8 08 09 -- updated comment -- The subject of IP (intellectual property) is a big and challenging subject. After confronting it in this annual post series, it has become a topic in two different sections of the book chapters I am writing based on the theme of this blog. I feel the need to address it first from a social trending perspective before injecting anymore of my opinion. I'll probably do that first over at the Root Trend blog. It is a matter for Boomers and younger generations to confront in good faith. The irony is bound to be in watching the graying Boomers fight their younger (selves) fellow citizens with the same vigor as displayed at Woodstock only to realize that time is now working against their narrow self interest.
----------------------------------------
The subject of this 2007 vintage lawsuit is of particular interest to me because it tells us a lot about where we are in relation to media's evolution as we traverse a period of rapid social change. Opinions presented here are not based on existing interpretations of laws. Instead, the perspective here is about how we are collectively proceeding toward a set of more evolved media tools that people may use to be better at everything we do as individuals and when gathered into our various formal and informal groups to create. Ultimately, this suit is about social progress and how an antiquated way of seeing content (all kinds) is to be expected and, is sure to see substantial change (in time).
Two years ago in June, when I first wondered (out loud) over at the Root Trend about the ramifications of Viacom's suit against Google's newer division, You Tube, for allegedly illegally sharing (not protecting Viacom's aging content on behalf of Viacom) their creative products in the digital environment, I laughed to myself. It seemed preposterous then (to me) and even more so 25 months later. Technology is the ultimate disruptor in history. Still, we have a socially valued process that we must go through in order to tell us 'what really matters most'. The legal system is a tool designed to do this (slowly) but even more in relevance now is a higher order process called a social correction that will exert its influence over time whether it is noticed or not. . We are in the midst of a large one right now and unfortunately, I do not like what I see in the short term for this movement. I suspect attempts at regulation will follow the trend of forbidding failure where failure is needed. Still, I remain confident that in the next several years, the amount of money and social energy spent on the issue of content sharing will be part of the larger process whereby we free ourselves from weak and outdated rules to write a new social contract that better suits who we are and where we need to go, both as a society, and as a productive member of the community of nations in the digital era. (The Global aspect may well take a couple of decades but Americans, in general, want and need to get going toward the future as our freedom drives creativity amongst people, not thievery.)
Yes, this is big picture thinking but I am certain it will become increasingly salient to everyday people as the younger generation finds it voice to challenge the fading Boomer perspective that is holding onto the past including past-dated notions of "this is mine!". So, on our nation's birthday, I suggest we think about this big picture issue and especially how it matters to every young American that follows us in our third century as a nation. Right Now, How We Value Things is Changing, a lot.
In order to keep this brief, let's spend just a few minutes thinking about How We Value Things:
Fifteen years ago I was researching a trademark for a business name and in the process marveled at what percent of the English language had been trademarked, legally. For want of perpetual ownership, if you got a lawyer you could grab a piece of high traffic real estate in the English language provided you cultivated it. Then came the dot com land rush, a highly flawed but timely solution that should amaze everyone when you stop and think about it.
What is a word worth? What is a simple idea worth? What is a complicated idea worth? What is a simple idea presented in a complicated format worth? And if you share that simple idea in the complicated format with everyone willingly, do you still retain exclusive rights to it in a world that now has a digital universe?
In each version of this discussion the past two years I get very close to the idea of ownership and all the problems related to it. In the legal world, it seems like I am making this about entertainment but the problem is how legally, ideas are ideas and entertainment or serious constructions, we have to purposefully better define ownership dynamics in the 13 year old digital era of Choice. The digital environment has unleashed natural social impulses that are proving to be the catalyst that will force us (collectively) to re-examine what ownership means in the brand new digital universe. And while trademark law requires ongoing action to fence off your protected thought(s) in reproduced form, the issues being faced now are not much different from those encountered during the first industrial revolution where many processes (that began as good ideas) quickly became part of the public domain. Think about this for a minute...no matter where you stand. Progress requires seeing all the way to the horizon in order to achieve new, meaningful collaborative goals. Likewise, profitability requires seeing the markets we serve differently.
