Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
Copyfight spent a lot of time in 2010 talking about remix culture. But even though the remix has now thoroughly soaked into the social consciousness it still needs legal reforms and exemptions to support it.
The target of the petition is the Copyright Office's existing (but about to expire) exemptions allowing creators to break DVD encryption in order to sample video clips, and also a forward-looking request asking the Office to approve a parallel set of exemptions for "Internet videos" which would include online vids, streamed content, and other content that just happens not to have been burned down to a specific plastic platter.
One item that is included in this petition but that hasn't been talked about much is the importance of this sort of remixing as political statement and for teaching. From the Arab Spring to #Occupy, a tremendous amount of political action and information has been released solely in Internet video form. Anyone who wants to assemble any sort of educational, critical, or political-statement material on these topics will inevitably have to rely on these videos. I think it's extremely important that these forms of education and action not be barred by copyright laws that are lagging the times. I hope you agree and will join me in signing.
Gotta love a guy who doesn't mince words. What Bott and lots of other less-vitriolic writers are up in arms about is Apple's iBooks 2.0. I mentioned this little gem a couple days ago with particular reference to the idea that what Apple's doing might well be antitrust-worthy. That's not what has Bott up in arms, though.
In the first column, Bott dives into the really nitty-gritty of Apple's EULA, pointing out that not only does Apple claim the right to sell whatever iBook you make it also claims the right to prevent you from selling it elsewhere, even if Apple rejects it. Still think using iBooks is a good idea? You're braver than I.
As Bott notes, even if this is a condition on your use of Apple's software it's an unprecedentedly restrictive one. It is as if Adobe claimed you couldn't sell any photograph you processed in Photoshop (except through Adobe). Or if Microsoft claimed you couldn't sell any book you wrote in Word (except through Microsoft). If those examples seem ludicrous on the face of it, that's only because word- and photo-processing software is well established in the marketplace and there are competitors and years of user expectations in place. E-books are a new beast and it looks like Apple wants to own the cow and the milk, in perpetuity.
In the second column, Bott digs back in to describe how Apple is sabotaging not just individual authors' work but the entire ePub (EPUB) standard, which it had previously supported. This one, as he notes, affects not just e-book authors but also publishers and readers.
EPUB is an open format, handled by an organization known as the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF). Apple is a member, of course, as are big names in the software industry (Adobe, etc), in graphics (Agfa), and of course dozens of publishers from around the world. EPUB is XML-based and uses key XML concepts like namespaces and references to XML standards as maintained by the W3C.
Bott's column lists several ways in which iBooks 2.0 deviates from (and thus breaks) the standards, including proprietary namespaces, incompatible and non-standard CSS extensions, and critically it defines a new MIME type. Without going into too many grotty details, a MIME type is a way for a data file such as an e-book to tell various processor programs what its contents are. Programs like Web browsers that handle multiple content types (e.g. text, images, flash elements) use MIME types to know what program should be invoked for displaying each bit of the page. A program that knows how to display one MIME type will often reject all others because it doesn't know how to handle them.
So if you have, say, an e-book reader that is expecting to process files of type "application/epub+zip" - which is what the EPUB standard says that ePub books should be, then when it encounters type "application/x-ibooks+zip" it's just not going to display that file. And presto, all your iBooks 2.0 output is no longer viewable on any other reader. That's standards compliance for ya, sure enough. Apple also broke inbound compatibility, in case you care. An EPUB-standard document can't be opened in iBooks 2 either, so if you were thinking about collaborating with another author and passing files around, you better make sure that your partners all have iBooks 2 or you can't share with them.
Last time I closed by noting that e-book authors should probably steer clear of iBooks 2. This time it looks like anyone who is interested in improving the future of e-books should steer clear. C'mon, Apple, this is the kind of anti-standards doublespeak evil we used to bash Microsoft for.
It seems that various scientific and technical publishers are raising objections to the USPTO using their publications for prior-art searching. The PDF lays out the Office's position and policies around fair use. It's actually somewhat complicated but the document does a good job of describing things: In some cases, the Office has subscriptions and other forms of paid access. In others it's making use of public sources, or submissions by applicants. In some cases, the Office is providing copies of this material to applicants as part of office actions such as patent rejections or re-examinations, both of which may rely heavily on prior art such as scientific/technical publication.
The Office claims, I think with good justification, that even in cases where it is providing personal copies of non-licensed literature to applicants it is doing so under a protective umbrella of Fair Use. The PDF lays out the Fair Use justification for these practices and notes other steps the Office has taken to protect copyrights, such as not placing non-licensed material online where it could be arbitrarily copied.
Finally, the Office claims (again, I think with good reason) that it requires applicants to be responsible for copyright protection of materials that they submit to the Office and if applicants make copies or distribute materials that the Office supplied them as part of an action, then it's the applicants who bear the responsibility for this (possibly illegal) copying.
What I can't figure out is why this is an issue in the first place? Isn't one of the biggest problems we have with patents today the craptastic lack of prior art on submissions? Isn't it in everyone's best interest to use the available sci/tech literature to make the best possible prior art decisions? If there was some kind of print-on-demand feature for all sci/tech literature inside the Office I could understand the concern, but who exactly is up in arms over what seems to me to be perfectly normal uses of publications?
