It's been a fascinating few days in the politics of information.
Late in the day last Friday, the House Republican Study Committee released a report that took a fresh look (for American major political parties) at copyright reform, which has since set off a firestorm.
The report addresses three common misconceptions about copyright:
The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content (No, the purpose is to incentivize the production of creative works)
Copyright is free market capitalism at work (Actually, it's a form of government subsidized monopoly)
The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity (Actually, the current regime stifles many aspects of modern innovation and productivity, and leads to rent-seeking and economic drag)
Then lists a handful of practical problems with today's copyright regime:
It's been a fascinating few days in the politics of information.
Late in the day last Friday, the House Republican Study Committee released a report that took a fresh look (for American major political parties) at copyright reform, which has since set off a firestorm.
The report addresses three common misconceptions about copyright:
The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content (No, the purpose is to incentivize the production of creative works)
Copyright is free market capitalism at work (Actually, it's a form of government subsidized monopoly)
The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity (Actually, the current regime stifles many aspects of modern innovation and productivity, and leads to rent-seeking and economic drag)
Then lists a handful of practical problems with today's copyright regime:
Retarding the creation of a robust DJ/Remix industry;
Hampering scientific inquiry;
Stifling the creation of a public library;
Discouraging added-value industries;
Penalizing legitimate journalism and oversight.
And finally goes on to suggest four major reforms that would improve the situation:
Reform Statutory damages Under current law, damages are generally applied by statute (not by actual damages), leading to typical requests for $150,000 per infringement of a copyrighted work. This is out of touch with the reality of actual damages, clogs up the court system, and as Khanna suggests: "the idea that your iPod could make you liable for a billion dollars in damages is excessive".
Expand fair use While the US has fairly generous fair use provisions relative to elsewhere in the world, it's still not kept pace with todays technology (copying as part of everyday management of digital files) or culture (remix).
Punish false copyright claims Under today's laws, infringing a rights holder's copyright (i.e., by copying or sharing a file without permission) is severely punished, while incorrectly violating someone's lawful use of content (like when the DNC livestream was taken down -- incorrectly -- for using copyrighted music) is completely unpunishable. This is ridiculous and unfair.
Limit copyright term Khanna suggests a reduction in the term of copyright, which -- for those who don't follow this space -- has grown from the constitutional provision of 14 years (renewable for another 14 years if the author was alive) to the current system of lifetime of the author plus 70 years. The latest extension, in 1998, has been dubbed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, as it was timed with the impending expiration of Disney's copyright of the original Steamboat Willie film.
For folks who have followed the copyright debate, none of these ideas are new. What is new is hearing them from the official research arm of a major political party in the US.
Not surprisingly, the report received immediate praise from many in the tech community, who have grown increasingly frustrated with the state of copyright law in the US and its incompatibility with digital culture and modern innovation.
Perhaps more interestingly, the report was also hailed by members of the Republican party, who see this as one of the key issues for the future of the party -- one that can help them re-connect with a younger generation that has the web in their blood (and therefore has a very different conception of content ownership and the right to remix). Here is a tweet from influential republican strategist Patrick Ruffini:
And then, in a move that was not at all surprising, the RSC retracted the report, less than 24 hours later and reportedly under pressure from copyright industry lobbyists.
All of this raises a question we have been asking for some time now: who will be the party of the Internet Generation?
Our view (and I'll get to who "we" is in a second) is that the internet -- and network-based solutions powered by it -- have caused a substantial mind shift in young people. The Internet Generation simultaneously understand the importance of community-driven solutions and non-economic forms of production, and also have an aversion to top-down, bureaucratic regulation. Neither the ideology of the left nor the right fits. The "we" I'm referring to is the group that Steven Johnson dubs the "Peer Progressives" -- a group that believes in networks, markets, open platforms and collective action. My colleague Albert Wenger has written a fair bit about the idea.
So, another way to ask the question above is: who in America will adopt the Peer Progressive agenda? Our view is that whoever does, will -- by using the lens of network-based solutions -- be both most effective at solving our biggest problems AND most effective at attracting the Internet Generation to its ranks.
In today's Times, David Brooks has an opinion piece on The Conservative Future, in which he teases out some of the tensions facing conservative politics, outlines several sub movements, and specifically mentions the RSC report and it's author, Derek Khanna:
Rising star Derek Khanna wrote a heralded paper on intellectual property rights for the House Republican Study Committee that was withdrawn by higher-ups in the party, presumably because it differed from the usual lobbyist-driven position.
....
Since Nov. 6, the G.O.P. has experienced an epidemic of open-mindedness. The party may evolve quickly. If so, it’ll be powerfully influenced by people with names like Reihan, Ramesh, Yuval and Derek Khanna.
It will be interesting to see if the GOP does try to become the party of Peer Progressives and the Internet Generation. This question is completely up for grabs right now -- I'd say the Dems have a leg up on social issues, but they've got a long way to go on understanding the Internet; and both the Republicans and Libertarians have some natural alignments but some big disconnects. This will be a really interesting story to watch play out, and see who ultimately finds the new center (which isn't really at the center, but perhaps on a slightly different dimension).
