The Internet Archive (in my book, one of the few “wonders of the internet”) is now using a little known, and perhaps never used, provision of US copyright law (Section 108h) which allows libraries to scan and make available materials published 1923 to 1941 if they are not being actively sold. (Note: While I am not an anti-copyright advocate, I believe that certain types of copyrights should sunset in 14 years, renewable once if the copyright holder took actions to renew it. That’s 28 years. Okay, round it up to 30. But forever? At the bottom of this post, there’s a link to two articles I wrote on SmallBusiness.com about Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and their beliefs on the topic.)
If the Founding Fathers had their way, almost all works from the 20th century would be public domain by now (14-year copyright term, renewable once if you took extra actions).
Some corporations saw adding works to the public domain to be a problem, and when Sonny Bono got elected to the House of Representatives, representing part of Los Angeles, he helped push through a law extending copyright’s duration another 20 years to keep things locked-up back to 1923. This has been called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act due to one of the motivators behind the law, but it was also a result of Europe extending copyright terms an additional twenty years first. If not for this law, works from 1923 and beyond would have been in the public domain decades ago.
Today we announce the “Sonny Bono Memorial Collection” containing the first books to be liberated. Anyone can download, read, and enjoy these works that have been long out of print. We will add another 10,000 books and other works in the near future.
Professor Townsend Gard had two legal interns work with the Internet Archive last summer to find how we can automate finding appropriate scanned books that could be liberated, and hand-vetted the first books for the collection. Professor Townsend Gard has just released an in-depth paper giving libraries guidance as to how to implement Section 108(h) based on her work with the Archive and other libraries. Together, we have called them “Last Twenty” Collections, as libraries and archives can copy and distribute to the general public qualified works in the last twenty years of their copyright.
Sidenote by Rex: Here are a couple of articles I wrote a few years ago for SmallBusiness.com about the founding fathers, patents, and copyrights.
I ran across the U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index recently. Since my legal training is from the Jackass School of Law, I’ve never attempted to dive into the deep end of legal research. But the approach of this search tool uses is tightly focused on the most recent cases relevant to the many different facets of fair use. It’s one of those hidden-gem resources you can find on government websites when you are looking for information that’s more than the Wikipedia version.
How the U.S. Copyright Office describes the Fair Use Index:
The Fair Use Index tracks a variety of judicial decisions to help both lawyers and non-lawyers* better understand the types of uses courts have previously determined to be fair—or not fair. The decisions span multiple federal jurisdictions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, circuit courts of appeal, and district courts. Please note that while the Index incorporates a broad selection of cases, it does not include all judicial opinions on fair use. The Copyright Office will update and expand the Index periodically…
…For each decision, we have provided a brief summary of the facts, the relevant question(s) presented, and the court’s determination as to whether the contested use was fair. You may browse all of the cases, search for cases involving specific subject matter or categories of work, or review cases from specific courts. The Index ordinarily will reflect only the highest court decision issued in a case. It does not include the court opinions themselves. We have provided the full legal citation, however, allowing those who wish to read the actual decisions to access them through free online resources (such as Google Scholar and Justia), commercial databases (such as Westlaw and LEXIS), or the federal courts’ PACER electronic filing system, available at www.pacer.gov.
*By coincidence, “non-lawyering” was my major at the Jackass School of Law.
For this post, forget all of that stuff and let’s try to explore what Pinterest is, is not, maybe could be, but likely won’t be.
These are my opinions based on several credentials that I have never before even considered credentials. But after reading a massive amount of crap over the past week, I feel certain these make me more of an expert on Pinterest than most of the people who wrote that crap.
First credential: I’ve actually used Pinterest for several weeks before writing about it. I started using it right after Christmas, because I knew this time would come and I didn’t want to write about what I think it is, but what I know it is from being a user.