Or is it just that Fair Use has gotten so badly thrashed in the past couple decades that people sort of conveniently forget it even exists in statute?
I freely confess that I'm even more ignorant of how the UK regulates copyright than I am about how the US does. They're a signatory to Berne, obviously, and work-for-hire is not legal there. But beyond that I'm pretty ignorant, and I find myself utterly boggled by two stories out of the isles this week.
In the first story, the BBC reports that student Richard O'Dwyer has lost his appeal and is set to be extradited to the United States for copyright infringement. The Beeb has the sense at least to put 'piracy' in quotes because even if O'Dwyer is guilty of everything he's charged with, all he did was provide people with URLs. He hosted no content, uploaded nothing, shared nothing. Since when did putting together a list of URLs become an extraditable offense? And will Google's UK executives be in handcuffs on the next plane? 'Cause I'll bet you a good English pint that every link you can find on O'Dwyer's seized computers and TVShack.net Web site is also listed in Google's search results (and Yahoo! and Bing! and probably a dozen others).
But seriously, folks, what the hell is going on here? The BBC's backgrounder page on extradition points to some controversy about how it's easier to get extradited from the UK to the US than vice versa, but seriously isn't copyright infringement a civil tort? Since when did this get to be an extraditable offense at all?
Then there's the case of the too-similar photographs. Let's say I'm in New York City and there happens to be a traffic accident. I snap a picture of it - the cars are there and here, policeman just so, pedestrians along that side, etc. I publish this photograph and copyright it. But it's a bad intersection and the next year there's another traffic accident at that same place. A witness whips out her cell phone and takes a picture. The two images are substantially similar - major elements, composition, angle, lighting, etc. Despite these similarities I can't say that the woman has violated my copyright, since her photo is an original composition in which major elements resemble mine. Right?
Well, um... In the case as reported by Amateur Photographer in the UK, the company New English Teas has been found to be in violation of a copyright owned by Temple Island Collection (a souvenir maker) on an image of "a red London bus against a black and white background of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, with a blank sky". Come again?
In fact if you look at the images side by side, as you can do in this Digital Photography Review story on the case, the photographs have significant differences in terms of angle of the shot, depth of focus and placement of key image elements, and in contextual and background elements. Really, they're similar photographs only when you describe them at a high enough and abstract enough level. And in fact the judge agreed that the two images were not identical, but felt that the visual composition was in fact the copyrighted element here.
Which leads me to ask my expert readers: Is this really a copyrightable element, separate from the copyrightable nature of the photo as a whole? If so, are we really in for the world of hurt I think we're in for? Because, really, there are a lot fewer compositional arrangements than there are photographs and if I can copyright, say, the composition of a rider on an animal mount just how broad of a copyright am I going to hold? Or is this some nonsense peculiar to the UK?
Y Combinator is Paul Graham (and partners') early-stage seed-funding organization. Part angel investor, part venture capital introduction, and part hip techster scene, it often has an impact well beyond the small amounts of capital it invests in early stage companies. Graham is also a respected essayist on the Web in his own right. So when Y Combinator puts up something called "RFS 9: Kill Hollywood" that gets some raised eyebrows.
The page appears to be a response to the recent fracas over SOPA/PIPA and Hollywood's insistence that its 1960's-era business models are deserving of special legal protection regardless of the disruption that would cause to the 21st-century Internet. But I digress. "Kill Hollywood" is looking for companies that want to "hasten the demise" of movies and TV. The underlying theory is that in 20 years people will (should) do things other than passively consume entertainment and that funding companies now will lead to that sort of social change in a couple decades.
It's a reasonable theory and part of the job of a good angel investor is to find, promote, and take risks on long shots and gambles that may not pay off for decades. But the hostile approach doesn't necessarily sit all that well with people who like movies, despite what they may think of the studios. One such impassioned response came from moviegoer.com in their Moviegoer blog, titled of course "Kill Y Combinator".
Moviegoer itself is an (iPhone) app-centric company, dedicated to the idea that going to the movies is a social experience for which a mobile device app can be a boon. So naturally they have a strong bias toward continuing to encourage people to go to movies and do movie-related things for decades to come. The blog post starts off drawing a line - placing Moviegoer on the anti-SOPA/PIPA side of the discussion but arguing that Y Combinator's call is a kind of "road rage" response.
Certainly the anti-PA group is clear that Hollywood's approach has been aggressive - and not helped by Dodd's attempt to talk tough on Fox News, a tone he abruptly changed. But does one side's nerdrage justify a call to kill it off? Moviegoer argues no, with the sort of circular reasoning that if movies and TV were no good we wouldn't all be torrenting them. That's true so long as you don't think there are no alternatives. Cold pizza isn't as good as some things, but it's still pizza, right?
The Moviegoer piece makes several other interesting points about things like changing the business model, adapting theater showing to capture long-tail effects, and so on - you should read it - but I wanted to pull out one that seems so screamingly obvious even I have tripped over it again and again. What if every bit of content was available for pay, for a reasonable price, nearly everywhere you were connected, 24/7? What if you didn't have to go through subscription sign-ups and long-term contracts and incompatible formats and region encodings and and and all of which put enough friction into the system that it's easier to fire up Bittorrent and type in a search term?
