I wanted to follow up that post with another quick discussion about policy – this time about the sad state of copyright law in the united states.

Brad Feld writes some great posts about the various shortcomings of the current state of copyright laws that essentially amount to discouraging creativity and causing financial harm to the economy at large – and in particular – for startups with disruptive technologies.

However, I want to shed some light on a slightly different harm of our current copyright laws: that is, the discouragement of our artists to remix.

Remix is the craft of taking existing work, and adding your own flavor of creativity to it. DJs do it all the time, mixing two (or more) records at the same time – as do singers who may do a cover song of another artists. There are countless examples. And remix is not exclusive to art… it applies to science and technology just as much.

Traditionally, we don’t require of DJ’s to obtain “rights” in order to create “derivative” works of others’ intellectual property, nor do we require an author to obtain rights for quoting another author. Yet, with the advent of digital technology where “remix” becomes inherently simple, copyrights holders (in particular Hollywood) is trying desperately to keep us away from remix. From a legal standpoint, they have every “right” to protect their “rights”. But the cost of this protection racket, not only to society but to the rights holders themselves, is what I want to re-examine.

It is not my intention to cite legal cases or discuss the nuances of copyright law. But I do want to remind that as music file sharing took off in the 90’s, the knee-jerk reaction to fight the evolution of technology – instead of embracing it and figuring out new and innovating business models – was a critical mistake that Hollywood has yet to recover from. It is noteworthy that the few successes in the music industry, are the very ones Hollywood fought most vigorously (eg: iPhone, DRM-free music, and internet streaming)…

One thing is for certain: as the studios fought ever harder to stop file-sharing, they have lead themselves to unstoppable declines in sales. With time, bandwidth throughput will increase, and the same market forces will apply to movies in addition to music. Admittedly Hollywood has tried to be a bit smarter about movies than they were about music… but only slightly better. Implementing protocols like the 28-day window for Netflix and iTunes will never lead consumer to buy that DVD… it will simply force consumers to download them – ILLEGALLY – without paying the right holders. It is this fundamentally flawed thinking that not only hurts consumers, but the rights holders as well.

But I digress…

The real shame is in the way we discourage our youth from experimentation and remix. We’ve all heard the stories of Disney sending Cease and Desist Letters to kindergartens that paint a picture of Micky Mouse on their school yard walls… but recently, and in particular with the advent of blogging and the real-time information Bus (eg Twitter and Facebook Status Updates, etc) the rights holders are going to extraordinary lengths to prevent their property from accumulating online. In most cases, it is within their “right” to do so. The copyright laws these right holders are enforcing were mostly devised nearly a hundred years ago back in the 1920’s.

You cannot stop the evolution of the markets and/or technology. Digital technology is inherently a copying technology; each time you stream a song from YouTube, a copy is created on your laptop or mobile phone. By its very technical definition, each of us is violating the law every time we listen to our favorite song online. That being said, there is no doubt that digital media is a far superior to their hard-media brethren. It is far easier to discover, purchase and consume media digitally. Anyone remember CD’s or Cassette Tapes? Interestingly, from the Hollywood’s perspective, it is also far easier to promote, distribute, and sell media digitally. Yet the average Hollywood Studio would prefer you to buy the CDs… because, in their mind, digital technology also makes it easy to share a copy of the song to your friend, and thereby not getting paid for it.

The argument, that we should limit digital technology because it makes it easier to steal, is akin to saying we should limit selling cars because car accidents can kill people.

Is it easier to share (and steal) digital media? Absolutely! But that doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bath-water. This same thinking applies to remix. Anyone can use a laptop to make music – or at least remix… and many (younger) people often do exactly that these days. They come up with incredibly creative things… things that have tremendous cultural value, in addition to the fact that it hones their skills in working with technology. Yet our copyright laws as enforced today are specifically designed to stop this.

THIS ROBS OUR CULTURE AND IS A CRIME AGAINST OUR SOCIETY.

There are thousands of examples of this… just today, Summit Entertainment, the people behind the Twilight movies, used the DMCA laws to take down the 8-Bit Twilight game, claiming copyright infringement. This is unbelievably stupid and short-sighted!

Don’t get me wrong – as CEO of a robotics company where we spend a lot of effort developing intellectual property, I am very much in favor of protection. But what we consider “fair use” and the way we enforce our laws needs complete structural reform. The purpose of protection is to afford the innovator the opportunity to reap the benefits of the effort they put into producing it. Our challenge as a society therefore, must be to figure out a way to enable the producer to reap financial benefits while safe-harboring people who consume and share it. Despite what you may hear from Hollywood (or their attorneys), these are not opposing interests. What it does require, however, is a re-thinking of the existing business models, as well as a re-thinking of our current laws and the way we enforce them.

Business models have begun changing in recent years. Hollywood is warming up to the fact that to the extent that a song or movie is accessible online and on-demand, it amounts to FREE ADVERTISING for them. There is far greater likelihood that I may buy something that I actually like, because I got to play it a few times on YouTube and liked it. Back in the day, I would rely on my friends’ recommendation – or I might read a review about an album – before purchasing it. In today’s world, where music is easily discoverable online, it would be to the studio’s advantage to create as many touch-points to me as possible, making each touch-point not only an advertising platform but also a transaction opportunity. In absence of this, they would simply drive me to the underground market, where I can do all of this, without even paying for it. Thankfully, we have Amazon Music Store, the first major DRM-Free store… and even iTunes followed by becoming DRM-Free. But I’m afraid the war over movies is just beginning to brew… and it looks like Round 2 of what happened with music.

The same principles apply to remix. Instead of discouraging kids to experiment, studios should put out tools and infrastructure that encourages them to remix. This not only translates to advertising and transactional opportunities for the studio, but also provides tremendous benefits to our society at large by encouraging creativity and experimentation.