The account I have used to learn about Pinterest is Pinterest.com/smallbusiness, if you’d like to check it out. It is a collection of “boards” about topics that I think are better displayed visually than with text. I chose the topic of small business for two other reasons I consider credentials. First, I host the wiki, SmallBusiness.com which means I devote lots of time to the taxonomy of web-based information designed for a specific audience, a credential that helps me understand anything related to categories and niche content. More importantly, I have actively “pinned” (although I use the more common web-word, “bookmarked,”) small business related articles for over five years, using Delicious.com/smallbusiness, a service I suggest at the end of this post, is becoming Pinterest-like, yet in a more open-web-friendly way. On Delicious.com, I have bookmarked and categorized almost 6,000 news articles, blog posts and other information.
The genealogy of Pinterest: Bookmarking hyperlinks
First, some background.
One of the benefits and/or handicaps of participating for 20 years in activities that now have labels like social media or user-generated content is that I can’t pretend that what I see today isn’t built on foundations that were laid a long time ago.
I was there when blogging first gained popularity (this blog goes way-back) so I know that in the early days, a big part of what I did on this blog was bookmark articles that were of interest to me that I thought would be of interest of the people I worked with. What I didn’t realize was that people who I didn’t work with would find those links of interest also.
Because this blog first started on a blogging platform created by Dave Winer, a person who pioneered and evangelized and defended with great passion (and continues to) many of the conventions that have evolved into what is popularly labeled, “social media,” I learned by subscribing to his RSS feed that, over time, posting bookmarks of news articles can be some of the best blogging there is. Over the years, I’ve discovered that “link blogs” like Andy Baio’s Waxy.org/links are the key to staying aware of things I’d never know about were it not for his willingness to share things from parts of the web I’d never see. (I once asked Andy something people ask me all the time, “Where do you find that stuff?” His answer was something like, “I have a constantly edited newsreader.” Wow, I thought. That’s my answer, also.)
So why do I mention all of this?
Because, at its core functionality and utility, Pinterest is a link blog. Moreover, it belongs to a category of link blogs we used to call bookmarking services. In presentations I’ve made for over five years, I have used a slide called, “sharing links” as a personal expression that I equate to posting photos or video or text or audio.
Indeed, I could argue (and heck, I’ll go ahead and do so) link blogging is the most valuable form of personal expression there is on the web.
Why? Because, when you break it all down, the most radical, revolutionary and disruptive thing on the web is the hyperlink.
Hyperlinks are so valuable to the web that a multi-billion dollar industry has sprung up based solely on trying to insert links into the web in ways that are, at times, ethical, and at other times, criminal.
A web without hyperlinks would be nothing more than an information Superhighway where only the big brands could afford locations next to the rest stops and exits. Without hyperlinks, the web would be the way giant media companies envisioned it back in the early 1990s — visions that flopped like Time Warner’s interactive television.
Strip Pinterest down to its underwear and you’ll discover a robust platform for creating and organizing hyperlinks that is based on the same principles that started out with early blogs (and back before we called them blogs) and that today, when packaged differently, are the basis of anything that aggregates recommended links in new ways ranging from Flipboard to whatever Twitter turns Summify into.
What makes Pinterest special?
Pinterest is a pure-play book-marking service however it has followed a brilliant plan other successful social media platforms have followed: In describing itself to potential users, it doesn’t mention anything related to technology, social media, blogs, or especially bookmarking. Perhaps, using the “pin” metaphor instead of the “bookmark” metaphor was its most brilliant move.
Pinterest is successful, in part, because it doesn’t look like anything geeky or “link bloggish.” It’s pretty and minimal and utilizes a metaphor that’s as un-geekish as anything imaginable, a bulletin board. (On second thought, bulletin boardcan be a geekish metaphor.)
It is drop-dead simple to use. Wait. It’s even more simple than that.
It’s what people mean when they say, “build a better mouse trap.”
Pinterest is an incredibly better mouse trap for certain kinds of users.
It’s the kind of thing you use for the first time and wonder why this is the first time you’ve ever used something like this. Except you have, but it’s so much better, you don’t recognize it.
Why then, do I appear not as mesmerized as others about Pinterest? Nor as outraged about it as still others?
First off, if you go to that Pinterest account I’ve been maintaining, I think it will show that I believe it can be a wonderful platform for doing what I’ve done there.