The technology exists to do this right here, right now, today. Apple very nearly did this with iTunes and made a kajillion dollars even though it was format-incompatible and had some DRM hindrances. MP3.com tried and got crushed under the weight of lawyers. What's lacking is the will on the part of the Cartel (afraid much, guys? do you sleep better now that Jobs is dead and you know he's not coming for your movies the way he did for your music?) and someone with the big brass balls and funding to put the tech pieces together. Will Moviegoer (or its parent company) be that someone? I dunno, but I sure hope someone will.
In the end I find myself mostly agreeing with Moviegoer's philosophy. Good movies are good and the art form has survived and thrived for decades because there is good stuff there. Sturgeon's Law applies, of course, but I do like that ten percent. And my 10% is probably not your 10% is not my parents' 10% and on and on. Lean-back entertainment may not be the most fitness-encouraging nor mind-engaging thing human beings can do, but it's fun. And that's worth keeping alive.
Seems that if we're reading the iBooks EULA correctly then if you make something with it you're agreeing to sell that created work through the iBooks store only. You can still give it away anywhere, except of course iBooks only produces content in a proprietary format readable only on Apple devices. And of course selling through Apple's store means forking over 30% to Apple for the privilege of doing so. Never mind the utter ridiculousness of this attempt to lock in book writers, says Chris Foresman at ars: it's potentially illegal as a violation of antitrust.
It was just last August when Apple was hit with one antitrust lawsuit over its ebooks business agreements. Now it looks like they're angling, or maybe just carelessly stumbling, toward another one. Or maybe not. As Foresman points out in the column there's a lot of ambiguity in the language here. Apple isn't claiming ownership or copyright of your created work; instead, it's placing a condition on your use of its software. That latter may well steer clear of antitrust concerns.
Or not. My bet is that some lawyers are going to get very rich off this; if you're an e-books author you might want to steer clear (of iBooks) at least until the dust settles somewhat.
First, she correctly emphasizes that the works in question are not your traditional public domain works. In traditional cases works come into the public domain because their copyrights legally expire. In this case the works in question were considered public domain erroneously, and only because the US did not abide by its treaty obligations, specifically the Berne Convention's Article 18. Under that Article, the US should have implemented copyright regulations that protected certain foreign works as they were protected overseas. Eventually the US did that in the so-called Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act and that Act is what was challenged in this case.
As you probably know, the case went to Holder (that is, the US Government) by a 6-2 decision. The Court saw no problem in placing works under copyright that were previously treated as public domain. Following much of the reasoning in Eldred v Ashcroft the Court majority saw no First Amendment problem, nor a copyright statute problem. This has led to some fears in the blogosphere that Congress will now feel it has a green light to claw back other public domain works. Whether this is a new green light or just an acknowledgement of what the government has been doing since 1790 depends on which side's arguments and briefs you read.
The major point of focus of Hilden's column, and one that I think has a particular chord for Copyfighters, is that in his dissent Breyer focused less on the holders of copyrights than on the original creators. Without someone doing creative work, he reasons, there is nothing to copyright and thus the prefatory language — to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts — in the Constitution that creates copyrights in the first place deserves more respect.
Breyer (joined by Alito) would have the Court adopt a more utilitarian calculus: if a copyright restriction would promote more works then it should pass Constitutional muster. If it would instead prove more restrictive and lead to less creation then it runs counter to the very reason that copyright exists and so cannot pass Constitutional muster. This has been my belief for some time. I think the past century has seen the balance of power swing vastly in favor of copyright holders and against creators, but Breyer's argument helps me believe there is still hope for a reasoned argument to restoring a more equal balance.
Jonathan Coulton, for those who have been living under a rock, is something of a nerd-rock superstar. Formerly a programmer he has recently made his way as a full-time creative artist with his own works as well as teaming up with pop-culture icons that include Neil Gaiman and John Hodgman. Gamers probably know him best as for the wildly popular "Still Alive" track from Portal and he has been quite happy to give away his songs for free as well as via traditional recordings. And like any other artist working today he has a view on illegal copying.
Turns out this view is both complex and nuanced, as he explores in his blog post. That's good, because he started the whole thing off by Tweeting something sarcastic that apparently got taken way out of context. What Coulton ends up arguing is that there are both good and bad aspects to sharing sites like MegaUpload and to the environment in which he's creating.
He notes that people, particularly on the anti-copying side, throw around big numbers with little or no evidence to back them up - numbers based on over-simplistic math and bad premises. And he concludes by saying:
I believe in copyright. I benefit from it. I don’t want it to go away. I love that we have laws and people to enforce them. But if I had to give up one thing, if I had to choose between copyright and the wild west, semi-lawless, innovation-fest that is the internet? I’ll take the internet every time.
It's interesting to me to see him come down on this side of the debate because I found Coulton, and became a fan, due to an illegal work. Even though I'm a gamer I never played Portal, but I play World of Warcraft and apparently so do a lot of other Jonathan Coulton fans.
The points he raises are mostly ones we've discussed over the past few months - ownership questions, proprietary formatting, restrictive DRM and licensing, and so on. But I thought it was worth blogging about his first point,which is just forehead-slappingly obvious and yet somehow I missed it. E-books - at least as they are sold by major providers today - pose a major privacy risk that physical books do not.
