Lessig

Let's say you release a draft of a paper using PDF. But when people open the paper to read it, you'd like the PDF to check whether there's a more recent version available. If there is, you'd like it to indicate as much -- somewhere. Obviously, you could always include a link that says "For the most current version, go here." But is there a way to say, "A more recent version of this document is available here."?

Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will visit Second Life on December 7th, from 6-8pm Second Life Time (PST). Read all about it here.

I was a law clerk for Judge Posner. It was the best job a lawyer could imagine. Unlike must judges, Posner writes his own opinions. That meant the job of a clerk was simply to argue -- and he invited, indeed insisted upon, strong and vigorous argument. (Once I sent him a letter very strongly criticizing a draft of a book he was writing. The next morning I had second thoughts about the tone of the letter. I wrote a letter to apologize. He wrote back immediately: Never apologize for strongly stating your case. "I'm surrounded by sycophants. I don't need that from you."

He is the most prolific person I know. He is the most influential lawyer of his time. His work in law and economics revolutionized the legal academy. His opinions as a judge are easily among the most influential in the federal judiciary. You may not agree with his politics (as I don't on many things). But don't let political correctness block the chance to "see" this extraordinary figure.

Most won't like the conclusions of the book he'll be discussing. But there are always many more interesting Posner channels. He's a big fan of The Matrix. And cats.

Were it not 3am my time when he is in Second Life, I'd be there too. Let me know how it goes.

The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property has been released. It is here.

Meanwhile, you can read two reports the Review commissioned. One is a fantastic report about the economics of term extension. You can download it here.

The second is a report about Orphan Works (I've not read this yet). You can get it here.

My piece in the Financial Times today about the report is here. The punch line:

There are some who believe that copyright terms should be perpetual. Britain did the world a great service when it resolved that debate almost 300 years ago, by establishing one of the earliest copyright regimes to limit copyright to a fixed term. It could now teach the world a second important lesson: any gift of term extension should only go to those who ask.

From the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property:

Recommendation 4:Policy makers should adopt the principle that the term and scope of protection for IP rights should not be altered retrospectively.

Bravo. Now if only the British (and every) government could muster the courage to follow this advice.

Nick Carr on DRM:

No, DRM is about controlling the business model for selling online music. And if it looks like there won't be much additional sales growth through iTunes, then music companies are going to start selling unprotected MP3s. In an iPod world, they have little choice.

Unless, of course, Apple starts allowing other kinds of DRM-protected song files to play on iPods. But even that unlikely event might not matter much. It would seem that the best business strategy for record companies at this point is to open the floodgates for online music retailing, which would almost certainly bring a burst of innovation in packaging and pricing.

December 7th. A date which will live in infamy.

So the day after the Gowers Review issued perhaps the most sensible document about IP produced by a government related entity in the 20th or 21st century -- the report, remember, that after a careful review of the evidence, concluded that as a matter of principle, the copyright term of existing works should never be extended -- 4,000 artists signed an advertisement in the FT calling for "fair play for musicians" by extending the copyright term for recordings from 50 to 95 years. As CNN reports,

Without a change in the law, the catalogue of McCartney's Beatles could be up for grabs from 2012 and 2013, including early hits like "Love Me Do" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand".

But I get the fairness argument: Congress cheated the American people by violating the Gowers principle against extending existing terms, so it is only fair that Parliament cheat the British people too. How else will Sir Cliff afford the upkeep on the house in Barbados that Tony Blair likes to visit unless he gets another 45 years monopoly on his 1956 recordings?

What's needed here is some good user-generated guerrilla content -- remember Napster_Bad -- so that the other side of this story might pierce the press-relation's wall of these cultural elites, and they can begin to explain just why 90+% of our past should be buried for another two generations so that they can profit even more.

Or I'd be happy if they could just answer my question: Why would they oppose a system in which to get the benefit of an almost doubling of their copyright term, they had to ask?

My CC fundraising letter this week describes the launch of CC Labs -- a test bed for new CC technologies. There's a new licensing engine that emphasizes more clearly the freedoms you're enabling. Toggling through the options gives you a very clear sense of the contours of the CC licenses.

The most important experiment, however, is also the hardest to describe. We've begun testing an architecture that will enable people to specify (in the metadata attached to the license) where to go for rights, or stuff, beyond those specified in the license. Thus, for example, if you're a Flickr snapper, and license your photos under a noncommercial license, you can specify in the metadata who or where someone should go to clear commercial rights. (See, e.g., Scoopt)

So here's an example. Gary New Vision's got a mySpace page. On that page, you can download some of his music. That music is licensed under a CC BY-NonCommercial license. But if you click on the CC icon, the Commons Deed now tells you where you can go to license the music commercially.

As I explain in the extended entry, this "rights beyond" link need not be to commercial rights. It could be a tip jar, or t-shirts, or even another CC license. Thus, anyone offering content under a CC-NC license should, in my view, offer an alternative licenses as well -- CC-BY-SA -- which would mean the content could also be included within copyleft projects. But more on that soon ...

