The Value of Information (Case Study, 2013)
The popularization of modern day peer-to-peer information distribution can be seen as an unforeseen consequence of the Internet, a network where almost everything is made available at an instant. Through modern technology (and with relative ease) almost anyone can create digital copy of anything and distribute it, allowing millions of users simultaneous and instant access. Initially popularized by now-defunct peer-to-peer software such as Napster, this particular distribution method has gradually evolved into more advanced methods of distribution, which have aided in the creation of vast networks with each end user simultaneously taking part in some aspect of sharing and creation. Consequently, the ensuing debate over the use of digital medias has created a familiar dichotomy that sets those supporting copyright laws against others who believe information [1] should be free — a group sometimes pejoratively referred to as “pirates” by the other side. Historically, opinions regarding the value of information have been somewhat dynamic for thousands of years: Egyptian rulers encouraged collaborative efforts and understood that, theoretically, with a greater collection of information, better results could be achieved and creation could prosper. Much later, some European nations went so far as to chain books up as a means of controlling knowledge, effectively keeping information scarce among the masses. Today the sharing of information, regardless of how accessible it’s supposed to be through the Internet, is obfuscated with legislation meant to regulate the spread of creative works, effectively complicating the creative process in order to maximize financial gain. With this information in mind, the focus for this study could be synthesized to the following: The spread of information is something that should be encouraged, but such idealism has suffered an enormous setback with copyright movements —speculatively driven by various economic reasons— of the last hundred years. As such, this study will be part retrospective work, studying the dynamic nature of information throughout history and part assessment analyzing the perpetual impact that emerging technologies have on copyright laws and profitability and how both factors impact potential creative processes.
A Brief History of the (Peer-to-Peer) Universe
Although it may not seem like it in today’s tirelessly regulated world, once upon a time there existed a society that participated in the open exchange of ideas and information. Thousands of years ago, in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, scribes under the rule of both Ptolemy I and II copied every written work they could find. Ships were searched, libraries were bought, and men traveled thousands of miles to collect and copy information, all for the sake of gaining a greater understanding of the world. The copies, once finished, would find a place in the Library of Alexandria — a place which Carl Sagan famously referred to as the “brain and glory of the greatest city on planet Earth,” — a somewhat anachronistic repository of knowledge that was home to countless scholarly works on various topics from all around the known world. It helps to think of it as a physical, unregulated version of the Internet — everything one could possibly want to know, collected in one place, accessible by everyone. According to Ohio State University’s Department of History, “it is estimated that at one time the Library of Alexandria held over half a million documents from Assyria, Greece, Persia, Egypt, India and many other nations.” While it’s hard to ascertain exactly what critical pieces of knowledge may have been housed within the library’s walls, Sagan once famously deduced from the various remaining fragments that such collaboration had the potential to advance modern science hundreds of years. Regardless of the exact specifics of its contents, the library’s existence stood as a symbol for human culture that encouraged the copying of information for the betterment of society as a whole, and, as such, remains as one of the only examples of the unregulated sharing of ideas.
In direct contrast to the aforementioned practices of ancient Egypt, European nations, prior to the invention of the printing press, often exerted control over the distribution of information by creating a marketplace for books that only the privileged few were granted access to. According to the 2006 documentary “Steal This Film”, some nations went so far as to chain up various texts and keep them guarded at all hours of the day. Books and other forms of knowledge were seen as a commodity, something to help keep those with them above the proletariat. From this, fledgling examples of pre-copyright-law regulations began emerging around this time, most of which —it must be said— were put in place to prevent information from being distributed by anyone but figures of authority, to figures of authority. As a result, Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in the mid-1400s became a crucial piece of technology that was used to undermine those same authority figures by creating “unlawful” copies of various works and distributing them. Unlike modern regulations, the control over the distribution of printed works applied by European governments was one that had little concern for profitability and creative endeavors and more for control. Because of this, the efforts of Gutenberg and his successors wasn’t as much of a spread of creativity, as it was simply one of aiding the accessibility of information in an effort to inform an often mis-educated working class.
The Emergence of Copyright Laws
Hundreds of years later in Great Britain, the first recorded copyright law eventually coalesced in 1710’s Statute of Anne, an act meant to exert government control on the rampant practices of copying and distribution. The Statute of Anne marked the first time in human history that a regulation had been placed on information because of a potential loss of monetary gain which could result from unlawful distribution. The act explicitly describes instances where the unauthorized copying of information had caused the ruin of authors, and the distributors, because of the circumvention of their involvement in the distribution process (Statute). When it was passed, the law gave all rights to the author of his or her creative works, which allowed them to then distribute it, or license the right to do so. In addition, it was ordered that the unlicensed, illegal copies of works to be disposed of and large fines to be paid to the copyrighted work's owner. The importance of the Statute of Anne is unquestionable as it not only established an archetype for future copyright law, but also anachronistically exemplified the dilemma faced by both distributors and consumers today regarding the freedom of works.
