Lessig suggests a new law, requiring IP holders to pay a small fee to keep their works out of the public domain.
Doc Searls argues that the decision stems in part from a gap between two language systems in the copyright debate: one for access, another about ownership:
Watch the language. While the one side talks about licenses with verbs like copy, distribute, play, share and perform, the other side talks about rights with verbs like own, protect, safeguard, protect, secure, authorize, buy, sell, infringe, pirate, infringe, and steal.
This isn't just a battle of words. It's a battle of understandings. And understandings are framed by conceptual metaphors. We use them all the time without being the least bit aware of it. We talk about time in terms of money (save, waste, spend, gain, lose) and life in terms of travel (arrive, depart, speed up, slow down, get stuck), without realizing that we're speaking about one thing in terms of something quite different. As the cognitive linguists will tell you, this is not a bad thing. In fact, it's very much the way our minds work.
But if we want to change minds, we need to pay attention to exactly these kinds of details.
Some support the Court's decision, arguing that private property is a good that should be allowed to pass down to posterity, and that the public domain is both rich and expanding. :: posted by Bryan, 3:01 PM |