News

Who Owns Ideas?

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's venerable Ideas programme just aired a fantastic one-hour segment on copyright called "Who Owns Ideas?" with a wide range of interviews with me, James Boyle, Steve Page from BNL, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Eric Flint, Michael Geist and many others.

MP3: Who Owns Ideas?

10 Responses to “Who Owns Ideas?”

1. Colin says:

   September 9, 2008 at 1:18 pm

   Thanks for the notice! According to the Ideas website, this show is not scheduled for the podcast in the near future, so the direct download is the only good way to get it.
2. PaulR says:

   September 9, 2008 at 1:23 pm

   Shouldn't Tom Fahy have at least called "Open Season on Bach" Variations on a theme by Keith Jarrett?

   Still, I've just finished a little romp through some YouTube videos. There's a marimba and at least two guitar versions of one of the piece from Köln Concert. Wonderful stuff.
3. Gustave says:

   September 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm

   I am halfway through it... I really hope they look a little closer at whether or not the claims of the Recording Industry is actually fact.

   It seems to me there is at least one study completed by Industry Canada that contradicts everything the CRAA just said.

   I guess I should listen to the rest and find out. Thanks for the link, Cory.
4. Kenn Brown says:

   September 10, 2008 at 12:27 am

   Hi Cory

   Hope things are well.... I just read your article over and Locus and while I do agree with your stand regarding your/my personal work, there is a question I would like to pose to you...

   If a 13 year old wants to put an ad on Boing Boing... would you let him do it for free?

   I understand that the BB site is co-owned - but does your stand extend into the 'boardroom' other projects like Boing Boing or do you donate your time? Is this a vehicle to finance your more libertarian views.

   Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult here but I would like to know how far this Philosophy extends...

   Bestest
   Kenn
5. Cory Doctorow says:

   September 10, 2008 at 12:52 am

   Probably not. The cost to me of figuring out how to do this (I have absolutely, totally nothing to do with BB's ads or placement), figuring out if it was a real 13 year old, figuring out if the message was one I wanted to support, etc would exceed any sensible time-budget I had for such a project. As between all the things I could do to benefit 13 year olds, such a project would realize a very low return, and would necessarily come at the expense of more significant ones (for example, I've paid dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars working to get donations to school classrooms around the world, and donated thousands myself to the project).

   As it happens, though, Boing Boing does have a program by which remnant inventory is given over to a small number of 501(c)3 registered charities. My involvement in this extended to blessing it and suggesting some charities, but I haven't had much else to do.

   I mostly focus on writing books and blog posts, doing volunteer work for charity, public speaking, columns, mentoring, and spending time with my family. I do very little administrative work related to Boing Boing.

   I confess that I've read this question three times now:

   "does your stand extend into the ‘boardroom’ other projects like Boing Boing or do you donate your time? Is this a vehicle to finance your more libertarian views."

   And I still don't understand what it means. Perhaps you could clarify.
6. Kenn Brown says:

   September 10, 2008 at 2:20 am

   Hi Cory

   I am definately not a man of words and somtimes I muddle the issue with 'subjective' metaphors... I will do my best to try and articulate what I was asking and do my best not to deviate from the question posed --- hmmmm - collect my thoughts here... a individuals decision to donate time or books/give them away free instead of accepting payment appears to take on a very different dynamic in a group setting... BTW - I also think my 'boardroom' reference was ill chosen, and 'collective' might have been more appropriate.

   What I think I am getting at is... selective legislation of payment/non payment for product/content via an individual appears to me, quite different than a small Collective or large organization with overhead, staff to pay, etc - they all have the goal of somehow regulating thier product or content to protect themselves... While I dont agree with many of the models being pursued.. ie DRM or Legal Recourse...

   Are all 3 not attempts to legisltate with the same result? Via Individual choice or DRM or lawsuits?

   I am just trying to get all this clear in my head with the help of yourself and others... not so much the evils of DRM and such, but specifically YOUR model and how it works within the existing system... and what your conclusions are based on these observations and experiences.

