Intellectual Property Issues and Copyrights

If you study intellectual copyright law, you will quickly discover that the focus of the issue is not on the consumer of information, but on its owner (the author or publisher). People hold diverse opinions about this topic. Some feel that all discussion of information ownership is evil. They say, "For society to grow, information should be free!" Some feel that it should be treated like a public utility (electricity or water) and provided almost as a commodity necessary for survival. Other people ask, "Then who will produce and pay for this information?" We live in a capitalistic society that recognizes profit motive as a strong creative force. It has spawned great intellectual strides forward.

There is no simple answer. But the question is about limits on freedom of ownership. Can (or should) someone own information? This is part of a bigger question about property rights that has encompassed issues from land ownership to slavery . What confers rights of ownership on people? We come into this world owning nothing. How do we acquire things? And is the ownership of them a right - or just an ability (as in "possession is nine tenths of the law"). These are massive issues that have created entire professions to deal with them. And yet we are still in the infancy of the "information age" - the formative years. As members of our modern society, you will be facing these issues and either accepting the will of others or taking a stand of your own and helping to mold new policy and laws to govern us for years to come.

If we reign-in our discussion to just intellectual property copyrights, then we must realize that present day laws and practices in this area center around licensing of intellectual property. That property could be artistic (such as music, art, literature) or it could be more practical (as with computer software). When an author or authorized publisher produces such work, that owner defines (either overtly or through lack of action) its copyright limits. In this country, ownership of intellectual property is a right (given to each citizen/author under federal law). You don't have to apply for this right. It is bestowed upon you by being a member of our society. You can make public notice of that right by registering trademarks, copyrights, or patents with appropriate agencies. Such actions will make it easier (although not guaranteed) to defend your rights if they are challenged. But what do these copyrights involve? Do they define strict limitations about duplication, sharing, profit making, etc.? Are they spelled-out somewhere?

The reality is that unless you state what these limitations are when you publish your work (property), then you have claimed none. YOU define whether your property can be copied (in part or totally). YOU say if it can be shared with others. YOU establish a value and state if payment must be conferred for duplication or transfer of the property. Your definition of these rights defines a license. When someone else desires use of your property, then you decide whether you will confer upon them a license and for what value.

Historically, intellectual property such as computer software has been license under a "proprietary" model. Under this model, when you buy a program from a company such as Microsoft®, you do not own the program. They still own it. What you have done is to purchase a license. If you read that license, you will see that it strictly defines what rights you have and don't have. Each license can be different. Some offer broad rights, other severely limit them. Under the laws of many states in this country, if you tear open the plastic shrink-wrap around the box that software came in (or perform a download of that software), then you have legally agreed to the license attached to the software. The owner (author/publisher) establishes these rights and grants them to you in exchange for consideration (usually money). Typically, the rights are granted to you at the time of transfer or duplication of the software. Sometimes, ongoing fees must be paid periodically to maintain your license. In other words, your rights to use software might expire even though you still have a copy of it.

Occasionally an owner gives up his or her rights of ownership, or those rights (as granted under law) expire. In that case, the property is said to be "placed in the public domain". In other words, the public now owns it. Anyone can legally copy it or use it. Many historic works of literature fall under this licensing model. And yet, some do not. For example, the popular song "Happy Birthday to You" is actually copyrighted and the owner has asserted that right and sought (and won) monetary damages for copyright infringement buy restaurant chains and other wealthy institutions who have indirectly profited from that work by having it sung by their employees to customers. This is why many of these restaurants now sing a different (unusual) tune to help their customers celebrate birthdays.

In recent years, as information has become more and more valuable, the production and distribution of it has started to evolve and new models of licensing have emerged. The following table illustrates the newer licensing models of "freeware" and "shareware" in comparison to the earlier models.

Notice that freeware is almost identical to public domain software except that the author does not surrender copyrights and may at some future time change them. This allows authors to be very generous with the distribution and usage rights of their works, but still allows them control over those rights. This model is often applied to software that was developed under government grants and intended for free distribution and use.

Shareware is the newest licensing model. Under it, software can be distributed at little or no cost (often over the Internet), but the author can still receive monetary benefit for its use if the receiver derives benefit from it. A multitude of new software is being distributed under this licensing model that would probably never have been possible before under earlier models. If an unknown author write a program and want people to try it, the author can publish it online by placing it on public Web servers or FTP servers. The public can download the software for free. Sometimes the software is a trial version with limited or crippled abilities. Sometimes it has a time limit built into it after which it will no longer function. But often, the author simply relies on the integrity of the user to register a license and pay whatever fee is required by that license. And people do pay, by the thousands. The Internet has spawned a whole new culture of "net-citizens" who believe in rewarding authors for their contribution to the information age. These citizens want such author to thrive and contribute more. And one way to encourage that is through respect of the authors license. This new culture recognizes and appreciates the contribution made by these new unknown author who might have lacked the resources of a major software corporation, but actually developed better software. This software can be provided at a much lower cost than under the old proprietary model, because the author has little or no overhead expenses. So everyone benefits. We benefit from low-cost software that thrives based on its merits rather than on the strength of a brand name. The author gains recognition, fair profit and encouragement to produce more quality software. It's a win-win scenario.