The tech here has been tricky, no doubt. But the hardest part will be to begin to make clear the potential this added capacity adds. Read below, and if you've got any great ideas, I'd be eager to hear them.

(continued)

For almost 10 years now, I've been waging a war against retrospective term extension. My simple argument has been that copyright is about creative incentives, and you can't create incentives retrospectively.

I now see I am apparently wrong.

As reported yesterday, there was an ad in the FT listing 4,000 musicians who supported retrospective term extension. If you read the list, you'll see that at least some of these artists are apparently dead (e.g. Lonnie Donegan, died 4th November 2002; Freddie Garrity, died 20th May 2006). I take it the ability of these dead authors to sign a petition asking for their copyright terms to be extended can only mean that even after death, term extension continues to inspire.

I'm not yet sure how. But I guess I should be a good sport about it, and just confess I was wrong. For if artists can sign petitions after they've died, then why can't they produce new recordings fifty years ago?

Creative Commons is turning 4 on December 16. To celebrate, there are a host of parties springing up around the world. You can read about it on this blog entry. I'll be in Portugal to launch CC Portugal, but will be getting up early to make a Second Life appearance at the San Francisco event. If you can't make it to a physical party, come virtually. I'll be making a pretty significant announcement (for me at least) at the party.

People are often very kind (at least to me) about my speeches. But the truly inspired rhetorician of our age is Eben Moglen. Here's a video of his keynote at the Plone conference in Seattle. The speech is transcribed here.

So Code v2 is officially launched today. Some may remember Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, published in 1999. Code v2 is a revision to that book -- not so much a new book, as a translation of (in Internet time) a very old book. Part of the update was done on a Wiki. The Wiki was governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. So too is Code v2.

Thus, at http://codev2.cc, you can download the book. Soon, you can update it further (we're still moving it into a new wiki). You can also learn a bit more about the history of the book, and aim of the revision. And finally, there are links to buy the book -- more cheaply than you likely can print it yourself.

Most important, however, as we come to the $185,000 mark of the CC fundraiser: All royalties from Code v2 go to Creative Commons, in recognition of the work done by those who helped with the wiki version of Code v1.

Creative Commons turns four tomorrow. On December 16, 2002, in San Francisco, we launched this licensing project. Within a year, there were a million licenses. Within two years, 12m. Within three years, around 40m. At four, Google reports us close to 150 million licenses. I'm in Portugal to launch the 34th country ported -- with Willem (age 3), who proudly marched around the event with a sticker on his shirt, explaining to everyone that it meant "ke-ative koms."

I'll be in Second Life at the CC pod at 10pm San Francisco time (6am Portugal time) to join the party, and make at least one announcement. But meanwhile, enjoy this fantastic card from one of CC's better ideas -- iCommons.

My retirement plaque, presented by Jimmy Wales. (click to enlarge)

Last week, culminating Friday night, in parties around the world, Creative Commons celebrated its fourth birthday. Hundreds of people helped mark this event. My 3 year old son, Willem, and I cut the first cake at the party in Portugal.

Five hours later, in the Creative Commons party in the virtual world of Second Life, I made (for me an announcement. As I removed the CC torch from my bag of objects, I told those in world, and in San Francisco, that Joi Ito, a venture capitalist from Japan and a key driver in the "sharing economy," would be replacing me as Chairman of Creative Commons. I will remain on the board, and as CEO. But from the moment I handed him the torch, he is CC's new Chairman.

This is a very happy moment for CC. I'm not going anywhere -- CC will continue to get everything I can give. But we are movement, not a cult. And it is important that movements have leaders. I have had enormous respect for Joi since first meeting him in Japan in early 2000. It was a real coup when I was able to convince him to join our Board. Joi's whole ethic has been to build the sharing economy. That ethic of building is precisely where CC is going right now.

This has been the best job I will have had. I can't describe how extraordinary it has been to watch this organization grow, nor how rewarding it has been to see the passion and energy it has inspired. We have tried to show the world something about how creativity works -- not through obsessive control, but by creators inviting others to create and share as well. More and more, this is a message the world seems to get.

But for now, let me leverage a bit the opportunity that the ambiguity of new leadership creates. After the thermometer is updated to reflect a very generous anonymous gift we just received, we will have just $100,000 left in our campaign. That's a lot to raise in two weeks, but I think we can do it. Indeed, you can look at this change in leadership in two ways, each of which gives some of you a reason for one last push:

Finally, thanks to all of you, and the Board of CC in particular, for allowing me this extraordinary opportunity. And join me in helping, and supporting, Joi Ito in his new role.

The best news is the stuff that just happens. Here's an example: As reported by Lisa Williams on Jay Rosen's site, GateHouse Media, a conglomerate "that owns 75 daily and 231 weekly newspapers" has rolled over 96 of its newspaper sites to a Creative Commons license.

I am very proud to report (and not because I used to be a conservative) that Tom Delay has launched a blog, with a new CC license. There's not much I agree with Tom Delay about -- except the freedoms he means his words to carry. Bravo.

