Linux.com

Feature: Legal

Lessig: IP protection a business, not cultural, battleground

By Chris Preimesberger on March 17, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

SAN FRANCISCO -- Stanford University law professor, author, and Creative Commons chairman Lawrence Lessig Tuesday sharpened the definition of the ongoing legal struggle to satisfy both proprietary and open source advocates through equitable intellectual property regulations. "Contrary to what many people see as a cultural war between conservative business types and liberal independents, this is not a 'commerce versus anything' conflict. It's about powerful (business) interests and if they can stop new innovators," Lessig said.

Lessig, one of the most outspoken and articulate scholars in the legalities of open source and intellectual property, was the keynote speaker on the opening day of the Genus Group's first Open Source Business Conference at the Westin St. Francis on Union Square. The conference, which concludes Wednesday and was organized by Novell's Matt Asay, is well attended and stocked with some of the most knowledgeable experts in the business of open source software.

Lessig, who spoke on "The Creator's Dilemma: Open Source, Open Society, Open Innovation," noted that U.S. intellectual property and copyright laws were first recorded in the 19th century, and that even rules written in the late 20th century are already out of step with the needs of today's connected business world. "These laws require permission up front to use others' ideas for inspiration. Opportunities are being threatened by the mix and remix of culture," Lessig said.

Technology finds that it must fit itself to conform to last century's laws, rather than the laws fitting themselves to the technology, he said.

Lessig.jpg
Lawrence Lessig
"These laws have become an insane and unintended burden on creators, because nobody had conceived of the Internet at the time, which has changed everything," he said. "Nobody had any idea of the new business opportunities and new businesses that were to be created by the Internet. This is why we need real reform now in intellectual property protection. Unfortunately, I don't see anybody taking the lead in Washington to do anything about this."

Growth in creative industries such as radio, television, movies, publishing, music -- and, yes, software -- is threatened when "a few powerful interests control how culture develops. Growth must occur in creative businesses when they protect themselves from these controlling interests," Lessig said.

Creative people should mark all of their original content and allow it to be licensed according to their own will. To do this, they should register it with a qualified third party and allow it to be available for public review, so that the broad concepts of their creativity spur others on to additional creativity, he said. Every artist should share something in the public domain to some extent, Lessig said, while making sure that the work as a whole is protected as to its ownership.

"Let the commercial interests compete on execution of the ideas; that's the free enterprise system," Lessig said. "But the creators need to maintain the freedom to distribute their ideas any way they want. They shouldn't be bogged down by 20-year copyrights and other old restrictions that bottle up good ideas" on keep them on the shelf, Lessig said.

Lessig, whose latest book is "The Future of Ideas" (Random House), used the analogy of photography to illustrate his point.

"Daguerre created his photo process in 1839. It was cumbersome, difficult to use, and expensive. Photography's growth chart was very slow, to say the least. In 1888, George Eastman invented the Kodak camera, which was much easier to use, and inexpensive. The photography growth chart took off very fast. Eastman didn't need 'permission' to build a better camera. Had there been restrictions on Daguerre's idea early on, the history of photography would be very different from what we have today," Lessig said.

Lessig also used a custom-made video to illustrate a point that "piracy" as a modern term is often taken out of context and most often considered something illegal, when it can also be used for creative purposes such as entertainment.

The brief but hilarious video consisted of clips of President Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking at different appearances, but the soundtrack was a recording of Lionel Richie and Diana Ross' sugary "Endless Love." The video was edited so meticulously well that it appeared as though Bush and Blair were mouthing the exact words that Richie and Ross were singing.

"Now that can be considered 'piracy,'" Lessig said. "I've 'pirated' music and video belonging to someone else, and this is the result." The audience enjoyed it. No doubt the piece would be a major comedic hit on commercial television.

"Open source depends upon intellectual property rules for power, so it can set its terms," Lessig said. "It is not contrary to copyright law. What we want to do is strike a balance between ideas and enforcement."

