It's Natural To Freak Out Over Someone Copying Your Stuff... But It Doesn't Make It Rational

from the getting-past-the-oh-shit-moment dept

Owen Kelly has a nice post up, where he basically admits that, even though he's not against copying, he had an initial visceral bad reaction when he recently saw his own work copied, but after taking a step back and thinking about it rationally, he realized it wasn't so bad. The problem is that most people, when they see their own work copied, never take that second step. They see it, they freak out and go negative (or, worse, call in the lawyers). But if you take a step back, you can ask yourself (1) if the copying really matters one way or another and (2) if there's any way to use that copying to your advantage, rather than freaking out about it. That's the point we've been trying to make for years. In most cases, freaking out isn't going to make the situation any better (and it has a better than even chance of making it worse). But embracing it, and figuring out ways to use the copying to your own benefit can be tremendously rewarding.

But, of course, that doesn't mean we don't recognize that normal impulse reaction. It's entirely natural, even if it's irrational. So, we're not necessarily surprised when people overreact to such things -- even if we think it's not a particularly smart long-term strategy. But, hopefully, as more and more people show how allowing more widespread copying helped rather than harmed them, this won't seem so counterintuitive to so many people.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Robert Ring (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 7:48am

    Corporations

    The thing that gets me is how irrationally reactive corporations can be to this kind of stuff. It's perfectly understandable for an individual to go gut-reaction and freak out, but when you have a table of supposedly intelligent people trying to decide on a course of action, how are they so blinded so as not to think of better courses of actions than to sue, when that is often the worst thing they can do? I don't have the answer, but my guess is that it comes down to businesses letting the legal department run things. The lawyers see these infractions in purely legal terms: it is illegal, therefore we must sue. Whereas if the marketers were allowed to address the problem (and if they did so from a marketing standpoint), many cases of copied work can be turned around for their benefit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2009 @ 8:12am

      Re: Corporations

      I don't think corporations even care that much. Someone in the corporation sees their content or name being used in a way not authorized by them. They shoot an email over to legal (cc'ing 90 other people). Legal sends out a standard C&D. The reason you don't have the "step back and think about it" is because no one wants that responsibility. I bet if you go into any number of these companies who have stepped into a PR disaster because they were so quick to go legal you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually made that decision.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 8:14am

        Re: Re: Corporations

        I assume you mean other than either the jackass attorney or the jackass executive that ordered that standad C&D letters go out immediately?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 8:19am

      Re: Corporations

      Corporations traditionally depend on one thing to make wads of cash for the all-important shareholders - control. Everything related to mainstream corporate media over the last 50+ years has been about controlling outlets (e.g. ClearChannel) and artists (e.g. notoriously one-sided controls). This includes the marketers - it took a long time for them to use media channels they didn't directly control. They also still try to insist on things like exclusive outlets for trailers, music videos and the like, despite the obvious idiocy of limiting the number of people able to see your advertisement.

      Combine the fact that they not only can't control digital outlets as effectively, but also just don't understand digital technology as they do physical media, that's where you get the freak-outs. The lawyers just do the bidding of the corporate heads, and don't really care whether they do the right thing for the company as long as they can bill for their time.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kurt Fattig, Oct 15th, 2009 @ 8:40am

    The Law

    I studied IP (Intellectual Property) in college when I got my degree in Computer and Information Science. And, I've worked with patent attorneys at large corporations. Put simply, unless you ACTIVELY protect your trademarks, service marks, patents, and copyrights - against ALL infringements - even if they aren't making any money from it - then you can lose them when you go after someone in court later. So, you have to prove that you have protected all along - not just when someone tries to make a buck from your hard work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2009 @ 9:04am

      Re: The Law

      You should have studied harded. Only trademarks can be lost by not actively protecting them and using them. You can selectively enforce copyright and patents however you like. People use this excuse all the time ("We have to sue you for copyright infringement or we lose the copyright!").

