EFF's Emerging Tech talk on being optimistic about cyber-liberties
Today at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology conference, I attended the Electronic Frontier Foundation's panel, "On a Brighter Note...", a talk about why we should be optimistic about the future of technological liberty. I took a ton of notes and uploaded them.
John Perry Barlow, EFF co-founder: I am still optimistic. I didn't expect that the entire wealth of the industrial period would gracefully allow us to render them irrelevant. They're putting up a spirited fight, but I don't think they'll win. Victory comes to the patient. The content industry used to call me the devil, now the same people come to me for advice on how to make it work for them, they're abandoning their King Canute strategy. I don't think there's proof that downloading has cost the record industry billions, for the same reason that hearing a song on the radio doesn't cost a sale. There are lots of studies, but no one can say for sure. Last year I asked Cary Sherman if he'd co-design a study with EFF to give fair insight into what the losses or gains are from downloading. He said, "I don't think we can do that. I don't believe my constituents would allow that because it might turn out that you're right." Wouldn't they want to know? "No, I don't think it's like that with them." It's a matter of religious belief. They're near retirement, they can have any religion they want. They'll be replaced by the electronic Hisbollah they've created with their Draconian strategies, the wild-eyed 17-year-olds who hack DRM will beat the 55 year olds in posh cars in Bel Air.Link to my notes, Link to talk precisCan we come up with a regime for regulating the economy of ideas and the way of getting paid for work you do with your mind that doesn't treat thought as a noun and therefore subject to being treated as property. The IP system is a gigantic kludge of patches that have been laid on in different regimes, as it all goes to bits, it needs to be harmonized with a regime that recognizes that this regulates the relationship of the creator and the audience.
the latest
latest episodes
"I don't think there's proof that downloading has cost the record industry billions, for the same reason that hearing a song on the radio doesn't cost a sale."
You used to hear a song on the radio, then you went and bought it. It caused the sale, it didn't stop it--of course. Now you hear a song for free, and now you can just take it for free. I'm all for shifting my paradigm, but I'm not sure this guy's facts are in order. I'm quite sure less music is sold now, right?
If IP is property, and losing control of an idea constitutes a property loss -- then those protected ideas should be taxed as if they were property.
Mandatory periodic copyright renewal at a nominal fee is an example of a way this could be structured.
I favor allowing IP to be claimed as property by the owner, through patent, trademark, and copyright laws, and assigned whatever value the rightsholder chooses.
But then the IP is subject to property tax, like any other form of property. Or if it's not subject to property tax at the owner's chosen basis, then it's an idea, not property, and can't be stolen or misappropriated.
Joel, what you use as your basis? Do you use the first year of sales to define the value of your property (book)? And then treat it as you would Real Property? What kind of property would that be? Real Estate, which uses comps to estabish current market value, or projections, which are used for commoditiy futures? Or something like durable goods, which usually follow a deprciation schedule of ten years?
I think paying to renew your rights of control is a bit moot. If the IP is worth anything, then you will derive income from it. You will then pay income tax on it.
I think that the rightsholder should be free to choose the basis. High basis would make for high taxes, but would let one argue for high penalties for infringement. Low basis would minimize the tax burden, but then you might have to bring all your infringement actions in small claims court.
But as it stands, the rightsholders have it both ways. When their rights are infringed, then suddenly their "property" has been "stolen" and their losses are astronomical. When it comes time to do the books for their taxes, why that IP is not anything like actual property at all.
Joel, this is why this C.C. arguement isn't solid enough for me to argue for, at least not well. I see that there are philosophical issues at play. If my IP has value, should I be able to protect that value? If I'm going to court to show damages because someone used my IP, then I better be able to back that up with a history of income derived from that IP, and that the current income flow has been adversly affected. But this will be tried in Civil court where the standard of evidence is lower than with criminal court. The jury also has the abiilty to decide with a majority, not an unanimous decision. It's all about the skill of your attorney at that point.