Bridging The Intellectual Property Divide

Mark Helprin’s Op Ed piece in this past Sunday’s New York Times, A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn’t Its Copyright?, raises issues of intellectual property and inheritance rights that strike close to home. Like real estate or other tangible properties, Helprin claims that copyrighted works are real and as part of the estate of the author, should be passable from generation to generation.

Helprin claims that the writers of the US Constitution gave us the ability to stretch royalty payments off into some hypothetical event horizon with the phrase “for limited times.” Currently, a copyrighted work can be kept out of the public domain for 70 years. With our increasing life spans, that just isn’t enough. For example, at 56 I am at the exact midpoint of my life. If my father had written a cash-generating work when I was in my 20’s, by the time I reach 90 I would have to find gainful employment all over again.

But Helprin isn’t just concerned with his own solvency during his twilight years; he is thinking about his generations yet unborn. Helprin writes:

“Were I tomorrow to write the great American novel (again?), 70 years after my death the rights to it, though taxed at inheritance, would be stripped from my children and grandchildren.”

I don’t currently own any intellectual property, but would like to acquire some. However, if Helprin could also arrange to make all perpetual copyrights retroactive, I might have some real claims. Family oral tradition informs me that language was invented by a distant ancestor. For the sake of possible future legal filings, let’s call him Blob Bechman:

Blob: Eureka! I’ve just created and copyrighted language!
Mog: What?
Blob: I’m sorry. You can’t say that without paying me a royalty.
Mog: But…
Blob: No. You can’t say that either.
Mog: Why?
Blob: Nope. Not that either.

Several eons later, again, according to family tradition, a direct ancestor presented the Ten Commandments to the Israelites:

Moses: Here are the Lord’s Commandments, copyright 6000 BCE. Any other nation that wishes to follow any of these rules must tithe to me or else live by their own rules.

Other nations: Suits us.

More recently, from my Hellenic family branch:

Group of Bards: Homer, open source is no longer permitted for rhapsodists. You can't go around all of Ithaca using our material. It's copyrighted!
Homer: Ye Gods!

And this just in: The descendents of Socrates are suing the descendents of Plato for copyright infringement.

While I agree with Helprin that most living authors aren’t paid enough, I disagree with his contention that intellectual works are a form of property, like real estate. Perpetuating the distinction between the intellectual property “haves” and “have nots” would inhibit complete public discourse, shackle future artists and favor those who can afford, down to the nth generation, to keep up the royalty payments.

For example, young documentary film makers today have special problems including archival footage in their works because they can’t afford the fees involved. And it is ridiculous that only well funded corporations can afford to sing “Happy Birthday to You” to each other.

I believe that it is a mistake to use the term “property” with regard to creativity. True intellectual "property" is a relationship between freely conversing individuals (who follow all Ten Commandments), at least after the author’s death.

Had I But World Enough, and Time, This Blogging, Lady, Were No Crime

One thing I've discovered about blogging is that, to be done effectively you have to do it often. If you don't post frequently, you aren't really serious about being a blogger. One problem is that posting takes time and something original to say, both of which I have little.

This doesn't seem to be a problem for other bloggers, like my friend Lance Strate over at his eponymous Lance Strate's Blog Time Passing, where he seems to be able to post something new and interesting almost daily. I can only assume that he has abandoned his other responsibilities and devoted himself almost entirely to his blog. (It's an addiction Lance. You can get help!)

Another problem is that my hit rate is low and I am reluctant to post anything new until I'm reasonably certain that the current post has been given sufficient play. Of course, I fudge on this a little, since my hit rate is so low that a single post would be sufficient for the entire year. I assume that if more people were reading my posts, I would find more time to write posts and more topics to post about. And, if more people then linked to, and purchased from, my Amazon link, I'm sure my productivity would be Dickensian.

A third problem is that I’m not quite sure what my purpose is in blogging. There are as many types of blogs out there as there are bloggers, but what type of blogger am I? What is my personal reason for sharing my writings via the Internet? Let's look at some metaphors for blogging.

Is it a "public dairy," where I record my experiences on a daily basis? Frequent readers of this blog (hi Mom!) have probably noticed that I've posted little information about my personal life or experiences. There are many blogs, that are of a more personal nature, like St. George's University medical student Ishie's A Caribbean M.D. is Good Enough For Me!, which she uses as a way to maintain contact with her family and friends back home. Though open to the world, this blog is really meant to be read by her circle of friends and family. My purpose isn't to make public my personal life, although I have played with the idea of a separate, private blog to share with my posse. Again, its a world and time problem.

Is it a personal “Op Ed” page? Paul Levinson’s blog and yes, Lance’s site, are examples of this, at least among those with a Media Ecology slant. I don’t know if my type of writing is Op Editable as I can’t imagine it ever appearing opposite the editorials of the New York Times or the Washington Post. I don’t speak from the authority granted by public or private service, or from personal expertise on a given topic. At best, I see my posts as comparable to the lighter, non-serious columnists like Dave Barry or Maureen Dowd. (Yes that was a slam.)

Is it a “digital press” where I post news reporting and commentary? Good examples of this is Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory, now hosted at Salon, or Josh Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo on the left side of the political spectrum, or Matt Drudge's Drudge Report on the right. There is no doubt that these blogs now act as a counterpoint to and critique of the reporting of the main stream media, and that they now have a place in the political process of our country. My blog is not necessarily concerned with public affairs, although I do, from time to time comment on current events. This is just a bad habit I picked up in elementary school that I haven't been able to outgrow.

