BE afraid...p2p folk out there
One of the main highlights from last week's O'Reilly P2P Conference was
Larry Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford. He was the last keynote
speaker; I must admit that I have never seen a room so full of both
techies and business people get up and clap for so long after a
speech! :-)
I intend to send you more of the highlights of this conference, but I
wanted to share my notes on this speech with you.
You may also want to read the interview "Code + Law: Hollywood is
Assaulting Some Basic Rights"
(http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2001/01/30/lessig.html)
The actual speech is also available (in real) at
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_catalog.html?item_id=1171
Abstract (from OıReillyıs pages): Rather than weakening copyright, the
Napster case has actually resulted in strengthening the intellectual
property rights of Hollywood. A political fight is at hand, which will
determine whether developers will be free to innovate or subject to the
entertainment industry's permission.
Notes and quotes:
E2e was the value implemented at the onset of the Internet; p2p as a
current value at both the logical and physical architecture levels is to
decentralize and empower users.
Apps. like Napster "are not weakening copyright protection, they are
actually contributing to making it stronger."
"The Napster case has further strengthened a century-long trend of
extending the protection of intellectual property" far beyond what the
framers of the US Constitution intended. The current scope or
"copyright" (which started as a very straightforward and narrow notion in
terms of limited monopoly) has expanded making almost everything arguably
a copyright infringement.
"The law was originally intended for only a small portion of copyright to
be applied to cyberspace."
The result is that the freedom to innovate is being chilled and "unless we
take political action, your right to build it first will be removed"
"It is the lobbying and litigational influence of the entertainment
industry that are pushing regulation more aggressively on intellectual
property issues. The Hollywood lawyers have noticed something about the
Internet; it conflicts with something they value. That thing is control
over music, films, and other forms of intellectual property."
Be concerned (and perhaps even scared). Lessig warned the attendees
(mainly technical and business people) that if they thought the Napster
ruling was not going to affect them, they were wrong: "Many are telling
yourself, that was about Napster, we are about p2p. Nothing about the 9th
Circuit Court decision was about us." In his view, if Napster could be
shut down for the "law violators" that used it, so could any other
service.
Shortly after the beginning of the Internet, it was decided not to
legislate this space and instead, stand back, wait and see how things
happen (before you sent in the lawyers). "The importance of innovation
first and balance the legal aspects second." If not, if you clean the
legal space now and then promote innovation, then on this principle,
"everybody in this room is a law violator." "Build it first; encourage
decentralized innovation first and then regulate"
But, Lessig warns us, "Your right to innovate" has been questioned by the
U.S. courts. And thus, we should be concerned. "Your right to
innovate" has been put into question by the digital entertainment
industry. "A political fight is at hand."
After the speech, there was a panel where Lessig was joined by Tim
OıReilly and John Perry Barlow, who pressed on how the increasing strength
of intellectual property laws was the result of corruption between rich
entertainment contributors and Congress.
(for those of you who donıt know, Barlow is (was?) a Grateful Dead
Lyricist and also a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation).
Lassig replied that the problem was deeper. "The ordinary public is on
Hollywoodıs side.. The public has to learn to understand how creativity
depends on stuff being returned to the public."
comments/reactions?
|