Emory Free Culture

Staking Out Intellectual Property
Andrew Swerlick
Posted: 9/19/06

“The intangible nature of language begins to haunt me, and I wonder how it’s possible for anyone to own words. Exactly what have I been deprived of?” These are the words David Bowers spoke after discovering many of his poems had been plagiarized by others. His question highlights the murkiness of the world of copyrights, patents and trademarks. Our minds are divided between the language of ownership, of property, of the right to the fruits of our labor and the “intangible nature” of not only language, but ideas in general.

Although thinkers have struggled with these notions for centuries, these quandaries are just beginning to come into the view of the public eye. The digital age has placed intellectual property in the limelight. In the form of DVDs and movie sales, it has become America’s No. 1 export.

Newspapers are filled with stories about the latest intellectual property lawsuit, Amazon.com’s patent of one-click shopping being the most prominent, and cereal bar company Cereality’s attempt to patent “displaying and mixing competitively-branded food products [cereal]” and adding “a third portion of liquid [milk].” Many Web sites offer advice to businesses, claiming that those who follow certain methods will be able to capitalize on the value of their intellectual property.

This explosion is in part due to two changes in the legal structure of the U.S. patent system. The first occurred in 1990, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that software algorithms were patentable inventions; the second in 1998 when the Supreme Court did the same for business methods. From these changes came a slew of new patent applications. When many of these patents were approved, however, there was a backlash. The backlash was led by a surprising alliance of free market advocates and anti-corporate progressives.

In recent years the movement against these changes has gained a great deal of momentum, but because the public debate about intellectual property is still in its infancy, it suffers from some problems. One of the most glaring is the language often used in respect to intellectual property issues.

In response to criticism about its patent applications, Cereality founder David Roth said: “We’re just two guys trying to protect ourselves from big companies that could steal our intellectual property.” But to echo the words of David Bowers, how do you steal something as intangible as an idea?

This is not to say that intellectual property is an illegitimate notion, but instead that arguing for its legitimacy using the same language as traditional property is misguided. Despite the use of the term property in both instances, traditional property and intellectual property are fundamentally different. As Thomas Jefferson said, “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea � Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [candle] at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

In other words, when two people share a car, each finds the car less useful. But when two people share an idea, its usefulness does not dwindle. Instead, the defense of intellectual property lies in the language of economics - of incentives. We grant holders of an idea a monopoly on that idea to give them and others an incentive to produce more like it. But the benefits of this incentive are in part countered by the restrictive limitations this monopoly places on everyone else.

In other words, there is a balance to be sought between incentives and freedom. The language of the intellectual property debate in its current form, a form that speaks of rights and ownership, is black and white and doesn’t recognize the need for balance. Instead, the intellectual property debate should be a discussion of the practical benefits of any given intellectual property scheme. Without this sort of discussion America may find itself falling behind in the new world of ideas.

Andrew Swerlick is a College junior from Atlanta. He is the treasurer of Emory Free Culture.

iTunes U for Emory?
The University should bite on Apple’s new filesharing system
Andrew Swerlick
Posted: 4/28/06 at http://www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2006/04/28/Editorials/Itunes.U.For.Emory-1882052.shtml
If Microsoft is the devil, does that make Apple an angel? Technology pundits often seem to think so.

Every new product or service from the mind of Steve Jobs and his crew is heralded as breakthrough technology that will lead us into the future.

Macintosh fans are known for their fanatical, nearly rabid defense of the company from any sort of criticism. Which isn’t surprising, considering Apple’s slick products and masterful hype. But is the hype always worth buying into?

This is the question that should weigh heavily on the Emory community as the University considers the adoption of the new iTunes U service. As the Apple Web site explains, “iTunes U is a free, hosted service for colleges and universities that provides easy access to your educational content, including lectures and interviews 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

iTunes U allows colleges to upload academic content onto an Apple server where students can then access and download it. The program is in the early stages, but has already found a spot at big-name schools like Stanford and the University of Michigan Dental School.

The quick adoption has been driven by Apple’s traditionally excellent marketing and the fact that Apple has promised to offer this service free of charge until at least 2007. Apple has also stated that it doesn’t plan to introduce any charges even after that date.

Some critics of the iTunes U program are worried that the service is simply too good to be true. Their fears are not surprising. After all, Apple is a for-profit company, so it’s worth questioning just what they might be trying to gain from offering this filesharing service for free.

But for the most part, this Apple gift horse seems to pass the test. Participation in the service doesn’t require signing away the copyrights to any content universities place on Apple’s servers; any sort of media can be uploaded as long as appropriate copyright clearances are obtained; and there are no explicit lock-in provisions that force exclusive use of Apple products.

