Like many content-providers, I am disturbed by the huge amount of intellectual property theft over the Internet. Sure, it occurred pre-Internet but the now robust amount of easily accessible information has made this a profound issue. Impacted most are movie producers, musical artists, authors, bloggers and many more.
Now, wouldn’t it be best to just find a way to work within this paradigm? After all, many enterprising musicians have realized they can actually utilize the piracy by certain fans to make even more money on the back-end.
Perhaps. But, it should always be the choice of the content creator. I’ve personally had my information copied and republished without permission (at best) and without proper credit (at worst). I truly believe some people don’t know and understand that this is wrong. Others do, and do it any way. Mine is not a lone example. It’s very widespread.
So, it would seem that I — and many other creators, purveyors and compilers of content — would be overjoyed by the recently-proposed House of Representative’s Software Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senatorial cousin, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).
But, I’m happy and proud to say we’re not. Owners of huge websites as well as one-person businesses; those on the political left and the political right; those who usually believe in big government and those who want government mainly out of their lives are all — in their own way — saying, “Nope. We don’t trust you to control what is perhaps the foundational principle of liberty…Freedom of Speech.”
We don’t trust the FCC and its bureaucracy to choose winners and losers based on whose opinions they (or their elected official bosses) might not feel is, er…beneficial.
We don’t trust the politicians to resist pressure from their paid sponsors (I mean, donors) to tilt the playing field in one business’s favor over another.
No, while we would love protection from the pirates, we have more to fear from those who make the laws. Both intended as well as unintended consequences could eventually all but wipe out any freedom we have to make our thoughts and opinions known.
I appreciate and respect the owners of many sites such as Wikipedia and Google who participated in the blackout as well as the many individuals who called their elected representatives to complain.
Thank you for voting for Freedom, even though — in the short term — it still leaves us with the frustration of those who would steal from us.
Solutions? While a free-market solution is always (in my opinion) preferable, protecting its citizenry from theft is a legitimate function of government. So, I’m personally not opposed to a government solution, IF it can do it without causing more harm than good. Unfortunately, government has not proven to be especially proficient in this regard. Their solutions typically cause even bigger problems and tend to result in a greater lack of freedom for us all.
Please weigh in with your thoughts.
Enjoy this post? Receive an update when our next post is published by entering your best email address below and clicking Get Updates.
It’s a balancing act of massive proportions. I agree completely that government is the wrong answer in this case. I have no answer, but will keep fighting the good fight – buying the images I use, paying for the books I read, purchasing my music. An answer will be found, eventually, but for now keep the government out of this one. Thanks for a great post, Bob!!
Government has shown us over and over again they are not to be trusted to rule in that they do not just serve as another weapon in the situation.
If they want to focus energy, how about upholding the laws and rules already in place.
Brilliant!!
Thanks Bob!!
It has become a knee-jerk reaction to anything we don’t like; “there outta be a law.”
We forget that every law can become a weapon. We laugh at the laws still on the books like “no spitting on the sidewalks” and others so ridiculous that you just KNOW there is a fantastic book or movie plot in the story behind writing it into law. But those laws are ENFORCEABLE – imagine the havoc if someone decided to enforce them!
As Bob so succinctly points out, this is a law that, if passed, gives government OFFICIALS (remember that there is no such THING as “government” – the word simply refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time – that is PEOPLE) the legal right to control content on, and access of, possibly the most powerful forum in the world.
If you trust all of your government officials, now and in the future, then I say “go for it.” (I also say you aren’t living in the same world I am – but that’s your prerogative.)
My thoughts are that when intellectual property is SOLD the creator gives up their right to ownership. If I choose to SHARE and not PROFIT from that item it is my right now. Imagine Ford asking for a kick back each time a used vehicle is lent to a friend. Rent or lease your work and keep your rights to it.
Clint,
No one argues that if you buy a book that you should not be able to loan it, cut it up, burn it, sell it, take parts of it and resell it – just like your car example.