Just one of the many stories to get overshadowed by #frankenstorm today is the opening arguments of Kirtsaeng vs. Wiley in the Supreme Court. This case will test whether we (as in, citizens of the US) have the right to re-sell items which may contain copyrighted components that were originally sold overseas. So, for instance, an iPad that contains copyrighted software, or even a house that contains parts with copyrighted text or designs on them. Joe Mullin at Ars Technica is calling this the Intellectual Property case of the decade. Marvin Ammori has a detailed writeup in the Atlantic from earlier this summer. Demand Progress is launching a campaign today. I've been getting slightly mixed reviews from legal folks I know regarding the importance of this. Is it, as Joe suggests, the IP case of the decade, or will this just make some limited set of commercial transactions more difficult. For those with the inclination, the 30 Amicus briefs filed on the case should make good reading. The one thing I know is that it rubs me wrong that the content industry keeps trying to have their cake and eat it too re: ownership rights. It's all about owners rights when we're talking about fighting piracy, but "it's really just a lease" when consumers buy stuff.
This post has been a long time coming. This weekend, we hosted a BBQ at our house as part of the Summer of Internet Freedom. Internet Freedom is nice and all, but really, it was just an excuse to fire up a batch of burger dogs. What's a burger dog? I'm glad you asked. A burger dog is delicious snack that solves two critical problems: 1) Burgers are too big. Especially at BBQs with lots of delicious food, burgers should be snacks, not meals. And 2) you should only have to buy one kind of bun, really. And since hot dogs will never fit on a hamburger bun, there you have it. So, a burger dog is a small hamburger made to fit in a hot dog bun. It's really quite good. Here's how you do it: 1) Make the patties. Start with a small handful, roll it roughly to the shape of a hot dog, and then flatten it out by slapping it gently with your fingers and shaping the edges. As a guide, a properly sized burger dog, pre-cooked, should take up the width of your first three fingers, and extend from the your fingertips down to the inside of your palm. Pre-cooked, a burger dog is maybe 1/5 of a pound (my 3 lbs of ground beef produced 15 burger dogs).
Retarding the creation of a robust DJ/Remix industry;
Hampering scientific inquiry;
Stifling the creation of a public library;
Discouraging added-value industries;
Penalizing legitimate journalism and oversight.
And finally goes on to suggest four major reforms that would improve the situation:
Reform Statutory damages Under current law, damages are generally applied by statute (not by actual damages), leading to typical requests for $150,000 per infringement of a copyrighted work. This is out of touch with the reality of actual damages, clogs up the court system, and as Khanna suggests: "the idea that your iPod could make you liable for a billion dollars in damages is excessive".
Expand fair use While the US has fairly generous fair use provisions relative to elsewhere in the world, it's still not kept pace with todays technology (copying as part of everyday management of digital files) or culture (remix).
Punish false copyright claims Under today's laws, infringing a rights holder's copyright (i.e., by copying or sharing a file without permission) is severely punished, while incorrectly violating someone's lawful use of content (like when the DNC livestream was taken down -- incorrectly -- for using copyrighted music) is completely unpunishable. This is ridiculous and unfair.
Limit copyright term Khanna suggests a reduction in the term of copyright, which -- for those who don't follow this space -- has grown from the constitutional provision of 14 years (renewable for another 14 years if the author was alive) to the current system of lifetime of the author plus 70 years. The latest extension, in 1998, has been dubbed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, as it was timed with the impending expiration of Disney's copyright of the original Steamboat Willie film.
For folks who have followed the copyright debate, none of these ideas are new. What is new is hearing them from the official research arm of a major political party in the US.
Not surprisingly, the report received immediate praise from many in the tech community, who have grown increasingly frustrated with the state of copyright law in the US and its incompatibility with digital culture and modern innovation.
Perhaps more interestingly, the report was also hailed by members of the Republican party, who see this as one of the key issues for the future of the party -- one that can help them re-connect with a younger generation that has the web in their blood (and therefore has a very different conception of content ownership and the right to remix). Here is a tweet from influential republican strategist Patrick Ruffini:
And then, in a move that was not at all surprising, the RSC retracted the report, less than 24 hours later and reportedly under pressure from copyright industry lobbyists.
All of this raises a question we have been asking for some time now: who will be the party of the Internet Generation?
Our view (and I'll get to who "we" is in a second) is that the internet -- and network-based solutions powered by it -- have caused a substantial mind shift in young people. The Internet Generation simultaneously understand the importance of community-driven solutions and non-economic forms of production, and also have an aversion to top-down, bureaucratic regulation. Neither the ideology of the left nor the right fits. The "we" I'm referring to is the group that Steven Johnson dubs the "Peer Progressives" -- a group that believes in networks, markets, open platforms and collective action. My colleague Albert Wenger has written a fair bit about the idea.
