Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
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.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Blogbook IP
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyright Readings
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Julian Dibbell
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
James Grimmelmann
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Ben Edelman
Ernie the Attorney
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
MIT Tech Review
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

Berkman @ Harvard
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
Global Internet Proj.
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office

In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline


« "Steal It, Steal Some More" | Main | Tear Down the (Digital Science Publishing) Walls »

September 19, 2007

Attributor, Fair Use, and The Opposite of DRM

Email This Entry

Posted by Alan Wexelblat

Last Friday I had a phone conversation with Rich Pearson and Matt Robinson of Attributor, a Redwood City, CA, startup. The nominal reason for the call was that Attributor announced this week that it has signed up Reuters as its second big customer using the company's content-tracking platform. In actuality, we had a wide-ranging conversation on the company's products and philosophy.

People who've been reading me for a while will know that I feel we desperately need new business models - the old dinosaurs aren't going to survive. Attributor wants to make the case that they provide a technology platform on which new models can be built, based on the ability to find out quickly where content is appearing on the Web.

Attributor's own business model is that a content creator signs up with them and identifies content to be tracked - so far they have announced deals with news syndication giants AP and Reuters and are in "closed beta" with 15-20 other content creators, including bloggers. The Attributor platform monitors Web pages and identifies instances of use of the tracked content.

The "secret sauce" (as they put it) has two parts: one is they claim to be able to track billions of Web pages in near-real time; the other is that their idetification algorithms are claimed to be able to identify the amount of content reuse, down to about the paragraph level within a text document.

The first is interesting in that it's a claim about the value of the long tail. Does AP care that its story appears on someone's blog or MySpace page? Does it care as much as it cares when that story appears on your local NBC affiliate's Web site? Maybe, maybe not. One of the arguments Pearson and Robinson made is that their customers care about the "reach" of certain messages. It's one thing to see your stuff show up at all on Digg or Slashdot; it's another thing to know that within a week of that appearance the story was found on 300 other blogs. From just a simple marketing perspective, it would be useful to know which types of content propagate in which ways. Attributor claims that people care about the long tail into time as well - not just the the first 72 hours.

The second point is truly key to discussion around fair use. If we believe that anyone in the Cartel still respects the principles of fair use doctrine, then it makes a huge difference whether I've copied a whole AP story or am just quoting a paragraph in a Copyfight posting. And of course once a "hit" has been found it's simple to analyze the page for the presence of paying ads, giving prima facie evidence of whether someone using a piece of content is making money off that use.

So if the technology works - they claim 99th percentile accuracy in both precision and recall - what can you do with it? Well, one of the services Attributor offers is automated DMCA takedown notices. It's up to the customer to decide to send them, but they're there. This led me immediately to wonder how they plan to avoid fiascos like SFWA created with its spurious takedown notices. To wit, what prevents me from using Attributor to generate improper DMCA notices?

The answer is "not a whole lot." Attributor have some identity-checking capability, as do most online Web companies. And they provide linkbacks so that takedown notice targets can see what content specifically is claimed to be infringing as well as who generated the notice. But the DMCA remains a blunt, clumsy instrument and Attributor isn't going to fix that. Pearson and Robinson want to focus more on the notion of "multiple remedies". If I know who's using my content in what quantity how often for what purpose I have much more information to go into a business negotiation. They believe their customers are more forward-thinking and interested in new revenue opportunities more than locking down use.

Speaking of lockdowns, what about DRM? Attributor paints itself as "the opposite of DRM" and on this point I agree. The fundamental notion of DRM is control over action by people with content - it's necessarily a preemptive strategy since you can't attach DRM to content post facto. The fundamental notion of Attributor is "know what's going on then decide what to do". By providing visibility into how, where, and when content gets used, they believe they can open up opportunities for new product development, such as use-based licensing.

Will this really happen? Magic 8-ball says "ask again later". It's quite clear we need new tools and new ways of thinking about managing digital content, but I don't see any guaranteed winners this early in the game.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Tech


1. Crosbie Fitch on September 19, 2007 4:48 PM writes...

Let's not forget that both attribution and copyright are not things that can be determined by the discovery of coincidence between two intellectual works.

Attribution depends upon authorship (not necessarily who the publisher or copyright owner is).

Copyright depends upon whether an allegedly infringing work was COPIED from the copyright holder's work - NOT that it has indistinguishably similar elements.

Anyway, in terms of new business models, these will not arise by ingenious mechanisms for putting the genie back into the bottle, or one's head back into the sand.

So, you cannot control diffusion and you cannot even control attribution. All you can do is control publication and demonstrate authorship. The public will help you diffuse the work and uphold the truth of authorship. They will also protect your publication rights as they recognise the value of such rights for themselves.

As for business, the audience will commission the production and publication of works that they value. This has always been the case, and it will always remain so. Instantaneous diffusion doesn't change this one bit.

Permalink to Comment


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

Sherlock Holmes as Classical Fairytale
Trademark Law Includes False Endorsement
Kickstarter Math
IP Without Scarcity
Crash Patents
Why Create?
Facebook Admits it Might Have a Video Piracy Problem
A Natural Superfood, and Intellectual Property