Why Do People Participate in Open Source? Reputation.

I stumbled upon this article written by Mitch Kappor from April of last year. Entitled How is Open Source Special, it gives a nice overview of open source software.

Years ago, Bill Joy, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, made a statement that is still true today - that no matter what your company is, most of the smart people in the world work somewhere else. Open source is a way of leveraging those untapped resources - those smart people.

To answer the skeptic's question, "Why do people participate?" Kappor points to reputation.

The work may take a lot of time, and he or she is not getting paid to contribute to the project, but, in fact, the person is building reputation capital, and reputation is a significant resource.

As a young person who has been online for a number of years, I can attest to this notion. Copyrightings represents a major foray into building my 'online identity.' Robert Scoble, I imagine, was hired at PodTech.net more for his blogging endeavors than his videographing skill (though he certainly does a good job).

The 'database of intentions' John Battelle speaks of is the sum of someones online actions. This post and subsequent searches on Google and my comments on TechCrunch and my additions to Wikipedia are part of my online identity in the same way a coders changes to Firefox or Linux are part of their identity.

This isn't new. Reputation is the new resume.

Against Patents in Pharmacueticals

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University has written this succinct opinion in favor of a medical prize fund. This fund would provide incentive for research and development of drugs in the way patents are supposed to, but unlike patents, the social costs would be minimized.

The most important ideas that emerge from basic science have never been protected by patents and never should be. Most researchers are motivated by the desire to enhance understanding and help humankind. Of course money is needed, and governments must continue to provide money through research grants along with support for government research laboratories and research universities. The patent system would continue to play a part for applications for which no one offers a prize .

This reminds me of a previous post about genetic diseases being patented. This also supports the recent GAO report.

Sharing Makes You Popular

In the past, physical constraints made sharing difficult. Access to books in the Middle Ages was limited due to troubles associated with production and distribution. In an age where everyone can produce (as opposed to just monks) and distribution incurs a minimal cost, sharing has become the norm for many. Corporate entities, however, have shied away from such egalitarian methods. Conventional wisdom says profits come from perfect control. Instead, burgeoning artists (and some established entertainers) are finding that perfect market saturation trumps perfect control.

John Perry Barlow, who would go on to found the EFF, was a writer for the Grateful Dead during their heyday. According to JPB,

In regard to my own soft product, rock 'n' roll songs, there is no question that the band I write them for, the Grateful Dead, has increased its popularity enormously by giving them away. We have been letting people tape our concerts since the early seventies, but instead of reducing the demand for our product, we are now the largest concert draw in America, a fact that is at least in part attributable to the popularity generated by those tapes.

A similar tone is enumerated by Cory Doctorow, who writes for BoingBoing. The award winning science fiction writer simultaneously releases a free online version of his book under a Creative Commons license and a traditional paper copy for sale in book stores. According to Cory,

“I’m generating more sales of my printed books. Sure, giving away eBooks displaces the occasional sale, when a downloader reads the book and decides not to buy it. But it’s far more common for a reader to download the book, read some or all of it, and decide to buy the print edition."

So, go ahead. Do what your mom told you to: share.

Cultural Brevity Quote

John Perry Barlow's classic piece on intellectual property in the digital age provides this nice thought on information:

"Information Is Perishable.

With the exception of the rare classic, most information is like farm produce. Its quality degrades rapidly both over time and in distance from the source of production. But even here, value is highly subjective and conditional. Yesterday's papers are quite valuable to the historian. In fact, the older they are, the more valuable they become. On the other hand, a commodities broker might consider news of an event that occurred more than an hour ago to have lost any relevance."

See my previous post on cultural brevity.

Cultural Brevity

As I've written before, Shakespeare did not originate many of the stories for which he later became famous. For example, Arthur Brooke wrote The Tragical Historye of Romeus and Juliet thirty years prior to the first performance of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Later writers, like Arthur Laurents, would adapt the work. Countless versions, including Laurents's West Side Story have been derived from Shakespeare's seminal play.

Today, however, this form of creativity has been crushed. The lengthy terms of copyright make it nearly impossible for artists to "stand on the shoulder of giants". What this creates, I believe, is cultural brevity.

The overwhelming majority of copyrighted works do not remain profitable for the duration of protection. However, even after a creative work is useless to the original creator, others cannot use it because of copyright restrictions. Compare this to mythology or legends which, in an oral culture, evolved with each telling. The characters of, say, I Love Lucy, cannot grow, the story cannot evolve, because the creators have forsaken the franchise, yet the content is still restricted.

Take, as a counter example, Star Wars. Although the material is still very much under intellectual property restrictions, the original creators have propagated a social norm - a culture, if you will - of creative evolution. George Lucas is a supporter of fans' derivatives of his work. Works like the following are technically illegal; only the unique qualities of Lucas allow it to spread.