Silicon Valley as a whole has been "pathetic" in defending the rights of its creative people. "We believe in competition between business models and within business models," Lessig said, "and monopolies tend to weaken this competition. Support for open platforms is also support for business in general. Support for competition is also cupport for culture. We have another 'Kodak opportunity.' We need to eliminate the debate between capitalism and communism and reframe it to between creators and business."

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Lessig: IP protection a business, not cultural, battleground

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Internet Commons Congress - March 24-25

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2004 12:04 AM
If this was of interest to you, but you missed it
check out the <A HREF="http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc/" TITLE="nyfairuse.org">Internet Commons Congress</a nyfairuse.org>
near Washington DC. The panels are packed
with folks that have the same
grave concerns about the freedom to inovate on the
internet.


The scheduale for this FREE event is at

<A HREF="http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc/sked.xhtml" TITLE="nyfairuse.org">
http://www.nyfairuse.org/icc/sked.xhtml</a nyfairuse.org>

#

Re:Internet Commons Congress - March 24-25

Posted by: roblimo on March 18, 2004 02:33 AM
Article coming shortly.

- R

#

link missing

Posted by: Chris Bruner on March 18, 2004 12:50 AM
Where's the link to the video<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Re:link missing

Posted by: CJ Preimesberger on March 18, 2004 01:16 AM
If there was one, I'd add. Thanks for asking.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp

#

Re:link missing

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2004 05:53 AM

Re:link missing

Posted by: CJ Preimesberger on March 18, 2004 12:56 PM
Thank you. It's now in the story.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp

#

This Statement

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2004 03:07 AM
"What we want to do is strike a balance between ideas and enforcement."

And that's why he will never win - because the corps have the money and the government has the guns - and defending the corps and government's "right" to control ideas is fighting with both hands tied behind your back.

Intellectual property is an invalid oxymoronic (and actually moronic) concept of property and should be abolished.

#

Re:This Statement

Posted by: CJ Preimesberger on March 18, 2004 04:19 AM
Would you mind elaborating a bit on your last statement? Why should there be no accounting for IP? You obviously believe strongly enough in that statement to make it public here. Back it up.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp

#

Re:This Statement

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2004 09:37 AM
"the government has the guns"
Bzzt. Wrong answer. You need a constitution check - especially Amendment Two. Remember that the government-people with the guns are sworn to uphold that Constitution. Why do the people have the guns? So that your vote counts. (That's the whole "necessary to the security of a free State" bit.)

#

Re:This Statement

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2004 10:37 AM
Intellectual property is an invalid oxymoronic (and actually moronic) concept of property and should be abolished.

No doubt written by someone who has none.

#

Re:This Statement

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2004 02:08 PM
This seems to be a very naive comment. Please elaborate - especially on your last sentence. Do you mean IP property in general (such as patents on new inventions) or software specifically?

#

IP abolition

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 21, 2004 11:20 PM
hear, hear! setting up a stable government (stable in the sense it won't degrade to some kind of despotism) seems to be a real art and science, but sadly does not seem to be recognised as such; the American system of government is founded on an oh-so-noble constitution, but sadly has slowly been corrupted; copyrights for a "limited time"? seems unlimited today!

"KISS" (keep it simple stupid) is a principle that should apply to the creation of governments; if government can't be trusted to maintain "IP rights" for a "limited time" then they should not be able to enforce "IP" in the first place

"IP" really *is* oxymoronic anyway, and history shows repeatedly (for example, pre-IP to post-IP comparisons) that it hinders rather than helps *society and its individuals* (such as those *supposedly* holding the patent/copyright/protection)

almost every example of IP being used in a way that stimulates creation (written-authors holding copyright to their books, for example), seems to have a counter-example of how the individual could earn a living without enforcing IP; other benefits include freer publishing markets (less publisher control!), and a much larger public domain for creation!

GrimRC (UK resident)

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya