Don't Panic! | Peer to Peer Review; Library Journal, 12/17/09

Barbara Fister, Library Journal; Don't Panic! Peer to Peer Review:

Barbara Fister takes a look at William Patry's new book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars

"William Patry has a few things to say about pirates in his new book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. The well-known blogger, senior copyright counsel for Google, and author of the seven-volume definitive work, Patry on Copyright, steps back from purely legal analysis to examine the super-heated rhetoric surrounding copyright battles...

This book examines the rhetorical framing devices used by corporate interests to expand copyright laws. The purpose of this framing is simple: "to get what you want by defining yourself positively and by defining your opponent negatively." Nothing works better than inducing a moral panic, the systematic distortion and exaggeration of a problem in order to make it more compelling, and in the process demonizing those defined as deviant, making them appear much more threatening than they are...

Innovation
was demonized in the past in ways that seem absurd in hindsight. Jack Valenti (yes, the same Jack Valenti who for years predicted the complete collapse of the film industry if pirates aren't punished) testified before Congress in 1982 that Hollywood's future "depends on its protection from the savagery and the ravages of this machine." Which machine is that? "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone."

Balancing act
Patry's book unpacks the rhetorical devices used in copyright debates, but he does not oppose copyright. "For policy makers and the public, copyright is not a winner-takes-all proposition,” he writes. “Copyright is a system to advance public interests; those interests can be furthered by a copyright regime tailored to provide sufficient incentives to create new works. But at the same time we must recognize that the public interest is genuinely harmed by overprotection."

Though academic librarians are understandably caught up in the issues surrounding scholarly communication, a system in which much of the content is publicly funded and the authors are primarily rewarded by exposure, not protection, we still have a stake in popular culture and in the ways that copyright as it is defined today thwarts creative expression and hurts innovation. Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars is an informative interdisciplinary excursion into the issues that draws on legal, economic, and sociological theories to examine a debate that affects us and our students on a daily basis."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6712145.html

Book Review: 'Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars' by William Patry; LA Times, 10/23/09

Book Review: 'Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars' by William Patry; Reviewed by Jonathan Handel; LA Times:

"Into this copyright war walks William Patry. Extraordinarily well-credentialed, Patry has been a copyright lawyer for 27 years as a professor, practitioner and government attorney. Currently, he's Google's senior copyright counsel. Though Patry says he's in favor of "effective" copyright protection, he writes that "bad business models, failed economic ideologies, and acceptance of inapposite metaphors have led to an unjustified expansion" of those laws.

Patry's stature makes "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" an "important" book. Unfortunately, what the book delivers is a choppy and directionless narrative, sometimes illuminating but too often scattershot, unoriginal and strident. Unsupported claims abound...

This presentation is informative, but it's marred by Patry's habit of presenting arguments as though he were the first to devise them. An example is his claim that entertainment companies attack file sharing instead of innovating: Books by Lawrence Lessig, Tarleton Gillespie and others have made similar arguments more effectively. Patry discusses few of these works and adds little.

In fact, Patry has nothing good to say about copyright law. What do "effective" copyright laws look like? Read his book and you still won't know. The Constitution offers a hint: Copyright is intended to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Various scholars interpret that to mean a delicate balance of rights. Of course, the devil is in the details, but Patry offers none...

The author all but celebrates illegal file sharing, but would he be so sanguine if his own company's intellectual property -- its computer source code -- were shared in this fashion? One might imagine that what's good for the goose is good for the Google, but it's more likely the company would sue. Indeed, the entire technology industry is built on copyrights, patents and trade secrets, backed up by tough contracts and tougher lawyers. (By the way, Patry advocated copyright reform years before joining Google and says the book should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of his current employer.)

Certainly it's untenable for entertainment companies and copyright law itself to remain at war with millions of citizens. For better and worse, technology has unleashed new norms, and some accommodation must be found. Unfortunately, this book sheds little light on how that should happen."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-book23-2009oct23,0,6896339.story

The Copyright Wars; Letters to Editor, New York Times, 10/16/09

Letters to Editor, New York Times re Lewis Hyde 10/4/09 NYTimes essay "Advantage Google"; The Copyright Wars:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Letters-t-THECOPYRIGHT_LETTERS.html?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse

Review of Lawrence Lessig: Decriminalizing the Remix, Time, 10/17/08

Via Time: Review of Lawrence Lessig: Decriminalizing the Remix:

"In his latest book, the Stanford professor and Wired columnist rails against the nation's copyright laws — regulations he believes are futile, costly and culturally stifling. Citing "hybrid" economies like YouTube and Wikipedia (both of which rely on user-generated "remixes" of information, images and sound), Lessig argues in favor of what he calls a "Read/Write (RW)" culture — as opposed to "Read/Only (RO)" — that allows consumers to "create art as readily as they consume it."

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851241,00.html

Markets Declare Truce in Copyright Wars, Google concedes that information isn't free, Wall Street Journal, 11/17/08

Wall Street Journal: Markets Declare Truce in Copyright Wars, Google concedes that information isn't free:

"This shift by Google led Peter Osnos, founder of PublicAffairs books, to wonder if the book settlement could have lessons for other owners of content. "Google has now conceded, with a very large payment, that information is not free," Mr. Osnos wrote for the Century Foundation. "This leads to an obvious, critical question: Why aren't newspapers and news magazines demanding payment for use of their stories on Google and other search engines? Why are they not getting a significant slice of the advertising revenues generated by use of their stories via Google?"

Alas for the troubled news media industry, so much of its news is commoditized that people won't pay for it online. But as digital media mature, we'll see more redefinitions of legal concepts such as fair use. There will also be revisions of business practices regarding who gets paid what by whom. The Google settlement is a reminder that owners of intellectual property can choose to lock it away, give it away, or, most sensibly, share it in exchange for reasonable compensation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688619008032339.html