So, another way to ask the question above is: who in America will adopt the Peer Progressive agenda? Our view is that whoever does, will -- by using the lens of network-based solutions -- be both most effective at solving our biggest problems AND most effective at attracting the Internet Generation to its ranks.
In today's Times, David Brooks has an opinion piece on The Conservative Future, in which he teases out some of the tensions facing conservative politics, outlines several sub movements, and specifically mentions the RSC report and it's author, Derek Khanna:
Rising star Derek Khanna wrote a heralded paper on intellectual property rights for the House Republican Study Committee that was withdrawn by higher-ups in the party, presumably because it differed from the usual lobbyist-driven position.
....
Since Nov. 6, the G.O.P. has experienced an epidemic of open-mindedness. The party may evolve quickly. If so, it’ll be powerfully influenced by people with names like Reihan, Ramesh, Yuval and Derek Khanna.
It will be interesting to see if the GOP does try to become the party of Peer Progressives and the Internet Generation. This question is completely up for grabs right now -- I'd say the Dems have a leg up on social issues, but they've got a long way to go on understanding the Internet; and both the Republicans and Libertarians have some natural alignments but some big disconnects. This will be a really interesting story to watch play out, and see who ultimately finds the new center (which isn't really at the center, but perhaps on a slightly different dimension).
Just one of the many stories to get overshadowed by #frankenstorm today is the opening arguments of Kirtsaeng vs. Wiley in the Supreme Court. This case will test whether we (as in, citizens of the US) have the right to re-sell items which may contain copyrighted components that were originally sold overseas. So, for instance, an iPad that contains copyrighted software, or even a house that contains parts with copyrighted text or designs on them. Joe Mullin at Ars Technica is calling this the Intellectual Property case of the decade. Marvin Ammori has a detailed writeup in the Atlantic from earlier this summer. Demand Progress is launching a campaign today. I've been getting slightly mixed reviews from legal folks I know regarding the importance of this. Is it, as Joe suggests, the IP case of the decade, or will this just make some limited set of commercial transactions more difficult. For those with the inclination, the 30 Amicus briefs filed on the case should make good reading. The one thing I know is that it rubs me wrong that the content industry keeps trying to have their cake and eat it too re: ownership rights. It's all about owners rights when we're talking about fighting piracy, but "it's really just a lease" when consumers buy stuff.
This post has been a long time coming. This weekend, we hosted a BBQ at our house as part of the Summer of Internet Freedom. Internet Freedom is nice and all, but really, it was just an excuse to fire up a batch of burger dogs. What's a burger dog? I'm glad you asked. A burger dog is delicious snack that solves two critical problems: 1) Burgers are too big. Especially at BBQs with lots of delicious food, burgers should be snacks, not meals. And 2) you should only have to buy one kind of bun, really. And since hot dogs will never fit on a hamburger bun, there you have it. So, a burger dog is a small hamburger made to fit in a hot dog bun. It's really quite good. Here's how you do it: 1) Make the patties. Start with a small handful, roll it roughly to the shape of a hot dog, and then flatten it out by slapping it gently with your fingers and shaping the edges. As a guide, a properly sized burger dog, pre-cooked, should take up the width of your first three fingers, and extend from the your fingertips down to the inside of your palm. Pre-cooked, a burger dog is maybe 1/5 of a pound (my 3 lbs of ground beef produced 15 burger dogs).
2) Grill it. Since burger dogs are relatively thin, you don't need to grill them for very long. Over a medium-high heat, I grill for several minutes, without flipping, until the juices start to come through the top. Then, a single flip. Then, grill for a few more minutes, adding 1/2 slice of american cheese (or a whole slice, cut in half and then staggered lengthwise, if you're feeling cheesy) at the end.
3) Deck it out. The most important topping for a burger dog is a sandwich-sliced kosher pickle. They (magically) happen to be exactly the length of a hot dog bun. I also prepare tomatoes and onions -- half-cut, then sliced thinly. This one has everything:
4) Enjoy. So delicious! And since they're small, you can totally have two! Our hand model is none other than Jake Shapiro, proprietor of Public Radio Exchange (and fellow lover of Internet Freedom).
That's it! Burger Dogs FTW!
2) Grill it. Since burger dogs are relatively thin, you don't need to grill them for very long. Over a medium-high heat, I grill for several minutes, without flipping, until the juices start to come through the top. Then, a single flip. Then, grill for a few more minutes, adding 1/2 slice of american cheese (or a whole slice, cut in half and then staggered lengthwise, if you're feeling cheesy) at the end.
3) Deck it out. The most important topping for a burger dog is a sandwich-sliced kosher pickle. They (magically) happen to be exactly the length of a hot dog bun. I also prepare tomatoes and onions -- half-cut, then sliced thinly. This one has everything:
4) Enjoy. So delicious! And since they're small, you can totally have two! Our hand model is none other than Jake Shapiro, proprietor of Public Radio Exchange (and fellow lover of Internet Freedom).