Even the valid issues that many bloggers have raised - mostly concerning the accessibility of the content to those who don’t use Apple products or services - can be avoided through an intelligent deployment of the system. And fortunately, that seems just what Emory’s Academic and Administrative Information Technology division is poised to do.

In a recent discussion with members of Emory Free Culture, Alan Cattier, director of Academic Technology Services, made it clear that the goal in adopting iTunes U will be to create a comprehensive academic filesharing network that is as open as possible. To this end, iTunes U will only be a part of a plan that will also encompass already existing systems such as LearnLink, Blackboard and Reserves Direct.

In fact, with these systems already in place, it might be worth asking just what is it that iTunes U will be bringing to the table. After all, Emory students can already share their academic and creative work with others using Webdrive. Professors can already place audio files on Blackboard. Students can already upload and download assignments using LearnLink. Will iTunes U do anything more than duplicate present functionality under a Macintosh logo?

No. But that’s not a bad thing. The importance of a slick design and user-friendly interface is often overestimated by techies, but never by Apple.

Although Apple has often been called an innovator, that compliment is slightly misleading. Apple has rarely been the first company to develop a brand-new product or service. After all, the iPod was a latecomer in the world of MP3 players. Even the ever-popular iTunes Music Store came after the Real Networks Rhapsody download service. But Apple always finds a way to take innovative ideas and make them appealing and easy to use for the masses. And in many ways, that’s what’s most important. Even the most innovative inventions are worthless if no one will use them.

For years, filesharing proponents have been arguing that technology has the potential to change the face of education as we know it. Maybe now that it’s bundled it in a slick Apple package it truly will.

Emore Free Culture member Andrew Swerlick recently had the following editorial published inThe Emory Wheel.

Creating our Library of Alexandria: Google Print falls under ‘fair use’
spacer
November 01, 2005

Almost everyone has heard of the legendary Great Library of Alexandria. In its time, it was the repository for almost all of the knowledge in the ancient world. What’s especially interesting about this library is the way in which it gained its impressive collection. All visitors to the city of Alexandria were required to relinquish any scrolls or books they had with them. Scribes copied the works and returned a copy to the owners. As the library’s collection grew, more philosophers, scientists and authors came to visit Alexandria, leading to more books, the process cycling back on itself. Alexandria soon became the center of technology, literature and science in the ancient world, producing works like Euclid’s Geometry and the invention of Archimedes’ Screw.

Now in the modern period one group is trying to create its own Library of Alexandria. The Google Print project is trying to digitize and organize the world’s information so it is easily searchable through Google’s Web site. To this end, Google Print is building a collection in a way similar to the librarians of ancient Alexandria. Google has started making digital copies of the books in Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, New York Public and University of Michigan libraries.

However, there is one problem that Google faces: modern copyright law. Some publishers are not happy with the fact that Google has not asked for permission to copy many of their books. At first glance it would seem that Google doesn’t have the law on its side. However, there is a caveat to copyright that puts Google firmly in the right. That caveat is the idea of fair use — the idea that it is okay to copy works for certain reasons including, but not limited to, criticism, commentary, teaching, scholarship and news reporting. Over time, four basic factors have evolved to determine if something is fair use:

1. The purpose of the copy. This concerns whether the copying is for nonprofit, educational or commercial purposes.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work. This is to allow the copying of mostly factual works, i.e., the telephone book or specific facts contained in a biography or research paper.

3. The portion copied compared to the work as whole. This allows quoting.

4. The effect of the copy on the value of the original work. This concerns whether or not the ability to sell or distribute the original work is harmed by the copy.

Of these four, the one important to the issue of Google Print is the last one. Although Google will be making full copies of every book for indexing purposes, in the case of copyrighted books, only excerpts will be available to those searching on the site. These excerpts will be accompanied by links to libraries or bookstores where the full text is available. Google Print users will not be able to use the Google Web site as a replacement for these books, but instead as a guide to finding them. That means everyone benefits, people can find the books they want, and publishers can find those who want their books.

This is especially important for researchers. Imagine a student in Africa being able to find the title of every book ever published on the subject of the ancient Chinese Empire, including rare and out-of-print editions, and being shown links to where he can acquire them. Think about how easy research becomes for even the most esoteric topics when the world’s knowledge is available at the press of a key.

Everyone knows the story of the eventual fate of the ancient Library of Alexandria — destroyed by a raging fire. Let’s hope our modern Alexandria doesn’t go down in the flames of legal battle before it even gets its start.

-Andrew Swerlick, Sophomore, Emory Free Culture