What’s more, we’re going to aggressively protect our intellectual property. Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it’s only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can’t just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor. There’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies, we welcome it –- we just want to make sure that it’s licensed, and that American businesses are getting paid appropriately. That’s why USTR is using the full arsenal of tools available to crack down on practices that blatantly harm our businesses, and that includes negotiating proper protections and enforcing our existing agreements, and moving forward on new agreements, including the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The President listed IP enforcement and protection in a list of activities his Administration is doing to help promote exports of U.S. goods and services, thus preserving and creating U.S. jobs. He has repeatedly, as a U.S. Senator, Presidential candidate and President, demonstrated the connection between respect for the rights of copyright owners and economic growth.

President Obama and his U.S. Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, also understand the importance of improving international coordination and enforcement of existing IP protection treaty obligations, so it was great to see the President specifically promote their work on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. That treaty, as Ambassador Kirk has stated, would not change U.S. law, but instead see that U.S. copyright owners had their rights respected according to both law and international treaty commitments. Unless you don’t like enforcement of IP rights, it’s hard to argue against that.

The Administration’s recently appointed Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (don’t call Victoria Espinel a czar, or czarina, it is a statutory post in the Executive Office of the President) is soliciting feedback on how best to improve U.S. IP policy to ensure more respect for IP rights. Kudos to her and her team.

I’ve written about President Obama, Vice President Biden, and his Cabinet here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for starters.

As a simple example of how a group of strangers can begin to collaborate, Lucinda had everyone in the room look at a painting, and then write down a single line of poetry based on what they saw.  After everyone had written their lines on separate index cards, we went around the room and read them as one long piece.

It was interesting to hear all of the different themes and ideas that this one painting was able to elicit from everyone.  It was equally as interesting to hear the ideas strung together into something larger.  By the end of the exercise, I think everyone in the room started to see the painting in new and unexpected ways.  As Lucinda pointed out, the image inspired all of these words, which in turn inspired ideas for many more images.

This got me thinking about the artistic process in general.  I was recently discussing a film I had seen and been disappointed in with a friend.  My friend stated that she felt the lead actor in the film (someone we had always admired) was starting to play the same character over and over.  I realized that this actor had been working almost exclusively with the same director and group of actors for almost twenty years.  I commented to my friend that typically, when working with new directors, a new crew, new co-stars, an actor is continually adding new tricks to their process.  Every new gig is a learning experience.  It occurred to me that if this actor has been working with the same people for twenty years, it isn’t all that surprising that the work is beginning to feel familiar and even repetitive.

As discussed in this panel, branching out and participating in collaborative work not only has the ability to enhance one’s process and inspire their creative juices in new ways, but also has the ability to enrich the art forms themselves.  It furthermore allows artists to break into new audiences and reach a much broader population with their messages.

Seeing such a diverse group of artists sitting in a room and discussing the enrichment of the arts and the effectiveness of the arts as a tool for social change really resonated with me as a part of the Copyright Alliance team.  Cross-discipline collaboration for the betterment of the arts as a whole is something the Copyright Alliance strives to make a reality every day.

I found the panel to be extremely enjoyable, informative, and poignant.  If you are an artist in the Washington DC area, I would highly recommend participating in the Split this Rock festival, as well as stepping out of your comfort zone and trying some unexpected collaboration!  As someone at the panel said yesterday, “You hear more when you look, and you look more when you hear”.

This year, festival organizers gather poets together as “our country faces a crippling crisis of imagination” in health care, joblessness, poverty, and war. And, as “our most creative citizens,” poets are called to become advocates for, find solutions to, and engage the public on so many of these issues that our nation – and our world – wrestles with.

Metro DC’s distinguished poets Anne Becker and Fred Joiner, along with Takoma Park, Maryland visual artist Sally Brucker, joined me on the panel Cross-Discipline Collaboration: How Writers and Artists are Working Together to Push Boundaries and Engage the Public to explore how writers, artists, musicians, and dancers can work together to produce new and exciting work and reach the public in different ways.

