The seemingly laissez-faire tech industry has once again been split by legislative action. This time it stems from the ominous World Intellectual Property Organization, which seeks to control and regulate yet another aspect of communication: broadcasters.
In short, the proposed broadcast treaty would grant broadcasters “a 50-year monopoly over the re-use of copies of the works it transmitted.”
Or in other words: in order to publish new material, content creators wanting to cite, reference and otherwise use someone else’s work, would now be required to receive permission not just from the original authors, but also permission from the entity that originally broadcast it.
If passed, this would deliver a crippling blow to the nascent podcasting industry as well as webcasting services such as YouTube and Google Video.
And like network neutrality, firms that stand to financially gain from this legislation are for it. This ‘cui bono’ phenomenon was recently discussed in a good article entitled, “The Snare of Government Subsidies.”
One wonders if content creators will one day be required to receive permission from energy companies, as they play an important role in providing power to both broadcasters and publishers alike. Are the gatekeepers rejoicing?
{ 15 comments }
Interesting and outrageous, I fully agree. Once again business freaks leaching on artistic work.
Thanks also for mentioning the WIPO. I checked their website and noticed something to laugh about in this sentence on the new “trademark treaty”…
“Regulations under the Singapore Treaty expressly mention new types of marks, such as hologram marks, motion marks, color marks, and marks consisting of non-visible signs, such as sound or taste marks.”
Don’t misunderstand me, my posts on copyright speak for me, and trade mark may function to some extent as a signature in my view (the Apple/Beatles case not being necessarily one though), but… the latest is just too much isn’t it? A taste as a trade mark? How about the taste of s… as a trade mark for government ?
Artisan,
Out of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, perhaps the only one that might NOT be a complete INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY is the trademark.
Couldn’t duplicating somebody’s trademark be an act of fraud? Fraud can be resovled in the market, but it is still a good question. Thoughts please.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re talking to the wrong person since my view is that basic trademark infringement would be a fraud for the same reason as copyright infringement is definitely a fraud, that is to be resolved by non centralized market agencies.
No such thing as a State initiated “monopoly” in my eyes thus, unless you consider property as a State initiated MATERIAL MONOPOLY also.
Let me confirm your feeling though. Trademark fraud consists in signature stealing, therefore damaging the identity of a company by imposing on it responsibility for bad design, material flaws, etc… that it has nothing to do with, but suffers from. There’s no respect for property possible without the respect for identity.
I consider however, unlike WIPO thus, that functional inventions are as little related with the identity of their inventor as running fast is related to Karl Lewis. And broadcasting a show is not more tied to the identity of the performers than a TV speaker in the news would be linked with the bombing of Lebanon.
Artisan,
My point is that there is NO SUCH THING as a copyright outside of the state. Property rights only apply to scarce goods, and ideas are not scarce goods in the classical sense. If I copy a CD a million times, I in no way take property away from the copyright holder. I reduce his ability to profit, but nowhere in natural law or libertarian thought is there a “right to profit” from your creation. The same goes for patents.
Some folks who are against Intellectual property (IP) claim that patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all solely enforced by the state. I was just saying that I believe Trademarks do have a role outside the state.
But saying that copyright violation is a fraud is inaccurate. In fact, the origin of the term copyright was in reference to material monopolies. In Europe, a copyright was a state-granted licence to print materials.
Patents and copyrights are nothing more than a wealth redistribution program from consumers to patent and copyright holders through the form of higher prices.
Nick Bradley, allow me to disagree.
Leaving the historical and utilitarian origin of copyright aside, let me just concentrate on the definition of property. You use this little (part of a) definition as many libertarian do, without questioning much its limits:
Property rights only apply to scarce goods, and ideas are not scarce goods in the classical sense.
As I tried to formulate in a later post on Dr. Kinsella’s article, there are several things that are anterior to property rights in order to define what human striving in society is. One of them is free will, the other one is individuality. If you destroy one of those, it becomes useless to talk about property.
So, if you could agree that property has no sense w/o individuality, you should understand how any alien action that have the effect of weakening individual uniqueness undermines property rights too.
