I continue to get feedback on my search for a middle ground in the copyright debate, and some of it is actually constructive. Amazingly, some people on both sides of the debate insist there is no middle ground, an unfortunate position indeed. But one new correspondent of mine is proof there is a middle ground, because he's standing in it.

Perhaps it would be best for software developer Scott Matthews to put it in his own words:

I work hard selling my own software, and so I value the notion of intellectual property. On the other hand, my software (Andromeda) is more useful with a looser copyright. Andromeda makes an MP3 collection playable over the Web -- and so, for example, following strict copyright, I can't let my sister listen.

Scott and I in our dialogue kept finding ourselves talking about both sides, the content industry on the one hand and the Free Culture Movement (Scott calls them the "new visioneers") on the other side. But even as we'd do so, we'd recognize the trap that kind of thinking leads to. As Scott said, "this isn't just about 'Free Culture' vs. the 'Music Industry' -- rightsholders include people like me too."

Some have criticized me -- fairly -- for not putting forward a constructive middle ground approach in my CNET piece. I'm working on one now that I hope to have published soon, but I wanted to put Scott's out there now. I'm not completely sold on Scott's proposal, but he wants it to be a starting point for constructive dialogue, and I'm all for that. Being a techie, he's proposed a techie solution, a registry for copyrighted works modeled on the Domain Name System that he calls DRUMS. It would be constructed by all interested parties, including copyright owners, ISPs, hardware and softare companies, etc.

The DNS databases are publicly searchable, but only updatable through trusted authorities. Similarly, a DRUMS registry of copyrighted works would be publicly searchable, but only updatable through trusted authorities.

Such a database could dovetail nicely with systems like Creative Commons, enabling rightsholders to mark certain works "shareable" as well as providing access to information such as where to go for more information about that author.

By standardizing a common ID system for copyrighted work, a new crop of applications and services (both commercial and non-commercial) would stand a chance of "competing with free."

Scott anticipates resistance from groups such as ASCAP that are already in a similar business. I anticipate some more problems, including:

1. Financing DRUMS.
2. Identifying the trusted authority to oversee DRUMS, and maintaining oversight over that trusted authority.
3. Ensuring DRUMS doesn't undermine the copyrights inherent to creative works not registered in DRUMS.
4. Ensuring non-registered content was accessible online. With the DNS system, if you create a web domain and it isn't registered, no one can visit it.
5. Ensuring DRUMS incorporates all potential media -- music, books, knitting patterns -- not just music. That's important to me, whose career as a journalist was based on intellectual property protection of my stories, but also for others close to me, such as my dear mom.

Scott acknowledges those and other challenges to DRUMS. But again, he sees his proposal as the beginning of the dialogue:

I suspect that much of the work of Snocap, ASCAP, etc., comes from rebuilding the same old database over and over -- let's say that such a database is already provided as a starting point, and that people can build applications and services that interact with it.

For example, Site A could provide access to new works marked as "shareable" and Site B could manage recommendations and Site C could sell CDs or digital downloads. All these sites could communicate via common IDs (provided by DRUMS).

Put another way, if it was easier for people to build systems that play by the rules, I think that the quality of those systems could provide a compelling alternative to unauthorized p2p.

I hope Scott's right, for the sake of all of us consumers. I've decided I am going to bite on Napster To Go, just as soon as I get back from Europe -- I've got my eye on a Creative Zen Micro player, just can't decide what color (advice welcome). But in adopting a subscriber service, it's naturally going to be important to me that Napster stay in business. A reduction in the appeal of unauthorized p2p sites would help.

Trust is a key part of DRUMS, something Scott acknowledges. He says if all parties are involved in its creation, "I think it'll be easier to achieve trust." He's probably right, but there's about as much trust among the various parties in this debate as there is between Major League Baseball and the players' union. Still, they recently worked together on a steroids policy, so maybe there's hope.

I continue to hope. And I continue to believe in a middle ground, despite those who have told me recently in fairly undiplomatic terms that there is no such place. The middle ground is real, and it's occupied by entrepreneurs and consumers like Scott.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 11:15 AM | Internet: P2P, Search Engines...

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)