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 Importance of Policy (continued) – and Twilight Eclipse
July 1st, 2010I 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.
Tags: copyright, education, immigration, law, remix
Posted in Commentary | Comments