This week, The New York Times has been hosting a copyright “debate” between Columbia’s Tim Wu and NBC Universal’s general counsel Rick Cotton. (The entire debate is available on The Times‘ site; the instant link is to one portion of the debate.) We use the term “debate” lightly because, as we analyze below, these commentaries are not discussions featuring opposing arguments. Instead, they are framed discussions that express implicit support for the content industries’ view that copyright and control are synonymous.

We’ll use as an example Monday’s question about the use of copy restriction technologies. The first problem with the Times‘ question is that it conflates creators of copyrighted works with owners of copyrighted works. By asking Rick Cotton (who represents a copyright owner) to respond, the Times perpetuates a common misperception that creators and owners are one and the same.

Typically in today’s commercial environment, they are not: the creator often surrenders ownership of his copyright to a corporation hoping the corporation can monetize that creation more effectively than the creator would on his own. The income stream a creator expects from this surrender may or may not occur, and history is filled with creators who never received a dime from corporate owners after surrendering their work.

Why is this conflation important to identify? It’s important to identify because one of the chief arguments corporate copyright owners put forth advocating more restrictive copyright law is that doing so will ensure compensation to the creators. This argument is — and always has been — utter garbage. Hip hop artist Q-Tip spoke for generations of stiffed artists when he rapped in “Check the Rhime”:

Industry rule number 4,080 / Record company people are shady

Technorati Tags: CommuniK., Copycense, K. Matthew Dames, piracy

(more…)

Editor’s Note: Site Check is a special section that shares with our audience noteworthy Web sites or user-generated content. Previously, a part of our weekly Copycense Clippings coverage, Site Check now is a special section that appears on Thursdays.

If you have or can recommend a Web site, online project, podcast, screencast, or video you feel is a noteworthy contribution to the public debate about creativity, code, and content, please let us know. We gladly will attribute all contributions, so when sending in a Site, please include your name (or screen name).

The Promise of a Post-Copyright World. Again, we feature the work of QuestionCopyright.org, which provides an interesting historical perspective on industry attempts to induce a copyright choke hold. Categories: Bundle of Rights; File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; International.

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense, K. Matthew Dames, Site Check

Jeff Leeds. Radiohead Finds Sales, Even After Downloads. The New York Times. Jan. 10, 2008. Even after distributing its album online for as little as zero dollars, zero cents, Radiohead’s fans buy enough hard copies to make it the week’s sales leader. One difference (which makes a difference for folks like us) is the compact has better sound resolution. We’re willing to listen to MP3 files to get a sense of whether we’re willing to buy, but when we buy, we’ll buy for resolution and ownership. (First sale doesn’t apply to music downloads unless the license agreement specifically provides for it.)

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Robert McMillan. Network Solutions Stands by Name Policy. PC World. Jan. 10, 2008. In what it says is an attempt to prevent the fraudulent practice of domain tasting, Network Solutions commits a gross policy violation by registering the domain names itself if the searcher does not purchase that domain. This action is particularly objectionable because the company long has marketed itself as a registrar whose legitimacy should be unquestioned given its connection to the American government and its status as a pioneering domain name registrar. (In the early nineties, Network Solutions was the company the National Science Foundation chose to develop the country’s current domain name registration service, was for a time the sole registrar of .com, .net, and .org domains.)

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Nate Anderson. EFF Tries to Quash Labels’ ‘Making Available’ Claims. ArsTechnica. Jan. 13, 2008. EFF’s brief (.pdf) in the Atlantic v. Howell case argues, among other things, that “an infringement of the distribution right requires unauthorized, actual dissemination of copies of a copyrighted work,” not just downloads to a shared network folder. The hearing in an Arizona federal court occurs January 24.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Monica Hesse. Hey, Isn’t That . . . WashingtonPost.com. Jan. 9, 2008. Just a few months after the the Alison Chang/Flickr photo contretemps threatened Creative Commons with legal action (which later was rescinded), the Fox network is outed for broadcasting pet photos that belong to someone else without the photo owners’ permission. Most will suggest turnabout is fair play, but we’re more concerned with the vehemence with which the photo owner exclaims “It’s my photo!” This is a rhetorical question, but we’ll ask away: how is it that words like “mine,” “ownership,” and “control” have become so pervasive in an environment that allows unprecedented access to creative work?

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense