Reprinted from my old blog - written in 2002.
I’ve been having a discussion with Amy Wohl on this copyright stuff. I don’t think I’ve quite made the point I’m trying to make. I think I’m a witness to one of the greatest hypocracies ever placed squarely in the public eye.
Perhaps I’m in a unique position. It could be that
I have special powers of insight. I can’t tell.
I know this much. I’ve been a professional
performing and recording musician as well as
songwriter. My one public triump was winning a local
radio sonwriting contest in Albuquerque New Mexico
around 1985. I was proclaimed “The hottest band in
New Mexico”. Technically it was a recording project
performed by myself, computers and friends.
I am presently a professional software sytems architect and developer.
And I am amazed.
The very short thesis is that somedevelopers are simultaneously calling for greater access to music, video and entertainment by while insisting that software is different and must be more protected.
The argument for pushing for online access to music is that the increased sales more than compensate for any losses from pirating. The recording industry is labeled as fearful and unwilling to trust the users. Those music people ought to be ashamed!
The take away is that improved access to creative works increases sales. I think this is true.
These same people bristle at the suggestion that improved access to their creative works might also improve sales. Now we’re holding a gun to their head they say. Releasing my ten year old source code will ruin me!
The software industry is trying to rely on the same mechanisms that the recording industry relies on. That copying a work is technically infeasible and should stay that way. The music industry used to keep control by releasing inferior copies that degraded with successive generations of copying. The software industry keeps control by refusing to release source code.
With the advent of digital music, the music industry has lost its built in copy protection. Yet the software people say “have courage”. “Increased exposure will increase your sales.” The numbers seem to imply that this is true.
Of course, if we turn the tables and require the same of software developers they cry “foul”.
Fueling the fire is the rising indignation regarding the ever growing term of copyright. A couple of legal luminaries have begun to fight this on the grounds that the public good is being subverted in the name of corporate profits. A really good explanation of why copyright terms aren’t forever is described in this paper by legal professor Glenn Reynolds.
For those with short attention spans, the paper basically says providing permanent copyright impedes progress because nobody can afford to build on the work of the past. But no copyright impedes progress because nobody is incented to produce new inventions if they can’t make money from them. So a middle ground - limited term copyright (or patents - these also expire) - allows inventors to both build upon the work of the past while getting paid for their work. Its a good mechanism that has been subverted in the name of corporate profits. Because long term copyright holds our culture hostage.
A great example is the Happy Birthday song. It is said to be among the top 3 best known songs in the english speaking world. But it remains encumbered. Unlike the music of the great composers which is all in the public domain now, the song Happy Birthday, truly a core part of our culture, remains a hostage of Warner Communications. This is the best example of copyright abuse I know of.
Of course the software people all agree. Those greedy corporations! Free Mickey Mouse!
The upshot of this uproar is that people are beginning to realize that long term copyright holds our culture hostage, that creative works ought to eventually pass into the public domain.
Even software works.
But they don’t. When a software company goes bust or simply changes direction, old products die. They don’t get updated. The source code disappears. Files written by the software containing content owned by other people become inaccessable. Imagine if this happend to all of our creative content.
The original music business was so primitive that songwriters made money by selling you the sheet music to the song and you had to perform it yourself. Completely open source. Still, Stephen Foster and Scott Joplin made plenty of money in spite of sharing. Today, their works are in the public domain and they are a much loved part of our history and tradition.
Sadly, this isn’t happening with software. Although if Lessig gets his way, that will change and source code will be escrowed to be released into the public domain at the expiration of copyright. This is the duty of the copyright holder and beneficiary.
I suspect that part of the fear among closed source developers is that their work will be borrowed piecemeal and new products built upon it without their being compensated. But they get a ten year lag before that will happen. Thats better than Van Halen got when Tone Loc sampled the opening drum riff for “Jamie’s Cryin” for his “Wild Thing”, or the deal David Bowie and Queen got when Vanilla Ice borrowed the signature riff from “Pressure” for his “Ice Ice Baby”.
It would be very hard to argue that Van Halen lost any record sales to Tone Loc or that David Bowie and Queen lost sales to Vanilla Ice. The financial loss isn’t real. In much the same way that casual Napster downloaders weren’t going to buy the music they pirated anyway, the loss is impossible to quantify in any financial way.
Its called fair use and in general its good for everybody. But it takes courage to see it. Source code must pass into the public domain on expiration of copyright. Its the right thing to do for everybody.