As Stallman notes, you can walk into a store and anonymously buy a physical book, often just with cash. At most you might be required to show proof of age for some materials but no record is kept of what you show. Contrast that with e-book purchasing, which requires a logged-in identity that is linked to credit cards, bank accounts, and other hard-to-remove traces. These purchase records can then be subpoenaed or seized by authorities who might have an interest in what you've been reading - bought any books on agricultural fertilizer lately? Or maybe you live in a Middle Eastern country and your government suddenly cares that you've been buying e-books about how to build apps that connect to Twitter's API.
I have several things I've been holding off blogging. Between being away at Arisia, catching up afterward, and skipping posting yesterday in support of the anti-SOPA/PIPA protests (you did call your Congresscritters, right?). Also, we're getting spam-comment bombed lately, which is dragging on the servers. The auto-filters catch a lot of them, but not all. Apologies in advance - I will clean things up ASAP.
He is, naturally, happy to crow about how much he's making on books that major publishers rejected but the deeper points here are what I want to dig into. For one thing, Konrath is actively managing his sales, with data gathering and experimentation around good pricepoints. For himself the sweet spot seems to be about USD 4 or UKP 1.5. This is interesting as other authors have found different pricepoints to work better and worse. What we don't know is what are the factors that make those pricepoints the winners for one author and the losers for another author.
Second, Konrath is clearly pleased at being pulled along in Amazon's wake. All the marketing and expansion of Kindle sales into new countries is expansion of his potential market. For English-language (or at least English language-reading) countries this is a zero-cost expansion, which is important in an environment that features shrinking markets and shrinking opportunities for physical books.
And that leads to the last interesting point, which comes up a bit in the comment thread below the blog post: what happens when the e-reader market saturates? Or more likely, what happens when the Kindle market saturates to be replaced by Kindle Fires or Kindle Novas or whatever comes next? Will Konrath's books still be available on those new platforms? At what cost to whom? How many highly successful e-book authors can the market support? And so on and so on.
More and more the e-book business is starting to remind me of the stories I've read of gold-rush California. A few people got very rich, a lot of people made some money, and a whole lot of people went broke or got hurt along the way. If someone has a formula yet for telling the likely winners from the likely losers I have yet to see it. 2011 saw the outlines of such a guide, compose largely of personal experiences; I expect by the end of 2012 we'll have some really good and decently tested principles. Until then...
The schedule is now up and the winners are:
* SF/F, Prior Art, and Patents, Fri 5:30 PM (I'll be playing the role of the creative type in a sea of legal opinions.)
* Copyright, Satire, and the Public Domain, Sun 1:00 PM (this one will also feature Richard Stallman. Me, Stallman, and three IP lawyers. Should be a hoot.)
Roger Ebert has a column up this week with his top 6 reasons why movie theater attendance is plummeting. Hint: piracy isn't on the list, though the ease of getting movies in the home via services like Netflix is.
No, once again it's the same deadly duo: high prices and bad customer experience. Prices on both tickets and concessions are sky-high and people seem not willing to pay for it, given that they're likely to have to sit in a crappy theater with an aisle down the middle, deal with obnoxious teenagers and compulsive texters, and have their in-theater options restricted because indie and non-US films aren't getting wide distribution.
In my comments on Dan Gillmor's "Swindle" rant I remarked that I thought e-book buyers were not particularly price-sensitive because they're locked in. For movies that's less and less true and so we're seeing price sensitivity. I wonder, also, how much of this is due to the crappy economy. If people are making good wages and not afraid of losing their job or their house they may not care so much if they pay an extra $3-5 per e-book or per movie. But that's not where we are and I wonder if people who are unhappy with the pricing are expressing part of the larger economic malaise.
(h/t Boingboing where I first saw a pointer to Ebert's column.)
The immediate focus of his ire is a blogger posting under the name of Janet on dearauthor.com, and in particular her entry called "The Entitled Reader". Janet, in her turn, seems to be peeved at being called 'entitled' and to feel that readers - particularly readers in the SF/F genre - have relationships with the authors through which they express their feelings about the authors' works including the prices of such works. Scalzi, in his turn, assembles both his own personal experience and extensive remarks from Patrick Nielsen Hayden of Tor publishing to defend the proposition that publishers have relationships with readers and do think of readers as their customers and not just retailers.
Having read all of this, and having some experience myself dealing with publishers and authors (and a lot of experience dealing with fans) I think both parties are right to some degree but are talking past each other because they're focused on the issue of the relationship and not on what it means.
To wit: Scalzi and Hayden are correct that SF/F publishers have made serious efforts in the past couple of decades to have their editors connect directly with readers. Janet is correct that - even though many major SF imprints exist within the Big 6 publishers - the actions of the people who work within the SF divisions are often different from and sometimes in direct contradiction to public statements by C-level executives at those publishers.
But the missed point in here? E-book prices are a swindle, and readers are noticing it. Readers who care will complain and they will complain to the most obvious and public faces they can find. As Janet correctly points out, some publishers make it very hard to provide interactive feedback. At best many of them offer just a generic contact form and do their best to give an impersonal corporate Web presence. Hayden is spot-on in saying that some editors have gone headfirst into the social media swimpool and give a very human and interactive experience - but doesn't follow the thread to realizing that the corporate experience feels impersonal and disconnected by comparison.