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2009 @ 9:11am

      Re: The Law

      Was that college hosted on GeoCities, by any chance?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 9:19am

      Re: The Law

      Put simply, unless you ACTIVELY protect your trademarks, service marks, patents, and copyrights - against ALL infringements - even if they aren't making any money from it - then you can lose them when you go after someone in court later.

      That's incorrect. For trademarks it's almost true, but not at all true for copyright or patents. Even for trademarks there are some limitations on that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ojkelly (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 3:28pm

      Re: The Law

      But thats the catch now isn't it. You don't really need to worry about protecting your copyrights. Your brand sure, but the individual copyrights... especially in such an ecosystem as the internet where copying is, well to be expected.

      Oh and thanks for the link Mike, woke up to a nice surprise in my RSS reader with this post.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Brooks (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 8:40am

    Are we just trained?

    Maybe this all goes back to grade school, where we were taught that copying off other peoples' papers was cheating, and that if we saw people copying from us we should notify the teacher? Certainly a lot of our psychology is cemented in those formative years.

    Maybe the copyright insanity going on is just an unintended side effect of the formalization of education that we've seen in the past 100 years? Maybe, just to brainstorm, greater focus on teamwork and collaborative assignments might reverse the trend?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 9:15am

      Re: Are we just trained?

      Move away from a test based system and more to a hands on system? I like it. Definitely pointed out the people who knew what they were doing and who didn't when we did it in high school and college. It was also more educating than memorizing facts.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TSO, Oct 15th, 2009 @ 9:31am

    Plain and simple: our primal brains couldn't have learned the idea of non-scarce resources, because from the evolutionary standpoint, there were none. (Maybe except for air, which we didn't worry about polluting because it SEEMED non-scarce).

    Nevertheless, the above means that our FIRST reaction will always be "STEALING!" because, well, it LOOKS like stealing. Lizard brain doesn't know copying, and mammalian brain has to correct it.

    To bad that RIAA is run by people who don't have mammalian brain.

    I, for one, welcome our lizard overlords.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2009 @ 10:18am

    The lawyers see these infractions in purely legal terms: it is illegal, therefore we must sue. Whereas if the marketers were allowed to address the problem (and if they did so from a marketing standpoint), many cases of copied work can be turned around for their benefit.

    If giving away your work for free is such a good strategy, you have to wonder why all the major artists aren’t doing it. Don’t the big record companies have any economists working for them? Or is it possible that the people with advanced degrees in business and economics know more about business and economics than the people downloading music with one hand, while masturbating furiously with the other, and wishing they had a tail to hold the bong? - Scott Adams

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2009 @ 11:37am

      Re:

      If giving away your work for free is such a good strategy, you have to wonder why all the major artists aren’t doing it. Don’t the big record companies have any economists working for them? Or is it possible that the people with advanced degrees in business and economics know more about business and economics than the people downloading music with one hand, while masturbating furiously with the other, and wishing they had a tail to hold the bong? - Scott Adams

      Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it. - John Lennon

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 16th, 2009 @ 10:26am

        Re: Re:

        "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it. - John Lennon"

        ....wow!

        Question: exactly how much time passed between John making that statement and some "lone nut" putting a couple of bullets in him?

        Just saying...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 1:07pm

      Re:

      Or is it possible that for the most part musicians don't hold the copyright for their own works?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 15th, 2009 @ 4:14pm

      Re:

      Yes, it's always good to trust a cartoonist on how businesses operate.

      But to respond to Adams' point (which we did when he first made it as well), more and more artists are going that way and have realized that it makes them more money. But no one expects everyone to figure this out overnight. These things take time.

      And I love the fact that "because everyone's not doing" somehow means "it can't work" when the actual evidence of looking at those who HAVE DONE IT shows that it does work.

      Thank goodness most people recognize this basic economic fact. Otherwise, we'd be hearing about how automobiles were a failure because some people still bought horse carriages.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Christian Heretic, Oct 15th, 2009 @ 10:19am

    One of the happiest moments I had as a writer was, during a Google search, finding copies of some of my blog posts on other sites. This means that people are actually reading (and appreciating) my writing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This