Author: David Newhoff

David is an author, communications professional, and copyright advocate. After more than 20 years providing creative services and consulting in corporate communications, he shifted his attention to law and policy, beginning with advocacy of copyright and the value of creative professionals to America’s economy, core principles, and culture.

Adding a Facebook Page

As the one-year anniversary of this blog approaches, I’m launching a Facebook page and proposing the following:

Why my 457 Facebook Friends should pay attention to copyright review.

I counted, and it turns out that at least 53% of you are direct or indirect beneficiaries of the copyright system in the United States.  Among you are several copyright holders; several professionals whose jobs would not exist without copyrights; the children of professionals who worked in copyright-supported industries; and a handful of you who are the direct descendants of some very high-profile copyright holders whose names are legendary in American art and culture.  Those of you who pay attention to my posts or read my blog The Illusion of More know that I regularly follow these issues, but my guess is that copyright is not exactly the most compelling subject. I’d like to suggest, however, that the minority of very wealthy, vested interests who hope to weaken these laws are counting on your ambivalence, counting on you not to understand the extent to which your lives and careers have benefitted, or still benefit, from this particular body of law.

You might have noticed that there is a general trend toward dismantling some of the pillars of the legal framework — most notably voting rights, women’s rights, and environmental laws — that only became law at about the same time our generation was born.  Dissatisfaction with the economy and with leadership in general, I believe, has led to a cultural tendency across the political spectrum to tear down many systems asserted by one interest or another to be barriers to the next renaissance of opportunity, growth, and freedom.  Included in this are the systems of copyright and patents that have protected the rights of creators and inventors and fostered prosperity.

For nearly two years, I have insinuated myself into this debate because I believe there is much more at stake than the protection of royalties for a songwriter or an author, which are certainly important, but to paraphrase Jaron Lanier from his new book, the creative classes are the “canaries in the coal mine” with regard to the potential economic impact of the digital age. Over these two years, I have met creators, journalists, lawyers, advocates, and policy-makers who believe, as I do, that the overwhelming influence of Silicon Valley is potentially comparable to a second coming of the Robber Baron, albeit in jeans and a hoodie. In fact, in just the last several months, articles have appeared in Forbes, Salon, Newsweek, The Guardian, and others that paint a portrait of the internet industry as a classic ivory tower built of consolidated wealth and a myopia bordering on negligence regarding that industry’s impact on real lives.  All while spinning tales of a utopian future.

As we head into Fall, Congress will review copyrights, and your Facebook walls may once again be filled with memes and headlines warning of threats to the internet and to free speech itself, and I encourage you to look beyond the smoke and mirrors. To that end, I’m launching a companion Facebook page for The Illusion of More blog in order to foster more informal discussion and to point you in the direction of real experts, who can answer specific questions better than I in most cases.  As for the other 47% of my friends who have nothing to do with copyrights per se, I’ll just mention that it’s many of those 53% who eat in your restaurants, shop in your stores, and hire your services.

Thanks!  DN

Are we sure copyright isn’t part of the future?

You know how you can tell a social or political point of view is losing ground?  When the crazy stuff bubbles to the surface.   Here in the U.S., for example, the GOP is floundering because it has a bit of a crazy people problem.  Intelligent conservatives remain frustrated by the headline-making loons in their party who don’t realize the sexual revolution already happened.  I certainly do a spit-take just like millions of others when I read about yet another politician who wants to make gayness illegal or roll back the rights of women to the dark ages, but I temper my own reaction with the faith that at least some of this righteous regressiveness is due to the disintegration of a dying element in our politics, just fading voices trying to be heard against the tidal wave of history.  Interestingly, the anti-copyright crowd would have you believe the same thing about those of us who speak out in defense of this body of law — that we are the ones clinging to a set of old values and methodologies while the future moves inexorably away from our world view because we don’t realize the digital revolution already happened.  But even a casual sampling of observations suggests to me that it is the presumptive revolutionaries on these matters whose positions are fizzling like an unstable isotope.

Speaking broadly, I’ve been paying close attention to this debate for just about two years, and it was this time last year that I started writing and hosting this blog.  Regarding copyright, it’s clear that the largest plank in the anti platform is the assertion that this system of laws stifles innovation.  Yet, despite the constant repetition of this particular thesis, I have yet to encounter one solid example of some economy-growing innovation being asphyxiated by the alleged toxicity of copyright.  From talks and articles by the learned Mr. Lessig to the smart-aleck drumbeat of Techdirt to the un-researched RSC memo of Derek Khanna to even the testimony of innovators last week before the House Judiciary Committee, nobody has presented any tangible examples of the untapped opportunities we are failing to exploit to the benefit of our prosperity.  I keep listening for a solid example, and I would not write in opposition if I heard one. After all, I have kids who need jobs in the future; and I no more wish to protect irrelevant, economically untenable, legal systems than I want my daughter growing up in a society without rights for women.  But after two years of listening, I got nothin’.