So while Scalzi continues to be correct that it is not the authors' fault that e-book prices jumped 30-50% overnight he is missing the point of why Janet and Gillmor and others are making these impassioned public complaints. Readers are not stupid people, and readers know when they're being ripped off. People who feel ripped off complain and if your response to complaints is "the doctor is not in" then you're missing the point. It may be misplaced, but I hear the readers' ongoing complaints to authors about prices as a plea for help.
Shocking news: someone is right on the Internet. In fact, two someones are right on the Internet here, but nobody seems to be understanding why it matters.
In today's installment of his "The Big Idea" series, John Scalzi notes that e-books give some authors an opportunity to update older works that they couldn't otherwise revise. When nobody's willing to print an updated edition (it's much cheaper just to reprint), you can still make changes you feel are important for the electronic edition.
Oh look it's been 20 whole days since I wrote something about the ungodly mess that is e-books this year. TL;DR version: nothing has changed, physical books are still better, you can go now.
The result is, as Gillmor says, "a terrible deal for the customer." Whether that terrible deal will lead more people to think twice before they buy e-books is still up in the air. Gillmor says it has changed his behavior, so maybe that's so. But I tend to think that once people have taken the plunge and bought an e-book device they want to keep feeding that habit. Ferpetessakes people pay $3 and up for a measly ringtone. I think the demand here is not particularly price-sensitive and in that respect publishers' greed isn't going to have much impact on adoption. Sales figures for December e-book/physical book purchasing should be out in the next couple of weeks and we'll see whether Gillmor or I am correct.
Nearly every science fiction writer I've hung out with or listened to has asserted that his or her business was not predicting the future. They might write about it, but the purpose of writing about the future is not, usually, to say "this is going to happen" (as if they were fortune tellers gazing into crystal balls) but rather to say "here's an interesting projection of what might happen." That's true, but it's incomplete.
Sometimes writing about the future is a way of warning people "If This Goes On..." or saying "Your way of looking at the world is not broad enough; we see things differently." Writers who want to do prediction often do so outside of their fiction. Famously, Arthur C. Clarke wrote about geostationary communications satellites, but he did so in a 1945 scientific article. I was pleased to play a small part in Bruce Sterling's Viridian Design Movement an artistic online commune dedicated to discussion of what a globally warmed world would be like. (*)
So it's fair to say that a writer doesn't write to predict. But SF writers do predict, and sometimes they predict with real clarity, bringing together threads that are loose in the wind and saying "here, this is pointing to THAT." In this category I give you Cory Doctorow's speech "The Coming War on General Purpose Computation", given at the recent Chaos Computer Congress in Berlin.
It's about the first half of the recording's hour. Go ahead and watch it. I'll wait...
Done already? If you're not convinced that he's right I probably can't add much. His recapitulation of how we got into stupid copyright wars, and how copyright wars are going to morph into a war on general computers is both scary and, I fear, scarily accurate. Like much good prediction it's not far-future and believing it doesn't require any leaps of faith. You just need to perceive what's been going on, and going wrong, in the last decade or so, and realize it's not going to get better, it's not going to end peacefully; on the contrary, it's only going to take off. A few weeks ago I suggested that 2012 would see a revolution in drug manufacture; what Doctorow is saying is that the next decade will see a revolution in every industry, from biotech to automotive to medical devices and anything else you can think of.
Doctorow ends on an optimistic note. I hope he's right.
(*) Don't believe me? Google "Wexelblat Disaster". Yes, that's me. I was moderately appalled to discover that was my Wikipedia legacy.
Last time I touched on this issue I noted that we still needed alternative strategies to manage IP around life-saving medicines. Doctors Without Borders/MSF has been working on a plan to try and break the logjam, called a "patent pool". The concept of the patent pool is simple: rather than asking any one pharma company to forego its profits while its competitors don't play along, the pool asks all companies with patents on relevant medicines to contribute their patents to licensing arrangements in the pool. The pool's managers license the patents as a portfolio, and distribute any returns to the companies that contributed.
So far so good. In this case, the MSF pool is focused on older HIV-treating medicines. Today's regimen for advanced HIV care involves a so-called "cocktail" of drugs. These drugs are often patented by separate companies so buying or licensing them is complex. Additionally, its hard to get patients to take all of a cocktail regularly and in the proper dosage. Care would be more effective if the cocktail could be administered as one pill containing all the relevant ingredients. But making such a pill requires licensing all the patented medicines. Enter the patent pool. Countries like India and Brazil have the large-scale high-quality manufacturing facilities to make single-dose medicines at the scale needed, if only they can get the license.
So MSF has been going to the patent owners asking them to contribute their patents to the pool. These are patents, generally, on older generation drugs, not the latest and greatest which remain out of price range even in a pool strategy. But even the older drugs would be life-saving for tens of thousands of people.
Which brings us to today's sad update from MSF. In this bulletin they note that despite two years of effort to get public pressure on, Johnson and Johnson have refused to allow their patents on three necessary older-generation AIDS drugs to be licensed through the pool. Merry Christmas, J&J. I hope you can sleep well, somehow, despite knowing how many people you're leaving to die.
