|
|
 | |  |
|
Copyright Schmopyright
I don’t believe in “owning” knowledge. Too many people and too many organizations have too many times used knowledge as power over others. We are all people and we all have the right to knowledge. Fortunately for me, I’m not the only one that feels this way. The copyleft movement describes my feelings perfectly.
It was realized early on in the computer revolution that the sheer pace of technology and high consumer demand did not allow for typical product development techniques in software. By the time the product was perfected, tested and released it was already behind on both the consumer and technological curve. To complicate matters, many forms of software used the same or similar platforms to operate. In a proprietary environment this meant that software engineers would have to reinvent the wheel with many projects and in so doing spend all the time and resources that someone else had already spent.
The natural result of this dilemma was to enter into open licensing arrangements. With an open license, software engineers could license out their technology to other engineers so that they would have to duplicate efforts and could further improve the platform. This also meant that software was not just developed by a single team of people, but rather a whole community that all used and developed the concept in various ways and applications.
Now, I’m a capitalist and I think one should make a living from good ideas and hard work. So are these software engineers. They were still able to sell their products like before even though the code was free to redistribute and repackage. The difference was they didn’t have to put nearly as many resources into development since the platform was already there. Further, they could improve the platform and derive various uses for it down the road.
What software leaders figured out years ago the rest of us are starting to figure out now. This concept of “open content” need not limit itself to computer technology. In fact, it seems to apply in many other venues as well. The WikiMedia group is arguably one explosive example of that.
When Wikipedia was launched and for a few years afterward it was generally “poo-pood” by internet users. Who could possibly give credence to an encyclopedia that anyone and their mother can alter without oversight? Now I dare you to find someone that doesn’t start with Wikipedia on almost any topic before going forward on research (if they go forward at all). The beauty of the concept is in its simplicity. Users will want it to be accurate so therefore the community will work at doing so. Sure, you get those people that mess it up but the community is quick to respond. Why? It’s not proprietary. Users who want it will make sure it is functional for their purpose. They’ve been given the freedom to do so.
It’s free. It’s open. Anyone can redistribute the content however they see fit. And I don’t see WikiMedia losing any money. In fact, they did quite well for themselves and well enough to start other for profit ventures that are, in turn, doing well.
This brings me to the concept of copyright. It’s a new concept, believe it or not. Before the 20th century writers and artists were basically at the whim of their own reputation in terms of protecting what they wrote. In the 1700s, for example, anyone could just steal someone’s book and call it their own. Copyright law was introduced to protect people from plagiarism. A noble concept at best, but in practical terms it has limited the general consumption and redistribution of knowledge.
Now look. I’ve been a writer for many years and have had a few things published. There have been many times that I thought “I should copyright this so someone doesn’t steal it”. It’s natural. I put so much work into it that I wanted full credit and further, I wanted the freedom to do what I want with the material.
People who are lazy enough to steal someone’s words are going to do so whether or not a copyright is in place. With all of the manuscripts in the world and the content on the internet the odds that someone would care enough about your manuscript to steal it are quite small. In short, what difference does it make if you own it or not? People will plagiarize with or without protection and if they did so what’s to stop you from stealing it back? I consider this paranoia not protection.
Copyright is also very strict on its execution. One cannot copyright an idea or concept but simply a combination of words. Anyone and their puppy can republish your exact story but with different words. Isn’t it the story you are interested in? What difference do the words make? They can always be rewritten. Copyright does nothing to prove that your ideas are original and certainly doesn’t stop people from stealing the idea and making it their own.
Knowledge is universal, that’s why ideas can’t be copyrighted. Why not share the ideas and allow others to expound upon them, develop them, and redistribute them? What makes your idea so special that you have to keep it under lock and key from the rest of us? Is your idea so brilliant that it can never be improved upon by someone else? Or applied to different scenarios? Or given to others who wouldn’t otherwise have access to it?
Open these ideas up! Throw them out into the world. You can still sell them and distribute them, but let other people sell and distribute too! Are you concerned they will cut into your market? Well it is certainly possible, that’s why your distribution has to be so keen and interesting you will be a good competitor. That’s what capitalism is about after all. Two different shops can sell apples, why can’t they also sell ideas?
The concept of “open licensing” can apply to writing and art just as much as it can software. You are free to use the materials of others to create your own new materials and others are free to do the same. You still get credit for the concept, but now you have the wide world at your fingertips to contribute to the idea and once they’ve developed the idea to make it better, you can step back in and use it until your heart’s content.
Copyright Schmopyright by Mark Havenner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
| |
 | |  |
| | |
|
Other Recent Articles from the Opinion Category:
| |
| | |
|
|
|