Collaboration between different types of artists is not a new phenomenon. In fact, in the 1950s and 60s at the New York School painters and poets collaborated often with each other, feeding off of each other’s creative energy and inspiring new works. Both the poets and painters socialized in the same places, and the galleries where many of the painters had their first exhibitions, the poets also signed their first publishing contracts.

The poet William Carlos Williams says about the relationship between artists and poets during this period in history, “No one knew consistently enough to formulate a ‘movement’. . . . We were restless and constrained, closely allied to the painters. Impressionism, dadaism, surrealism applied to both painting and the poem.”

As creative people, our beings are naturally ignited by the new, the raw, or the unknown. Our creativity flourishes when we find ourselves in a new place – perhaps overseas or at a new job – when we are presented with a daunting task or idea, or when we establish new partnerships.

New places, new ideas, and new partnerships make way for fresh conversations and bodies of work. But more importantly, they provide a way to amplify our voices as creators in a way that makes a sleepy and inundated public stop and listen.

Though new technologies have given writers and artists more opportunities to promote their creative works and connect with other creative individuals, it has also created more noise, making it difficult for artists to be seen and heard.

Our do-it-yourself marketing models and other technological tools are embraced by creators who have been plagued historically by art world hierarchies and gatekeepers that have stifled promotion and success. However, they have also forced us to spread our time and creativity further. To move away from our ultimate focus as artists: to use the voice inside us to create something of value.

And, at the end of the day, after our last Tweet has been posted, our Facebook pages updated, our new work added to our websites, we still find ourselves working alone as many writers and artists do, and we wonder – have we actually engaged in a dialogue?

In today’s busy and cluttered world, artists are seeking new and innovative ways to connect not only with each other, but with the public as well.

Collaborations across artistic disciplines are one way in which artists have been able to establish community, forge new creative territories, and reach the public. By connecting the written word with the visual or performing arts, both writers and artists benefit by relating their works differently to each other and to the public at large.

It is important to keep this inverse relationship between text and impact in mind when reviewing draft legislation recently proposed to “reform” copyright law. George Carlin famously gave us “Seven Dirty Words.” Opponents of copyright owner’s rights are proposing “Seven Sneaky Words.”

What are their Seven Sneaky Words? They propose amending U.S. copyright law to eliminate creators’ rights if the use of a work is “incidental, non-consumptive, or both noncommercial and personal.”

These few words would dramatically reduce copyright owners’ abilities to exercise their rights of reproduction, distribution, public performance, and the creation of derivative works. This would harm not only creators but the U.S. economy, exports, employment, and culture.

These copyright opponents are not creators supporting themselves through production of creative works, although in Section 1 of their proposed legislation they absurdly claim the legislation is intended to “protect copyright holders” and “protect the creative endeavors of artists.” They are in fact a small cadre of academics at Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley, working on behalf of a D.C.-based advocacy and lobbying firm.

There is a growing trend of rightsholders broadening licensing rights to permit uses in all of those areas. The proponents of the Seven Sneaky Words don’t share those many examples in their voluminous documents arguing for a change in the law. Nor do they demonstrate any real harm suffered as a result of the existing balance in fair use struck by Congress and the courts.

Of course, this call for legislation is not about fair use. The supporters consciously ignore the fact that the fair use statute and its interpretations by federal courts intentionally embrace ambiguity. The fair use statute does have specific exemptions, but flexibility beyond those exemptions allows new and innovative uses to emerge, which we see online every day.

In fact, fair use is thriving in the United States. So the other tried-and-true practice being done here by the copyright opponents is that of “moving the goal posts.” First you redefine fair use, and then you conflate it with your objections to the broader restrictions of copyright.

Let’s break down these Seven Sneaky Words.

