Why You Missed the New York Times' Major Editorial on Copyright

1.) Because it was at the bottom of the editorial column, and;
2.) Because it bore the really stupid title "In-House Advice."

That said, there are some good things in here. Let's take a look (fisk), shall we?

In-House Advice

It seems as if everywhere you turn these days, you come upon some version of the copyright debate. Balancing the protection of intellectual property with the idea of "fair use" has become one of the seminal questions of our day. But the debate isn't just about principles and rules. It's also about the role that technology plays in our daily lives.

The scare quotes around fair use are mildly troubling. This presentation is open to the interpretation that fair use is somehow suspect or marginal.

New technologies, particularly the computer and the Internet, have drastically changed the very character of intellectual property.

Somebody (thankfully) has been reading Lessig.

Copyright owners, represented by groups like the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, worry about piracy and illegal downloading. Consumers have learned to relish the freedom and flexibility that the digital revolution has given them. And when Congress gets in the middle, it often gets it wrong.

"Worry" is a massive understatement. "Obsess" is closer. And, in fairness, "relish" is probably an understatement, in many cases. "Wallow like pigs in mud," might also be fair in a lot of cases. But that stuff about Congress, that's spot on.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office released a new report called "Copyright Issues in Digital Media." It should be essential reading on the Hill.

Pace, John Conyers.

The report upholds exactly the kind of evenhandedness that has been missing in much copyright legislation so far.

I suppose a pendulum swing toward public access would be too much to ask for.

"Revisions to copyright law," the report argues, "should be made without regard to the vested interests of particular business and consumer groups."

The real test should be the economic efficiency of the marketplace - finding a way to balance the social benefits of a technology, like videocassettes, against the fears of copyright-owning movie studios.

No, the real test . . . the ONLY test, should be whether a particular policy "promotes the progress of science and useful arts.".

The best way to accomplish that is to remember that copyright is an instrument "for allocating creative resources," not "an absolute, inviolable set of rights to which either creators or consumers are entitled."

Remember? I think many in Congress have yet to learn this for the first time!

That is not how Congress usually thinks about it. A good example is the so-called Induce Act, now under consideration, which would make it a crime to aid or induce copyright violations like illegal file-sharing.

But the bill is so loosely worded that it could threaten a host of legal information-sharing practices and technologies. That includes everything from the iPod to automatic online translation. Critics claim, with reason, that this overreaching bill would have deeply chilling effects on technological innovation.

IS already having . . . visit the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse for copious examples. .

Congress seems instinctively to side with those who instinctively want to put a chokehold on new technologies. It's always easier, after all, to try to protect what appears to be "an absolute, inviolable set of rights" than it is to find equitable new ground to stand on in the rapidly shifting debate over digital copyright.

And so? I'd really like to see a capping sentence in which the TImes either sharpens its critique or specifices what it seeks from Congress.


BUT, all in all, this is a big step in the right direction. Maybe the Times will follow through on its stated trajectory toward more balanced copyright policies by freeing its archives from the overpriced pay-for-play archive in which they now reside. Let's do the math:

Today's Times on paper = $1.00 (four sections, dozens and dozens of articles)
Today's Times on the Web = Free, but you must supply personal information
A single article from last week's Times = $2.50!?!?!!?

Until then, viva la Times permalink!