01.28Welcome to the Culture of Ownership!
Frequent listeners to the Buzz Out Loud podcast will know that I often refer to something called a “culture of ownership” that I think is pervasive in our society (particularly U.S. society) at this particular point in history. People often ask me to expand on this concept, and I thought this blog might be a good way to both explain what I mean and track specific examples as they arise. (I’ll set up an email address soon so that you can send me tips, but I wanted to get this up, running, and out the door post-haste before daily life overwhelmed my more enterprising instincts.)
First, let me try to explain what I mean when I say we’re suffering (and yes, I think we’re suffering) under a culture of ownership. A BOL listener posted an excellent and succinct definition over at Urban Dictionary, and that’s a pretty good place to start:
“The general feel in today’s society that everything is somehow copyrighted or property of someone else to the point where it hinders creativity and makes it much more difficult to innovate. It is also the belief that just because you created/thought of something that you should have complete and total control over every aspect of that thing, object or idea.”
I think the concept also includes the increasing tendency of our society to value ideas as incremental revenue, and the way we claim “rights” to everything from a fairly obvious thought (the idea of creating a list of movies in the order you would like to view them, for example) to the fundamental workings of the human body. Here are some examples:
The Culture of Ownership is extending the U.S. copyright period for “the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier,” almost exclusively in order to protect ongoing profits to the Disney Corporation for its use of the Mickey Mouse image.
The Culture of Ownership is using or attempting to use legislation as a tool for enforcing business models, rather than allowing competition and the free market to determine what shall and shall not be paid for content such as music and movies, and to determine in what form that content will be distributed.
The Culture of Ownership is the National Football League telling attendees of football games and sports reporters what they can report about a game, how much video they can and cannot post online, and censoring “accounts” of games because they own the rights to the television broadcasts of those games.
The Culture of Ownership is Major League Baseball deciding that it’s potentially illegal for you to use Slingbox to stream a broadcast of a baseball game anywhere you happen to be traveling, because they sell broadcast rights to TV stations based on specific geographic areas, and if you’re streaming the game from your home city instead of watching it on local TV, you’re stealing from that local television operator.
The Culture of Ownership is a Sony BMG lawyer testifying on the stand that her company hasn’t specifically granted you the right to rip songs from a CD onto your computer, and therefore it could potentially be considered stealing (and the RIAA saying that lawyer “misspoke” but still refusing to say whether it considers ripping a digital copy of your personal property to be fair use).
The Culture of Ownership is what allows the music industry to sue an auto mechanics’ shop for playing their music too loud. It’s also what allows that industry to ask for royalties on, say, open-mic night performances.
Interestingly, in the Culture of Ownership, you actually own less and less. The same industries who expect you to pay exorbitant prices for, say, music on a CD and claim to be ensuring that “artists get paid” also believe that you should not “own” music you purchase in digital form. When it comes to content, the content “owners” believe that you are a tenant, and they are the landlords. Landlords with the right to, as Sony has asserted in its EULA, require you to re-purchase any digital music that you might lose in a burglary, hurricane, or other technological catastrophe.
I think there are a variety of reasons for the increased tone of desperation our corporate culture has adopted when it comes to the idea of ownership. The idea of “products” has changed dramatically over the past few decades. “Products” are no longer limited to physical, manufactured objects–they’re inclusive of a lot more content and a lot more concepts than they ever used to be. Also, we’re an intensely shareholder-driven culture here in the U.S. You must not only make money, but continue to make money and even promise to continue to make money in order to garner shareholder confidence. There’s a desperation around revenue that means you cannot afford even the slightest chink in your intellectual property armor. And finally, copyright, trademark, and IP law has been so distorted and bought off that it’s a damned lucrative business to be in, this ownership trade.
We’ve been making a tiny bit of progress, even as the egregious violations add up. The Supreme Court has, since 2005, issued a series of rulings on patent law that have made it harder for companies to use patent-infringement claims to summarily shut down other companies or Web sites while the claims were investigated, tightened restrictions on “obvious” patents, and loosened restrictions on developing potentially life-saving drugs that involved patented compounds.
Currently, they’re hearing arguments in a case that determines whether LG can collect royalties twice on chipsets it manufatures: once for licensing the chipsets to Intel, and then again when other companies use the Intel-licensed chipsets in conjunction with other non-Intel parts in order to build computers … which is quite literally the only use the chipsets have. So, as a vastly oversimplified analogy, LG would like to charge royalties on frosting, then charge royalties again for frosting when it’s on a cake. In this case, I’m hoping the Supreme Court will give them a big old “bite me.”