This implicit acceptance by Lucas is hardly present in most content. Instead, as creators forsake their work, it stagnates. Cultural icons pass into history after a brief term of popularity. The greater creative abilities of the general population is disallowed by copyright.

Oral cultures were cultures of evolution. Each bard or elder telling a story had the chance (desired or not) to create. In many ways, the Internet allows for a neo-oral culture. The evolution of cultural memes by the digital consumer/creators is similar to the evolution of legends and myths by storytellers.

GAO Report: Patents do Not Cause Innovation

Pharmaceutical companies are among the most prolific users of the patent system. The hundreds of millions of dollars required in the research and development process for drug companies have traditionally been returned through intellectual property rights.

However, a new report from the Government Accounting Office concludes that the patent system does not increase innovativeness, only profits. Although research and development increased 147% in the last decade, the number of new drugs created only increased at 38%.

As the American Constitution Society writes, the "current patent law discourages drug companies from developing new drugs by allowing them to make excessive profits through minor changes to existing pharmaceuticals."

Because the barrier to patent obtainment is so low, pharmaceuticals can make copycat drugs for little cost, but big profits. As this paper by Nancy Gallini and Suzzane Scotchmer suggests (and a new bill by Senator Kennedy supports), grants and prizes can be as effective as intellectual property protections in encouraging inventiveness.

AllofMP3.com Sued by Major Record Labels

The Russian site, AllofMP3.com has finally been sued by the companies which make up the RIAA. The suit was filed in New York Court which might lead to a lack of jurisdiction over the Russian firm which claims to operate legally.

In the past, the record industry has attempted to force AllofMP3.com out of business through WTO negotiations and eliminating payment options, but now they have decided to go the route of Napster and Grokster. Read more here.

Quick Quote

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

- Thomas Jefferson

Invention versus Innovation

Coming from TechDirt today is a great report on the dichotomy between innovation and invention. Invention, of course, is the creation of new processes or goods; innovation, however, is taking the old and making it relevant or useful.

Our intellectual property system is based on rewarding inventors, but what we should award is innovation. When the old is locked down, innovation cannot occur.

...one of our problems with the patent system is that it's usually designed to reward invention, rather than innovation -- and, in doing so, can often hinder innovation.

Copyright Violation to be Automatically Found

Attributor is a Redwood, CA based firm which has announced recent funding. Attributor is scanning the web in the same Google or Yahoo! do, but instead of making the index available for search, Attributor will compare the material for copyright violations. In doing so, large media companies will be able to send take-down notices to copyright infringers.

The danger of services like these is that automatic, binary services like Attributor or DRM only allow for two situations: non-copyrighted material being okayed or copyrighted material being deemed infringing.

However, intellectual property law is not a binary issue. Exceptions like fair use would allow otherwise infringing material to be used in a "justifiable" way. Just like DRM might prevent music from being used in a news criticism or educational video (fair uses), Attributor might eliminate fair uses.

See some coverage of the launch.

My Christmas Book List

Democratizing Innovation by Eric von Hippel
- What happens when the ability to innovate becomes, in itself, innovative? Von Hippel, an MIT professor, addresses the burgeoning creative ability of the masses.


Code: Version 2.0 by Lawrence Lessig
-"Code is law." With that mantra, Lessig led readers to recognize the powerful ties between law and computers. The "wild west" imagined by some for cyberspace would come to be managed by litigious firms and DRM technologies. This is an update to his 1999 book.

Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World by Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu
-The incredible power of the Internet is more evident every day. With that potency comes important struggles for control including the net neutrality debate.

The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki
- James Surowiecki, a columnist for the New Yorker, argues that groups are, at times, remarkably more intelligent than individuals. In today's connected world, the crowds can be utilized. Case in point: Wikipedia

The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America's Leading Design Firm by Tom Kelley
-IDEO is a fascinating company which does great work. Tom Kelley has written extensively about innovation.



Disclaimer: If you end up buying any of the above books from the links I provided, Amazon will compensate me some small percentage.

What's on your list?

Copyright Reform

Eternalized in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution is the idea of intellectual property rights, granted for “limited times.” Since our nation’s inception, copyright has acted as a powerful incentive for creation, however, in recent years, the paradigm of copyright has changed dramatically.

Copyright, once an exclusive monopoly for 14 years, has expanded to restrict reproduction for 70 years past the death of the creator. Further, its breadth of protection has come to include much more than just copies. This change, coupled with the advent of digitalism, means that legal restrictions are building a barrier between the incredible power of modern technology and the possibilities for future creation.

The law needs to mirror culture and society. However, in the way are the powerful media and publishing lobbies. Hollywood firms alone donate hundreds of millions of dollars to Congressional members in order to enact stricter copyright legislation.