It has been over three hundred years since the Statute of Anne first emerged in Great Britain and the subsequent laws interpreted from its origin have begun to increasingly encroach on creativity. Since the United States first established copyright laws in 1790, they have undergone numerous changes to broaden their reach in an attempt to account for emerging technologies and changes in mediums of production. It is modern technology (ie. computers and the Internet), in fact, that has proven the most problematic factor in controlling the distribution of intellectual works. In response, 1998 brought a law that will undoubtedly be one of the most influential of the modern age. Passed with an awareness to the implications of modern technology and digital media, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 criminalized the unlawful spread of creative works through the Internet and created strict regulations that dictated to users the parameters of data access. The DMCA emerged in the midst of the Internet’s rise to widespread use and came just before the creation of software that would decide the future of digital media.
The Internet has created numerous questions about the use of technology and its role in the distribution of information. For the first time since the Library of Alexandria, almost everything was gathered in a single place, the very existence of which encouraged interconnectivity and the sharing of ideas; however, unlike Alexandria, copyright laws (like the DMCA) served as the authority figure that silenced most of the websites and programs trying to illegally distribute those ideas. The creation of the Peer-to-Peer software “Napster” would provide the first response to the government’s regulation of data on the Internet. Created by Shawn Fanning, John Fanning, and Sean Parker, Napster’s release in July of 1999 did for digital media what Gutenberg did for print. One of the first of its kind [2], the program’s interface allowed users to download MP3 files directly to their hard drive for free. Not surprisingly, Napster became an overnight sensation and, in early April of 2000, reported to CNN that it had been visited by “more than 20 million music fans” and added that, through its service, those fans were “sampling music, discovering new artists, buying CDs and sharing their passion for their favorite artists”(Napster).
The spin Napster tried to put on their service (as music sampling and discovery software and not a black-market for stolen goods) didn’t do much to sway the opinions of copyright owners, who were becoming increasingly aware of the economic implications of such backdoor distribution methods. In the same month Napster reported usage numbers to CNN, the company was slammed with its first lawsuit: classic-rock band Metallica, upset over the illegal distribution of their work, filed suit against the service alleging copyright infringements, the unlawful use of digital audio interface devices, and significant monetary losses. In what would be the first in a series of litigation, Napster defended itself as more artists jumped into the assault which, by the end of 2000, included Dr. Dre and over 15 different record companies — all housed under the collective umbrella organization infamously known as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)— all claiming similar copyright infringements and losses. In 2001 Napster was shut down and, in what was most likely seen as a victory for recording artists, by 2002 had declared bankruptcy.
The Role of Technology in Creation
DeVoss and Porter, in their 2006 essay “Why Napster Matters to Writing”, refer to the emergence (and fall) of Napster as “a shift in terms of the rules and ethics governing the sharing and distribution of writing”(180). The societal transition to the Internet, and to digital media as the preferred format of data storage, changed the potential accessibility of information which, as a result, has fundamentally changed the way people think. That is to say that, because of what Napster, and peer-to-peer networks in general, did for information distribution at the beginning of a crucial period of the digital age, a large group of people now have access to protected works —an access they wouldn’t have had in a pre-digital age— and has created what Paul Miller, in his 2012 TEDTalk, refers to as a “culture of mass customization [3]”: a generation of people who use digital copies and samples to communicate new forms of artistic expression. With previous generations, the search for inspiration was limited by what you physically owned or paid to access; conversely, through the Internet’s circumvention of laws, the ability to find inspiration can manifest itself through millions of unique encounters. According to Miller, the aforementioned availability of digital copies clearly reflects a change in the way artistic expression is both conceptualized and approached, and has given rise to an entire generation of artists who can express themselves through new mediums. This expression sometimes comes at the expense of copyrighted works, but this is something that, as Professor Lawrence Lessig explains, has occurred for a very long time.
In his 2010 TEDTalk entitled “Reexamining the Remix,” Lessig examines the creation of artistic forms of expression dating back to the earliest examples of modern-day mediums of entertainment. His lecture applies the term “remix” to a cultural identity that has been created from the rampant sharing of ideas and information — an identity which he admits is not a bad thing, but instead a positive societal norm. According to Lessig, a “remix” is anything that borrows from something older to create something new and, somewhat surprisingly, is a practice that dates back to Walt Disney’s first cartoon, 1928’s Steamboat Willie. He defends this claim by showing that the idea for famous cartoon is an obvious reimagining of the very popular silent film Steamboat Bill. Lessig goes on to explain that a handful of other Disney movies follow the same method: taking a familiar concept and reworking it. Walt Disney, one of the most influential artists of the past hundred years (and founder of the most adamant copyright-defending companies in history) is the archetypal remix artist and, because of his use of otherwise-protected inspirations, the world was changed forever.