15 Responses to “Welcome to the Culture of Ownership!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
First — glad this exists.
Second — you asked for WordPress comment theme suggestions. How about this one, which allows comments in the margins of a post instead of at the bottom of a post? http://www.futureofthebook.org/commentpress/
Third — this is an interesting sentence: ‘ “Products” are no longer limited to physical, manufactured objects–they’re inclusive of a lot more content and a lot more concepts than they ever used to be.”
I have a hesitant theory that the real money-makers in the new economy are those who understand that only physical, manufactured objects can really be sold. Take Zappos: they sell shoes, which can’t be digitized–but the vast amounts of information that they produce and distribute for free about the shoes can, and all that does is add value to the manufactured object. In the case of songs, the songs can be digitized, but the ipods can’t, hence Steve Jobs’s smart investment in the ipod. On the artists’ side, what can’t ever be digitized is their real physical presence: where they’ll make their money is from touring and t-shirts.
Comments? I feel like this theory breaks down when it comes to software and OSs, especially, and if anyone can tell me why, you can.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Bravo!
January 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Great concept. Do you own the term “Culture of Ownership?”
What frustrates me as a radio broadcaster is having to tip toe around what we say on the air. For instance, how we use the term “Super Bowl” this time of year. We got a three page memo from corporate on how to handle it so we don’t get sued by the NFL for actually promoting their event. Silly. Don’t even get me started on the “Let’s Get Ready to Rumble” guy.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I just love the idea of this blog. Do you think we could get some simple badges to promote the blog ?
Also loose the default theme. Like please ?
January 28th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I heart you Ms Wood.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Molly Wood, you rock. This is great. Every time you’ve mentioned this on BOL, I’ve hoped you would expand on your thoughts somewhere.
@amanda french: Interesting idea. I think perhaps it’s useful to think in terms of Marx’s distinction between use value and exchange value (where use value is a item’s actual practical value to you and exchange value is its worth as a cultural item). You’re right that musicians will probably make money from merchandise and touring – the cultural shift engendered by p2p etc. has reduced the exchange value of music while doing nothing to reduce the same value of t-shirts etc. Software and OS’s, for most people, still retain some sense of both use and exchange value, so people continue to pay for them. Just a theory though… and usually I have no idea what I’m talking about
January 29th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
The whole idea of ownership, traditionally has been something that the owner could control, with the digital age this now becomes impossible. So what ends up happening is just what is happening now.
But the interesting thing about music specificity is that most bands make most of their money from touring and merchandise, not record sales. Most bands only get maybe a dollar or two. Why do you think more bands don’t speak out about p2p? P2p just gets their product out more. It is the suits who lose money, on an old style business model.
But there is a shift in this new digital world. This shift is the places people are going for their entertainment. The entertainment industry is scared. If you look at TV ratings the younger demographic is shrinking, it is this demographic that they need to keep their business model viable. These executives are my Dads age or more. My Dad is 53. He is an executive and he has no idea how this whole digital world works, it is a foreign world to him, and I know he is not alone. This is the problem, these people do not know how to control a digital world, which is what it’s all about.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
May i ask Miss Molly if you think there is a company that is “good”, you being the one to know. i would like to think we all want a Star Trek future where companies are just working for… well you know. Do you think there is any company right now that could bring us to that future ?
February 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hey Molly, I’ve been enjoying your BOL stuff for a while now, and I just wanted to drop by and say hello.
I also am interested in questions of ownership and their adverse effects — as you can see by this comment I left for a fellow blogger: (on making a painting from a photo)
http://redpen.vox.com/library/post/a-question-of-ethics.html#comment-6a00c2252ab767f21900e398db857c0002
I’ve been following Lessig for years now, and I’ve learned enough to know the current mess is certainly unprecedented and definitely bad for the people and the culture. Other than that, everything is up for debate.
Remember, sound recordings were going to ruin songwriting (sheet music). VCRs were going to ruin TV. Cable TV was a pirate operation initially. Referencing established master works was once the norm. The first printing press owners did not pay or get permission from
authors.
Copyright and patent law was meant to protect the creator’s financial interest for a few (15?) years only. Mickey Mouse was derivative of Steamboat Willie. All but Disney himself are work-for-hire. Now, it is the Mouse who is in control.