(Usual full disclosure: I am a strong personal believer in the work MSF does and a regular, if minor, financial donor.)
On his blog "Whatever" John Scalzi declares he's tired of his readers griping about the prices of e-books. On the one hand I sympathize with him - it's not like authors have any say in what you get charged for an e-book. And he's right in that having an e-book reader doesn't make you a special snowflake. On the other hand, the fact that a large number of readers are complaining is probably an early warning sign and the response probably should be "Here's who to complain to" rather than "Shut up." I seem to recall a time not too long ago when lots of people complained about the then sky-high prices of audio CDs...
Audioporn Central, my current favorite new-music site, pointed to a new music business site just entering "artist alpha" with the goal of legitimizing sales of DJ sets, remixes, and the like called "Legitmix". The theory is interesting but I can't see it working on a practical scale. Still, let's take a look.
The idea is that the creator who uses sampled music (DJ, producer, cover artist, etc) would not sell or distribute their work directly. Instead they'd go to Legitmix and upload their work, then identify the samples used in it. Legitmix encodes the work into a distributable file that the creator can then sell or give away as desired. When the listener wants to decode the file for enjoyment they have to demonstrate ownership of the sampled sources somehow; if not, they can buy the requisite samples through Legitmix's store. Once you own the components, the theory goes, you own a free-and-clear new composite work.
In a universe where everyone cooperates, this might work for simple mash-ups. Some of these are simple A|B tracks containing only two songs. But a good mash contains a lot more and let's not even talk about the hundreds of samples in a full-length DJ set. The amount of work involved on the part of every listener to demonstrate ownership of, or acquire rights to, every sample in your average hour-long set is nearly astronomical. The end user experience of this is going to be awful.
Of course, we also live in a universe where people don't just cooperate easily - if we did, the damned Copyright wars would've been over years ago. Some people don't want their stuff sampled. Some people want to approve the samples' uses. Some stuff doesn't have an easy license-granting authority in the first place (see "orphan works"). Sometimes you can get a license for the base song, but not necessarily the specific performance that was sampled. Et cetera et cetera. The number and amount of legal and contractual complications entailed is enough to stun even a Cartel lawyers, never mind some random start-up company.
What Legitmix is doing is employing fancy technology to shift the burden of licensing work from the creator to the listener. That means you multiply the amount of work by N where N is your number of listeners. Eww. Now there is some attraction to that, in that you might want to price your sampling fees based in part on the listenership. If someone samples you and nobody listens to that sample you might care less than if 100,000 people listen to it. But really, that's a detail. The complexity explosion remains mind-boggling.
I'm reminded of the situations that led to patent portfolio licensing. If you stop and think about it, companies with lots of patents could probably make more money by licensing individual patents to individual partners. Partners would pay only for the patents they needed, and everyone would be happy, right? Except it's so insanely complicated to keep track of all that it turns out to be simpler just to cross-license the entire patent portfolio. Sure, you pay for stuff you don't need but the amount of time and hassle (and lawyer fees) you save with a blanket license more than makes up for it.
Now substitute "sample" for "patent" in the above paragraph and you'll see why I think Legitmix is a non-starter. I give them an "A for effort" and good on them for trying to think creatively about solving the sample-licensing problem but this one fails the basic smell test.
BT alleges that Google's services - everything from Maps to Google+ - violate half a dozen patents that BT owns. FOSS includes a scribd link to the complaint and pointers to the six patents in the USPTO system. The patents themselves are old, and dense, and very broadly written. My extremely un-lawyerly opinion is that Google is indeed violating the patents as written, which means that either they pay up or they get the patents narrowed/invalidated. Given my fundamental believe that most software patents are overbroad crap issued without even a semblance of respect for prior art the choice for Google boils down to what would be less expensive: license or invalidation.
Neither is pleasant or cheap and the situation is muddled by the fact that BT is (according to Mueller) the fifth big company to sue Google over IP violations. Google thus has to consider the effect that settling any one of the suits would have on the others.
Jenny Shank at Mediashift has a column that starts off with the interesting title "The Trouble With Gifting an E-Book". She's right: e-books make much worse presents than regular books, but sadly she misses many of the important reasons why. Shank's column is a lovely bit of nostalgia about the personalization of gifts and the feel of the physical book. All true and good, but really kind of missing the mark. Let me tell you why e-books are lousy gifts:
Books are one-size-fits-all. Unless your reader needs a large-print or Braille edition, a book is a book is a book. The e-book for your iPad friend is not the e-book for your Kindle friend is not the e-book for your Kindle Fire friend is not the e-book for your Nook friend even if they all have the same name. The near-complete lack of interoperability between these devices is stupid beyond belief. Of course, you can get someone a gift card but we're talking about gifting books here.
Books are actual gifts. You give a book, and the recipient owns it. He or she can share it with friends, donate it to a library (unless imbeciles get their way with destroying first-sale doctrine), pass it on to their kids, and so on. When you gift an e-book, you're just letting someone rent it and that rental can be modified or yanked back by the e-book publisher or distributor at will and often without notice.
Book gifting is simple. Find a book, buy it, wrap it, send it along or hand it over. E-book buying remains such a complex mess that there are actually whole Web sites devoted to helping people through the convoluted processes that each seller has established for getting e-book.
