Triggered by the title? Well, basically that’s what is happening here in the Netherlands on the web. All bloggers (amateur and professional) that embed video or music need to pay a fee based upon the amount of viewers. The fee is depending upon the amount of visitors. But first let’s start with a small explanation for what Buma/Stemra is. From their website:

There are people who make music although you’ll never hear them make a sound: they are called music authors. Their efforts precede the successes of the artists who perform their works. The music that we enjoy is their intellectual property. Just like other authors, they have the right to remuneration when their works are played, sung or recorded. Buma/Stemra takes care of these matters.

So. Buma/Stemra takes care of all interests of music authors in the work they create. Not necessary a bad thing, wouldn’t it be the case that they’ve launched this ridiculous idea(dutch) for charging bloggers for embedding the music of authors.

What’s crazy about this is that YouTube or any other site providing access to copyrighted content should (and in a lot of cases already is) pay for it. In other words, they’re the broadcasters. They deliver the content to my browser. For me to see. A blogger or any other website is just a channel which I’m in which leads me to the content on the network of (for example) YouTube.

In the old world this would mean a manufacturer of TV’s is paying a fee for the amount of viewers that watches content via the screen. Where in fact (and completely logical to me) the broadcasting networks are paying fees for the series, movies and other contents that are being broadcasted.

Can we solve this? Yes we can. It’s not that hard, only it involves more effort from Buma/Stemra. I believe they should be more cooperative and look at how the world is changing. They’re focusing on the downside of the Internet (pirated content) and fighting against it. However they should see this as a big opportunity. You can now promote your artists and drive sales through all kinds of content networks. Artists are more and more using the web to connect and promote their own music. We now see more artist producing music on their own without a label. They own their channel and show what we’ve always known. They love to create music and connect to people that appreciate them for it. How? By listening, buying and maybe even more important: promoting it.

If Buma/Stemra won’t start making more deals with content networks, they face to be replaced. I love to see more self managing artists. Buma/Stemra is in it for the money, that’s why one day they’ll be gone.

Related posts:

1. Don’t fear your overfunded competitors This blogpost was originally posted on our firmhouse blog. Talking...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

However Creative Commons is aimed to create freedom that creative people want to give to their work. The website of Creative Commons states that it also aims for scientists. I think this licensing model isn’t suitable for sharing research information. Therefore more specific tools are needed.

This short video is an introduction to Science Commons. Where Creative Commons focuses on sharing, Science Commons is meant to define a standard and licensing model that allows different resources to integrate their data.

By data we mean petabytes of research data that isn’t used to it’s full potential. It’s stuck in silo’s and only can be used by the few people that have access to it.

I think it’s great finally a workgroup is focusing on the research field. If they somehow are able to create the same effects as the Creative Commons did, this could have a big impact on the research field and how it operates.

Related posts:

1. Should we start charging tv manufacturers for broadcasts? This blogpost was originally posted on our firmhouse blog. Triggered...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In short terms, they currently own the intellectual property that are the basics to online social networking. A big part of these basics are being used by Facebook, MySpace, Hyves and other social networks. Now it belongs to Friendster, one of the first social networks. This concerns me.

My biggest concern is a ‘war’ with lawyers that could rise in the Valley. The biggest ’start-ups’ over there are based on the basic principles of Social Networking as we know them today. Or at least the basics described in the patents.

Will Friendster become a pool of Intellectual Property that will charge other social networks for using ‘their’ methods and techniques? My guess is that we might see signs of this sooner than we might expect.

Friendster being awarded this patent feels awckward. They might be one of the first social networks that implemented the features described in the patents. When they released them to the public domain they didn’t took the effort to protect it. However one of the most important rules to successfully apply for a patent states that the contents of the patents may not already exist in the public domain.

Patents are meant to stimulate inventors to keep inventing and make money of their inventions by protecting the work that they created. Now it’s becoming a tool for business to give a boost to their cashflow and control competition. That isn’t particalairy bad but the side effect could be slowing down innovations in the market.

I’m curious how these patents are going to effect a fast moving market like the internet.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

So what are we dealing with right now?

Microsoft is granted the patent for the keys on your keyboard for a function that we already know for 25 years. So the invention is 25 years old, known by almost all computer users. Besides the function on the keyboard the patent is licensed for several usages. The example given:

“In one implementation, pressing a Page Down or Page Up keyboard key/button allows a user to begin at any starting vertical location within a page, and navigate to that same location on the next or previous page,”

So besides the keys they also patented the functions related to them.

Patent offices exist to register ownership for intellectual property. It is there to regulate and prove ownership for inventions and property in the public domain. The patent offices should look after their customers and their patents, but it needs to be in favor of protecting the public domain.

At the moment patenting offices aren’t looking after the public domain anymore. They’re merely satisfying their customers that are paying the excessive fees for the patents. For example Microsoft owned 5.000 patents in 2006 already, and they’re rapidly approaching number 10.000. In the example we see today with Microsoft there is not only an invention patented, also a lot of the related functions are registered with that patent.

By patenting all these ‘inventions’ and processes the patent office is not helping the public domain. By granting patents of this kind the public domain is excluded from accessing something they already know. As in this case the keys and functions already exist in the public domain, therefore I think it should not be patented.

I’m really eager for discussion on these subjects. Drop a comment to let me know what you think.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.