Unfortunately, that’s showing off how it’s a better mousetrap. Not how it’s going to change the world — or even be the best mousetrap. To sustain the wave of micro-celebrity it has received during the past few weeks, it must continually improve its mouse-trappery.
When I first started looking at Pinterest, I thought they’d made a mistake by focusing on a narrow demographic: Women who have certain hobbies or interests that have already done scrap-booking and pinning offline. When I first saw it, I thought they should have done like Twitter and let different demographics discover what they could do with the platform. (Pinterest, by adding “sports” and other “manly” topics seems to be attempting to retrofit its image, and if 32% of its users are males, those topics might be working — or those 32% might be males who are into crafts and decorating and cooking, and me.)
After using it a couple of months, I’ve decided they were smart to focus on a defined marketplace because to become a platform for all people and all topics is going to be impossible for them. That would be a war. They are going to be too busy fighting lots of battles to win that war.
Is Pinterest a den of thieving pirates?
Without getting into it, there are some who are suggesting that a lot of the photography that’s appearing on those Pinterest boards are copyrighted images stolen from their owners. While I’m not a lawyer, I’ll pretend to know what I’m talking about for the sake of argument. I think it is silly to suggest Pinterest users are doing something equivalent to people who upload pirated movies onto Megaupload (as stated on some highly visible blog posts during the past couple of days). However, it is not silly to suggest what Pinterest is doing pushes the envelop on some previously court-blessed uses of web content that could provide more rounds of legal wrangling on the topic of photography usage on the web.
Without getting too deeply into this topic, you have to consider the Pinterest image issue in the context of legal decisions that enable Google’s “image search” to provide search-results pages filled with images it doesn’t own. However, you’ll notice on Google’s search-results pages that no Google ads appear. Why not? Because such ads would make it easier for a plaintiff to argue that Google is monetizing content being scraped from another site.
If you’ve followed the Pinterest saga over the past week, you know that Pinterest did have a model of monetizing certain links on pages where scrapped photography appears. However, once discovered, Pinterest dropped that practice. (A side geeky and legal-theory issue for anyone who has made it this far: On Google, the thumbnails are hosted on Google servers, but when you click on the image and see it enlarged, the image appears to be the one hosted on the site linked to. Logically, this would seem to be a practice that would enable Pinterest to claim it doesn’t “download” images. They could also use the type of logic the app Flipboard uses when it claims the images appearing via it service are being fed via RSS and that users are merely seeing images they have subscribed to as permitted by the blog or website on which the image originated. In other words, if Pinterest is targeted as a thief, companies like Google and Flipboard and hundreds of others might have reason to join forces in defending it.)
Bottomline, in my opinion: The Pinterest model of being a visual bookmarking service is probably legal — and is probably beneficial to the owners of the copyrighted material to whom Pinterestest users are sending traffic. But being wrong never stopped people from suing. [Later: LLSocial.com reports that Pinterest has made some code available to any website that wants to block the site’s user from pinning its photos. While I doubt too many take them up on it, this will provide Pinterest some room for defending itself against claims that it encourages piracy. I’m not sure the internet (the opinion-shaping people part) will view this opt-out approach as being much more than window dressing, however).]
Is Pinterest the next Facebook, Twitter et al?
But I’m not sure it wants to be, nor needs to be, in order to be successful. There are lots of ways to be successful without being Facebook or Twitter. Pinterest has a good product for its targeted audience. If it becomes a dominant player in that market, there’s lots of ways to make everyone associated with it very rich.
Another thing: While Pinterest is an awesome way to create a visual display of bookmarked photos, my six weeks of using it has convinced me that it is dependent 100% on its users, but it rejects lots of conventions that all of the other social media platforms its being compared to are based on. The lack of these conventions (keyword tagging, exportability of user-contributed data, only one type of RSS feed) mean that developers who could create easy extensions to the site won’t feel so inclined.
On the other hand, I look at what is taking place at a service like Delicious.com and I see a platform that is doing everything Pinterest is doing, including transforming one of the most anti-user-friendly experiences in the social media space into one of the best ones. A site like Delicious, whose current owners started YouTube, know how to create a platform that can be adapted into anything the user wants to turn it into…and know that to do that, you have to be as friendly as possible to the open web.
