Skip to main content

The Intellectual Property Arms Race


Among the many hot news items is this week is Congress's consideration of the Stop Online Piracy Act, a bill that would give private copyright holders sweeping enforcement powers. The details of the bill can be found in a variety of places (Wikipedia, as usual, has an excellent summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act ). Since I've written a dissertation around the argument for copyright reform in exactly the opposite direction of current trends in Intellectual Property law, I thought long and hard about exactly how to weigh in on this issue. Before providing my own opinion, let's be clear about some of the more problematic provisions of the bill.

For one, SOPA would make websites responsible for enforcing copyright infringements on user-uploaded content. In effect, social websites would then be liable for failure to enforce, so those sites that have become the backbone of the internet for many people will either have to institute draconian content-regulation or risk being shut down, having their financial services suspended, etc. Any website suspected of or found to be hosting copyrighted content or links to copyrighted content could be shut down. While the most obvious targets here are torrent sites such as the immortal Pirate Bay (long live the internet pirates!), any site linking to copyrighted content is a potential target. Given that news agencies such as the Associated Press have become fairly vigorous in enforcing copyright claims on their content, news aggregating sites, such as Reddit, are also in the crosshairs.

What does all of this mean for the internet as know it? Search engines will have to filter their results and DNS servers will have to remove these sites. The links from one site to another that make the internet so addictive, time-consuming, and powerful will become more and more broken and unreliable as infringement claims roll out. As the EFF, and other Free Culture supporters have pointed out, these powers make it possible for content-owners to “break the internet” by interfering too heavily with traffic routing. Clearly, I'm not happy about any of this, and I don't think anyone should be.

So what do we do? The Occupy movement has provided an excellent demonstration of the major hurdle: the United States government does not care about its citizens, what they need, or what they think. The major content-owners have a great deal of money, and since the Citizens United decision, they have a great deal of latitude to use that money to drown out the speech of anyone else through legal channels, not to mention the latitude they've always had to do so through illicit channels (let's just call them what they are, guys: bribes). As a result, intellectual property law shows no signs of reforming until the rest of government is reformed.

In the meantime, I honestly think the solution is skillful piracy as civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a noble protest practice, defying the law in the name of a deeper moral right. In this case, we must also introduce the notion of skillful civil disobedience. We must be skillful because if we are ham-fisted and make the practice overly obvious to anyone, we will be shut down under the terms of this act. Instead, we have to employ the tactics used by internet pirates all along, strong encryption, TOR-style traffic routing, private torrent trackers, and hosting sites on foreign data havens.

Since the introduction of the DMCA and the Digital Rights Management it made possible, intellectual property has been marked by a kind of arms race. DRM technologies lock down content so that it can only be used as the content-owner desires. Nevertheless, it must be usable, or consumers will simply abandon digital content. As such, any DRM technology must leave a way to access the content. If the it can be protected, the protected can be broken. Every lock must have a key. The more restrictive the DRM gets, the more innovative the strategy for breaking it. Until intellectual property is reformed, this arms race will continue. Law will turn individuals sharing and discussing media into criminals, trespassers, and thieves. In turn, the community will abandon respect for law in favor of adhering to rational and fair standards. Hopefully, the government will figure this out before too long. I think it is high time for a full-scale review of our social institutions and how we can make them serve the public at large and not the advantaged few.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 1: Utilitarianism

There is no way this tutorial series would be complete without some discussion of justifications for intellectual property. While not necessarily a matter of law, some knowledge of the philosophical foundations will provide a better sense of the values at stake in intellectual property debates. Notice, for instance, that the tutorials on fair use were punctuated with appeals to values, social goods, and individual rights. Without an understanding of the moral and political framework against which the law stands, one can very easily find oneself in a stalemate, with one value pitted against another and no way of deciding which should prevail. To understand the jurisprudence around intellectual property rights, one has to have some idea of the justifying theories to which attorneys and judges appeal in their arguments and decisions. So, without further ado, let's get to the tutorial.
There are three main ways of justifying intellectual property rights: the Utilitarian theory, the Lab…

Fair Use Part 2: Subtleties

Now that you've had the time to digest the basics of fair use, it's time to talk about some common misunderstandings and problems that arise with regard to this aspect of copyright law. As you might have noticed from last time, fair use a complex issue, one in which various concerns must be weighed with no guiding standard as to how much impact each factor should have. Even more problematically, US courts have stayed away from fair use cases for the most part. Very few actually reach a judge, and only four fair use cases have been heard by the Supreme Court. As such, there is very little jurisprudence to clarify the law. As such, fair use is a ripe subject for confusion and debate. Let's begin with the most crucial clarification.
Fair Use is not a right While one might hear talk about “fair use rights,” there really is no such thing. The National Information Infrastructure White Paper on Intellectual Property (released Sept 1995; for more information see: http://www.uspto.g…

History and Identity

Yesterday the European Court of Justice issued an important ruling that has the tech policy world buzzing about privacy, search engines and personal history. In short, the court ruled that the EU Data Protection Directive gives a person the right to demand that old information be purged from search results. The particular case involves an attorney seeking removal of links to announcements about a real-estate auction connected with a debt settlement in 1998. While the ECJ made a number of interesting moves in the case (including a welcome argument that the distinction between data processors and data controllers does not make as much sense today as it did in 1995 when the Directive went into effect), the big consequence everyone is talking is the right to be forgotten.

The long memory of the Internet is a feature it's hard not to love and fear at the same time. Whether you have something to hide or not, if it's on the Internet, it stays on the Internet (most of the time, at lea…