By Mike Masnick from TechDirt:

Time To Remix Copyright Law: The Hip Hop Case Study

from the it’s-how-music-is-made dept

Michael Scott points us to an interesting paper by a law professor, Tonya Evans, talking about how poorly copyright law is designed to handle a concept like hip hop. Of course, this is an issue that we (and plenty of others) have covered for years — noting how copyright law has drastically hindered certain aspects of hip hop music, once the lawyers started accusing samplers of infringement, and some courts suggested that using just a tiny snippet of a song, and even changing it so the original was unrecognizable, still constituted copyright infringement. From the abstract:

Read more>>

My friend and TLS co-blogger Rob Wicks says regarding this post:

I’ve been thinking about this a bit. Copyright law basically killed traditional hip hop. Traditional hip hop was built on sampling, and consisted of both singing and rapping. You still get a few big acts with major money behind them who can do things, but the entire development of hip hop as an art form has been completely warped by IP. You can still get traditional hip-hop, and it has evolved over the years, but you have to get mixtapes, which are generally released free to the streets. But the stuff which gets all the press and which inspires the virulent reaction (because of the large gangsta/antisocial element) is almost entirely a creation of large corporations leveraging IP.

Exactly. Just like state regulations distort the catallactic market, IP law distorts the culture. For example it has caused fashion designers to incorporate their trademarked logos in their products as part of the design, since there is no IP in fashion so they incorporated the trademark. Would this phenomenon exist without IP? Omega put a copyrighted globe logo on their watches to stop arbitrary importing. HP puts needless patented circuits in their cartridges to leverage patent law to stop competition. (See my post Leveraging IP for more on this.) And maybe there are forms of music that never existed, or that are marginalzed, such as hip hop, and other forms of art including film and photography and documentaries and collages and painting, that would otherwise have relied on some kind of “sampling,” that never got off the ground b/c of threat of copyright law. The seen and the unseen.

Rob’s reply to this: “Yes, and then people look to counteract those distortions by censoring music, establishing age requirements, etc.”

Update: See Everything is a Remix Part 4

By Cory Doctorow from Boing Boing. As my friend and TLS co-blogger Rob Wicks says regarding this post, “I think IP really threatens to morph into outright fascism, with a large percentage of corporations being essentially wings of the state.”

Handicapping the horse-race for Canada’s new copyright bill

Cory Doctorow at 5:54 AM Tuesday, Nov 9, 2010

In a fascinating interview with TVOntario’s Search Engine podcast, Michael Geist describes and predicts the likely outcome of the years and years of wrangling over Canada’s new copyright bill, C-61 C-32, which includes a sweeping DRM clause that makes it illegal to modify your own equipment, even if you’re not otherwise breaking copyright law, making it one of the most radical DRM laws in the world. Michael sees reason to hope for a more moderate C-32 in its final form — I hope he’s right.

It All Comes Down to This on Copyright?

MP3

From the beeb:

The business of innovation: Steven Johnson

By Fiona Graham Technology of business reporter, BBC News

Steven Johnson: “The lone genius is the exception rather than the rule.”

Standing on the station platform, waiting for the Philadelphia train one night in the summer of 1902, Willis Carrier was about to have his ‘eureka moment’.

As the fog rolled in across the track, he suddenly realised how he could fix the nascent air-cooling system he’d been working on, using water as a condensing surface.

This sudden moment of inspiration led to the invention of modern air-conditioning, a fortune for its inventor, and the foundation of a multi-billion dollar company.

The lone genius, beavering away in the seclusion of his lab is how most of us imagine the great moments of innovation have come into being. But is this really the whole story?

Not entirely, according to author Steven Johnson. He believes Willis Carrier is very much the exception rather than the rule.

“It’s not that the individuals disappear in this, it’s just that they need to be part of something larger than themselves to be able to do the work that they do.”

Read more>>

This TED talk, Alex Tabarrok on how ideas trump crises, is excellent (though note that I’ve criticized some of his IP-related ideas previous, in $30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation Contracts: The “Progressive-Libertarian” Solution).

[Mises Blog cross-post]

From a post by Joe Katzmann on WindsOfChange.net:

TechDirt post by Mike Masnick

Chief Patent Judge Feigns Ignorance Of How Often Patents Are Used To Hinder Innovation

from the willful-ignorance-or-scary-ignorance? dept

Law professor Doug Lichtman’s latest “IP Colloquium” podcast is an interview with Judge Randall Rader, who’s the chief Judge of CAFC, the appeals court that handles most patent cases. Rader is known for being outspoken and opinionated (but also very, very smart), so it’s always fascinating to hear what he has to say. The first part of the interview is interesting from a purely procedural standpoint, as Rader goes through the process by which the CAFC makes decisions, including the fact that nearly every case is decided almost immediately after the oral hearings. It sounds like they almost never feel the need to sleep on a decision. However, the latter part of the interview is where things get really interesting. While Lichtman and I tend to disagree over copyright issues, we find a lot more common ground on patent issues, with Lichtman pointing out the harm that patents often seem to do to innovation, as well as questioning why independent invention isn’t a sign of obviousness.