And not unlike the minutia-madness exhibited by factions of the contemporary GOP, we seem to be witnessing a lot of desperate scrambling these days among copyright’s antagonists; and it is interesting to watch some of the wheels come off just as we head into Fall and a comprehensive review of the law.  At one extreme we have Rick Falkvinge, founder of the European Pirate Party, sounding in this recent article like the black knight from Monty Python’s Holy Grail, proclaiming victory within his grasp despite having all four limbs hacked off.  To quote musician/journalist Helienne Lindvall, “As a Swede living in the UK, I can tell you how little influence the Pirate Party has in either country. Sure, they had a perfect storm back in 2009, when the Pirate Bay trial coincided with the election for the EU Parliament, managing to get two reps elected. But in the general election the following year the party got 0.65% of the vote, so has no representatives at all in the parliament/riksdag. They still feature in media debates on copyright – after all, a little controversy increases viewer numbers – but are largely viewed as a sideshow.”

Two posts ago, I wrote about the strange macro-economics of CCIA lobbyist Matt Schruers making the astonishingly facile argument that money not spent on media still goes into the economy somewhere.  And this week, Mr. Schruers offers this report stating that search engines (i.e. Google) actually contribute very little to pirate website traffic, whence we are meant to draw the conclusion that “disappearing” search results is unlikely to have a substantial effect on infringement because most users intent on finding illegal media already know where they’re going. Aside from substantiating a generalization that seems intuitive, the report indicates that, for example, a mere 8% of traffic to The Pirate Bay comes from a Google search. It’s worth noting, though, that if this number is accurate, that’s still about 240 million page views for the largest infringing site in the world. (See also VoxIndie’s analysis of this report.)

But in the scheme of what we’re talking about, does it matter if search is responsible for 8, 15, or 30 percent of traffic to TPB when the funding industry behind the study is responsible for 100% of the PR messages that tell users media piracy is socially beneficial, and copyright is irrelevant in the digital age? Or when that funding industry profits from said traffic no matter how it travels? Because I’m pretty sure U.S. companies are supposed to be 0% responsible for supporting or profiting from illegal markets, so I personally find studies like these and the not-so-investigative journalism they spawn to be exactly the kind of distraction they’re designed to be.  It’s lobbyist hairsplitting reminiscent of the political spin used by interests who are skating on rather thin ice — and probably in the wrong direction.

Photo by caitlin_w
Photo by caitlin_w

After two years of paying close attention to these matters, I can say that both anecdotal and studied evidence suggests that most of the general public and leaders in the U.S. and abroad still support creator and author rights. In fact, very few outspoken antagonists of copyright can even bring themselves to openly say that creator rights are unimportant.  This makes sense given the likelihood that anywhere from 30 to 50% of the people you know are rights holders or direct beneficiaries of intellectual property.  As outspoken and unapologetic as musician David Lowery has been on these issues, his bands Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker have actually seen an increase in their fan base and overall support.  Chris Ruen, in his book Freeloading, states that nearly everyone he speaks to about the ills of freely downloading music come to understand the mechanics at play and to sympathize with the musicians being harmed.  In late July, the American Consumer Institute released a report indicating that 90% of Americans support and understand the value of intellectual property rights.  And just last week, US Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker announced during a presidential visit to Music Row in Nashville, “Instead of viewing a new album as an expense to our economy, we now view it as an asset, because it supports jobs and generates revenue for years to come.”  This was in reference to a recent change in how we calculate GDP to reflect innovation, R&D, and the creation of “multiple types of intellectual property” like movies, books, music, and television.

This is where the real conversation is going.  So, it’s little surprise to see the anti-copyright crowd grasping at so many flimsy straws.

Common Grounds: Coffee Houses & Copyright Review

coffee sepiaI am presently ensconced in what I expect will become my new morning writing venue — a local coffee house/bakery located just a few miles from my alma mater, Bard College.  Like other establishments of its kind, especially those in proximity to very liberal, liberal-arts colleges, this place is steeped in the atmosphere of social consciousness. All the coffee is fair-trade, as is the chocolate used in the baked goods and confectionaries made on site. Posters adorn the walls advertising the fair-trade collective supported, depicting photos of Latin American and African workers enjoying the fruits of their labor rather than suffering the deprivations of many who harvest or produce the goods we consume.