The example of Disney creates an interesting conversation, one which calls into question the importance of copyright laws in relation to creative works. If Walt Disney was producing the same art today, based off of the most popular blockbuster movie in theaters, would he have been liable for copyright infringement? It can safely be assumed that (if not completely stopped) Disney would have had to pay some form of royalties to the creator of the original content. This assumption gives rise to the main argument created by academics such as Miller and Lessig, who reflect on the impact that copyright laws have on creation in the digital age. If people who remix a work, or use a sample of an another artist’s work, are subject to prosecution for copyright infringement, will they pursue artistic endeavors? The digital age has turned into a double-edged sword that provides us with inspiration, but mockingly dares us to make use of it.
Although the instance of Napster and Disney are, admittedly, contextually different examples of undermining copyright laws for personal endeavors, the underlying principles are still the same. Walt Disney was undoubtedly influenced by other artists of the time which eventually aided in the creation of his empire. Artists who seek to do the same through conventional forms of media have limitless options, but must decide how they will access their inspiration. Lessig concludes his talk by stating that there are “lessons of openness that . . . we need to learn,” and that those lessons speak to the value of freedom through limits in regulation. It can be said that, historically, society has experienced various opinions regarding the power of information. Alexandria provided a clear example of a society that shared everything and prospered (albeit briefly), while Europe showed that strict regulations can lead to discontent. This is not to say that the original creative artists should have no protection, but instead that society should take a few steps back from the strictly economic-based principles that attempt to regulate all channels of distribution and consider the potential of having less. It can be assumed that there will always be people, or organizations, who will subvert the efforts of information control, so the most forward-thinking action to take would be to embrace the positive aspects surrounding the interconnectivity that defines the modern age.
Works Cited
Chesser, Preston. "The Burning of the Library of Alexandria." eHistory @ The Ohio State University.Web. 10 Dec 2013, 09:15. <http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/archive/articleview.cfm?aid=9>.
DeVoss, D., and J. Porter. "Why Napster Matters to Writing: Filesharing as a New Ethic of Digital Delivery." Computers and Composition 23 (2006): 178-210. WilliamWolff. Science Direct. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/devoss-porter-napster-2006.pdf>.
Lessig, Lawrence. "Re-examining the Remix." Video blog post. TEDxNYED. TED, May 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html>.
Miller, Paul "DJ Spooky" Video blog post. TEDxAustin. TED, 28 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2013 <http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxAustin-Paul-DJ-Spooky-Mille;search%3Adj%20spooky>.
"Napster: 20 Million Users." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 19 July 2000. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://money.cnn.com/2000/07/19/technology/napster/>.
Sagan, Carl. "The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean." Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. PBS. 28 Sept. 1980. Youtube.com. 15 July 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXDs8xXmMM>.
"The Statute of Anne; April 10, 1710." The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. Yale Law School, 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/anne_1710.asp>.
Steal This Film. Dir. Jamie King. Http://www.stealthisfilm.com. Independent, 28 Dec. 2007. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. <http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/download.php>.
[ 1 ] Throughout the paper, the word “information” is used as an umbrella term for not only actual information, but also digital medias (music, movies, software, etc.) to make it flow a little nicer. Because of this, I should clarify that in the parts regarding the history of information control, I am actually referring to information (ie. ideas found in books) and not the aforementioned new forms of media.
[ 2 ] It should be noted that other networks, such as Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and USENET, already enabled users to share files. Napster was the first to take the concept from a niche group and market to a broad spectrum of users. The software itself provided a simple interface which helped even the most inexperienced computer user navigate to whatever songs they wanted. Countless of iterations of Napster-like software sprouted up around the same time as well, although, it must be said that none of them reached the same level of infamy with the exception of Kazaa and Limewire, which were more known for their rampant viruses rather than for their sharing capabilities.
[ 3 ] The "Culture of Mass Customization" is something that isn't really touched on in the paper, but is a theory that will play an important part in conceptualizing the future of creation and production. Miller describes the potential value of modern technology, not limited to sampling and remixing, as something that has the ability to change our notions of literacy. Miller is referring to something that Haraway would describe as a "value" of technology; modern P2P technologies like Napster could be said to place value on the sharing of ideas and the digital literacy resulting from it.