« Digital

All Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free

Tracey Armstrong

By Edward Nawotka

“Copyright holders have the right to price and term the works that they have created, the works that they own. That’s a stake in the ground. I couldn’t do what I do for a living without believing that,” says Tracey Armstrong (pictured right), CEO of the Copyright Clearance Center, in a conversation earlier this week on the future of copyright. “We couldn’t foresee the iPad back in 1985, so digitization and the complications that come with it are what we’re working on right now.”

As the head of a US nonprofit tasked since 1978 with the duty of helping artists and others manage the licensing of their rights, it only makes sense that she would take such a stand. Her company manages in excess of 350 million different rights and brokered more some $200 million worth of transactions last year.

Still, Armstrong is aware of the challenges being faced by copyright holders in the age of digitization — an era where the widespread perception exists, especially online, that all information should be free.

“That is something I think will change, as more and more people become stakeholders in the process, as they begin to create their own value,” says Armstrong. She cites China is an example: It’s widely known that Chinese companies disregard for intellectual property and routinely pirate books, DVDs, etc…and it’s something that has been tolerated by the government for a long time. “But,” says Armstrong, “economies start to respect intellectual property when, within that economy, there is enough of their own intellectual property that wants to be protected. That’s something we’re starting to see in China, where they are making advances in science and other areas and want to realize value from that and protect it. I’m going to draw an analogy from that and say ‘evolution can happen.’”

At the heart of Armstrong’s stance is the fundamental belief that, despite the transition from analog to digital culture, the foundation of copyright hasn’t changed. It has only created a greater and more urgent need for expeditious means of licensing the material -– or clearing copyright.

“I agree with the statement that everyone is now a publisher,” she says, “and what that means is a tremendous proliferation of material that is copyrighted and can be licensed.” She describes this as the “atomization” of content –- books being offered as individual chapters and paragraphs, computer software being parsed into individual lines of code –- a phenomenon that is causing exponential growth in the number of “granular” elements that are available to be licensed.

Of course, she adds, “the market is not infinitely elastic” -– and notes that there is plenty of information that will be offered for free, or will have to be.

Then again, there are the iconic, high value works that will never be offered for free. On April 2, New York Times editorial by Marc Arsonson entitled, “The End of History (Books),” lamented the high cost of securing rights to this historical, iconic material, particularly for individual. Aronson suggested a pricing scale “based on the total number of images used in a book; an image that was one one-hundredth of a story would cost less than an image that was a tenth of it.” Mike Shatzkin of the IdeaLogical Company responded, noting that the CCC has something like a solution in place: “collective” licensing, which creates a bucket of content that a user can license and select from at will. He also rightfully noted that owners of the most valuable content are unlikely to agree to become part of a collective, a move that would essentially devalue their product.

On one side, the affordability of collective licensing means more use and thus more exposure for lower valued product, which –- in the long term -– may actually help raise the value; items that already have a pre-existing high value will be used less frequently as a consequence of their high price.

Another upside for the cheaper, even free, product is that the digital world enables a direct link to the licensor, offering the potential to create long-term value. “If you run an obscure museum with an obscure collection of art and artifacts, a linked licensed image could deliver you traffic and customers very effectively,” writes Shatzkin, who adds “As that pool grows and is used increasingly, the incentive will grow for rights holders to place more and more of their material in it.”

For her part, Armstrong argues that the more parties that contribute to these collective buckets of content, the more of an incentive there is for people to participate.

She also maintains that there will likely remain a bifurcated market, one for the most valuable content, and another for the rest. But as we go forward, the vast proliferation of content means there will be viable alternatives for everybody.

“There is only one ‘I Have a Dream Speech,’ and that won’t change,” says Armstrong, “but if you take the more recent example of Obama’s inauguration, you have as many photos to choose from as there were people with cameras and camera phones there on that day. Yes, that makes it harder for traditional artists to make a living. But that to me also creates more of a demand for what we do. The need to organize the sea of information so it can be licensed appropriately is all the more important.”

DISCUSS: Should content licenses be less expensive for digital distribution?

This entry was posted in Digital and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

5 Comments

  1. Sahm
    Posted April 15, 2010 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    I refer you to these sites which counter most of the arguments you have made.

    http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/all_creative_work_is_derivative

    http://www.againstmonopoly.org/

    As noted by V.S. Prasad, Vice-Chancellor – Br B.R. Ambedkar Open University, India, knowledge is a collective social product and so it is only desirable to make it a social property [not private]

    To me, access to knowledge without conditions and inhibitions lead to social development not the the opposite.

  2. Posted April 17, 2010 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    Copyright is an artifact of the printing press. It was designed to solve a specific set of problems. It solved those problems tolerably well.

    Just as a technological development made copyright necessary, technological developments are making it counterproductive. The recent, “stronger” forms of copyright, which have taken such absurd turns as outlawing technology itself, creating harsher sentences for bringing video cameras into movie theaters than for assault and battery, and creating a “limited time” of copyright ownership that cannot provide reasonable incentives to any mortal human, are evidence of how badly stressed the paradigm has become.

    A new model is needed, one that will protect the interests of creators without giving a small minority of corporations a virtual stranglehold on culture or sacrificing the interests of nearly everyone else. I do not claim to know what that model is, although I have made some suggestions in the area.

    I applaud the drive to develop creative ways of organizing relationships between adapters and original creators. It is certainly a step in the right direction.

    But saying that “the foundation of copyright has not changed” is absurd.

  3. Posted April 29, 2010 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    No, she is inherently right. The copyright can be attached to any medium of insormation and has been so for hundreds of years. Whether it is a book, ebook, film, video, or video game, all are subject to copyright and the violation of that right is outright theft. The creator has the option to license said copyright at his or her discretion. I agree that the free flow of information is sacrosanct, but only when the creators are free to choose how they disseminate the information. Museums, for example, expend a great deal of their operating budgets heading off tombraiders who then sell artifacts on the black market. Is the pirating of information or content any different. When you learn to appreciate the absence of ethics with regard to your own content you will learn your lesson. If I cannot profit from the sale of my books, which is how I make my living, then my destitution will be placed squarely on your shoulders.

  4. Posted December 29, 2010 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    Thank you for the awsome article. I am going to keep an observation on your website, i allready added it to own list :)

  5. Posted December 29, 2010 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    Many thanks regarding the awsome article. I will keep an eye about your blog, i allready added it to own list :)

4 Trackbacks

  1. […] lead article discusses the impact of digitization on copyright issues with Copyright Clearance Center’s […]

  2. […] All Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free RT @steffenmeier: RT @mioskito: RT @tiniaden Die Zukunft des Copyrights – All Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free : http://bit.ly/9kcnlN (tags: twitter_automatisch) […]

  3. By Copyright, or wrong? on April 19, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    […] know-nothing, however, to believe that copyright still makes sense, at least conceptually.  Take Tracey Armstrong: “Copyright holders have the right to price and term the works that they have created, the works […]

  4. […] argued here before by CCC’s CEO Tracey Armstrong, in “All Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free” — as “more and more people become stakeholders in the process, they begin to create […]

  • Get Publishing Perspectives in your inbox each day and stay up-to-date on international publishing.