   Do financially successful projects outside of your own personal work allow you to be a bit more laxed in a how you deal with your personal projects and the philosophy tethered to them? Are we talking about the commerce of promotion - having an inherit dollar value - with a hopeful return somewhere down the road?

   On a side note, and sort of a reitteration.... perhaps I have not sampled enough of your works/essays..I would like to hear you talk more about your personal model/philosophy with minimal reference outside parties who engage in other methods. Does it work for you? Can you make a decent living out of this philosophy without augmenting your income through other sources...? Would it work for Boing Boing? Would it work for Apple. Why and why not. In your opinion, does being a single male factor into the equation... how does this change when applied to say... a person with a family and house to feed and pay for? How does it apply to a single mother of two. Can they have the luxury of supporting this model?

   Gawd... this whole thing makes my head spin... but these are questions I would like to hear varying perspectives on so I can grasp a better idea of the landscape.

   Bestest
   Kenn

   Can you delete the post before this... I was trying to organize my thoughts... :-)
7. Cory Doctorow says:

   September 10, 2008 at 2:33 am

   Hey Kenn -- I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disappoint you. These are interesting questions, but giving them an adequate answer would cost a lot of time that I don't have.

   As near as I can work out, you're asking if I could make a living writing and giving away ebooks, selling the print books, without the speaking and blogging?

   The answer is, "That's not a valid question." I couldn't write books unless I blogged and spoke, because both are integral to my creative process. It's like asking whether I could make the same living if I wrote something other than science fiction, or if I cared about different things, or what-have-you. Of course not.

   Another question seems to be, "Is what you do reproducible?"

   The answer is, "That's also not a valid question." Every artist and every non-commodity company does something different to earn a living. It's like asking "Is Stephen King's business-model reproducible?" The answer is no, mostly. I'm not Stephen King. If I wrote Stephen King's books today (presuming he didn't exist), I'd get a different outcome from Stephen King.

   Likewise, Apple is a non-commodity business (unlike, say, regulation potato growers or commodity solvent producers) *because* it is non-reproducible. Apple's unique collection of people, organizational structure and assets define what is and is not possible for it. Those things are not reproducible to a sufficient resolution to produce the same outcome for a different firm.

   Now, are there things to be learned from Stephen King and me and Apple and anyone else who has a "non-commodity" business-model? Sure. There are elements of what each do that will work for others. But they aren't reproducible and shouldn't be judged as successes or failures on that basis.

   The point of criticising certain business methods and systems -- DRM, lawsuits, etc -- isn't to argue whether those systems are *capable* of providing an income (though I think they fail at this in the long term) but whether it is *moral* to pursue them.

   The question about dependents is a red herring. As I've written (in Content, which you can read for free, and in lots of other places), part of the point of giving away ebooks is to make more money. Making more money is good if you're single, and even better if you've got dependents.

   Hope that satisfies -- it's all I've got time for. There's plenty more on this site at /articles.php and on /content .
8. Kenn Brown says:

   September 10, 2008 at 11:00 am

   Thanx for taking the time to write back Cory - I appreciate your time sharing perspectives in helping me form a more educated decision on my own stance regarding all of the issues.... I need to do some more research and lots of thought. :-)

   Regards
   Kenn
9. michael says:

   September 10, 2008 at 6:24 pm

   i've started calling this issue "mental squatting" and wrote a brief introduction to it here: http://www.scribemedia.org/2008/06/16/mental-squatting-the-fight-over-content-and-its-manipulation/

   the idea is basically that content and ideas are a very lucrative game, and even though there's confusion over how to monetize them, companies are fighting tenaciously to maintain control over it, and our biggest battles are over the production, distribution and manipulation of them.

   Just downloaded the podcast and looking forward to giving it a listen.
10. Copyright, Corporations and Culture : StevenClark.com.au says:

    July 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    [...] a recent podcast on Who Owns Ideas it was suggested that a 30 year old who writes a song now and who then lives an expected lifespan [...]

Cory Doctorow’s craphound.com is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).