Cameron Neylon

So while on the train yesterday in somewhat pre-caffeinated state I
stuck my foot in it somewhat. Several others have written ([Nils
Reinton](http://www.dna.jspiondetox.com/), [Bill
Hooker](http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2008/11/thieving_shitweasels.php),
[Jon
Eisen](http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2008/11/dna-dynasty-company-stealing-and-lying.html),
[Hsien-Hsien
Lei](http://www.eyeondna.com/2008/11/08/singapore-company-dna-dynasty-will-not-tell-your-childrens-future/),
[Shirley
Wu](http://shirleywho.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/dna-dynasty-consumer-genetics-gone-bad/))
on the unattributed use of an image that was put together by Ricardo
Vidal for the DNA Network of blogs. The company that did this are
selling hokum. No question of that. Now [the
logo](http://www.flickr.com/photos/rvidal/498699238/) is in fact clearly
marked as copyright on Flickr but even if it were marked as CC-BY then
the company would be in violation of the license for not attributing.
But, despite the fact that it is clearly *technically* wrong, I felt
that the outrage being expressed was inconsistent with the general
attitude that materials should be shared, re-useable, and available for
re-purposing.

So in the [related Friendfeed
thread](http://friendfeed.com/e/cc145da2-dedc-4464-b0ba-1842bbf8f0ec/Now-here-s-an-example-of-shameless-stealing-ref/)
I romped in, offended several people (particularly by using the word
hypocritical which I should not have done, like I said, pre-caffeine)
and had to back up and re-think what it was I was trying to say.
Actually this is a good thing about Friendfeed, the rapid fire
discussion can encourage semi-baked comments and ideas which are then
leapt on and need to be more carefully thought through and refined. In
science criticism is always valuable, agreement is often a waste of
time.

So at core my concern is largely about the apparent message that can be
sent by a group of "open" activists objecting about the violation of the
copyright of a member of their community. [As I
wrote](http://friendfeed.com/e/cc145da2-dedc-4464-b0ba-1842bbf8f0ec/Now-here-s-an-example-of-shameless-stealing-ref/)
further down in the comments;

> "...There is a danger that this kind of thing comes across as
> 'everything should be pd \[pubic domain\] but when my mate copyrights
> something and you violate it I will jump down your throat'. The
> subtext being it is ok to violate copyright for 'good' reasons but not
> for 'bad' reasons... "

It is crucially important to me that when you argue that an area of law
is poorly constructed, ineffective or having unexpected consequences,
that you scrupulously operate within that law, while not criticising
those who cut corners. At the same time if I argue that the risks of
having people 'steal' my work are outweighed by the benefits of sharing
then I should roll with the punches when bad stuff does happen.There is
the *specific* issue that what was done is a breach of copyright as well
and then the *general* issue that if people were more able to do this
kind of thing that it would be good. The fact that it was used for a
nasty service preying on people's fears is at one level neither here nor
there (or rather the moral rights issue is I think a separate, and
rather complicated one that will not fit in this particular margin, does
the use of the logo misrepresent Ricardo? Does it misrepresent the DNA
network -- who remember don't own it?).

More broadly I think there is a mindset that goes with the way the web
works and the way that sharing works that means we need to get away from
the idea of the object or the work as property.The value of objects lies
only in their scarcity, or their lack of presence. With the advent of
the world's greatest copying machine, no digital object need be scarce.
It is not the object that has value, because it can be infinitely copied
for near zero cost, it is the skill and expertise in putting the object
together that has value. The argument of the "commonists" is that you
will spend more on using licences and secrecy to protect objects than
you could be making by finding the people who need your skills to make
just the thing that they need, right now. If this is true it presumably
holds for data, for scientific papers, for photos, for video, for
software, for books, and for logos.

The argument that I try to promote (and many others do much better) is
that we need to get away from the concepts and language of ownership of
these digital objects. That even thinking in terms of it being "mine" is
counterproductive and actually reduces value. It may be the case that
there are limits to where these arguments hold, and if there is it
probably has something to do with the intrinsic timeframe of the
production cycle for a class of objects, but that is a thought for
another time. What worried me was that people seemed to be using
language that is driven by thinking about propery and scarcity; "theft",
"stealing". In my view we should be talking about "service quality",
"delivery time", and "availability". This is where value lies on the
net, not in control, and not in ownership of objects.

None of which is to say that people should not be completely free to
license work which they produce in any way that they choose, and I will
defend their right to do this. But at the same time I will work to
persuade these same people that some types of license are
counterproductive, particularly those that attempt to control content.
If you beleive that science is better for the things that make it up
being shared and re-used, that the value of a person's work is increased
by others re-using this why shouldn't that apply to other types of work?
The key thing is a consistent and clear message.

I try to be consistent, and I am by no means always successful, but its
a work in progress.Â  Anyone is free to re-use and re-purpose anything I
generate in whatever way they choose. If I disagree with the use I will
say so. If it is unattributed I might comment, and I might name names,
but I won't call in the lawyers. If I am inconsistent I invite, and
indeed expect, people to say so. I would hope that criticism would come
from the friendly faces before it comes from people with another agenda.
That, at the end of the day, is the main benefit of being open. It's all
just error checking in the end.


So while on the train yesterday in somewhat pre-caffeinated state I stuck my foot in it somewhat. Several others have written (Nils Reinton, Bill Hooker, Jon Eisen, Hsien-Hsien Lei, Shirley Wu) on the unattributed use of an image that was put together by Ricardo Vidal for the DNA Network of blogs. The company that did this are selling hokum. No question of that.

Rogue Scholar Beiträge

My Bad…or how far should the open mindset go?