You can read the release here.
Regular readers will know I have worked closely with PK in the past and that it is an exciting opportunity for me to do more on intellectual property as well as continuing work on the spectrum and network neutrality issues. At the same time, I am continuing my consulting work with Strength To Strength Develop-Ed, LLC — albeit in a reduced role.
Stay tuned . . . .
One of the arguments against sharing music was society will be diminished because no one will create music without a sufficient intellectual property incentive.
We now have a flourishing culture of sharing for video, in which people of diverse skill levels are creating huge amounts of content. No shortage there.
So I want to ask, “Is there a flourishing of digital music content today?” Surely it is easier to both create and enjoy music than it is for video. (Music requires lower bandwidth and less power, play-anywhere music devices are good and plentiful, and music creation software are quite fantastic.)
It feels like there is lot of free music available in video form. I wonder if the legal fight against music sharing — rather than sharing itself — has stifled the medium of sound-only recording, even as the more demanding but less legally bullied video medium has exploded. The music itself has just been switched to a new medium, and may ultimately be better for it.
Meanwhile, it seems that half the top 10 best selling printed novels in Japan were written on and for cell phone distribution. I’ve heard that the explosion in the genre coincides with the spread of flat-rate pricing on text messaging.
Once again, Public Knowledge is calling for nominations for its IP3 Awards. These awards honor people who have made valuable contributions in the fields of intellectual property, information policy, and internet protocol. Nominations must get in by September 14. Send nominations to IP3nominees@publicknowledge.org.
To quote from the PK announcement:
These are individuals who over the past year (or over the course of their careers) have advanced the public interest regarding one of the three kinds of “IP.” While these increasingly overlapping policy arenas pose important challenges for us, they also create important opportunities for creative individuals in each of the three underlying fields to advance the public interest.
Normally, this is where I would insert a rather broad hint that the labor of yr hmbl obdnt blogger and others in the realm of open spectrum would make me an excellent candidate for nomination. Fortunately, you are spared this outrageous and self-serving spectacle by the fact that I am actually judging the nominations this year. Accordingly, nary a word of encouragement that might suggest bias on my part shall pass my lips or make it to this public page.
Instead, I’ll just urge everyone to send nominations in by September 14. Remember, send your nominations to IP3nominees@publicknowledge.org.
Stay tuned . . . .
Over on the Creative Commons weblog, there’s a short fascinating interview with a “gonzo SF novelist” about how three years of making his works available for free download has changed his way of thinking about “intellectual property” and “digital rights management” and stuff like that there. Check it out.
I admit I haven’t thought through the implications of the FCC’s recent orders about the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but I’m pretty damn sure that our leaders haven’t thought it through.
The idea is to create the biggest unfunded mandate in history by forcing all Internet service providers to retool their systems to make it easier for the feds to monitor communications. The cost to universities alone is said to be at least $7B. I don’t know what this does to municipal and home grown mesh network systems. I suppose that the intent is to make it too expensive for anyone but a TelCo to operate anything other than restrictive high-level services. The prophetic David Reed laid out the the issues five years ago, saying it much better than I can.
To this I would add an uneasiness as to what steps a person must now apply, or is allowed to apply, to protect “intellectual property.” We are required to take practical precautions to keep our freedom of privacy else we loose it. If we wreck the Internet in a rush to destroy any practical means of protecting privacy, then who in the end will be allowed to actually claim the priviledge of privacy? Only those large institutions who can afford to run their own government-approved private networks?
I got this notice from the Consumer Project on Technology, which is a public advocacy organization I’ve worked with and respect. CPT has been very active on a variety of fronts seeking to limit abuses of intellectual property.
The Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (http://www.cptech.org) is planning an event in Brussels on Feb 4 on digital copyright issues. If people are interested in this, the should contact Jamie Love (james.love@cptech.org) or Manon Ress (manon.ress@cptech.org) for more info….