Angela Gunn of USAToday on YouTube, MySpace and CC.

From to

Regarding this article in the New York Times about Congressman Goode's letter to his constituents condemning America's first Muslim Congressman's decision to swear his oath on the Koran:

Congressman Goode: The Constitution which you studied as a law student at Virginia, and swore to defend as a member of the "105th, the 106th, the 107th, 108th and the 109th Congress" says this:

"but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI, section 3)

Does your oath to the Constitution not include this section? Or do you simply not take the oath you took seriously?

This is a fun project I've been pushing inside CC which, thanks to endless work by our GC Mia Garlick and a Stanford student, Dana Powers, has now launched as a beta.

The background is this: US copyright law gives creators an inalienable right to terminate any "transfer" or assignment of copyright after 35 years. The idea was to give the creator a second bite at the apple, an idea that goes back to the first US copyright law.

The problem with the procedure is -- surprise, surprise! -- it is INSANELY complicated. It is almost as if -- AS IF -- it was designed not to be used.

So Creative Commons decided it would take a crack at making the system easier. We've developed a tool that will help an author determine whether or when an assignment is terminable. And our idea is to work with legal aid clinics around the country to refer likely terminators for final termination (it is an irresistible word for us Californians).

At this stage, the tool doesn't refer you. And you should not use or rely on anything that comes from this BETA. But we'd be very eager for people to play around with it and give us feed back on the tool. When we're really confident we've got all the logic right, and it's clear enough, and when we've lined up volunteer projects around the country to represent authors whose transfers are to be terminated, we'll launch the project.

Why is this a Creative Commons project? We've seen CC from the start as a tool to help creators manage an insanely complicated copyright system. When we have this running, we'll offer any copyright owner who has reclaimed his or her rights the opportunity to distribute the work under a CC license. But that will be optional. Right now, we're just offering the tool to make it simpler for authors to get what the copyright system was intended to give them.

"Radical" changes in Washington always have this Charlie Brown/Lucy-like character (remember Lucy holding the football?): it doesn't take long before you realize how little really ever changes in DC. The latest example is the Dems and IP issues as they affect the Net. Message to the Net from the newly Democratic House? Go to hell.

As everyone knows, one issue critical to those who are making the Net interesting (for politics at least) is IP reform. Not "reform" in the sense of the last decade (e.g., Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, DMCA, NET Act, etc.), but real reform designed to make IP laws work sensibly in the digital age. Real reform -- not the piddly full-employment-act-for-lawyers reform proposed by the Copyright Office for "orphan works," or the puny reform suggested for digital libraries. Instead, reform that tries to fit the legitimate objectives of copyright -- to assure that artists have the incentives they need to create great new work -- into the contours of digital technology.

To craft that reform would require real work. I don't think anyone has a clear picture of what would be best yet. But what is clear is that the war on technology of the last decade must come to an end. And the efforts by content holders to leverage their power over rights they can't even prove they own (see, e.g., the Google Book Search battle) into control over the architecture of the net must be stopped. No one should defend "piracy." But no one should believe that the way the law currently defines "piracy" makes any sense at all.

So is there any hope for such reform from the Democrats? Word from Washington so far: Fat chance. As reported in the LA Times two weeks ago (registration required but hey, it's LA), the crucial House IP subcommittee will be chaired by Hollywood Howard (Berman) -- among the most extreme of the IP warriors. It is this committee that largely determines what reform Congress considers. It is the Chairman who picks what voices get heard. And while Berman is a brilliant man -- whose brilliance could really have been used in the problems facing the mid-east -- his brilliance has not yet been directed towards working out the problems of IP and the Net with any view beyond the narrowest of special interests.

This is like making a congressman from Detroit head of a Automobile Safety sub-committee, or a senator from Texas head of a Global Warming sub-committee. Are you kidding, Dems? The choice signals clearly the party's view about the issues, and its view of the "solution": more of the same. This war -- no more successful than President Bush's war -- will continue.

No doubt, there are Net issues beyond copyright -- surveillance, net neutrality, etc. But I suggest this choice is an important signal about this party (and I'm afraid, any party). I once asked a senior staffer of a brilliant Senator why the Senator didn't take a stronger position in favor of Net Neutrality. "No Senator remains a Senator opposing an industry with that much money" was his answer.

And so too here. The Dems have looked at the potential "return" from the activists on the Net. They've considered the kids being sued by the industry (including the kids running MySpace, and maybe soon, YouTube), and the kids creating amazing new (but presumptively illegal) mashups and remixes, and they have compared that value to the party with the value promised by Hollywood. Result: the 20th Century continues to rule.

Dems to the Net: "Thanks for the blogs. And please continue to get outraged by MoveOn messages. But don't think for a second we're interested in hearing anything beyond the charming wisdom of Jack Valenti. We appreciate your support. We appreciate your money. But come on -- you're all criminals. Don't expect your criminal ways to be taken seriously by an institution as respected as the US Congress."

So very very close ... Just click the image and help close the gap.