If you buy an audio CD – you own the medium, and that copy of it! You may do with it whatever you like – just like the car.
However, if you buy an electronic copy of that material, or make a copy (e.g. rip a CD/DVD) you should NOT be able to distribute that to anyone you like.
If I decide to give away a CD I’ve created, or sell it to you – do with it what you will. But why do you believe that you’d have the right to make unlimited copies of it and give it away? Even if you don’t profit – surely some of the consumers may have bought a copy – and you’ve deprived me of the right to profit from my creative effort.
Does that make sense?
Beth, thank YOU. Appreciate your kind feedback.
Thank you, Michele. Only thing I’d add to your great comment is that they should also undo the many, many laws and rules that are Unconstitutional.
Thank you, Geneva.
Dixie, “Right on!” to everything you said.
Clint, I was going to say pretty much what Tom said. And, he said it even better than I would have. One quick thing: you wrote: “…when intellectual property is SOLD the creator gives up their right to ownership.” Actually, selling a product that is based on your intellectual property is not the same as actually “selling” your intellectual property. In fact, big difference. Example, a songwriter sells the words of a song (intellectual property) to the music label (if he/she does that). That music label now “owns” the intellectual property and it is theirs to do with what they choose. They can sell it, sit on it and not release it, give it away, etc. When they put it in the form of a CD, they sell the use of that music to the buyer as well as the packaging (the CD) it came in, but that buyer can not (without permission) duplicate that and sell it OR even give it away to someone else without committing an illegal act. Just wanted to differentiate. It’s one thing to sell a product based on one’s intellectual property and quite another to sell the intellectual property itself. By the way, I can’t tell you how many times someone has said to me, “Hey, I just bought a six-CD program by {some speaker/author}. It was great! Do you want me to make a copy for you?” I then need to tactfully explain to them that they have just offered to commit theft. Of course, I explain it much more politely, but that is really what it comes down to. And, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Of course, as you say, they can loan it to me. But, just as one can’t copy the pages of a book on a copying machine and then give away or sell that book to someone else, it’s the same with any type of intellectual property. Does what Tom and I wrote make sense?
Tom, thank you. Great job of explaining it.
Great Post…i am sure there are many different ways to protect authors, singers…. Woithout affecting masses. Bob “mi querido amigo”(my dear firend) post anyday of the week
Ahhh, muchas gracias, muy amigo muy excellente. I so appreciate your kind palabras.
Thank you for saying this! More content providers should speak up about this.
Personally I think only people with a lack and limitation mentality worry about their intellectual property being stolen. These are people who sense that their outdated model of business is on its last few breaths, and they are kicking and screaming as the try to keep it on all kinds of artificial life support machines. Read up on what author/content provide Seth Godin has been saying the last few years and realize you’re better off figuring out a more innovative way to make money via your intellectual property. This isn’t the first time industries have fought to keep outdated models, but they always succumb and die anyway. The most amazingly prosperous argument I’ve read so far is by wold renowned author Paulo Ceolho. Here is his blog post on SOPA :http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2012/01/20/welcome-to-pirate-my-books/
Hi Victoria, I was kind of wondering if (though, more like, when) someone would suggest the prosperity vs. lack argument. I truly don’t think that’s what it’s about. As I mentioned early in the article, there is definitely something to be said about allowing people to take your intellectual property as a way of “getting it out there” into the universe and profiting on the back-end. As you mentioned, it’s a newer business model. What I also said, however, is that that should be the choice of the content provider who is the owner of that property. In your second sentence, you say,”These are people who sense that their outdated model of business is on its last few breaths, and they are kicking and screaming as the try to keep it on all kinds of artificial life support machines.”
Are you saying that I fall into that category? I would suggest that is not the case. While I truly don’t believe that someone should take what I’ve (or anyone else has) written and pass it off as their own (and, by the way, that is a lack consciousness in the person doing that – not the person being stolen from, and I hardly think that Seth Godin and Paulo Coelho would appreciate that either), I don’t depend on an outdated model. I offer a lot of my content free, as well.
