The Age of Transparency

I can't help but be taken with the story of Jason Kottke and Sony.  It's David vs. Goliath but I'm not sure where the slingshot is yet.

Jason is one of the earliest bloggers and a true pioneer in the blogging world.

Sony is a big Japanese consumer electronics company that has a bunch of lawyers at their disposal.

Jason is apparently into Jeopardy and was following the Ken Jennings run on his blog.  Somehow he got wind of the fact that Ken had lost and posted that, along with an audio clip of the losing question on his blog.

Well I guess Sony got pretty pissed at Jason and sent some threatening lawyers after him which has now gotten Jason rethinking the whole blogging thing.  Jason can't compete with the billions that Sony has when it comes to legal fees.

Well I want to know what Jason did that was wrong.  He learned something that others wanted to know and he posted it on his blog.  Too fucking bad that Sony didn't want that news to get out.  Then run the goddamn show live.

If they sue him, I am going to send him some money.  I hope you all do too.

Comments

[Ryan]

Fred, there's the small matter of Jason posting what was in fact Sony's propriety content. Fine line, I know, but still one that has not and probably won't ever be clearly defined.

That said, Sony's bullying leaves a bitter taste. And I agree with everyone who says they should call off the dogs.

[Ryan]

I meant proprietary. Blah typos.

[Mike D.]

I'm also on Jason's side about this since he did seem to properly "cease and desist", but I imagine one could even consider the audio clip *stolen* property since it was clearly stolen from wherever it is that Sony keeps this footage. Being in possession of that clip and then sharing it with the rest of the world does seem to cross the line to me and I'll admit to worrying about the legality of it as soon as I saw it on Jason's site.

Unfortunately also, I don't think the "transcript" of the audio is any more legal as there is no added creative value to it. It's basically the same property, but in different form.

To me though, the uber issue here is whether or not Sony realizes the PR implications of actually following through and fighting this. Clearly there was no harm done to Jeopardy or Sony and you could easily argue that the amount of buzz Jason generated was a very *good* thing. That said, if I were Sony I'd issue an official statement saying something to the effect of "Look, this sort of thing is not legal and we hope all bloggers realize they are liable for what they publish. We will not be pursuing the matter any further, however, at this point, as we'd like to put this situation behind us." That's a clear warning statement, but without igniting a firestorm.

[Furious D]

Harping on the IP issue ignores the fact that after he removed the audio clip, they came back at him for the transcript.

[Jason Chervokas]

Interesting legal question. Is it copyright infringement to post something that is someone else's IP and charge no money for access to it? Did the posting materially damage the value of Sony's IP?

Obviously if Kottke knew the facts of the Jeopardy show in advance and published that the player had lost it would not have been infringement, so what really was the damage of posting an excerpt? If the excerpt was stolen, well then that's a criminal matter not a civil one, no?

I generally am on Sony's side in this. I believe in strong protection for IP owners. As a career creator (writer, musician) I despite the pervasive attitude in cybersociety that says "your intellectual property should be mine for free under all circumstances." But I think the particular case and its civil law implications are full of gray areas. Then again, I'm no lawyer.

[jackson]

Screw the media giants, I'll buy him the slingshot, remember the clay feet Jason!

[Michael]

Mark Cuban gets fined by the NBA for criticizing the league on his blog for opening the season on Election Day. But Mark can afford such dear folly. Regrettably, it’s the “little guy” who must be made martyr for those on Wall Street or at the Wall Street Journal to (hopefully) sit up and make public what’s little more than a display of sheer business incompetence.

Perhaps Mr Chervokas is correct that it’s necessary and proper to enforce IP laws as they stand. Neither of us are lawyers. But legal erudition is hardly required to see the obvious, to see that Sony is punishing its own customers. For what? The fear of a future drop in ratings (read: ad dollar), due to Mr Kottke’s post is vastly absurd compared to the promise of that drop after Jennings loses on primetime. But now that Jennings’s winning streak has ended online, as it will on air, Sony made the conscious decision to forego learning a potentially lucrative lesson and to instead punish others for their own ineptitude.

For those including myself who have worked at Sony and / or watched them in the age of the Internet, the real story is only in small part about Jason Kottke. The real story is about all the "Jason Kottkes" -- customers, artists, businesses, you name it -- that have been steamrolled by Sony's own blundering.

[Jason Chervokas]

I'm just saying let's all be careful. This strikes me as a classic case of be careful what you wish for.... I remember when I was a student in journalism school in the early 1990s I did my master's thesis--really just a longform piece of reportage--on what was then the new technology, digital sampling. I spoke with everyone from the AFM president to Afrika Baambata (not the first or last time I spoke w/ him but the only time I went to his apartment up in the Soundview houses and a visit worth a blog item) to record company execs, lawyers, and yes, James Brown (I've spoken w/ governors, mayors, senators, and lots of musicians that I admired over the years, but interviewing James Brown was the best remembered of all!). I remember James (of Mr. Brown as I felt I had to call him) saying about all the unpaid sampling--as creative people our work, this is what we have to sell. If they take that, what do we have left?

In later years, when I was involved in the birth of the Internet business I spent a lot of time talking with the players involved in digital music copying and distribution.

And after all that experience my feelings/thoughts/beliefs on the matter can't be so simply articulated. The Constitution gives Congress the right, and even obligation to extend copyright (and patent) protection to creators for the purpose of providing an incentive for them to share their IP. While file sharing certainly leapfrogs that and goes right to the sharing of IP--which theoretically will promote the greater good through the free flow of ideas--what becomes of creators? Is it, or is it not a disincentive to create for public consumption if your creations are fiscally valueless to you, the creator?

I don't think these are issues with solutions that are facile or obvious. Neither side, to me anyway, is clearly good or evil. And I think this is stuff worth giving the kind of hard look you'd give to major changes in real property law.