My proposal, the Creative Consumer Copyright Act would introduce property formalities, a searchable database and shorter terms for copyright. Just as a car or trademark is registered, under my system, copyright would require a simple, online registration to receive the benefits. In addition, a renewable term of 10 years would allow creators to only restrict reproduction for as long as they desire.

In reality, the program would require financial backing to both raise awareness and influence Congress. A national advertising campaign would inform consumers that many of the possibilities of the digital age are threatened by litigious copyright owners who have the support of a draconian copyright regime. Similarly, Congressional members need to recognize the economic stagnation caused by overzealous protection.

As long as the legislators turn to the deep pockets of copyright proponents, the Creative Consumer Copyright Act will remain an under-funded dream, but where money is no object, it flourishes.

Newspapers Adopting Creative Commons

Pressthink is reporting that GateHouse Media is beginning to license their original content under a Creative Commons non-commercial, attribution license. GateHouse Media operates 75 daily and 231 weekly newspapers in New England. According to their site, their newspapers reach more than 1,000,000 people per week.

Watertown TAB, a newspaper for Watertown Massachusetts now sports a CC badge and a new blog-like redesign. Content producers like Watertown TAB, I suspect, will see not only a surge in traffic, but a more engaged reading populous due to this proactive step. For example, as bloggers encounter their work, they will be free to reproduce it. This will lead to virtual conversations taking place around the news carried in GateHouse Media publications.

According to a Creative Commons chief counsel, Mia Garlick, this represents the first traditional news firm to adopt CC. Let's hope more firms embrace this opportunity.

Good Reading

Re-Public is a newly launched site which has some great content (not to mention a clever title) including some articles on copyright and free culture. Included is a piece by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.

I've yet to read them all, but I'll be working through them in the coming days.

Google Patent Search

Google just unveiled a patent search service. Starting with 7 million patents from the US Patent and Trademark Office, Google Patent Search will offer search of the registration material using the same technologies as Google Book Search. Both historical and modern patents are included. See the announcement here.

Now, if we could only get copyrights to require a simple registration, we could really allow creators to know the legal status of the works on which they build.

Below is an image I created for my senior thesis which proposed a copyright search engine.

Defective by Design

Defective by Design is a campaign of the Free Software Foundation which aims to raise awareness about digital rights management (DRM). Check out the following movie:

On IE7 vs. Firefox 2.0

I have been a proponent of Firefox for sometime now. As you most certainly know, Firefox is a free competitor to Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Both browsers unveiled new versions this fall (Firefox 2.0 review and IE7 review).

Though I continue to use Firefox, one can now reasonably use Internet Explorer (thanks to security updates and tabbed browsing). That is, I no longer feel that there is a true benefit to Firefox as simply a web browser.

So? Well, IE7 took years to catch-up to Firefox and costs requires Microsoft Windows (that is, requires an expensive purchase). Firefox, on the other hand, is free, available for all operating systems, and open source - as a user, you are free to examine and improve the software.

This phenomenon is not unique to browsers. Microsoft's money makers (Office and Windows) experience the same competition from free software.

How much longer can companies like Microsoft continue to fight Firefox, Linux and OpenOffice?

Support the Creative Commons

Help support the Creative Commons during this year's fund-raiser. In order to remain a nonprofit (avoid paying taxes), Creative Commons has to demonstrate to the IRS that they have a level of support. You can either give straight out or buy some great shirts. Help this organization stay in existence.

And if you are broke, consider watching these videos; the ad revenue will go to the same cause.

Gowers Review

The Gowers Review (recommendations for revising UK IP law) was released. Read it here.

Lessig's Op-Ed, published in the Financial Times today, is here. He discusses the economics of extensions (summary: longer (c) does not equal more return on investment).

There are some who believe that copyright terms should be perpetual. Britain did the world a great service when it resolved that debate almost 300 years ago, by establishing one of the earliest copyright regimes to limit copyright to a fixed term. It could now teach the world a second important lesson: any gift of term extension should only go to those who ask.

Free Culture Documentary

Here's an intriguing documentary film about Free Culture featuring interviews with Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig. I'm hoping to get this soon and will post a review when I watch it.

Quick Quote

“The technology trend means more is possible with less. The legal trend means that less is allowed than before. The technological trend could give the power to create to an extraordinary range of citizens. The legal trend means that the right to create is increasingly held in a smaller and smaller circle," says Lawrence Lessig.

"Stop Worrying About Copyrights"

That's the advice of Henry Jenkins, a co-director of MIT's comparative media studies program, in this article part of Forbes' 'Future of the Book' special report. The "dysfunctional families" of the publishing business need to focus on making there content available for all people in all formats, says Jenkins.

Exactly.

What matters is not perfect control, but perfect market saturation. In today's world where consumers are used to getting media in the form they like, let them have it.