There are some things that are appropriate to be given away for free and other things that are appropriate to be paid for. But, I would suggest that stealing another’s property, whether physical property such as a lawnmover or intellectual property such as a book, is never appropriate. I read Mr. Coelho’s post that you linked to and I liked it. But leave the choice to the creator of the information.
Again, my suggestion is that if you truly want to live in abundance rather than lack, then honor the property rights of others and allow them to decide how it is distributed. Does that make sense?
Hmmm. Is Godin now giving away all of his content to the public domain?
I like him and respect his point of view. I believe in my creativity and my abundance of ability to create, market and sell my original content, but that doesn’t mean that I’m ok with you (metaphorically speaking) giving my work away.
That’s why they call it “work.”
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
Tom, I know. Isn’t it interesting that we need to defend our right to not have our work (which, for many of us, has taken years…if not a near lifetime of study and effort) taken by others. And, if we do, we must be living in lack consciousness. And, I notice Seth still manages to “sell stuff.” I read a lot of Seth’s work and I’ve never felt that he suggests giving everything away for free. He has been brilliant in terms of his strategies regarding when to give things away for free. Again, there is a time and place for most everything. But to categorize as “lack consciousness” someone desiring for people to not steal from them seems a bit counterproductive to me.
@Bob, No I wasn’t saying that you personally depends on that outdated model. In fact I think you’re one of the people who aren’t overly attached to it, or you’d be supporting SOPA. I agree that it should be up to the author/creator to decide to allow people to “pirate” like Coelho does. I agree with that. But I’m also saying that in my view, a more prosperous minded person wouldn’t be concerned about petty theft. Because it IS petty theft, it’s not like it’s as financially threatening as they want to make it sound. How many creators would claim with a straight face that they’d be super rich were it not for the people stealing their work? That’s all I’m arguing – that’s it’s mis-directed energy and resources. My argument is that this model is changing anyway, so best to just get with the program and reap the benefits of being an early adapter.
@Tom, I don’t know whether or not Godin is giving his work for free. But I’ll bet he’s not losing sleep over his intellectual property being stolen. However, I do know a fairly successful blogger who has decided to give permission to anybody who’d like to copy his work and claim it as their own to feel free to go ahead to do so. Ironically, his traffic keeps growing and he hasn’t lost money because of it. Intellectual property is an interesting form of property, and to compare it with physical property is a misnomer.
If you try to hoard your work, like Hollywood does, the universe will force a change upon you. It’s just how the universe rolls. Why do they have to sit on a movie and not let people download it as soon as it’s released and pay the price of a movie ticket? If I have a big screen TV at home why do I need to go to a movie theater? I personally would rather pay $10 to download a movie legally than risk infecting my computer with viruses.
I still can’t be persuaded any differently that music movies or literature is any different than a watch car or purse. As long as I do not copy and profit from another’s work I am free to give it away or share it or even resell to recoup my original investment. The originator sold their soul to the devil of money and lost their rights. Correct in the eyes of the law or not. Not all laws are fair and equitable.
Whoa please. This post wasn’t about whether or not it’s okay to “borrow” or steal what someone else created. It’s about whether or not we trust the government to PREVENT it in the manner proposed.
If I create something, and someone else uses it for their own gain without my permission and without attribution, they stole it. That’s pretty simple. I can shrug and say “so what” or I can get totally peeved and throw a hissy fit, or I can even pursue legal avenues for retribution, it doesn’t matter – it was still THEFT.
New platforms, new mediums, new ways of doing business and promoting our message doesn’t negate basic tenets of ethics. NO one now says “well it’s okay that another person stole my idea and presented it to the CEO as his own and ended up getting the promotion I deserved because it’s a whole new way of doing business.” Or if they are, I haven’t heard it yet.
There is NO question that the content creators and thought leaders who are most successful, like you Bob, GIVE AWAY amazing amounts of content.
