LIS-5411 - Freely Available information

Property

- from singular (MINE)

Property

- from singular (MINE)
- to multiple (STICKS)

Property

- from singular (MINE)
- to multiple (STICKS)
— and back?

Three types

.. and you know what ☺

Property

- from singular (MINE)
- to multiple (STICKS)
— and back?

FUNDAMENTALLY, PROPERTY IS EXCLUSION

(which makes sense for SCARCE things.)
but WHY for "infinite" things?

Three types

IP Clause/Copyright Clause

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.


Good IP "Questions"

Basic types of IP

Trade Secret*
Trademark*

Patent
Copyright

The weirdos

Trade Secret
and
Trademark

TRADE SECRET

TRADE SECRET

- corporate right of privacy
(how diffferent from the others? see point 1 ☺

TRADEMARK

TRADEMARK

TRADEMARK

Mostly not too controversial except

Definitely Intellectual Property


Copyright
Patent

Patent (theory)

Protects inventions and ideas

Must be:

Theoretically Non-patentable


Naturally occuring things like – plants and algorithms.

BUT

Simply patent the “process”

Reverse Engineering v. Stealing?


Patent don't care.

This is why a lot of people oppose them CATEGORICALLY

Design Patent?

Weird, and you'll see them more soon, because of a shift from

- Deep descriptions
to
- General perception


Copyright

Automatic (Berne Convention)
but, must be registered to sue
“Expression of an idea”
Not infinite, but almost-- (70+life)

Fair Use


Fair Use (is weird)

(not a right, but a defense)

(weird b/c “parody/satire”)

+ The “5th” measure. Is it scaaaary ?


“Intellectual” “Property”


Rewarding creators is a means to an end, not the end itself.



Patent v. Copyright

PATENT:
Shorter but broader. Covers the IDEA, does not require “copying.”
Therefore, easier to infringe.

COPYRIGHT:
Covers the EXPRESSION OF THE IDEA, technically requires copying (even though this doesn’t always happen in practice)

Easy example in practice

Microsoft owns and controls “Internet Explorer” code,
Apple owns and controls “Safari”
Google owns but then licences “Chrome”
Mozilla has freed “Firefox”

But NO ONE has any ownership over the “browser,” though it would be theoretically patentable

Tech Patents in Practice

CHAOS AND WAR!

Difficult to get if you're a little guy
If you're big they're “easy”--
(the joke is, just add “on a computer” to anything)
So, just buy up tons of them and point them at other companies as needed.
(yeah, a lot of people think this is pretty ugly. e.g. “Patent Trolls”)

Possible and Actual Examples


THEORETICAL:
Matrix Multiplication for death and love

Possible and Actual Examples


ACTUAL
Nintendos “cross” d-pad
Amazon’s 1 click to buy
Apple v Samsung. i.e. RECTANGLES.

CONSUMING MEDIA


Aka You wouldn’t download a car, would you?

(hell yeah, I would)

CONSUMING MEDIA


The ugly truth (to the companies is settled)
It’s not “Pirates v Honest People”

It’s “People who like stuff get it however they can, so convenience wins”

DRM

Old school: Silly because, (encryption wise)
B and C are the same person.
Also
The “Analog hole”
DRM

BUT – if you add on loads of convenience

(and surveillance)

You get, Steam, Netflix, Spotify, etc.

See earlier point about convenience.

NEW SCHOOL:

WE ARE ALL CREATORS

What is copyright LAW doing for us now?

As always, what roles do the middlemen play?




THE RESPONSES:


- Librarianship (which is sometimes called piracy?)
- Reform
- Clever licenses

THE RESPONSES:

Homebrew Librarianship: The “Good”

Archive.org
Wikipedia


THE RESPONSES:

Homebrew Librarianship: The “Scary”

Sci-hub
Library Genesis


THE RESPONSES:

Homebrew Librarianship: The “Really Scary”

Napster
Bittorrent

Creative fields with little IP?


Creative fields with little IP?


Genuine question


Am I missing something where lack of IP
really DID hurt it badly?

(Literally) Legal Responses




Reform


e.g.
Orphan Works

Reform


e.g.
Orphan Works

(How to solve Happy Birthday, in theory)

Clever Licenses (GPL)




Linux and the GPL

Stallman and Linus wanted to keep Linux free for everyone. The “natural solution” (and what was used before) was
Freeware
or
Public Domain

Linux and the GPL

Stallman and Linus wanted to keep Linux free for everyone. The “natural solution” (and what was used before) was
Freeware
or
Public Domain
...but lets consider Shakespeare.

Microsoft: the EULA


You can’t sell it
You can’t do anything, blah blah blah


The Linux people figured out how to use these evil powers for good :)

GPL

It’s NOT NOT copyright! (i.e. yep, it’s copyrighted – but with a very permissive license)

GPL

The ONE thing you can’t do (and this what distinguishes it from other open source, MIT, Apache, etc)

IF you give a copy, modified or not, to someone else, you MUST give them all the free rights that you got. You cannot lock it back down again.

Creative Commons

Idea based on the GPL, but with more possibilities. Less precise, but perhaps of use: with ideas like
Attribution
Commercial
Etc.

The real "thieves?"


Consider:

Google
Youtube
Spotify's earlier competitors


YouTube


Youtube felt the need to restate a fact that was always true:

Youtube is not obligated to host or keep up ANY video.

(also, Youtube is obligated to at least give lip service to “copyright.” What effect has THAT had?)

The real "thieves?"


Facebook
Tik-Tok
Be Real?

The real "thieves?"


Today:

Github Co-Pilot/ ChatGPT
Stable Diffusion / Dall-e / Midjourney


When did ANY of the above get permission?


And where are we today?

Besides chaos, I mean.