In the coming weeks, I’ll demonstrate what I mean when I compare Delicious to Pinterest, as there will be those who claim the two have nothing in common.
But just wait. You’ll see.
[Later: I was reminded later about a similar time in its development when I wrote a lot about what Twitter is (existentially, speaking) and recalled that I had once pointed to a post by Fred Wilson, in which he said, “Twitter has never been about technology….Twitter, like all social media, is about the people who use it.” Bottomline, Pinterest is, too.]
Recently on Twitter, I confessed a personal concern with my growing realization that the only economist who makes any sense to me is not actually an economist, but is Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip.
I’ve never been much of a reader of newspaper comics (even those online), so I’ve never been much of a fan of Dilbert. (I do have a personal Dilbert spotter who forwards me links whenever the strip makes fun of something that might be, uh, like me.)
While Dilbert, the comic strip, may be off my radar screen, I am very much a fan of Scott Adams’ blog at Dilbert.com. I don’t always agree with what he writes there, but even then, I appreciate the logical and witty, approach he takes in presenting his points of view.
Yesterday, he wrote one of the more sane and rational pieces I’ve read on SOPA and the impact of the internet on intellectual property rights. As Adams is a person whose signifiant wealth has come from intellectual property he created that generates revenues from Dilbert licensed products — revenues equivalent to that of a mid-sized third-world country — I thought his blog post is worth more consideration than, say, another post on this topic from a mere theorist like me.
Here’s a quote from it:
I have one of the most widely stolen intellectual properties in the history of the world. Emotionally, I’m okay with that. It feels like a compliment. Financially, I have no idea if piracy has hurt me in any meaningful way. I made the decision years ago to make Dilbert available on the Internet, including the entire archive. To the surprise of most observers, sales of Dilbert to traditional newspapers continued to grow briskly.
Bottom line: As a creator, my bias is in favor of protecting intellectual property. But in my specific case, SOPA probably wouldn’t have any impact on my life or income.
Scott Adams could easily do the math in a way that would suggest that every un-authorized use of a Dilbert image is piracy and theft. No doubt, he could use the same types of fake-math the music and movie companies use when making up statistics related to “piracy.”
But the creator of Dilbert is too smart for that.
Note: I’ll be writing more later about my “final” thoughts on SOPA and PIPA (including an explanation of what I mean by the word “final”).
In light of last week’s posts about the entertainment industry’s effort to enact the legislation called SOPA (here and here), I saw a couple of items early this morning that reminded me that much of the reason that industry wants to out-legislate what it can’t out-innovate is the frightening future they face. And I’m not referring to the intellectual property they own being pirated. I’m talking about the way in which the talent that creates that intellectual property is, more and more, going to jump ship (to continue the pirate metaphor) from companies that attempt to hold on to business models created in the age of I Love Lucy.
Here are the items: First, an article in this week’s New Yorker about YouTube developing new “channel” relationships with content companies — a strategy that is laying the groundwork for original programming from artists, online news organizations and others who can provide a steady stream of content appealing to a niche audience. According to the author of the article, when the studios and others wouldn’t work with YouTube for existing content (ala Netflix), YouTube developed a strategy to provide creators of programming access to unlimited airtime, rather than the scarce airtime provided them by traditional network and cable channels.
“But what’s the big deal?” you might ask. People are still going to want to watch programming on their big HD TVs and for that, you need cable and networks and the quality they can provide — not YouTube (he said, rhetorically).
Well, according to a worldwide study by Accenture released today, the number of consumers who watch broadcast or cable television in a typical week plunged to 48% in 2011 from 71% in 2009. Accenture says TV is losing ground to other devices – mobile phones, laptops and tablets. (And besides, you can stream video onto those HD TVs in dozens of ways, whenever you want the big-screen experience.)
Bottomline: When it comes to what video programming and distribution will become in the next decade and beyond, we’re about where network TV was when I Love Lucy debuted.
It’s a scary time for the entertainment industry. No wonder they’d like to put off the future as long as they can.