As for incidental or non-consumptive uses, the proponents are exercised over a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that prevents circumvention of digital rights management technology. They neglect to note that the DMCA requires the U.S. Copyright Office to hold public hearings every three years on uses of copyrighted works that are important enough to merit permission to circumvent DRM. The U.S. Copyright Office has issued exemptions in each triennial review since the 1998 Act became law.

The copyright opponents also argue that “incidental” use would allow copying of entire works for indexing purposes. What they don’t share is that this is a key policy objective of the world’s largest indexing web site, Google, a financial supporter of the advocacy firm promoting the draft legislation. Were this to become law, Google would have no legal reason to settle with authors and publishers – a tacit acknowledgment of the rights under copyright of those authors and publishers — because they would be free to create complete digital copies of millions of published works without any say of the rightsholder.

However, the largest potential impact comes from the phrase “noncommercial and personal.” One result would be the elimination of any business model that allows consumers to enjoy a creative work in the way that they want, at a price they like.

An on-demand movie service doesn’t legally allow me to copy the motion picture. But let’s say I do that anyway. Isn’t that a personal act, in which I am not profiting, and didn’t I already pay $4 for the stream? Of course, I’ve avoided paying $20 for the DVD.

Forcing all creative works to be distributed with all uses available to all consumers means we all pay the maximum possible price, regardless of our intended use. Increasing the cost of all creative works is not good for consumers, and will only drive piracy rates higher.

And what of those infringers? If I download a sound recording from an unauthorized P2P site and share it with others, but am not charging anyone for the song, is that noncommercial? And what could be more personal than “sharing”? What if I said it’s not a song I would have been willing to pay for, so there is no lost sale to the performing artist, composer or label? And what if those downloading the tune off of my computer make the same argument?

Copyright law has long recognized that unauthorized noncommercial and personal uses often have significant impacts on the ability of a copyright owner to exercise their rights in the market. That is why such uses have not been given blanket exemption under law.

These Seven Sneaky Words are in fact sneaky because while presented as modest tweakings of fair use law, they in fact invert the premise of copyright law enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. With the addition of these Seven Sneaky Words to the U.S. Code, we abandon the Founding Fathers’ position that the starting point in promoting culture is awarding creators with rights, not taking them away.

The damage they would wreak doesn’t end there, of course. These Seven Sneaky Words are followed with language that would essentially exempt any infringer from suffering any real consequences if they simply declared they thought they were following the law. Don’t try that with a police officer if you’re ever pulled over for speeding.

And what magic pass would the infringer receive? No fear of statutory damages or covering a copyright owner’s legal fees. In other words, you still can’t exceed the speed limit in your car, but if you infringe someone else’s work, the worst that can happen is that, after they track you down and sue you in court, you’ll just have to pay what you would have had to agree to pay had you asked for permission first. Hmm, hard to see why anyone would ask permission at that point. But of course, that is the ultimate aim of the copyright opponents promoting this draft legislation.

Congress and the federal courts have done a remarkable job of taking a flexible area of the law – fair use – and guiding us to a world in which both creators and end-users of creative works can prosper. With the system clearly not broken, there’s no reason to try to “fix” it.

In Syn© is a regular update on innovation in the copyright community.

Juliet Ye in today’s Wall Street Journal notes a challenge facing video game developers in China. Software such as World of Warcraft — which is financed in large part by players purchasing virtual goods to enhance their gaming experience — are under siege from 400,000 to 500,000 Chinese private servers allowing about 1.5 million Chinese players to obtain these doodads without paying.

When viewed on that scale, it’s easy to see how one player’s shortcut could help jeopardize the very development of follow-up games. But a 26-year-old player named Aaron Sun defends his actions:

“After the initial excitement, I began seeking faster ways to upgrade,” said Mr. Sun, who added, “most of my friends do it.”

Never heard that one before.

