 22C3

by David Holtzman

As media companies continue to chisel away at the brittle consumer rights remaining in the Fair Use doctrine and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and government pushes low-cost surveillance technology to the very street corner, a quiet revolution fueled by an emotional backlash to these digital shackles has begun. This revolution uses similar technology to push back, yin to yang. Encryption on DVDs are fought with decryption. Surveillance is fought with sabotage, which was interestingly enough, the same strategy of the original Luddites who destroyed milling machines in nascent industrial age England.

Wired reports that many discussions being held at the European Hacker Conference going on in Berlin right now (also known as the 23rd Chaos Communications Congress or 23C3) deals with this obfuscation of surveillance concern.

Hackers have figured out ways to jam cameras with lasers and modify face recognition software to insert black bands over the images of human faces.

The fundamental truth of technology is that for every action there is a reaction. As CES is going on in Vegas, its doppelganger is meeting in Berlin. Hollywood studios discuss digital film watermarking to stop piracy as the buccaneers themselves meet quietly in Europe and figure out how to board the steadily sinking ship of intellectual protectionism while firing back at the privacy privateers.

Posted on January 03, 2006

Wikipedophilia

by David Holtzman

Wikipedia continues to impress me. Slashdot notes a BBC story citing a Nature article examining the collaborative encyclopedia's accuracy. Their conclusion? it's as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. There were slightly more errors per article in the free reference then in the venerable British instititution, but the articles were slightly longer, so net-net, it was mostly a wash.

In four years, Wikipedia has grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. It's free. The Britannica costs $1400 for the 32 volume set.

I look at the two and put my Darwinian thinking hat on and speculate on which one will be around ten years from now. The Britannica brand is strong, but I predict that in the future the company will focus on niche products, leaving the mainstream online encyclopedia market to the socialist librarians. Encarta drew first blood, but that clicking noise is the wikis biting through the jugular.

The Internet is the universal solvent of information. The post-atomic age aqua regia has barely begun its dissolution of the nice tidy intellectual property dividers painstakingly erected by two centuries of intellectual property lawyers.

I love the young information collectives that are the wikis and if that makes me a communist, than Zdravstvujte tovarishch!

Posted on December 15, 2005

Sony pulls spyware

by David Holtzman

Sony announced today that it's pulling their controversial copy protected CDS from the market temporarily. They had released 20 or so titles that had root kit software on it, so when run on PCs, they could install a small program that would stop the music from being ripped and copied onto an ipod and control the number of copies made of the music. Unfortunately they opened a nice big back door for anyone else that could slip in a program named the same and get unrestricted access to the schmuck, sorry--customer's computer.

What would we do if Sony was a small neighborhood store instead of a big multi-national? I wonder. The kinder souls amongst us would boycott them, the more aggressive would probably introduce the store windows to their two good friends, Mr. Brick and Mr. Bat.

(sigh) I miss small towns.

Posted on November 11, 2005

An essay in last week's online Business Week:

Tuesday October 25, 01:25 PM

Share the Knowledge, Expand the Wealth

By David H. Holtzman

In this new millennia, Americans are continuing one of the most important business transitions we have made as a nation -- from an economy dominated by manufacturing and distribution of hard goods to one driven by the conception and sale of ideas. The term "atoms to bits" is often used as shorthand to describe this dichotomy.

The prevalence of low-priced, networked computers and associated information technology has created digital cottage industries -- and therefore opportunities in new business areas as well as the disintermediation of traditional market sectors.

Share the Wealth: BW article

by David Holtzman

This is happening at a time when our global economic leadership is being challenged as never before. But as we evolve domestically to meet this international threat, we must avoid the trap of applying Industrial Era principles to businesses enabled by the Information Age -- or face the consequence of becoming inconsequential.

HUNTING AND GATHERING.

The Industrial Era was about the hunt for raw materials and their subsequent transformation into finished goods. Miners, farmers, lumberjacks, and fishermen gathered Mother Nature's bounty and turned it over to factory technicians, who converted it into the wares of industry. Workers mined iron ore, smelted it into steel, rolled it into plate, and shaped the metal into a bumper that was bolted onto a Corvette.