Plagiarism which is protected (only) by copyright is a weakening of someone’s individual right to uniqueness.
And when you think of it: patents may need the presence of a State to grant monopolies, but copyright certainly doesn’t.
I meant of course:
Plagiarism against which one is protected (only) by copyright, is a weakening of someone’s individual right to uniqueness.
Artisan, I’m not sure I follow what you are saying. Individuals are always unique by nature. Even identical twins can’t occupy the same space at the same time, and they will always have different experiences as a result. You would have to do a lot more than copy a book to seriously threaten someone’s uniqueness.
This argument based on identity seems to cover a lot more than just copyright. Potentially, wearing the same clothes as another or parodying a celebrity could violate the “right to uniqueness.”
If someone wants to preserve the uniqueness of their writings, they already have a simple way to do it: Don’t publish them. Then, any violation of the author’s wishes must be preceded by an act of physical theft or fraud. Copyright is an attempt to eat your cake and still have it. It’s like “I want to go out in public with frumpy clothes and messed up hair, but I don’t want anyone to think I’m a slob.” or “I want everyone to hear what I have to say, but I don’t want them to repeat it.” By doing this (by decree rather than voluntary agreement), are you not violating the individuality of others?
Artisan,
Where to begin?
First, Plagiarism is not necessarily a copyright violation. Plagaiarism is a self-enforcing action in the market. If an actor within an intellectual community copies somebody else’s ideas without giving due credit, he is blackballed for being dishonest and fraudulent. Punishment of plagiarism is a market system, independent of the state.
Secondly, how can you make the claim that IP enhances individuality. Have you looked at the internet, where IP is weaker than in other realms? By far the most creative sector of the software is in open-source software, where there no IP rights.
What is the hottest web browser right now? Open-source Firefox.
What is the hottest file-sharing system? Open-source BitTorrent.
What is the best search engine? Open-source Google.
What are more and more servers running on? Open-source Apache.
If one is to be pro-IP from a libertarian standpoint, how on earth do you create the arbitrary ownership rights? Is it 10 years that your work is covered, or 20 years, or is it 50 years? Completely arbitrary.
Some of the most creative music out there right now are mixes played in clubs. If copyright laws were fully enforced, this form of music may not even exist. Should a cover band get full permission from a rock band to perform their cover songs? What if I read a book to schoolchilren? After all, the kids didn’t pay for it, so why should they hear it for free?
MORE creativity and MORE diversity is present when there are less patents and copyrights, not more.
Posted by: PR
Individuals are always unique by nature. You would have to do a lot more than copy a book to seriously threaten someone’s uniqueness…. This argument based on identity seems to cover a lot more than just copyright. Potentially, wearing the same clothes as another or parodying a celebrity could violate the “right to uniqueness.”
The fact that everyone is unique by nature isn’t always economically relevant. In the case of an art work it is. People buy art BECAUSE it is the unmistakable product of a unique individuality. That’s the ideal that art reaches for and on which scale it is measured to evaluate its market worth basically. When you buy a screwdriver, you know there’s thousands just the same. The unique individuality of the maker is not relevant to your decision to buy it. They are easily to be dissociated. An Art work cannot be easily dissociated from its author’s uniqueness though. This makes a special tie of property or if you prefer homesteading between them.
In the case of mere unauthorized duplication of an art work, you must consider that the intention of the real author is not to “flood the market by all means and for free” with copies of his art. His objective intention is to trade, in the form of the art work copy, an access to his individual “refinement”, against money. Now objectively and economically, the access to his refinement, can only be considered as a substantial part of that individual refinement, since art has really no further functional purpose. Therefore, nobody else has a homesteading tie to the reproductions.
The “threat” to individuality expresses itself not so vaguely as you imply, but through the denial of homesteading rights as a definition of property. Imagine homesteading of virgin resources would be denied to man. It sounds in fact like you argue that a man cannot pretend to property through homesteading because “it’s so easy for others to do that too”. You deny thus the fact that the individuality of someone can give him a specific tie to something.
