Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old20/01/2012 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 CommentsShare this Story:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)IP-Watch is a non-profit independent news service, and subscribing to our service helps support our goals of bringing more transparency to global IP and innovation policies. To access all of our content, please subscribe now. You also have the opportunity to offer additional support to your subscription, or to donate.The views expressed in this column are solely those of the authors and are not associated with Intellectual Property Watch. IP-Watch expressly disclaims and refuses any responsibility or liability for the content, style or form of any posts made to this forum, which remain solely the responsibility of their authors.By Bruce BermanIt may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet; a fresh approach is needed.Have copyright holders become their own worst enemies?Poorly drafted bills in the US Senate and Congress designed to curb music and other piracy, in some cases by holding information aggregators who enable it responsible, is fueling a new wave of anger towards lawmakers and copyright holders.SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, the Protect IP Act, will need to be heavily reworked if they are to be accepted and applied.Part of the problem is that for the past 20 years or so the music industry failed to successfully enforce its copyrights on the internet and curb piracy from Asia. Now, experiencing the desperation of a dying industry, it believes it must do something. They reason that even the Wild West was tamed, eventually. A generation of file-sharing listeners and content users does not agree. There is fear that any intervention in the internet or restriction is a potential threat to individual freedoms and will promote spying and stifle innovation. Many believe that it does not have to play out that way.In my not-so-humble opinion, the internet — and social networks in particular – can and should have some borders. Rampant abuses, not just to copyright holders but individuals’ personal information, have been swept under the rug. It’s difficult to say what form the oversight should take, or how much is onerous, but the current situation is dangerous and too important to ignore.The film and book publishing industries are not far behind the downward slope of the music business. Google has tried to post all books and force blanket agreements on authors, great for readers and even some writers, but not for those who live by book sales. For better or worse content-capturing or file sharing has become to many an acceptable way of life, and piracy is now simply the new technology doing its digital thing – not.Enablers or Pirates?Some say content providers need new business models that incorporate innovative technologies and the current culture. I’m not so sure the problem is that easily resolved. Sweden-based Spotify, for example, relies on copyrighted content deals negotiated directly with the labels and some artists. Not all agree that is the best place or deal for their content. Eventually, they may not have much of a choice. The major recording artists at least may have some bargaining leverage, the lesser names not. The French, ironically, have been tougher on file sharing than most countries, possibly because of its history of respect for artists and innovators.Part of the problem in the US is that (1) it is the largest content provider, (2) expectations have changed from years of failed enforcement, (3) content can be expensive, and (4) today, well established, new economy information aggregators and social networks are o.k. bending privacy and ownership rules. (Their advertisers don’t seem to mind.)Google, Facebook, YouTube and other business models depend on compelling but highly accessible content to prosper. So, to put it crudely, it’s sort of Hollywood (content providers) vs. Silicon Valley (device and distribution owners). While there have been attempts to work together, the fundamental differences between old and new economy businesses have kept them apart. A few artists may benefit from the free internet visibility which may support their (paid) performances or what they can sell or license; most will not.* * *Below are links to several helpful stories and a video which provide useful background about the controversy over SOPA and PIPA. They provide good perspective but should be digested with a hefty grain of salt. Remember: CNN-Money is owned by content provider Time Warner and YouTube-distributed content may not always be reliable. YouTube is owned by Google. Wikipedia is more complex.Short video: “What Is SOPA?”Anti-Regulation: The Wikipedia perspective.Story from CNN-Money: “SOPA Explained: What it is and Why it Matters”From the WSJ: “What is SOPA Anyway? A Guide to Understanding the Online Piracy Bill”Terrific Op-Ed: “It’s a mistake to think the danger is from big media choking the Internet.”Bruce Berman is a principal in Brody Berman Associates and writes frequently about the IP holders and rights. His column, The Intangible Investor, appears in IAM magazine, and he is responsible for “From Ideas to Assets” and three other books on IP and business. A more detailed bio is available here. Share this Story:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Related"Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.