At each stage, the nation's economy benefited from the additive value. The end result of each step was a new commodity that could be purchased and used in any way that the entrepreneur saw fit to add value and realize a profit.

The computer is now the factory of the Information Age -- optimized not for automation but collaboration, and requiring a different legal framework. But key industries, most notably entertainment and software, have bamboozled Congress and much of the public into believing that their wares deserve the same protection that was awarded to say, a patent for blast furnaces in the mid 20th century.

Foragers in the Information Age use computers as their implements. Unlike the Earth, there are no raw materials in the cyber world waiting to be picked at like veins of ore. The Industrial Age was about discovery. The Information Age is about invention.

TRANSFORMATIVE PROCESS.

Manufacturing optimizes for replication. Technology grows from innovation. The 20th century rewarded craft, the 21st century -- art. Businesses based on bits may externally look like those from atoms, but at the behavioral level, they're fundamentally different.

Digital product development is less about aggregation and ownership of raw materials and more about manipulation of facts and ideas, concepts and values, pictures, sounds, video, and numbers -- much of which must be borrowed from the work of others and transformed in some new and hopefully lucrative way.

But without free and easy access to a wide variety of these intellectual resources, our information-based trade goods will be less competitive in the global marketplace because of increased time to market [compliance], fear of innovation [something new like file-sharing networks might be made illegal], and because our regulated goods will cost more -- like Californian cars requiring extra-emissions control gear.

INSPIRATION'S RAW MATERIALS.

What if American industries had to carry this kind of regulatory baggage during their nascent phase? If rights were attached to every primitive material such as a piece of ore and carried through each industrial stage, the shrink-wrap license for an automobile would be thousands of pages long. What might a car like that cost? The industrial cities of America -- Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit -- would never have come into being in such an environment.

Digital factories need to be supplied with large quantities of license-free supplies to grow, just as manufacturing industries needed plentiful and cheap raw material.

The growing strength of the digital economy has been well documented. The percentage of American products based on bits is rapidly increasing in comparison to those made from atoms. Artisans create Web sites and blogs that are viewable by hundreds of millions of readers. Musicians sample digital tracks and incorporate pieces in their own works. Graphic artists build modern compositions by layering on top of the handicraft of others.

CHANGE OF HEART.

Then there's software -- a superb example of collaboration. Software hasn't been built from scratch since the 1960s. Developers use libraries and "object classes" written by others. The distinguishing feature is how the building blocks are used conceptually in applications. The mission of the open software movement is exactly this: keeping critical code free.

If every software component that has ever been created had been legally protected, there would be no Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT - news) (MSFT) today. It's disingenuous that the same companies that benefited the most from the work of others are so keen on protecting their own. None of this is new. Professor Larry Lessig, founder of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, calls this zeitgeist the "commons," drawing a parallel to protected public grazing land in old English law.

But emerging information businesses can be crushed by the heavy-handed pinch of copyright and patent law, especially business-method or software patents. The protections afforded copyright owners have become ludicrous and go way beyond the original purpose of protecting reasonable revenue for the author. The so-called Sonny Bono Law passed by Congress in 1998 extends the lifetime of a corporate copyright up to 95 years or 70 years past an individual's death.

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS.

It's too early to understand the impact of legal protection of DNA patterns, but if the history of the pharmaceutical industry is any indication, it doesn't bode well for biotech entrepreneurs. Corporate-friendly intellectual-property overregulation is an impediment to the growth of the nascent U.S. digital economy.

The consequences for the U.S. from excessive protection of digital goods are not just ethical or aesthetic. They are financial -- and eventually they will lead to economic isolation. Domestic legal jabber will not halt the planetwide expansion of digital goods, especially in revenue-hungry countries like China.

The fortunes of the future will be made by cooperation and collaboration, not litigation. Share the wealth.

Posted on October 31, 2005