Inside Word: There's No Economic Value In A Copyright
The Inside Word is a weekly feature that looks at compelling industry debates and discussions unfolding on the blogs of employees at digital-media companies.
Blogger: William Patry
Position: Senior copyright counsel, Google
Blog name: Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars
Backstory: Patry has practiced copyright law for more than 25 years, and is the author of several books, including a seven-volume, 5,500-plus-page treatise on copyright law. He started the blog to expand on his recent book by the same title.
Blog post: Patry argues that copyright owners spend too much time thinking and talking about how to protect the copyright and not enough about making the underlying product enticing. “Copyright owners should want consumers to think only about how great their products are and where they can buy them: what consumer buys something because it
William Patry is walking a fine line. Yes, many intellectual property owners spend too much time focusing on protecting copyrights instead of trying to monetize the value. The same can be said for patent holders – I never saw/read a patent that didn't have a workaround to it.
However, Mr. Patry is the perfect example of what I stated before of legal counsels for these technology firms who placed "hedged bets" on how a judge and jury will react to intellectual property violations. His logic parallels my argument of things like RealDVD went to market on a "hedge bet" they can convince a judge or jury or settle out of court. The Internet is not the insurance industry and these firms are learning the hard way.
The current, obvious strategy is certain information service firms believe they can steal copyrighted content/intellectual property in "time slices" small enough to go under the radar or at a cheaper rate than litigation. This is no secret – the strategy is blatant.
Some of us like to target "blog pirates" who steal blog content and places ads on top of them but ignore the fact some of the major information service providers use the same practice against major content providers like book publishers.
This is why it is important for copyright owners/intellectual property owners to be more sophisticated in learning how their content assets are being exploited by for-profit information services.
Right now, I see no real players in the market who are sophisticated enough in real-time agent/business intelligence to detect this "time slice" strategy for copyright owners/intellectual properties and gather the right evidence to prove a pattern of systematic intellectual property violation. Those who are sophisticated enough decided it was more profitable to be on the side that steal content in "time slices".
The fact an information service firm can argue <i>"we doing you a favor by distributing your copyright content without your permission"</i> is evidenced enough of the blatant arrogance
Commerce isn't the only issue.
A copyright also helps to protect from unintended use. If I put my heart and soul into creating something, I don't want to see it appropriated by someone whose goals and interests may be antithetical to mine.
For example, the musician Jackson Browne recently sued the Ohio Republican Party and John McCain for copyright violation when they repeatedly used Browne's tune "Running on Empty" at political rallies and events.
This had very little to do with money or payments — I'm sure Mr. Browne would have refused the Republicans permission to use his work whether or not McCain and party had paid for use of that song.