By the way, Henry Jenkins is the author of Convergence Culture which I am currently reading. If you are interested in how citizens can be involved in big media creation, then check it out - there are some interesting anecdotes.

Forbes Special Report: The Future of Books

Forbes has a really interesting special report about the future of books. What I like best is that it compiles guest writers who are able to speak from experience.

• One such writer is Cory Doctorow who blogs at BoingBoing. A popular scifi author, Cory provides free copies of his novels online under a Creative Commons license. He writes about his experience with boosting sales through free versions saying

"Most people who download the book don't end up buying it, but they wouldn’t have bought it in any event, so I haven’t lost any sales, I’ve just won an audience. A tiny minority of downloaders treat the free e-book as a substitute for the printed book--those are the lost sales. But a much larger minority treat the e-book as an enticement to buy the printed book. They're gained sales."

• A reporter covers the rise of plagiarism-catching technologies. Though plagiarism and copyright are different (the former is ethical, the later is legal) they can overlap. Although schools are using services like TurnItIn, many major publishers don't - and they end up paying the price when what they publish turns out to be plagiarized.

More as I finish the articles...

The Most Convoluted Property System Known to Man

In order to build upon past works without worrying about paying licensing fees, the content must be in the public domain. However, this is easier said than done:

1. For works published before 1923, all content is in the public domain
2. For works published from 1923-1963, content is copyrighted for 28 years automatically (but up to 67 more years due to renewals)
3. For works published from 1964-1977, content is under copyright for 95 years following publication
4. For works published from 1978, onwards, content is restricted by copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years.

I've tried to simplify a bit, but for more specifics, check out my source.

Isn't building on the past wonderful?

This Would Be Laughable...

... were it not so important.

Mick Hucknall, the lead singer of a band, was allowed room in the Guardian to promote copyright extension. That's fine. I'm all for a free exchange of ideas in the media.

However, if a major newspaper is going to publish an Op-Ed, it better well make a modicum of sense. Mr. Hucknall's article, entitled Fundamental Socialism, claims that "copyright does not restrict the flow of ideas; it promotes it, and boosts the knowledge economy." Time for fixing some (C)rap:

Copyright's democratising effect is seen most clearly in the music business. Anyone who can speak, sing, rap or hum and operate a simple sound recorder can create a copyright song. Imagination is the only limit.

What? That which is democratizing is an advanced ability for all to express themselves without the law stopping it.

Copyright is not a monopoly restricting the free flow of ideas.

Actually, sir, a cursory understanding of intellectual property will inform you that copyright is a monopoly right to reproduce, perform or derive further works from a creation. The fact that a copyright holder is the only person allowed to reproduce the work restricts the spread of that material.

Copyright is the sole economic foundation of the "knowledge economy".

Okay, here's a hint, whenever someone starts to use amorphous, undefinable terms, they know they are treading on thin ice. I imagine something as ephemeral as the "knowledge economy" (whatever it is) would have more than one 'foundation', but who am I to question?

So, Mr. Hucknall, do me a favor and read this book (you can read it for free because it is using an alternative to copyright).

And, editors of the Guardian, try to find guest writers who have some credibility.

Best Open Source Project?

Grupthink is holding a vote for the Best Open Source product. Currently, Firefox is winning with Wikipedia a close second. Personally, I have trouble picking one service as my favorite. Some of my favorites (and their rank are below):

OpenOffice (6) is an alternative to Microsoft Office. Though not as shiny, Open Office will cover almost everyone's needs

VLC Media Player (7) is an all-purpose video/music player which is an unobtrusive way to play practically every codec available. I have never found a file it wouldn't play.

Creative Commons (10) is an alternative to "All Rights Reserved" copyright. Although this isn't open source in the traditional sense, it is of the same spirit.

Bittorrent (17) is a great way to share files in a p2p manner.

Audacity (43) is a simple, powerful audio editor

New York to Criminalize Filming Movies from Theaters

The NY Times is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is backing a proposed legislation which would criminalize those who record movies in theaters. Very often, these bootlegged versions of are traded for free on p2p services. Some interesting thoughts from the piece:

In November 2004 a report... estimated that the counterfeit trade in the city totaled $23 billion a year and cost the city more than $1 billion a year in lost taxes...

Keep in mind that this includes those (well-priced) Gucci bags and Rolex watches in Central Park.

At a Council hearing on Thursday, Vans Stevenson, a senior vice president at the Motion Picture Association of America, testified that 43 percent of movies illegally recorded with camcorders in the United States last year were copied in New York City theaters.

I'm 37% sure his figure was obtained through verifiable means.
I wonder, if the MPAA made their works available at a reasonable price and through various methods, would the public still feel the need to record crappy copies in theaters? That might be too logical or forward-thinking for Vans Stevenson and his ilk.

(Image courtesy of GameSpy)