Intellectual Property Law in Source Code Reuse and Remix - Finding Source Code on the Web for Remix and Reuse - page 316

years is a long time in the Internet Era. This is an important issue that needs to be
resolved, because it has the potential to affect programming practice and the future
of source code reuse and remix.
16.6 Current Issues in Intellectual Property Law
In 2012, two bill appeared before the U.S. Congress and Senate respectively, Stop
Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Cre-
ativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). Both were concerned with
increasing IP protections and online piracy, and contained a variety of measures.
For instance, authors and copyright holders could seek court injunctions against
web sites trafficking in counterfeit or pirated goods, demand that DNS (Domain
Name Service) requests be redirected away from these sites, and seek economic re-
lief from illegal copying [ 12 ]. Both bills were postponed in response to widespread
public protest.
These bills are merely the latest salvo in the ongoing battle over IP protections.
On the one side, content producers are seeking greater protections against copying
in general, so they can stop perceived mis-doings immediately and litigate later.
On the other side, technology companies are seeking to protect the structure of the
Internet and existing provisions for legal copying in current IP law.
In recent years, the MPAA and RIAA have spent much time and effort to secure
laws that benefit their agencies. However, what serves digital media, film, and music
well, is not necessarily what serves software developers well. Experts in technology,
the structure of the Internet, and the nature of software are needed at the table as
well. They are uniquely capable of providing insights into how intellectual property
moves in the digital age.
One of the faultlines in the debate is the conceptualization of intellectual prop-
erty. Content producers and their lawyers seek to protections for intellectual prop-
erty in the same manner as physical property. But this approach is flawed, because
there are clear differences. For starters, physical property can only be in one place
at a time and if I share cookie with a friend, I necessarily have less of it. In contrast,
sharing an idea with a friend does not diminish the idea. (Economists call this a
non-rival good.) Thomas Jefferson likened ideas to the flame on a candle, which can
be passed from one to another without diminution of brightness. Lewis Hyde wrote
of ideas as being as “common as air,” that is, as a collective good that we are steeped
in at every moment [ 8 ].
We conclude our chapter with one final scenario.
Bob was looking for code to do some natural language processing. This code is used and
exists, but he was unable to find an example of the code he was interested in. Bob found
references to the language processing code and the toolkit through a company, but the com-
pany was not offering them through any license. When he contacted the company he was
told they were not allowing any third party use of their work. In the end, he had to build the
software himself.