And there is also no question that much of the content you give away, or sell, gets repeated, quoted, paraphrased and misused without your permission or attribution by people who intend no harm and do not intend to benefit from the use of your material. They simply remember hearing something from someone at sometime and it’s meaningful to them so they share it.
There are others who intentionally “piggyback” on successful brands and philosophies – either tweaking them enough to call them their own or promoting themselves as experts on the subject without endorsement of the creator.
NONE of that is what is being addressed here.
Forget “mentality” – on the part of the creator or the person who uses, copies, plagiarizes, or otherwise benefits from stealing their content.
Ask yourself, IF we agree that stealing the work of another is wrong – do we believe that our government officials, and the proposals they have made, are the answer to preventing the act or punishing those whom they believe have committed it.
Wasn’t that the question?
Clint,
My wife wants to know “What does Clint do for a living?”
Clint, when it becomes possible to make multiple copies of your car or purse at very little cost to you then we can have that conversation. Until then, there is no parallel between your car and a recording which has cost an artist considerable investment of talent, energy, time and money to create, but which you can distribute to all your friends saving them the investment of purchasing copies of their own. By all means, loan, give away or resell the ORIGINAL. Share through recognized avenues that pay the artist a royalty (albeit a small one) like Spotify or Rapsody – but when you prevent another person from purchasing their work it is no different than you going to work and not getting paid. I’m guessing that’s something you wouldn’t put up with for very long.
Bob,
The balance between protecting ideas and making it available is an interesting topic. In the software arena, there are really two camps – corporations like Microsoft and Apple who go to great lengths to protect their ideas and then the Open Source community who make their ideas freely available to all.
If you consider the state of the internet today, it is arguably due in greater part to the Open Source community than the closed source corporations. Most Open Source guys/gals don’t try to protect their ideas or worry about credit, but provide them for others to improve upon and/or figure out how to use them in a business model. Even Apple owes its OS to the Open Source community as it is fundamentally based upon a flavor of UNIX (an open source Operating System).
So where do we go from here? Firstly, the government needs to stay out of the internet. Second – If one chooses to protect their ideas and charge for them, then others should respect that and honor it. Finally, I think there is tremendous argument for encouraging others to use ones words, music and ideas to advance the social condition. Remember the BNI mantra – “Givers Gain” (Thank you Dr. Misner).
Kirk Goodwin – Navigator Coaching
Transformation Coach
PS: Anyone who would like to copy these words and ideas are given an express license to do so. If you choose to credit me, I would be honored, but you are not required to do so.
Victoria: Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that. Thank you for saying that it would be up to the author or creator to decide. That’s my big point in that part of the post – that regardless of how one feels about the “shoulds and shouldn’ts” (in terms of strategy/procedure) it’s up to the individual author/creator to decide.
I’d also say, though, that we are not necessarily talking just about petty theft and not talking only about money. When someone invests their life in something, they will often resent (and I’m in this category) of someone taking that information without permission and passing it off as their own. I believe that’s simply wrong. Money is not the only issue here. Right and wrong is a significant issue, as is the choice of the originator.
Regarding the blogger you mentioned to Tom who gives all his stuff away for free. Great! – his choice. I give away a huge amount of my content; that which I choose to give away. Regardless, I don’t want someone claiming they are the originator of it. If your blogger friend tells people to feel free to use his as theirs, that’s great, too. That’s his “choice.” I may or may not agree with it. I may or may not feel it sets a good example. But, it’s his information, so it’s his choice.
I must respectfully take issue where you say, “Intellectual property is an interesting form of property, and to compare it with physical property is a misnomer.” It certainly is comparable in terms of ownership. Property is property.
Thank you for participating in this discussion. Regardless of where we disagree or do not disagree, I appreciate your respectful participation and exchange of ideas.
Clint: You wrote:
“As long as I do not copy and profit from another’s work I am free to give it away or share it or even resell to recoup my original investment.”