It’s August now, but the Bard students will be here soon, gathering in ebullient clumps to study and socialize; and regardless of their majors or career goals, anecdotal evidence suggests that their sense of social justice will be an even more prominent component of their life plans than those of my friends and mine when we were here as students.  In the 1980s, we were mostly hoping Ronald Reagan wouldn’t start WWIII with nuclear weapons, but today’s digitally connected generation appears anyway to be more instinctively aware of their role as global citizens — that choices made in pampered, western life can directly affect the well being or suffering of individuals halfway around the world.  Of course, even this kind of consciousness only goes so far as it is nearly impossible to live in the developed world without inadvertently benefitting from exploitation in the developing world (see your iPhone), but at least the trend toward thinking globally and acting locally is common in the next generation, and I think it’s fair to credit social media as a catalyst in this case.

My new morning haunt is also a venue for local musicians to perform; and near the entrance is a sign reading, “Play what the people like.  We own every license there is!”  Below this, the BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC logos are displayed.  The sign isn’t very prominent, many people won’t even notice it no matter how many times they walk through the door; but it would not be out of place if it were hung next to the posters of thriving coffee, tea, and cocoa harvesters.  license signI’m sure the owner of this shop was simply following the law when he bought the music licenses, but whether he knows it or not, the sign about the music is entirely consistent with the non-exploitative ethos of the business. Despite the raw tonnage of gibberish that has been promulgated on the subject of media piracy as a “new model,” there is not one idea yet proposed that is anything more than a hypocritical contradiction of the same social consciousness that wants to promote and acquire fair-trade goods. So, with regard to media consumption, the next generation has to decide whether or not they can agree that exploitation is universally wrong while recognizing that some of the “innovation” that has been brought to you by Web 2.0 is merely the acceleration and expansion of junk business.  Check your SPAM filters.

On August 1, the House Judiciary Committee held its third round of hearings in the process leading up to comprehensive review of copyright law, and the witnesses invited to testify were supposed to offer various points of view on digital-age innovation and, in theory, make a case for why the present copyright system stifles said innovation.  The witnesses were as follows:

Ms. Danae Ringleman
Founder and Chief Customer Officer
Indigogo, Inc.

Mr. Jm Fruchterman
President and CEO
Benetech, Inc.

Mr. Nathan Seidle
CEO
SparkFun Electronics, Inc.

Mr. Rakesh Agrawal
Founder and CEO
SnapStream Media

Mr. Van Lindberg
Vice President of Intellectual Property
Rackspace Hosting, Inc.

Each witness represented burgeoning, intriguing, and humanistic business ventures, but not one witness presented a single, declarative statement as to what specific mechanism(s) in the current copyright system act as barriers to innovation.  Absent such testimony, and in light of the fact that all of these individuals can boast thriving  and legal businesses, one might only conclude that copyright in general must not be the proverbial monkey wrench holding back the future that people keeping saying it is.  This might explain why several of the witnesses, when pressed with direct questions from the committee, were quick to change the subject from copyright to patent law.  In fact, by my estimate, roughly half the hearing was devoted to discussion of the patent system, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the committee members had to double-check the name at the top of their briefing documents to make sure they were in the right room. We’re used to seeing this in public debate — certain technology interests assailing the principle of intellectual property in general, toggling between copyrights and patents at will — but I was surprised to see it happen in a Congressional hearing and do hope copyright review will become more focused on specifics going forward.

On the other hand, we could streamline the process, if we take a lesson from my new, local coffee house.  If the next generation of socially conscious citizens in the developed world simply consumes media the way they consume coffee, tea, and chocolate, we might save ourselves hours of misdirected testimony that is sure to come.  If people choose to marginalize media piracy to an exception, we will reduce the vague and vacillating assault on IP as a general concept and open the floor to frank analysis of what does and does not work in these legal systems.  Sadly, though, reports like this one by Helienne Lindvall indicating music piracy is most prevalent among the wealthy reveal that privilege too often begets a sense of entitlement that selectively overrides social consciousness. Among the hundreds of Bard students who will soon be tromping through here, most of whom will be art majors, I do wonder how many of their smart phones will be filled with music or filmed entertainment downloaded from torrent sites. Correct this one hypocrisy, and the debate becomes so much simpler.