YouTube, Copyright and You
Thanks to my Web Production professor here at the University of Sydney, Amit Kelkar, for providing a link to this video; I can’t believe I haven’t seen it before! Prior to watching it I hadn’t realized the true community that YouTube has become. It really has enabled millions of people to connect on a depth that previously has never been possible. In a way, YouTube has become the dominant human presence on the internet, and enabled humans to interact through technology on an incredibly personal level. The connections we can witness as participating observers are truly amazing, and often very personal.
If you have some time, watch this entire video. It was a presentation given to the Library of Congress back in 2008 and is essentially a social commentary on YouTube and its significance. Nothing I write will do it justice, so if you can find 55 minutes to spare, watch it:
Barring that, watch the short excerpt (after the break) from from 45:16 in the original video. From here on in the video I had tears in my eyes, primarily because it hits so close to home, but also because it provides a really good viewpoint on what’s wrong with the copyright and patent system in place in the United States at the moment, from a perspective that relates to just about everyone.
Lawrence Lessig talked about this very eloquently at TED in 2007, as highlighted in the video. Criminalizing and pushing underground innovation and creativity; making the instinct that technology inspires illegal. Forcing “Ordinary people [to] live life against the law”. “That realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting. And in a Democracy we ought to be able to do better”. No doubt it’s a bit of a politically charged subtext calling for the repeal of the DMCA and similar laws so that more traditional fair use laws can prevail, and to overhaul copyright to bring about system that once again promotes open collaboration, creation and innovation (Especially given the original audience), but that doesn’t change its accuracy.
The whole idea of “Intellectual Property” is ridiculous. Patents, while they once served a valid role to encourage innovation by rewarding the innovator, only serve to stifle innovation and keep our legal system busy dealing with meaningless (in the sense of social detriment or contribution) cases.
The instinct to re-mix, enhance, and improve upon that technology inspires needs to be allowed to flourish. I have no idea what a fair and reasonable system might be, but I do know that the one we have now simply cannot work. Patents, NDAs, exclusivity agreements.. these are all essentially contracts to ensure profitability without continual innovation. A system that truly promotes innovation (and is thus in the best interest of the general populous) would reward true continual innovation, not courtroom victories. It is practically impossible to create a modern technology product without infringing on a dozen companies’ patents, and big companies like Apple and Google know this. So to compete they go ahead and infringe knowing if anyone sues them they’ll likely be violating some of their patents and be able to sue back or come to a cross licensing agreement.
The entire industry is built around litigation, and it truly is stifling innovation. If you haven’t realized it yet, the situation is actually pretty dire. If we don’t fix the system we have now, our country, once a hotbed of innovation, will become a relic of the past. Countries like China, which in practice, embrace a much more open and collaborative system where the “stealing” of ideas is considered the norm, are well positioned (Especially given their current manufacturing capabilities) to become the next dominant world leaders in terms of innovation at least. I’m not saying China is perfect; their behavior in the areas of censorship and human rights leave a lot to be desired, but they’ve certainly got the right idea when it comes to innovation.
In the interest of perhaps starting an interesting and engaging discussion, I’ll close this post with a question: What system do you think the United States should adopt to re-invigorate creativity and innovation amongst its populous? Post your answers (and obviously any comments) in comments and I’ll do my best to reply to everyone!
Glad to hear that the road warriors are back! The 2.5 weeks of adventure, will certainly create fond memories for a lifetime-
Regarding the above topic and to your point, I’ve attached a link which certainly creates doubt around the fringes of the DMCA in yet another specialized area -may not be an ‘appropriate’ time to respond though- perhaps law school?
http://www.daisy.org/forums/275
Adam, fascinating post – great job, but it’s a very challenging issue where the history of innovation and a comparison of the levels of innovation in different systems with different levels of protection of ideas needs further consideration. Technology has created all kinds of opportunities for improved expressiveness on the back of other people’s original work, quite often enhancing that original work. But then we also have to look at the really big, most important innovations over the last two centuries or even just twenty years whether it be in technology, biomedical, communications, the industrial sectors or many other fields and ask ourselves if the really big leaps forward would have occurred if there were not some mechanisms for protecting thoughts. I do spend a bit of time traveling in China and hear pretty regularly that the culture of innovation lags significantly there because ideas are less protected.
You have furthered a big, important and messy idea here, but I am not quite ready to abandon what has been a system that has promoted perhaps the most concentrated amount of innovation in the history of mankind without believing that we have a new approach that will sustain or increase that. There are two many good ideas out there that may go undeveloped if not well protected, and I am worried that we already see that in the area of medicine where important potential innovation are not being pursued because of probable socialization if there is a good outcome.
Glad that you are tackling these important ideas and thanks for making me think about these things for a few minutes. Now I have to get back to cultivating a couple of hundred younger minds, at least some of whom I hope will become innovators!