My family has long had a tradition of special holiday presents delivered at year's end by "The Book Fairy." I don't think the fairy's going electronic any time soon.
Once again I'll be doing a couple of intellectual property panels at the annual Arisia science fiction convention in Boston next month. At least one of them will also feature Richard Stallman. The con is January 13 - 16, 2012 at the Westin Boston Waterfront. Plus we have Phil and Kaja Foglio as Guests of Honor this year, so that should be pretty awesome right there.
I still don't have a final schedule for when the Copyfight-relevant panels are taking place. I'll post that once it comes out.
It's been too long since I propped the work that Cory Doctorow has been doing at tracking some of the most egregious excesses of the Copyright Wars.
First up, you might want to check into the philosophical backgrounds for which I recommend his series of columns for Locus Online's "Perspectives" series. Locus is the go-to 'zine for SF/F writers and serious literary fans. Cory's been writing good thoughtful philosophy pieces there this year, of which I have two clear favorites: "Why Should Anyone Care?" questioning why anyone (who reads or writes SF/F particularly) care about copyright anymore; and "It's Time To Stop Talking About Copyright". Here he is talking about not just the utter failure of copyright law over the past decade and a half but the really crucial issue of how what starts as copyright policy inevitably becomes Internet policy and that just makes everything worse.
With that as background you should check out a recent series of Cory posts over at Boingboing where he's been dogging what I think is probably the most frustrating and sorely under-reported story of the 2011 Copyright Wars: the ways in which the Cartel have continued to abuse the system, particularly the DMCA's takedown provisions. I wrote some months ago about the crucial importance of the DMCA's Safe Harbor provisions but the Cartel is exploiting its way around those provisions by abusing the poorly implemented notice-and-takedown procedures of sites like YouTube.
Oh, and there's a good chance the US Government (Senate) may get its fingers into this pie: according to Boingboing and Ars Technica, Senator Ron Wyden has promised to get up the nose of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the DHS over domains that were seized based on (shaky) claims of copyright infringement.
Remember back in August I noted a class-action suit around alleged e-book pricing collusion? Well now the feds are involved. Yesterday the L.A. Times reported that the US DOJ is investigating "potentially unfair pricing practices" by the big five book publishers. DOJ joins Europe's cops and some states' attorneys general who've all said they are investigating.
Investigation is a long way from indictment, however, and I suspect we won't see indictments come out of this. If the big publishers feel the heat they'll probably enter into some kind of negotiated settlement promising to play fair. And the prices of e-books will remain sky high.
I mean, seriously, we're in roughly the 12th or so year of the Copyright Wars and this is not even vaguely news. I should go back in the Copyfight archives and dig up my old postings like the first time the RIAA used the cops (L.A. at that time) or the first time I noted that the Cartel had taken over DOJ more or less wholesale. But I can't be arsed to do it - the song remains the same year in and year out and I'm tired of it.
Still, props to Techdirt for its extensive and meticulous documentation of this latest manifestation of the disaster.
Vaughan-Nicols is pretty damned clear: Apple is engaged in a world-wide war on Samsung and Android in an attempt to drive them out of, and monopolize, the tablet space. There are at least nineteen related lawsuits happening in nine different countries as Apple tries to use its patent portfolio to bludgeon competition out of the marketplace. No wonder I was confused.
Vaughan-Nicols notes that this massive campaign is starting to draw regulatory notice, which is not bad but kind of a case of the horse already having left the barn. If the problem is the overuse of overbroad patents to monopolize a marketplace then the answer isn't to retroactively fight those patents; the answer is to tighten up the patent-issuing system so that crappy overbroad patents stop getting issued in the first place.
I promise I'll talk about drugs in a minute, but first I want to meta-introspect...
There are a lot of tabs I open in my Copyfight window. Most of them don't make it to posts because they're not well-enough developed for me to say something about, or because someone else is saying all I want to say about something. For example FOSSPatents has been dogging the Apple-Motorola patent suits story extensively. I confess I don't understand what Apple is up to here and nobody else seems to have anything clear to say about it.
Then there are stories that never quite materialize, despite my hopes that they will. Earlier this year, news went out that some of the most popular (blockbuster big-selling) drugs were going to go off-patent this year. For much of the past two decades the drug industry has made huge profits off these blockbuster drugs - hundreds of billions - and patents have played a key role in protecting those profits. Patents prevent other companies from copying the drug and selling it cheaper or making a generic version. Drug companies have developed an elaborate rolling shell game of patenting in which they continue to protect their drugs by developing variants, improvements or new delivery mechanisms for the drug that can then be patented. A drug originally marketed (and patent-protected) as an injectable may then be re-patented and further protected in pill form or inhaler form.
The problem with this is that sometimes these medicines are essential, life-saving treatments and intellectual property ends up killing people. This is usually justified by the huge expenditures necessary to create and test a drug as well as shepherding it through the FDA approval process. The figures I've seen for that range from USD 800 million up to 2 billion dollars. Of course, I've also seen figures claiming that drug company spending on advertising and promotion dwarfs their spending on R&D, by up to 6:1. So I'm not wholly sympathetic to big drug companies crying poverty.
