There is an optimistic wind in the sails of copyright reform, civil liberties, and consumer protection groups which together are pushing to reform the law in the United States so that it makes more sense in a world filled with computers. But I also think there are some philosophical and pragmatic mistakes being made in the reading of the technological tea leaves about what is to come.

After reading an article speculating about the end of ownership, I was compelled to write an article on the same topic to add my thoughts about what may be coming in the intellectual property regime of this country. I am absolutely on board with the general tenor of the article, about how copyright has been misused and now requires reform, for many of the reasons which have been extensively discussed in countless places all over the internet. But I do think it is vital not to get ahead of ourselves because that is how mistakes are made.

 

A Change in Paradigm of Owning Information

What is really happening today is a fundamental shift in understanding of the meaning of “owning” information.

Traditionally, a person lays claim to owning an idea using the existing legal frameworks of intellectual property, such as filing for a patent on an invention. This system of owning information relies upon the enforcement protection of the government which bestows the ownership of that information to a person, giving them the ability to litigate and win damages, and do various other things. Likewise, a copyright grants its holder certain rights when another person copies a book or a film or other creative works

The sea change that is occurring regarding the “ownership” of information is an almost imperceptibly gradual trend towards a paradigm where specific articles of information are owned, rather than abstract ideas or works.

The beginnings of this change were quite some time ago- back in the early days of the computer revolution when developers were trying to allow multiple users to access the same machine. The system which was eventually created involved secret passwords, which today almost everyone is very familiar with using. The “ownership” of an account on a website is verified based on having the correct credentials to access that account.

Although it may not seem strange, this model is a very different concept of the meaning of “ownership” from having a physical object in your hand. And it is also quite distinct from the traditional intellectual property regime which involves an authority bestowing intellectual property rights to an abstract creation generally, rather than an individual exclusively knowing a secret credential.

Now, for readers who are skeptical of my assertion that this sort of exclusive knowledge is becoming the de facto substitute for intellectual property, consider most of the kinds of “property” you own online. This might be ebooks, music, movies, video games, whatever. Your Steam account is a perfect example of the new world of intellectual property- online content accessed based on credentials.

Now, as of right now this transformation is incomplete, because an intellectual property owner still has their traditional IP rights based on grants from existing traditional sources. But it is a small leap of logic to imagine that those rights will also be governed using a digital system, with content creators having accounts and credentials to access them.

Currently it has become accepted as normal that people will consume books using this type of system. And we can easily suppose a system might be created where an author who writes a book uploads it to an account which would act as their source of ownership of the intellectual property of that book. The details of such a hypothetical system are complex, but in my opinion a proof-of-existence style blockchain tech solution would be ideal.

 

Device Ownership

Owning a physical object has also become a significantly more complex affair than it used to be. Particularly for electronic devices, software gives a manufacturer the opportunity to exert a lot of control over a device even after it leaves their hands. And they can even use intellectual property as a tool to restrict how owners can use their devices, such as prohibiting modifications.

In addition to legal ownership over a device such as a laptop, the laptop’s owner also proves their right to use the device using credentials. For phones this may even include the ability to control a device that has physically left your possession, such as remotely bricking a device that has been stolen. It is no great leap to imagine a future where a person not only logs onto their device using credentials, but in fact verifies their actual ownership with the same system.

The root of the current troubles with our devices is that the manufacturer is not actually giving the user the maximum amount of control or ownership that the device permits, and is in fact keeping that control for their own use instead. I suspect that one day manufacturers are going to be forced by their users and the competition to actually grant the purchaser of a device that full control, but this will only happen if users are mad enough about not getting it.

As the barrier between a local device and cloud services dissolves, the rules of ownership for the cloud are going to be imported to the local device. However, the strong property protections traditionally granted for local devices are in conflict with the kind of aggressive business practices that many companies have adopted for the cloud. And, as much as I am sure those companies would love for their aggressive practices to become accepted for physical property, in my opinion there is no possible world where that happens. Instead, consumers and regulators will appropriately expect, and demand, that their physical ownership of their devices be protected. And, because of the device’s dependence on the cloud, those property protections will be extended to the cloud.

The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that my credential is everything, and my legal rights to own whatever is attached to the credential are, surprisingly, not actually that important. In fact we may well eventually arrive in a world where the credential represents the property, with transfer of an appropriate credential effectively transferring control and ownership.

 

Conclusion

In the big picture, the dissolution of traditional intellectual property, and the disruption of technology, will not together lead to an “end” of ownership. It will be the end of the traditional conception of ownership, but we can already see the beginnings of the system which seems likely to replace it.

Specifically, we can imagine a world where intellectual property ownership is tracked and enforced using a system that looks very much like consumer content consumption platforms. Furthermore, the rights and economy associated with such a system are likely to change, much like the shift from traditional broadcast to Netflix. A person would have a bundle of accounts, each accessible using exclusively held credentials rather than being issued by a government. And each account would possess a bundle of permissions and property which confers rights and the ability to issue permissions to others.

In other words, instead of an ‘end’ to ownership, what is likely to happen is a reversion of the meaning of ownership. Instead of having rights granted by the government, you will most likely be responsible for creating and managing your own secret credentials which will control what you own.

The industries which are advocating for strong copyrights are burying their heads in the sand and failing to see the opportunity of the internet. Much like the Sony case where the film industry expected the VCR player to cause an apocalypse, they are systemically failing to capitalize on the enormous opportunity of the internet. And by constantly refusing to see what is absolutely coming, one way or another, they risk completely destroying themselves by failing to accept and adapt to what would otherwise be the greatest and most lucrative invention for their industries, ever.