Imagine I come first on a property (that’s my unique identity), where I erect a solar panel. The neighbor arrives later and builds a larger solar panel that blocks all the sun now on my ground. A libertarian like Rothbard considers that, as a homesteader of the light resource on that spot, the homesteader has acquired dependant rights that reach beyond the mere border of his ground and prevents neighbours to do “everything they want” with their own property like you’d advocate. Moreover the homesteader could decide to accept the presence of another blocking solar pannel against a financial compensation (he has the right to set the amount though)
Nick Bradley,
If an actor within an intellectual community copies somebody else’s ideas without giving due credit, he is blackballed for being dishonest and fraudulent.
That’s if it gets noticed. Before that he can make lots of bucks… or shall I say steal? How’s the community going to make him pay the money back if there was no property rights involved?
Punishment of plagiarism is a market system, independent of the state.
That’s what I’m saying
Secondly, how can you make the claim that IP enhances individuality. Have you looked at the internet, where IP is weaker than in other realms? By far the most creative sector of the software is in open-source software, where there no IP rights.
What is the hottest web browser right now? Open-source Firefox.
What is the hottest file-sharing system? Open-source BitTorrent.
What is the best search engine? Open-source Google.
What are more and more servers running on? Open-source Apache.
You misunderstood me. I said copyright is inherent to individuality, not the so-called IP in general, which deals also with patent. Patent’s a whole different story, to which all your examples relate.
If one is to be pro-IP from a libertarian standpoint, how on earth do you create the arbitrary ownership rights? Is it 10 years that your work is covered, or 20 years, or is it 50 years? Completely arbitrary.
Copyright should last forever. Nothing arbitrary. You’re talking about the implementation of some rights in the law, which is somewhat arbitrary I agree. I’m talking about the ethics behind the rights.
Some of the most creative music out there right now are mixes played in clubs. If copyright laws were fully enforced, this form of music may not even exist.
If you’re talking about public places, I suppose they pay some kind of royalties. On private parties you do what you want.
Should a cover band get full permission from a rock band to perform their cover songs?
It’s the author’s choice to see if he sues you for doing what you do. Maybe he thinks it’s cool.
What if I read a book to schoolchilren? After all, the kids didn’t pay for it, so why should they hear it for free?
Yes why if they can pay you just for reading it? Still, it’s the author’s choice to see if he sues you for doing what you do. Maybe he thinks it’s cool.
MORE creativity and MORE diversity is present when there are less patents and copyrights, not more.
This is a mere utilitarian argument. Besides the fact that it is not to be scientifically proven, it has nothing to do with ethics. Speaking of creativity by the way, I still like the real Elvis recordings better than those of all the impersonation I see.
Artisan,
You actually believe that copyright should last forever? That an acting troupe should be paying royalties to Shakespeare’s nearest-living relatives for performing “Hamlet” in 2006?
Just a heads up — google’s search engine isn’t open source.
*waits for people to demand to know what I think about every possible issue*
I’m not a nexpert on Google, but I do know that all of their Apps are open-source and Google is all linux-based, which is open source.
re: GOOG, this may be of interest, though it isn’t necessarily supportive of the “GOOG is open-source”-take : http://www.i-hacked.com/content/view/23/42/
And, this, on IP, in general, in India, I thought was interesting: http://coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1246
Artisan, You actually believe that copyright should last forever? That an acting troupe should be paying royalties to Shakespeare’s nearest-living relatives for performing “Hamlet” in 2006?
Nick Bradley, you must realize that one of the reasons why „classical” plays and scores are doing so well nowadays is the absence of royalties. This shifts the focus on the old times more than objectivity would ask for perhaps. Sure, maybe society owes a special kind of respect to the old times, but this looks more like the “old times” owes something to the new democratic society.
After some times, copyright slips into so-called “public property” thus. It comforts also a certain audience to believe that the access to artistic masterpieces is somehow “due” to the public. It supports the whole Museum concept of a tax financed National Art Gallery too, and a democratic State approved culture too. Not a sound thing.
Should an oil field in the ocean belong to everyone after Exxon has pumped 20 years or 50 years in it?
Comments on this entry are closed.