Book Review: How to Fix Copyright

In late 2009 I reviewed William Patry's great book, Moral Panics And The Copyright Wars. I had high praise for many elements of the book, but dinged Patry a bit for not having a prescriptive solution for any of the issues he raised. I don't think I was alone in this complaint as he responded with a follow-up book late last year entitled How to Fix Copyright.

Like the Moral Panics book, How to Fix Copyright is an even-handed, and extremely thorough treatment of the topic. If it comes off as "copyfight"-leaning to some, it's only because he is critical of the current state of copyright, which leans heavily in favor of rights holding organizations and companies.

Those interested in the topic needn't read the first book, as this one covers the arguments, history, and current state of the law adequately enough with numerous case examples. Perhaps not as deep as the first book in background, but deep enough.

In terms of prescribing solutions, he does this time around. Among his suggestions: Basing the debate on empirical evidence rather than moral panics and biased metaphor, enacting reasonable (shorter) terms of limited monopoly, conditions that take into account the difference between media types, and modernization and unification of rights-holding organizations to allow for international licensing. He also examines several of the issues around international licensing costs and piracy that are really failures to address different  market needs - i.e. Failed business models masquerading as copyright issues.

Some will be frustrated by Patry's refusal to offer a bullet-point list of solutions. He opts instead to weave them through the book as he notes that the issues are complex and nuanced. I admire his sticking to his guns on this. Not all in life fits on a powerpoint slide.

My only fault for the book is this: The first book didn't propose solutions, the second proposes the 'what' but not the 'how'. It's difficult to see the steps toward making these things happen giving the existing regimes and laws, the entrenched interests and their lobbyists. A debate based on fact is a great idea, but how to make one happen, let alone unwind elements of the DMCA? Granted, these aren't easy questions (Some are ones that caused Lessig to go chop at roots).

The above 'fault' is really more a wish. I hope he continues to do great work on this important topic. In the meantime I recommend this book. He's an engaging writer that makes this subject matter highly engaging.

How to Fix Copyright

Book Review: Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars

I've just finished William Patry's excellent book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars and found it brilliant on a number of levels. I've been reading his blog (first here, now here) for some time now (linking to him occasionally), so I put the book on my reading list as soon as I learned about it.

First off, his knowledge on the subject is encyclopedic. He delves into the history of copyright law and opinion, both in the US and abroad, and yet does so without becoming inaccessible.

Secondly, his objective deconstruction of the approaches and techniques used by those on both sides of the argument lets him get to the heart of the matter. In fact there's a fair chunk of the book having little to do with copyright, but rather with the use of metaphor, moral panics, and other techniques, as tactics by those lobbying for a given cause.

Finally, by using his knowledge of the field and it's history, along with this kind of 'argument autopsy', he gets to the heart of who and what copyright is meant to serve (i.e. Copyright is not a 'natural right' of authors. It's a government-granted monopoly given only to serve a purpose, and that purpose is not that of the author. Copyright is an instrument created for the public good, and thus should serve the public's interests, not those of industry)

He's also not without a sense of humor. For example, in speaking about the 1998 extension of US copyright from fifty to seventy years from the authors death, supposedly to provide incentive to authors to compose new works, and how that was applied retroactively to works of already-deceased authors, Patry points out the absurdy in this by pointing out that these authors aren't composing, they are decomposing.

The only shortcoming I can think of is that I would have liked more of a prescription for a solution. Patry points out that monopolies created to serve the public interest, and that no longer are doing so, should be taken away. So there's a high level solution proposed, but it seems to me to be a bridge too far. How do we decide what the correct level to bring it back to, is? How do we unwind the DMCA? What should individual citizens or corporations do? I think Patry would have a lot to offer here, and I'd like to see future editions of the book include something along these lines.

I found the book enlightening. It has me thinking a ton about it's implications for games, my work, and the future. I highly recommend it.

Over-criminalizing copyright

I'm giving yet another link to the amazingly-verbose-yet-worth-reading Patry Copyright Blog. This one to a post entitled "over-criminalizing copyright".

Short version goes like this:

He, and an English judge and copyright scholar, agree on the following: Copyright infringement is being treated as a crime, and therefore prosecuted using taxpayer dollars. This is unnecesary, since adequate civil remedies exist. Criminal proceedings should be reserved for large commercial piracy enterprises and the like.

In short, if the RIAA wants to sue teens, they should do it on their dime. Just because it's rampant and difficult for them to sue them all doesn't mean their mom and dads should have to foot the bill for it with their tax dollars.

He closes citing NBC/Universal's general counsel on their efforts to lobby the gov't for stricter IP enforcement and prosecution as an example.

It's interesting that many of these straightforward arguments get lost in the rhetoric that the special interest groups and their lobbyists throw around.

On Cathedrals, Copyright, and the Courts

Seems Sony's latest source of grief has been the Church of England getting miffed bout Manchester Cathedral being used as a locale in the PS3 title, Resistance.

The church threatening Sony with legal action, and Sony, staying true to the title's name, is resisting.

The subject seems frivolous at first glance, does it not? Games are art. The church is a building open to the public. Lighten up, folks in tall hats!

Now is the time you ask whether to take the blue pill, and keep on thinking that way; or take the red pill, and see just how far the entangled legal rabbit hole you want to go?

William Patry, who is Google's senior copyright counsel and maintains an awesome blog, has a great post on the subject.

Amongst the various facts at play here:

• Architecture is a creative work and therefore copied under copyright.
• Most copyright laws take this into account and allow for things like taking a picture in a public place where you might happen to get a building in the shot.
• The INSIDE of buildings is another story
• The laws are different in the UK and the US, and the game was made in the US but the 'source material' in this case is in the UK. The game is also sold there.
• When the building was built is also an issue, and while this church is quite old, it underwent some renovation more recently.

Crazy.

Anyhow, it's very relevant to anyone making games that may hope to include real-world environments. Go read it.