Clay Shirky on the Internet as a Distractor and Disruptor - Frog Design - The Atlantic

Clay Shirky says: The first thing, a precursor to whatever the new bargain is, is to abandon copyright maximalism, the doctrine that says that the only rationale for copyright (or intellectual property, generally) is to give businesses the right to rent-extraction over the population. Copyright law, as rationalized since the Statute of Anne in Great Britain in 1710, has always had significant provisions for the value to the public for creative work, and ideas like limited duration, required library deposit, and the public domain were part of the bargain from the beginning.

That balance has been all but destroyed—in the United States, copyright has effectively become infinite, because every time works from the early 1920s start coming to the end of their term, Hollywood gets Congress to extend the term. So I am somewhat impatient with this idea that “something must be done” in the short term, as if there was a technical or legal fix to a system with a broken model. What we need is a government willing to say “Copyright is and has always been a bargain between creating a market for creative work to create incentives, and creating a cultural commons to create value for the citizens,” and then start reasoning about how such a bargain will be worked out in a world with an Internet.

If every TV show was offered at a fair price to everyone in the world, there would definitely be much less copyright infringement,” he said. “But because of the monopoly power of the cable companies and content creators, they might actually make less money.
Internet Pirates Will Always Win -

Yep, the very same delusion that makes it difficult to read this NYT article online - we need pay-will not pay wall !

Professor Michael Carrier has published the results of a remarkable initiative on copyright and innovation that uses the music industry and Napster as the case study. Carrier interviewed leading executives at major record labels and technology companies in an effort to better understand the implications of the litigation strategy against Napster. The article concludes that there were five losses from the Napster decision and related litigation: lost innovation, lost venture capital, lost markets, lost licensing, and lost magic.

Michael Geist - Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story

MUST READ - Hunter S. Thompson summed in up correctly:

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.”

(via futuristgerd)

When Google released its new Copyright Transparency Report on takedown requests of its Search results, we got new insights into the massive number of complaints the search giant receives. We also saw that there are many requests that don’t seem to meet the standard of a “good faith belief” of infringement. Google said in the report that it refuses to comply with requests that are obviously inaccurate or intentionally abusive, which accounts for about 3% of the total. While Google deserves to be commended for that example of good citizenship, they can’t catch everything.