Rader’s responses are thoughtful, and interesting, but I feel that he makes some assumptions that don’t have much support, and makes a few other statements that simply are not an accurate representation of reality. Rader starts out by suggesting that it’s simply impossible for any tech firm to “keep up” with technology innovation today (partially true), and the only way to do that is through cooperation (true) and that patents “facilitate” that cooperation (sometimes, but rarely, true). He paints this idealistic, and not very accurate, picture of innovation occurring thusly:

In order to really see the future, you’ve got to bring together some kid writing software in Bangalore, with a laboratory professor in Chengdu, with a university researcher in Kyoto and a startup company in Boston. And they each have a piece of the puzzle which may be “Windows 7,” or whatever the future of technology is, but no single laboratory, no single company, anymore invents the future.

Now, to some extent that’s true. No single company does invent the future, but I actually see that as a pretty strong argument against patent protection in most cases, since patents in situations like that now create transaction costs that hinder innovations that advance the market. It’s putting a toll on innovation, which can be much more efficiently handled in the actual marketplace.

Read more>>

[Cross-posted from Mises Blog: Copying vs. Innovating]

A wonderful Wall Street Journal profile of Blaise Agüera y Arcas, the architect behind the most advanced features of Bing Maps, explains how he is working toward features that allow users to upload high-resolution images inside of buildings to match with seamless maps to create integrated virtual realities – a dramatic step beyond Google Maps. Google has inspired him of course but he knows that he must do better. “You can always be inspired, but the moment you start copying, you guarantee you will never get ahead,” he said.

There is a telling point here that contributes to the IP debate. Unless he could copy – emulate the leaders in the field – the project would not get off the ground at all. That freedom has to be there. But in order to compete, copying is never enough. A pure copy rarely gets a foothold in a market dominated an an efficient original. There must also be improvement – innovation. So there we have it. Progress requires three freedoms: to cooperate with others, to emulate others, and to compete with others.

Mark Edge just let me know. Tune in here. I can’t call in, as I’m giving a speech in 30 minutes on “Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright,” at the 2010 Students For Liberty Texas Regional Conference, University of Texas, Austin. In fact I’m sitting in a conference room listening to ex-Gov. Gary Johnson talk about giving immigrants social security cards so they can pay taxes and decriminalizing marijuana and having a voucher system in education.

From the Beeb:

UK copyright laws to be reviewed, announces Cameron

Britain’s intellectual property laws are to be reviewed to “make them fit for the internet age,” Prime Minister David Cameron has announced.

He said the law could be relaxed to allow greater use of copyright material without the owner’s permission.

The announcement was welcomed by internet campaigners who say it will boost small business.

But any changes could be resisted by the music and film industries who have campaigned against copyright reform.

Speaking at an event in the East End of London, at which he announced a series of investments by IT giants including Facebook and Google, Mr Cameron said the founders of Google had told the government they could not have started their company in Britain.

‘Fair use’

He said: “The service they provide depends on taking a snapshot of all the content on the internet at any one time and they feel our copyright system is not as friendly to this sort of innovation as it is in the United States.

“Over there, they have what are called ‘fair-use’ provisions, which some people believe gives companies more breathing space to create new products and services.

“So I can announce today that we are reviewing our IP laws, to see if we can make them fit for the internet age. I want to encourage the sort of creative innovation that exists in America.”

Read the rest>>

My first lecture for the Mises Academy course “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics” was last Monday and went very well. I had very good interaction with the students from 14 countries. The audio and presentation portion (video omitted) of the lecture is below.

To C4SIF supporters:

I am hosting an online gadget drive through Gazelle to raise money for C4SIF, and would love your support.  You can visit our drive webpage at http://c4sif.gazelle.com.

A gadget drive is a new way to fundraise that turns your used electronics (laptops, cell phones, MP3 players, digital cameras & more) into cash to support a cause. Contributing to my drive is simple. Just visit my drive webpage, find the value of the gadgets you would like to donate, and send them to Gazelle (shipping is free). The value will go to support C4SIF.

If you would like to donate, please go to C4SIF Winter 2010 Fundraising (http://c4sif.gazelle.com) to learn more about our drive and track our progress.  You will receive a confirmation of your donation by email, and I will be notified as soon as you make your donation.

Thank you for your support,
Stephan

My Mises Blog post A Patent Lie from a couple years ago was about a good op-ed (printable version) in the N.Y. Times from Cato’s Timothy Lee, highlighting the damage wrought by software patents. The take-away:

as the Vonage case demonstrates, participating in the patent system is not optional. Independent invention is not a defense to patent infringement, and large software companies now hold so many patents that it is almost impossible to create useful software without infringing some of them. Therefore, the only means of self-defense is the one Mr. Gates identified 16 years ago: stockpile patents to use as bargaining chips in litigation. Vonage didn’t do that, and it’s now paying a very high price. … Only patent lawyers benefit from this kind of arms race.

Patents are an infringement of property rights, and gene patents are an especially bad idea. C4SIF Board Member David Koepsell makes this point in his Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes and in his upcoming documentary Who Owns You?¹

Maybe the anti-IP message is gaining some traction: U.S. Says Genes Should Not Be Eligible for Patents (N.Y. Times). Predictably, this makes patent shill Gene Quinn apoplectic.

1. See also my posts Who Owns You? – A Documentary – Trailer; Are Libertarians For Intellectual Property?: Comment on David Koepsell’s “Why I Believe Gene Patenting is Wrong”; Koepsell – Quinn “Debate” on Gene Patents; Gene Patent Absurdity. [↩]