No one is arguing with you there, Clint. The key words being, “as long as {you} do not copy and profit”
That wasn’t how it came across in your first note.
Regarding the following that you wrote:
“The originator sold their soul to the devil of money and lost their rights.”
I really don’t understand what you are saying about selling their soul to the devil of money. So, I won’t comment on that part.
However, where you write:
“Correct in the eyes of the law or not. Not all laws are fair and equitable.”
While you are right that not all laws are fair and equitable, laws that protect one’s property certainly are. Laws protecting private property are one of the bedrocks of a society’s abundance. Without it, we’d have nothing but a survival of the most thuggish.
Dixie: Your points are so right on. I want to copy and paste everything you wrote. Your examples are perfect. Rather than just look at intellectual property as a “lesser form of property” and hold it to a lower standard of importance (which sort of seems to be the case with several of the very well-intentioned commentors), we need to bring it to its full conclusion. When we do, we come up with “theft is theft is theft and all the rest is commentary.” Thank you for your very well thought-out teaching.
Kirk: Thank you for your very balanced approach to this. Again, I think it comes down to choice and opinions. And, we can all have our own opinions so long as, in the end, we respect the choice of the individual to make the decision with the property they created. Of course, as the “marketplace of individual consumers” we can “vote with our wallets and feet” as to whether we agree with them or not.
One point I need to make, if you don’t mind. Where you write:
“Finally, I think there is tremendous argument for encouraging others to use ones words, music and ideas to advance the social condition. Remember the BNI mantra – “Givers Gain” (Thank you Dr. Misner).”
I’m not sure how that works into what we are discussing. In this case, we’re not talking business but charity…which is a great thing and hopefully we all do that. But, “Givers Gain” is not about charity, just like “The Go-Giver” isn’t about charity. They are both business strategies focused on providing significant value to others and understanding that – when you do that constantly and consistently – you will receive in great abundance. While I don’t disagree with your statement in and of itself, it seems as though you are saying it can ONLY advance the social condition when it’s not done for profit. The value one provides through their work should indeed advance the social condition. And, charity – both in terms of money AND things like words, music and ideas (as well as mentoring and volunteering) can all help to do this. But, just because one deals in words, music and ideas does not mean they are not running a business just like everyone else. Of course, I might have totally misunderstood your intent in terms of that statement. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts.
Bob
You are right. I see it everywhere. Stuff I know originated elsewhere with someone else laying claim to it. I’m all for spreading, sharing and collaboratiing. I even believe it’s powerful and positive as long as credit is given.
I don’t think the government can or will stop it. I think the cream will rise and the copy cats should be called out. The strongest voice is the voice of the people. Call them out and Share the call outs with others. Name them and watch them squirm.
I’ve personally witnessed this. If they did not originate it…let them defend the Power of the Pople, search engines and social media… who’se voice can now RING stronget than ever. They won’t be around for long!..People Power!
Bob,
I have written and re-written a response, but it always seems to move the discussion further away from the original blog post so I’ll just clarify.
I really did not mean charity. I believe, like a referral in the case of BNI or the “Laws” in Go-Giver, you can give away thoughts and ideas and still have it support a business model. If you’d like to have a discussion about this, I would love to explore it with you.
Thank you for participating in your blog discussion. You continue to add value to my life on a regular basis.
Thank you, Billy, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with us!
Kirk, thank you for investing so much time in this. I’m sorry my response to you missed the mark. I probably misunderstood what you were trying to say. And, yes, I agree with what you write in the second paragraph. My only point is that it should be the choice of the information creator to make that decision. I think my confusion might have stemmed from what you said about “the social condition.” When I read something like that it seems to, first, take things out of a business context and two, imply that something is ad “either/or” between being good for people OR good for business. As you know, when done correctly, it’s both. So, yes, please know that I understood what you meant and agree with you. Thank you again.
Bob,
The essence of this issue is well expressed near the beginning of he post: It should always be the choice of the content creator.