It’s almost too challenging to summarize, paraphrase or selectively quote, because every word is spot-on, but here’s the gist. Mr. Zolli is a longtime digirati who gave many speeches arguing information wants to be free, omitting the part of Stewart Brand’s quote that said it also wants to be expensive, because it is so valuable. He laughed at “grown-ups” who didn’t get the business model of giving everything away:

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen since, for companies whose core product is content—like every newspaper and magazine you read, including this one—the idea that we Internet visionaries sold is a total load of crap.

Love it.

He goes on to say that companies that followed his lead “have now trained a generation of young people to never, ever, ever expect to pay for content on a laptop or desktop.”

All true, and one of the reasons why we launched a charitable foundation to give away K-12 curricula, the Copyright Alliance Education Foundation.

His take on this period of hyping “free” is that it was “an echo of ’60s free culture when we all took the bad, digital acid.” But Mr. Zolli is optimistic that “new digital platforms” will find ways to compensate creators and continue to provide incentives for creation.

For the sake of all of us who value journalism and in fact any copyrighted work — from music to motion pictures to software to visual arts — let’s hope that this time Mr. Zolli has it right.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council denounces piracy in strong terms, and also details far more eloquently than I can the very real and direct impact it has on the ability of union members to obtain not just employment but lower wages and less access to benefits such as health and retirement plans. The Executive Council makes clear it strongly supports AFL-CIO unions in the Arts, Entertainment and Media Industries in their effort to support industry jobs by combating piracy — including urging union members to practice solidarity by not engaging in infringement — and in working with policymakers and industry on solutions.

A coalition of unions representing 300,000 workers recently filed thoughtful comments in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proceeding with the FCC on the subject of network neutrality, one of many filings we highlighted here on the blog.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council echoed those union comments to the FCC:

There are tools that can be used to fight digital piracy. Internet service providers (ISPs) have the ability to find illegal content and remove or limit access to it. To be truly effective, these sanctions must depart from the costly and ineffective legal remedies traditionally employed to counter theft of copyrighted material.

In other words, use technology to target blatant illegal behavior instead of tying up courts with lawsuits. Hard to argue with that.

At the core of any effort to combat digital theft is reasonable network management, which should allow ISPs to use available tools to detect and prevent the illegal downloading of copyrighted works. With respect to lawfully distributed content, ISPs should not be allowed to block or degrade service so that both consumers and copyright would be protected.

The distinction between illegal and illegal traffic is also hard to argue with. In fact, as we noted in testimony before the FCC, it is the publicly stated position of the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski.

Patrick Ross, executive director of the Copyright Alliance, a trade group involving movie studios, networks and artists, took to the alliance’s blog immediately to condemn Ms. Hegemann. “Our would-be novelist says nothing is original, yet the passages she lifted from other books were original expressions in those books, even if the ideas were not new,” he wrote, adding that a creative culture dominated by borrowing and repurposing is a “culture that will quickly grow stale.”

The NYT journalist also cites a new book David Shields called “Reality Hunger,” in which Mr. Shields has combined quotes from other writers to present an open-source style approach to writing. There’s not much I can say about this book, having not read it — although depending on his sources, I may have read much of it in its original, intended form — but based on the NYT piece and this Wall Street Journal review by Sam Sacks I read last week, I have a few thoughts:

1. It’s possible Mr. Shields, a professional writer, has provided a reader service by meshing together disparate thoughts in a new narrative. I gather here he’s focusing on writers’ opinions and insights, which is different from the fictional elements the other author plagiarized.

2. One would hope the work is well-cited, although both the NYT and the WSJ articles lead me to believe I would as a reader wish to see more direct acknowledgment of original sources.

3. While Mr. Shields subtitled the book “A Manifesto” and clearly feels he is revolutionizing print, it’s unlikely he has done so any more than any open-source approach has revolutionized any industry. Just as email didn’t replace snail mail, new ways of doing things often can co-exist with traditional approaches that have their own advantages.