Copyrights: An Author's Call to Arms

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Let's move beyond beating dead horses, and try to figure out which 
"live" horse we should be feeding and riding.

In my mind, intellectual property rights are the most important issues 
facing emerging technology and human progress; Linux is part of that 
progress. This discussion *is* very pertinent to Linux, and hiding our 
heads in the sand or arguing over minutiae is counterproductive.

I am a writer, as in both physical books and more ephemeral, digital 
works, including both prose and code. From my perspective, copyright 
establishes ownership of an expression of ideas; it establishes my right 
to control who prints my books for profit, such that I receive due 
compensation.

Copyright does *not* establish ownership of content and concepts; having 
written copyrighted prose about QuickSort does *not* make me owner of 
the algorithm.

Once my writings enter people's brains, I have (and desire) no control 
over them. If Joe reads my book, and then talks about it to Sally, he 
isn't violating my copyright; Sally is welcome and free to use what she 
has learned from me, via Joe, in her own code. I don't think you'll find 
my beliefs much different from those of most authors and creators; 
surely Vincent van Gogh would not claim control of the ideas spawned in 
the minds of those who viewed his paintings.

The value in the written word is not in the subject, but in the 
presentation. And that presentation is what copyright *should* protect. 
Copyright grants me, the author, control over who can publish my 
material, and how. No one can legally take one of my books or articles 
and post it online without my permission -- but that does *not* 
establish any "property" right on my part in terms of the underlying 
concepts.

When books were paper and copying was difficult, copyright worked well 
as a way of guaranteeing that an author was paid for their work. While 
the sharing of ideas is a potent impetus to writing, to ignore the 
profit motive is to suggest that writers don't care about eating.

The expression of an idea has value; if I write a particularly effective 
description of an algorithm, I should be paid by those who benefit from 
my work. With physical books, the relationship between work and value 
was clearly established; if I wrote something valuable, people bought 
lots of books, and I was able to feed my family from publisher royalties.

The digital age breaks that relationship, leaving authors in a difficult 
position. Publish a book electronically, and there is no way to compell 
people to pay the author for their work. Someone who would never 
consider stealing a book from a store is likely to copy a digital work, 
because doing so is easy and risk-free. It's like breaking speed limits 
-- almost everyone does it because they can get away with it.

Now put yourself in the position of an author. Unless you write purely 
for the spirit, it becomes very difficult to justify the effort of 
creating something for which you will not be compensated. It is bogus to 
claim that people will buy physical copies if they enjoy free digital 
versions; for most people, an MP3 is "good enough"; for most people, 
having a digital copy of a book is as good as having a paper one. In the 
end, the best an author can do is rely upon the "good" nature of people 
to pay for the value they've received.

So we have a conundrum: authors need to eat, but people tend not to pay 
for things unless compelled to do so. Copyright is, for digital 
documents, invalid for the purpose of profit; my only reason for 
copyrighting my online publications is to prevent others from copying 
and claiming authorship of my efforts.

Trying to force old models into new realities will fail; enroute to that 
failure, politicians will distort valid concepts (copyright) into 
draconian forms (DMCA). Corporations, by virtue of their legal nature as 
"entities", have perverted the process to the detriment of both creators 
and consumers. The Mickey Mouse protection acts do not extend copyright 
for the benefit of human creators -- such laws exist to benefit 
artificial business entities that have become more valid than their 
constituent human components.

A new model is required. And I believe the free software community 
should lead the way -- but only if it works *WITH* authors, musicians, 
coders, and writers to establish concepts for linking the creation of 
material to compensation (i.e., survival). Society can not progress by 
going backward (the corporate solution), nor by ignoring the needs of 
creators (those who deny economic value for expressions of ideas.)

In theory, "free software" is not bound by corporate cultures and 
regressive thinking. *This* community, represented by Linux developers, 
should be taking the reins and deciding which horse we ride and where it 
takes us.

I'm open to considered dialog.

-- 
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Professional programming for science and engineering;
Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.