Is it “show and tell?” Maybe my metaphor for blogging is also a result of my early school days. Maybe this is one elaborate "show and tell" where I find something that interests me to bring in as frequently as I can. The key phrase here is "that interests me."

One of the things I like about blogging is that there are no filters, no gatekeepers and no censors. I post whatever I like, grammatical warts and all. I have to admit that one of my purposes in starting a blog was to get “out there” some of the things I’ve thought and written about. Then I go back and read what I've written to see what it is I've been thinking about. If it’s especially good, I might read it more than once. There is even the possibility of recycling older posts for further review and reflection. (What, you’ve never heard of reruns or sequels?) I am my own publisher, editor and reading public. What a rush!

I’d like to think that the thoughts expressed in this post are unique and original to blogging, but I’ve just discovered that there is an entire genre of self-reflexive blogs that have already been here, done this.

Oh well. I’d better quit now before I get hooked!

"A Model Media Ecologist" Video

(Update below)

In one of my first posts I published the lyrics from "A Model Media Ecologist," a video I produced in 1976 while a Ph.D. candidate in the Media Ecology program at New York University.

Under the tutelage of professors Neil Postman, Terry Moran and Christine Nystrom, it was the practice in the 1970's at New York University's Program in Media Ecology Conferences for each doctoral class to pick one member to deliver a "State of the Class" address.

At the fall 1976 conference my "Class of 1977" decided to do something different. I had access to a Sony A/V 3650 1/2-inch, reel to reel, black and white recorder and a camera, and so instead of one class member giving a 30 minute address, each of us in the Class of '77 prepared up to five minutes on video tape of our own personal metaphor for "What is Media Ecology?" A Model Media Ecologist was my contribution. (I still have the complete video of the Class of '77 if anyone is interested.) I sang it to the tune of Gilbert & Sullivan's "A Modern Major General."

You'll notice there is no mention of personal computers (the Macintosh was just a gleam in Steve Job's eye), nor CD's, DVD's, nor even video discs. That's an IBM Selectric in front of me. On the shelves behind me is the complete LP collection of NYU's Loeb Student Center. (Younger bloggers can ask their parents to describe what an LP was.) These were primitive times and we were all pioneers!

As Lance Strate notes on his Blog Time Passing

...it truly would have been a shame if he [Neil Postman] had changed the curriculum earlier, and Bob Blechman had not produced the brilliant music video (from a time before there were such things as music videos)

So it might be proper to say that I was MTV before there was MTV. I was YouTube before there was YouTube. I'm also delighted at the global attention my YouTube entry has attracted. Little could I imagine way back in 1976 that posting my video on an Internet site would engender an audience of 54 (viewings as of last count)!

In your face LonelyGirl!

I'm proud to say the Casey M.K. Lum has included the lyrics of A Model Media Ecologist at the beginning of his history of Media Ecology, "Perspectives on Culture, Technology and Communication The Media Ecology Tradition" published by Hampton Press. No, I don't get any royalties, although I think I should.

Here, finally, is the original video!

A Model Media Ecologist

Update: As of Sunday, April 1 there have been 171 viewings of this video on YouTube. It is remarkable that simply posting an ancient piece of video on a web site could garner such international attention. It is truly a demonstration of the power of the Internet that anyone can tap into this new international mass medium and achieve such widespread influence!

YouTube! YouTube! A Pirate's Life for Me!

I'm all for intellectual property (and I hope some day to have some,) but it seems to me that movie studios, like the music business before them, are responding in the worst possible way to the current threats to existing modes of media distribution posed by the Internet and digital recording technology. Computer wizards will always find ways around DVD watermarking or anti-piracy technology, just as our usual criminal elements will continue to traffic in any money-making opportunities they can create.

My suggestion, (and I'm available to consult or provide, for a price, written commentary on this) is that movie studios immediately embrace this new method of distribution. After all, what are the studios really selling? Is it an oft-told tale? A particular fashion or style? A group of consumer products portrayed in the film? A pretty face within the star system?

Just as Marshall McLuhan in the 1960's informed GE that they were in the "information" not the "light bulb" business; I would tell the movie studios that they aren't really selling a particular movie. They are primarily selling a way of seeing the world and being in the world, and coincidentally, a group of products that represent that viewpoint and that lifestyle.

The movie studios are too hung up on the story content, which, if surviving manuscripts are any guide, hasn't changed all that much since prehistoric times. They are also blinded by the incredible rewards of the existing distribution system, where they are the few gatekeepers to an entire medium. The digital age has done away with this celluloid oligopoly.

How do the movie studios embrace the new digital distribution environment? They may have to abandon the blockbuster mentality as a means for supporting their other creative misjudgments. Smaller returns for smaller projects mean smaller risk, but also smaller incentives to pirates and hackers.

Just as cable has created niche television, movie studios should explore the profit potential of niche cinema distributed digitally. YouTube anyone? Big budget movies won't disappear overnight, but the lesson of the recent history of the music industry is that consumers want to be producers, that there is a huge pent-up demand that cheap recording and editing technology is addressing, and that the coming change cannot be contained by stronger constraints, whether technological or legal.

The Internet is now determining our media biases. Intellectual property, copyright legalisms and print-based exclusivity will soon be a fond relict of the past. Movie studios can embrace this new digital paradigm or they can continue to resist it, at their peril.