The strangest left-handed compliment I ever received when I was writing, recording and producing music came from a “fan” who announced to me after a show, “I liked your last album so much I taped it and gave it to all my friends.” I asked him if he’d considered the fact that money had been spent to make that recording and needed to be made back. He had not even considered it. He was genuinely speechless at the question.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Roy
Hi Roy, have had some very similar conversations, and know of some other speakers/authors who have had the same. I truly believe that person not only meant it as a great compliment, but had absolutely no idea that what he had done was wrong. No idea at all. While those kinds of people frustrate me (and it’s difficult to understand how they could not know), they don’t do it out of malice or even selfishness. It’s the one’s who know it is wrong and do it anyway that I have a real challenge with. Yes, I agree with your first statement: “It should always be the choice of the content creator.” Thanks Roy!
Thanks Bob! Some good stuff here, and I love where you’re coming from.
I bet there are anti-SOPA/PIPA people who just want to keep getting “free” stuff, but not me. Instead, I’ve read/heard of people who used MegaUpload (for example) or other file-sharing sites for wholly legit purposes.
Then there’s stuff like this: http://www.starwarsuncut.com/
Star Wars fans paying tribute to their beloved film. Officially, it’s (probably?) copyright infringement, but I don’t think anyone is watching this and NOT buying a DVD, nor claiming “Darth Vader is MY idea,” yet this kind of work really sparks creativity. Is it wrong? I vote “no,” but what does the law say? What would SOPA/PIPA say?
BTW Have you seen this movie: RIP: A Remix Manifesto?
http://ripremix.com/
Has some really eye-opening stuff. And, believe it or not, it’s very entertaining for a movie about copyrights!
Bob,
I agree with your assessment. Yes, it is in fact wrong to use other people’s content, software, music, or intelectual property without paying for it or gaining permission to do so, etc. Having said that…we have a propensity in this country now to look to government to solve every single problem or challenge we face. What happened to the days of personal responsibility? What happened to the days where people knew and understood the difference between right and wrong? The truth is, there always has been and always will be those people who look for ways to create ill-gotten gains.
Government has, in fact, proven over and over it is incapable of protecting us from every possible bad situation that may be created. The more the government tries to “protect” us, the more liberty and freedom it takes from us. A government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take away everything we have…including our freedom. Government writes laws that continually violate the Constitution of the United States in the name of protection and security. With each of these laws, another one of our freedom’s are taken away. In short, it is completely impossible for government to legislate morality. The more government tries to legislate morality, the more inadequate the legislation becomes as the lawless will ALWAYS find a way around the law.
This is an issue that obviously a law cannot fix. We have many laws already on the books that protect content providers from piracy, yet, piracy continues. This is a much deeper issue and one government simply cannot fix. This is an issue each person must deal with in his or her own life. The vast majority of people abide by copyright and infringement laws already and there is no problem. A minority of people simply don’t care. They are going to break the law no matter what what the law is. For those ignorant of the copyright laws, perhaps they just need to be educated. Therefore, this is a cultural issue. It also a legal issue as well.
From the legal perspective, there are currently laws on the books that protect a content provider’s copyrights and intelectual property. The challenge is that in many cases, small infringement’s of these laws is cost prohibitive to prosecute; thus, they go unpunished and create a culture of “it’s ok to download that song/copy that video/repost that material.” After all, it’s only one song/video/book and no one will do anything anyway, right? Well, it’s still wrong yet because the deed goes unpunished in many cases, that small infraction becomes “acceptable behavior.”
Rather than creating new laws which are far more reaching and fail at the intended objective, why don’t we look for ways to make it easier or more cost effective for content providers to prosecute viololator’s of existing laws. If people know there are actual consequeces to violating the law, perhaps it will motivate more people to abide by the law. Even at that… there will ALWAYS be those who will break the law. There simply is no way around it. But if we can deter more people from violating the law, perhaps the problem will be less painful for those who invest the time, talent and energy to produce these works of art. Creating more legistlation is not the answer.