5 Comments

Summary:

In the debate over online content, Robert Levine is a rare honest broker. The former Wired journalist doesn’t parrot the fear-mongering of major copyright owners and nor does he embrace the tech utopias of the other side.

Copyright stamp at laptop computer
photo: VIPDesignUSA / Shutterstock

In the debate over online content, Robert Levine is a rare honest broker. The former Wired journalist doesn’t parrot the fear-mongering of major copyright owners and nor does he embrace the tech utopias of the other side.

Speaking at the Copyright Clearance Center’s OnCopyright 2012, Levine dressed-down the rhetorical excesses of the copyright industry and its opponents.

Levine called out the industry for invoking loaded terms like “stealing” and “child pornography” as a pretext to obtain draconian enforcement powers. But he also had choice words for those who frame any sort of copyright controls as inherently oppressive.

“It’s not stealing but it’s also not sharing,” said Levine. “There’s a difference between between curation and piracy. Megaupload is not curation, it’s massive illegal distribution.”

Levine’s words are likely to please no one involved — and that may be a good thing. As the recent partisan hullabaloo over SOPA showed, the copyright debate has been dominated by partisans of one side or the other.

Moving beyond the simplistic rhetoric of “sharing” and “stealing” may be the first step beyond this longtime impasse.

In practice, this means major content owners should stop trying to pass off legal sledgehammers as scalpels. To be taken seriously, they will also have argue the case for copyright controls without invoking crime and terrorism. Meanwhile, their critics will have to acknowledge that thugs like Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom aren’t paragons of civic expression and that some forms of intellectual property are acceptable.

For now, the ball is the court of the studios and other copyright owners who must overcome years of deep — and deserved — mistrust.  When they return to Congress (as surely they will) with a new bill to control content, let’s hope the debate has moved beyond stealing versus sharing.

Levine sets out more of his ideas in the book Free Ride. For another worthy discussion of the subject from a different angle, see Bill Patry’s How to Fix Copyright.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. tetracycloide Tuesday, April 3, 2012

    “Meanwhile, their critics will have to acknowledge that thugs like Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom”

    Speaking of invoking loaded terms…

    And why should critics or anyone for that matter accept that ‘some forms of intellectual property are acceptable’ if they’re not acceptable? Why must this be granted a priori without any examination of the costs and benefits to society as a whole? Why the tacit equating of concepts like trademark, patents, and copyrights that are in no way property with actual property by using yet more loaded terms like ‘intellectual property?’

  2. Earnest Scrbbler Wednesday, April 4, 2012

    How about this, for a start: those who create intellectual property are entitled to be compensated for its use. Is that too radical for you?

  3. Intellectual property is a bullshit term invented by the so called pro-copyright partisans. Use neutral, accurate terminology like “copyright” or “patent”.

  4. Pirate is a bullshit word created by individuals who saw a financial opportunity in creating a massive viewership hijacking other people’s work. Their is nothing mysterious, romantic or revolutionary about being a pirate. Jeez, and what a tepid article with no point of view.

  5. Dennis McDonald Wednesday, May 16, 2012

    Maybe we need to start talking about “moral rights” again.

Comments have been disabled for this post