Computer science and information technology is, by its very nature, a complicated field. I’m not talking about the math, or abstractions, or models, or classes or any of the other typical things you learn about before graduation from any decent school of computer science. It’s complicated because it is one of the few fields which has people in the field trying to actively subvert and destroy the work of many people in the field. Not only are they actively working aginst other people in the field, but in many cases they don’t care about the implicit battle lines that have been drawn – or worse they don’t realize and/or don’t care about this dichotomy in the field.
The issue I’m speaking of is intellectual property. I realize that some, such as Richard Stallman will argue that intellectual property is an aberration in the legal system and is never codified in law, which is partially true as much of the law surroudning IP is case law, but regardless, it’s something that is here and thanks to organizations like WIPO, it’s not going anywhere soon. Every single person who works in creative industries, such as advertising, design, software, journalism, and research, relies on the concept of intellecutal property for their paycheck every day. As an academic researcher, if someone were to take the output of my research without my permission I would be upset and seek some sort of remedy, such as a formal apology, sanctions, etc. In academia this happens too often, it’s called being “duped” – where someone else writes the same paper you’ve already written without adding anything new or properly citing your previous work.
It’s with the concept of intellectual property in mind that I find working at IBM Research a little interesting. Working for research is like working at a summer long academic conference. The students and researchers are always collaborating, presenting ideas, and planning future projects. The student interns come from the best universities around the world. Just like a conference, there is a handful of people you may already know, and a score of people whom you’re waiting to know. Even though there are a multitude of projects going on at work, they all have one major thing in common,the primary product research produces is intellectual property. This is evidenced by the multitude of ways that research projects end up in commercial marketed products, the journal papers we publish, and the thousands of patents that IBM receives every year. There are very few things that come out of research that the bulk of the work cannot be stolen with an iPod set to disk mode.
The workers here are definitely on the creative side. We enjoy going out and seeing NYC basically every chance we get. Music and movies tend to be some of the biggest ways that people enjoy their time in the city. Between the clubs, shows, and free concerts in the parks, there’s always something to do related to music in the city. That’s why it’s so ironic that so many people around work carry iPods loaded with music that they haven’t paid for and don’t have permission to listen to. I’m not talking about people who have laboriously ripped their entire CD collection to mp3 files, I’m speaking of the issue of people downloading music from torrents or those who use tools to get copies of the streamed music from Yahoo or Napster and then remove the DRM from the music.
With all this in mind, I started to note the behavior interns that I work with, many folks are walking around with iPods all day long, even in the hallways. So, seeking to do some investigating, I posed the following question to a number of interns:
Assuming that in all cases you lack permission of the copyright holder, what is the difference between downloading music and movies from the internet and taking a piece of code from a corporation and using it in other endeavors?
You’ll notice that I worded the question to avoid issues of creative commons licensed music and movies. It would be great if lived in a world where there was a stable body of content that most people were getting their music from these sources, but it’s just a fallacy folks tell themselves to feel better.
So lets delve into some of the responses that I’ve heard from people. Take note, these are all very intelligent people who are working on getting a Ph.D. in computer science or other related fields.
Is it even illegal? I thought that it was only illegal if I made a profit. - All too common of a mistake. While in most cases casual piracy of music and movies will not yield criminal charges in the United States, it certainly can yield civil charges. Just ask anyone who has been victim of the RIAA’s racketeering about that one.
It’s only hurting the companies, not the artists. - I almost can understand this one. In most cases the companies have the artists sing heinous contracts that do little benefit to the artist. I quickly follow up with “Have you done anything to actually support the artist, such as buying merchandise directly from the artist or going to their shows?”. If the answer is no, then this conversation is usually over. If it is yes, I get a little stymied here.
Music and movies are meant to be seen by the masses. Research data typically is not. - Once again, I’m not entirely certain I agree with this. All products have a limited market. People often perceive the market of music as being bigger because it’s part of popular culture and a reference point in conversations at bars. It’s hard to say that the market for the output from research is smaller because most people don’t want to talk about it. When was the last time you tried to pick up a chick in a bar by telling her about your optimization algorithm that helps schedule airline crews? Ohh, that’s hot.
Corporate research output typically has additional laws protecting it. - This is interesting, because you see individuals putting a set of levels on the laws. Copyright infringement is considered minor for these individuals, trade secret infringment is pretty major.
I hate big media. - This message, or something like it, has come up a few times. I ask them to remind of that next time they go to see a movie in a theater or crank up the White Stripes on their iPod. If you really hate something, you choose not participate in it, not to just take the output of it. The reason I don’t see movies in the theater is not because I don’t like movies - I love movies. I just don’t like being called a criminal after paying $12 to watch a movie. So instead of paying to be called a criminal, we reserve movies from the library and watch them at home. If you’re using this argument you need to make a distinction between the output and their business practices.
Thus far, only one reason has held up: not supporting the record companies. Such logic only works if you buy an artists work through other channels. I’m even slightly questioning the long term viability of that as a method for ensuring that artists succeed. As the record companies can provide a valuable service in promotion of music and concerts. It’s true that you can become an internet superstar, but at some point, even most internet superstars sign on with major labels.
The key point is this. I, and probably most people reading this entry, work in creative industries. We try very hard to create something unique and useful. However, in almost all cases, these products have almost no copying cost, just like music. When we’re copying music without permission of the rights holder, its almost like someone taking my research and incorporating it into a product without allowing me to reap any benefits. Except there is one major difference, the music industry has other outlets to make money through concerts, last time I checked, people weren’t turning in droves to watch me develop social network algorithms or extensions for Eclipse.