At around the same time the stories about drug patents ending hit there was an interesting item on my local PBS station, WBUR, about one-person drug companies. The idea here was that these companies - often a sole proprietorship of someone who had spent decades working at a larger pharma company - could provide a much cheaper way to get new drugs into the pipeline. You still need a big organization to run the large trial studies that the FDA requires, but the process of drug design, modeling, and small-scale testing can be done by renting lab space and equipment at about 1/10th the cost of a big company doing it.
Sadly, despite the promise of new ideas and cheaper ways to get things done, nothing much has materialized on this front. So the story sat in my unfinished file for months and probably would have been dumped if not for two related items that came through my news stream recently. The first is a nice little five-minute piece from PBS News Hour on the ways in which companies have dragged out the last bits of life from their patent-protected drugs and also the multi-billion dollar question: is the era of blockbusters over?
If it's true that drug companies can no longer depend on huge-selling drugs to prop up their profits then they may have no choice but to diversify and to farm out production steps to cheaper alternatives. 2011 didn't see any big changes, but I'm now wondering if 2012 may be the first year of an upheaval in the drug business such as we've seen this year in the publishing business.
At its heart a patent is a government-granted monopoly. It's a quid pro quo that's so fundamental it's even in the Constitution - you do these useful things and in return you get all these legal protections. But there's nothing to say we couldn't also have another quid pro quo, and that's what Sanders is proposing. Drug companies would forego their monopoly protection (which comes with no guarantee of income) in return for guaranteed income with no monopoly. Specifically, Sanders is proposing the government fund a $3 billion/year pool of prize money that would be outright awarded to innovators. Interestingly for us open-access types, Sanders is also proposing that at least 5% of that money be set aside for "any individual, business or nonprofit organization that openly shared information, data, materials or technology that contributed in a positive way to the development of new drugs."
In the current economic climate and political deathlock I doubt Sanders' proposal will go anywhere, but I am pleased to see at least some people thinking creatively about new ways to handle intellectual property in tricky circumstances.
And to my few readers who made it this far, thank you for suffering through with me. I'll try to make my posts more coherent as a general rule.
More than ever, publishing is not a fire-and-forget activity. This blog entry from Neil Gaiman contains a cautionary tale of an author and a bad e-book experience. He even manages to avoid pimping his own audiobook line too much.
The canonical discussion of access-control mechanisms such as paywalls and DRM is that people ought to pay for stuff. That's not a wholly ridiculous idea; I've repeatedly asserted that creative people ought to get paid for what they do.
The problem? How do you know who has and who has not paid, particularly when you present your content in multiple ways on multiple platforms? This was brought to my attention by a column written by usability expert Jakob Neilsen.
Neilsen critiques the Wall Street Journal's iPhone app for its confusing user interface. In particular, the app appears to be asking people to pay twice for WSJ content. This causes the app to get horrible reviews. Neilsen points out that a fairly simple redesign could fix this particular app's problems, but I see this as symptomatic of a bigger issue.
By paywalling its content, the WSJ has taken on the burden of keeping track of who has and who has not paid. And, sensibly enough, the human being who pays for the content feels like she ought to be able to access the content she paid for, whether it's on her desktop or her mobile device. In fact, what is happening is that the WSJ, through poorly thought-out design, is transferring this burden to the end users who are then pissed off by being asked to pay twice for the same content.
Entities (people, corporations) who lock up their content behind automated mechanisms need to start paying attention to this, or they're going to be dealing with a lot more pissed-off customers. Paywalls already cut your subscriber base significantly (90% or more from figures I've seen). How much does it cost you to alienate that last 10%?
You can follow the Boingboing post and its link to the ALA site for the latest sand-throwing childishness. I thought it was ironic to read this Boingboing post right after I read a comment here from reader Dan T on yesterday's item, where he points out that putting bits on one's own disk can have significant advantages over cloud-based music systems. Sadly, even if you do buy electronic products in download form, if those bits on your disk are wrapped in someone else's DRM you're still at their mercy.
I've been somewhat deliberately avoiding writing about online music of late because it's all still depressing me. Still, I wanted to note in passing two stories that aren't yet formally connected but soon may be.
Kantor's guide focuses on issues such as format, chiding Apple for still selling AAC, and on what mobile device you use, with distinctions for nerds and non-nerds. Still, the core message is: buy something to stream, not to drop on your hard disk.
Not that you're necessarily going to get everything you want from these services, though, particularly if you want things that aren't released on major labels. In fact, if you use Spotify, you just lost access to over 200 indie and minor record labels' catalogs. The problem, as Matt Lynley lays out in that column, is that the cloud services are paying... um, in my tribe we call it "bupkis".
In addition, the streaming services like Spotify are seen as cutting into the outright purchases you are being advised to make on the other cloud services. Spotify, in its response statement, claims (sole) responsibility for getting people to stop illegal downloading. Epic achievement there, guys. Can you convince the Cartel to stop suing people for downloading now that, you know, you've stopped all illegal downloading?
Smith notes that open access has more than proved its worth, both anecdotally and in repeated tests. The value of publication is not just in reaching those for whom the publication was intended; the value is in being read by a wider and wider audience, many of whom are unexpected readers who can make unexpected connections and derive surprising results and new value from openness.
