As I was reading the latest rants by Barenaked Ladies’ Steven Page, I was struck by the similar language used by both the Creative Commons crowd and the Net Neutrality advocates. I tripped upon this as I was reading a commentary in one of the trade papers that seemed to be arguing that, since digital technology makes copying so easy, we need to just let it happen.
It turns out that Lawrence Lessig noticed similarities between Fair Use and Net Neutrality a few days ago [which scares me, in that I don’t often agree with his perspectives].
I find it interesting, but not necessarily surprising, that successful musicians are revolting against the distribution system. I am certain that many are having second thoughts about the contracts that they signed when they were starving artists and now are spinning out obscene amounts of cash for their labels.
Is the need to transform the traditional music industry business model based on the view that technology has made the theft of music so easy? I need something more: it just sounds like the same argument that a street gang member could make, sneering that the innovation of steel crowbars made glass obsolete, so the jewellery industry had better transform their business model.
Copyright reform and network neutrality share a theme. Both are concerned with the public’s use of other people’s property. In one case it is intellectual property; in the other, it is the digital transport network. Who owns these assets? Who determines the limits on what the owner can charge? The marketplace? Government?
In settling both issues for the ‘here and now’, we need to be concerned with ensuring that there remain incentives that foster further development. Encouraging the development of both intellectual property and digital networks. These are important issues that require far more thoughtful discussion and less shouting of catchy slogans.