Case in point: my friend Bobby Pershen (AUDacity) is doing some fantastic remix work, using tracks and loops from his musical influences (Michael Jackson, Bobby Brown, Laurent Hill, and others)… to create entirely new music.

Unfortunately, Hollywood has become very resistant to remix! The good new is, like anything old and outdated, its just a matter of time before it dies. For example, not a single music executive from the 90’s still holds his job. We consumers have a lot of power… and we must demand better of our institutions, our law-makers, and of ourselves. And let’s not forget that we are the generation that is witnessing the last wave of migration from an analog world that used to be, to a world of digital that we are becoming. The resistance we are seeing – from Hollywood and alike – is the last desperate gasp of the entrenched powers-that-be… who are coming to the realization that they will no longer be.

Change is good… and for me, it can’t happen fast enough.

The video below is making the rounds on the internet this week, as this two year old hears her mother’s voice for the first time after his implant. It is a truly remarkable thing to see.

There are more than 400,000 deaf people in the United States alone, with millions more around the world. Yet less than 200,000 worldwide have cochlear implants though the rate of adoption is increasing worldwide. This is in part due to affordability, improvements in delivery and expertise, and also policy.

I’m writing this post to highlight the important role of policy.

In the US, the FDA just recently approved implants in children as early as one year old. This policy change has paved the road for this child to get his implants in a safe and affordable manner. This ia a great example how a small change in thinking can have a drastic impact on the lives of people.

I mention this because I am appalled by some of our current policies in not only Healthcare, but also in Energy, Education, Immigration, Alternative Lifestyles, and countless more.

A great deal has already been said on Education policy in U.S. and I won’t repeat them here. For a great primer on the mid-to-long term effects of current education trends in America, I suggest reading Tom Friedman’s The World Is Flat. I do want to caution, however, that our current level of math and science competency amongst our youth is extremely alarming. That, coupled with our inadequate immigration policies – where we deny work visas to foreign students to remain here in the US after completing their education at our universities and/or denying work visas to foreign scientist who want to migrate to the US – amounts simply to national disaster in the mid-to-long term.

The policies we implement today are making our schools and workforce embarrassingly and dangerously inadequate for competing in an ever developing world. With roughly three billion people entering the globalized middle-class in just the past decade, we owe it to our very own survival to demand better policies from our lawmakers. As our economy struggles to reinvent itself today, it behooves us to think critically about the America we wish to live in a decade or two from now. The policies we set today, in this time of change and renewing ourselves and our economy, will serve us for years to come. I sincerely hope that we demand – and ultimately receive – better than what we’re getting today.

Countless smiles of deaf two year olds depend on it.

***

Read about the importance of Robotics in developing youth interest in math and sciences on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/08/educate-innovate-high-school-robotics

Some of the data was predictable. For example, we had a good idea on how much productivity increase we can expect in certain situations. At the same time we were also surprised by some of the data we’ve been receiving from customers… and I want to share a few of those surprises with you today.

Communication Initiation

When we started back in 2003, we believed the value of robotic telepresence was in the ability to drive (the robot) to someone’s desk and initiating a conversation. This would eliminate the need for travel to that location by using the robot as your avatar in the remote office, particularly useful to people who work remotely and/or have a need to be in multiple offices at the same time. It turns out however, that 67% of all communications on the robot initiate on the robot side!

This was particularly surprising because we had always assumed that you can pick up a phone, use IM, or send off an email to the remote person. Yet it turns out that the mere presence of the remote person via the robotic avatar has profound psychological effects on how people initiate communications within teams. To put it differently, we are far more likely to ask questions or share information with someone who is physically present, and conversely we tend to delay and/or never initiate a conversation with a remote team member, even though that person’s input may be needed or even critical to accomplishing a common goal.

Digging deeper into this, we found that team members viewed formal meetings as the place to ask questions or share information with remote team members at a ratio of 2-to-1, even though no such formal procedures to this effect were in place. By “formal meeting” we mean either an actual meeting where team members get together. This can mean either a physical meeting, a virtual meeting using video and/or teleconferencing, or even a common wiki page that is updated at pre-determined time intervals.

In practical terms, this finding has some profound effects on team performance:

First, it suggests that existing tools such as IM, Email, Telephones are not being utilized as much as they could be. A team member can easily shoot off an email to inform a remote team member about a certain decision that was made at the office… but the inefficiencies with random-interval-communication in such manners is deemed not worth the effort.

Second, there  is strong evidence that physical representations of remote team members can increase both the number of conversations as well as the quality of conversations by orders of magnitude. Of course we see this everyday at the office where people talk freely, exchange information, and ask questions. It is less evident in cases where there are remote team members because generally companies don’t have informal conversation procedures between multi-geographic team members. Yet, we see a lot of anecdotal experimentation being done in this area, such as requiring all workers to be present in a virtual meeting room at all times while working (e.g. Second Life) or having  videoconferencing screens setup where they stream between offices throughout the day.

Third, in analyzing our survey results, we found that the very action(s) required to initiate a conversation, no matter how trivial (such as composing a new email and/or dialing a phone number) are by far the number one cited reason for prohibiting these ad-hoc communications in the first place. As such, removing as much of this barrier would automatically translate to a higher occurrence of informal communications with remote team members. In the case of robotic telepresence, it is very often the case when the robot (e.g. the remote team member) is passing by someone’s cubicle, and that person is then reminded to ask the remote team member a question or to inform him of something.

There were several other surprising pieces of feedback which I will cover in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I’d like to invite anyone who may be a remote team member and/or works in a multi-geographic team to chime in on these findings.

Best,
/F