Safe travels,
John (Alex’s dad)
@John:
I agree, I don’t think abandoning the system we have in place is the answer, though it certainly needs to be modified to work better with modern technology and the internet. Ditching the DMCA, a law which really does nothing but serve the financial interests of big business (and even then not very effectively) would be a great start. That would at least put “Copyright” back to where it was prior to the DMCA’s inception in 1998 in the United States (Worldwide, the similar WIPO treaties should be repealed). As it stands, the DMCA skews the balance away from end-users and towards large companies when it comes to copyright in the digital realm, and makes the idea of ‘fair use’ illegal for many digital products. (As an example, using short clips of a film, game, etc for commentary, review, or parody, all uses that would otherwise be allowed under traditional copyright laws, is illegal under the DMCA due to the necessity of bypassing copy protection to access them). But from there we certainly have a long way to go to create a system that awards innovators without imposing an undue burden on other innovators wishing to use similar ideas and end users wishing to exercise fair-use rights. (Note, I’m blurring the line between the patent system and the copyright system quite a bit here, primarily because the two are extremely related in the digital realm, moreso than they’ve ever been before.)
In regards to China, I agree, as of now they’re quite behind when it comes to innovation. But I don’t necessarily think it’s entirely because of “open” ideas and Intellectual Property theft. I think China lacks in innovation for a couple of reasons. Firstly, ideas and innovation isn’t truly open there (nor is it anywhere in the world), so what you’re left with is a lot of shoddy reverse engineering and external industrial design theft. If ideas were truly open, they’d be able to, for example, build an iPhone clone that could run Apple’s iOS software with equal ability to Apple’s own devices, and then perhaps expand the hardware by adding new features (larger battery, dual sim capability, higher resolution camera, RFID, etc). Secondly, I believe China currently lacks the organization required to pull off a truly groundbreaking product built on top of existing ideas/platforms. I don’t believe this will always be the case though, and while time will certainly tell I think they’re in a very good position to jump to the head of the innovation pack in the long term. In the words of Picasso, “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” Certainly being able to take an idea directly and improve upon it without having to jump through hoops can lead to new and innovative products. It just becomes a question of how we design this system to ensure fairness and incentive to innovate.
Continuing to use my Apple example, lets more closely examine the scenario where information is truly open, and the Chinese knockoff iOS device I described is a reality. In this scenario, would Apple have any further incentive to innovate now that their work can be directly ripped off for profit by another company without so much as paying them a dime? Obviously not. But I do believe that the avenue to expand upon the ideas and concepts of others is necessary in a system that truly supports innovation. As such, perhaps a system that includes terms for mandatory licensing at reasonable costs should be put in place. This would mean that Apple, in my example, would have to license their technology to anyone that desired to use it, at a reasonable cost. What a reasonable cost is I have no idea, but we could, for example, put a cap at 100% of the existing per-device research, design, and advertising fees, to make the barrier of entry reasonable for new innovators wishing to utilize their technology. (Or to put it another way, retail cost minus materials, manufacturing, and distribution as a high end on per-device licensing fees).
Mandatory licensing comes into play to prevent people and companies from hoarding their inventions at the overall detriment to society and innovation. A quick example that comes to mind is the radar detector market. Escort has a patent on GPS-aided radar detectors. Valentine has a patent on arrows that tell you the direction and number of radar signals. An ideal radar detector would have both, but because neither company is willing to share their patents we’re stuck choosing one or the other! If there were mandatory licensing laws for reasonable costs this would never happen. As it stands now, both companies choose to not enter into a cross licensing deal, probably because they both feel they offer compelling and unique products, and that doing so would muddy their brand and perhaps decrease their market share… but in the end it hurts both the consumer/end-user and innovation by providing an inferior product to what would otherwise be technically possible. If both brands had the same features, consumers would be forced to choose based on price and performance, and not on features.. which I think is better for everyone to encourage innovation, competition and better products!
Again though, the questions of sales cannibalization and incentive to innovate comes up. I do believe that a system like this could work though. If the new 3rd party product is substantially better than my own and gains significant market share, then I’m in a position where I’m still making exactly as much as I would had I sold those products myself (due to the per-device licensing fee), and the market gets a better product. I’m also in a position where I can take the new product and make a deal with the person or company that improved upon it and sell it directly or further improve upon it.
Of course, a system like this would lead to more litigation, not less, but at least it provides an avenue for innovating and improving existing products without wasting resources trying to re-invent the wheel without infringing on existing patents/copyrights. (As a side note, perhaps I really should become a lawyer? It seems regardless of how events in our world plays out they always stand to benefit
)
In any case, thanks for the comment; nice to see there are a few people actually reading the blog!