An interesting commentary on the other major Supreme Court decision, the one classifying cable companies as information services, and therefore immune from regulations requiring them to allow access for third party internet information providers. If they exercise this new power, it could be ugly.
Archive for July, 2005
I have always enjoyed Gibson’s work, so I was delighted to find this article. I have not seen a finer description of how copyright has the power to stifle art and innovation.
We recently put on a CEO summit for our portfolio company CEO’s, and invited Mark Leslie to speak. He gave his now-standard speech on the Sales Learning Curve, which I have now heard 3 times, but still learn something new each time. He asked that we not publish the slides outside of our portfolio, but I noticed that someone else’s blog has them…
Loyal readers of my blog (Hi JohnK) know that I love Larry Lessig, so I was very interested to read his take on the Grokster decision. Linked below is an interesting interview, but the best part was this comment by Ryujin:
Of course, this is all very important to the US, Europe and the handful of other countries that take little matters like intellectual property seriously. The statement by Lessig that we are in for “10 years of chilled innovation” only really applies to these countries. In global terms, the result could be that countries with less rigorous IP regulation will become the innovation powerhouses of the next decade. Where that will leave the “developed Western economies” is open to question. We may end the decade considerably less “developed” than we started it. So, in 2015, when I’m streaming music via encrypted/anonymous connection from offshore servers in Tuvalu to my Chinese-made media player implant, I’ll try to remember to be sad that America and Europe fell so far behind in innovation.
I love the Economist. This article is wonderfully balanced:
The Supreme Court tried to steer a middle path between these claims, and did a reasonable job. But the outcome of the case is nevertheless unsatisfactory. That’s not the court’s fault. It was struggling to apply a copyright law which has grown worse than anachronistic in the digital age. That’s something Congress needs to remedy.
and it finishes with a great idea:
A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to its original terms14 years, renewable once. This should provide media firms plenty of chance to earn profits, and consumers plenty of opportunity to rip, mix, burn their back catalogues without breaking the law. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the copyright incumbents.