As we do, let's think about why we are doing any and all of this in the first place:
Sharing ideas is a primary trait of social humans. It all began sharing stories about the fire, and after third person stories and wall drawings, we moved the idea of content forward to its position as a primary social tool of importance.
In this long view, it is tempting to see the iterations we are going through now as all important but, they are not. At present we are seeing a correction of course that is overdue....or right on time depending upon how you look at it.
These next few steps we take together on the issue of sharing content must be purposeful in that they inspire and empower individuals and small groups to move forward in how we connect and share ideas more efficiently than ever.What happens if we do not act purposefully? Social stain, discontent, disconnection, and the complete breakdown of existing social contracts that provide structure to our system of markets for content. And while this may being reading as somewhat alarmist, my intention is to inspire urgency where erroded profit margins have failed to do so thus far.
A new system for the media enterprise is needed, badly. The result of this will provide more benefit than restoring profitability to the newspaper business. The point is to efficiently get ourselves what we need with a minimum of wasted social capital in the Era of Choice.
The future of America is obviously not in watching machines hammer out quarter panels for GMs and Fords. The future generations must begin to self-organize and share in ways that foster greater creativity. New ideas, better ideas, will come from better, smarter collaboration using social resources available in the digital universe. We can lead or we can follow whining and complaining the entire way down the road. It has never been the American way to do that but the future is always uncertain and a work in progress(?)
It has long been my belief, and underlying this series of thoughts, that that the primary friction in this argument is the difference between the generational perspectives on the same issue. For the record, I am not suggesting that everything be free once shared but that there be expiration dates negotiated much like dairy products in the supermarket or that electronic formats for reproduction be standardized. I am not a pirate but simply believe that how we value content must change with the times. The best incremental solutions (getting there) will use different inputs. The rapid change feels like a revolution but the process is all part of evolution. It's about leaving and arriving together at a place where we are all better for it.
Let me repeat, the essence of my rational is not free for the sake of free. If Americans get caught up defending the un-defendable in the Era of Choice, how much social capital will be allocated to an effort destined to be no more effective than the war on drugs. Again, just think about it. Americans will lead, not follow in an idea-based arms race. And my use of "Americans" can easily be replaced by any free people. The real enemy in this issue is government control that unintentionally stifles imagination and innovation in order to serve the greed of those opposed to change.
Aggregate social mood, if it is to be measured, is a moving average of a society's optimism towards the future and it matters right now because how we create in our groups is being colored by dark uncertainty associated with a secular social correction. This subtle and sometimes not so subtle fear is creating the perceived need for regulation and intervention in many parts of our collective lives.Why does this esoteric dynamic matter?
If the digital universe is teaching us anything, it is that any perceived threat of loss is at least equally matched by fantastic potential gains from collaboration. This reality is one that will be appreciated more as the turning of the generational guard is negotiated. Historically, this is a messy time that we've entered. Social corrections are about reorganizing that which has gotten out of shape by assessing how we value things that truly matter.
The media business model and the concept of ownership are two areas that will be completely transformed byt this process whether you agree with me or not. So, again, what really matters to our customers of content? That's the question that should be asked and will be once smaller entreprenuers flock back to the business they were pushed out of after 1996.
My hope on our 233rd birthday is that we remember to keep looking forward and plan for what comes next based on what we can build and, not to think about what needs protecting and controlling. Free* and unburdened people create naturally and are industrious. Sheltered people, sheltered markets, and sheltered ideas are sure to miss their potential in benefiting the whole of us in order to protect what (?) exactly.
In a true republic, like the one given to Americans by the Continental Congress in 1776, there must be a true equality represented in the formation of laws, otherwise the imbalances realized over time will list the 'vessel' and slow it down. In our rich past as a nation, we can see clearly how these issues have been worked out at the seems of generations. Right now is such a time. We owe it to our youthful generation to provide the creative fertilizer to empower a brand new era of collaboration that is more productive than ever.
This lesson from our shared history should resonate loudly, especially today. Cheers! Dave
** Freedom is as much about the freedom to succeed as the freedom to fail. Success will never have as much meaning if it cannot be held to the possibility of failure. We are really missing this idea right now.
Worthy generational perspective included in my thinking above: 1996 The Fourth Turning, Strauss & Howe (great discussion of generational dynamics)
Comments