Musicians who do “covers”, DJs who make mixes should be “work for hire” too. Points (royalty) can be awarded for big success, or in lieu of cash.
But, punitive damages, the courts, and the behavior of the Media Megalopolies has turned the entire thing on it’s head, and made greed and fear the primary motivators in the creative arts.
A sorry state of affairs, indeed.
(Hey I’m going to re-post this on my blog and point to yours Ok? ok)
-Richard
February 19th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Is DRM a pain in rear for me as a user? Absolutely! It’s not that hard to circumvent (ah the scary DMCA) and I don’t feel bad about it because I BUY the content I am ripping. I am not reselling it or giving it away.
I’ll let Cory Doctorow and the other legal “experts” argue the small points…all I care about is this:
I want to artist/content creator to get paid for his/her creation. That’s all…end of story.
So here’s the problem, for years the record labels have not paid the artist what he/she is worth and now artists have to contend with pirates who wish to steal and deprive them of some livelihood. So in the end, the artist gets screwed by both the record company and the pirate.
What is the artist to do to protect his/her insterests?
Perhaps the business model of Trent Reznor and Radiohead’s latest distribution ideas can help the artist…
or I suppose there’s always the love of the music to get by and pay the bills…
March 11th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
This is great! I’m gald that you’re able to expand on your BOL discussions about ownership. I look forward to your future posts!
March 14th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
[...] (music, text, video…) while avoiding the chilling effects caused by Copyright and the “culture of ownership.” Though the Creative Commons organization was founded by a tech-savvy law professor and CC [...]
March 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
[...] words: Culture of Ownership. This will majorly affect future fair-use cases, and not in good way. Being an aspiring writer [...]
April 14th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Wow Molly! You hit the nail squarely on the proverbial head with this. I’ve heard you mention “Culture of Ownership” before and always wondered exactly what you meant.
It’s all about greed I tell you. Corporations, celebrities, sports figures, politicians, and the like can never be rich enough. They have more money than they could ever spend but it’s not good enough. They have to find more creative ways of taking money from the public. I’m not against captialism by any means, but the means to which the money is earned must be ethically undertaken. They see all the virtual money they can steal through copyrights and lawsuits. That said it doesn’t mean it’s ok to steal IP and make a profit but the definition of IP is getting so loose it’s ridiculous.
I’ve been a fan of yours for some time, but I just found a whole new reason to pay attention to what Molly has to say!
You rock!!
May 8th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Molly, I’m a huge BOL fan and usually agree with you and Tom and whomever else is on the show. But on this one topic I’d like to suggest everyone take a moment to reflect on the opposing point of view.
Yes, a lot of ridiculous action is taken in the name of “ownership”, but there are two salient points that should govern your outrage.
First, people who create something like a piece of music or a work of fiction are entitled to do whatever they please with their work, including selling it to a company who will tie it down in a business model that prevents others from viewing it if they are unwilling to pay.
Second, media companies like the Big Four come from an old model. Expecting them to meaningfully change is unreasonable. Their model will die, they will die with it, and in its place will be new companies/models that make sense in the changed, “disrupted” landscape. But it’s facile to point to Radiohead’s or Trent Reznor’s counter-label activities and suggest that they contain evidence that the music labels are “doing it wrong”. These isolated examples do not extrapolate to the multi-billions of dollars music industry (or film, or television, or other media).
These media companies have smart people working for them, and they know that in the short term they lose less if they cling to their existing model for as long as possible (trust me, they’ve looked into it). Most of these companies are public, or at least have short-term gains as a primary motivation.
In our system (and in most western economic systems) the law of the land is that it’s the owner’s prerogative to dispose of their assets however they choose, and if that means making their assets unavailable to students because students don’t have enough money, well that’s one of the down-sides of being in an open market, capitalistic society. (The new Best Buy ads on BOL is another).
Speaking as an unsigned, amateur musician who does sell the occasional MP3 online, my world would be better if the labels disappeared /with/ their marketing dollars. But I still don’t want my music to be traded at will by people who have no intention of paying me for the work. And I should choose my rate… there’s no inherent right for John Q. Public to hear my work and choose how much (or IF) he’d like to pay.
Let’s be sure to keep our outrage focused on the manufacturing of ridiculous new categories of IP, because I think there’s just as much “culture of ownership” on the parts of those who just don’t think it matters if they pay for the media they consumer. And lets be honest: there are far more of these than there are people who are being prosecuted by the BBC for creating Dr. Who knitting patterns.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:31 am