Getting paid with attribution, attention, traffic, reputation: Open Software Copyright Ruling tells us that attention equals money

Linuxinsider has a report on a recent case ruling at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The judge concluded that open source coders are indeed entitled to copyright protection even if they provide their software 'for free' - because they must get paid with getting credit & attention, instead.

"The original judge reasoned that because JMRI's code was given out for free, the company shouldn't be able to sue and get money when someone breaks its license. The judge this week, however, reasoned differently. "Attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of the copyright holder that the law will enforce," the ruling reads"

In other words, if I tell you, as part of my license requirement, that I want to 'get paid with attention' then this requirement is just as valid as the requirement of getting paid with cash. In my view, this points toward the essential future business model for intellectual 'property': I do have a right to get paid for what I create (if I want to), even though it may be free or 'feels like free', but cash is simply not the only kind of currency available - new kinds of payments are available to us now.

Ponder ponder ponder...

Read more about the Attention Economy

Comments

[Crosbie Fitch]

No-one has a right to get paid (in anything) for what they create.

People have a right to exchange their labour and possessions (material and intellectual property) in a free market.

People also have a right for their private property to be protected from theft.

People have been granted reproduction privileges over their original works even after they have exchanged them, but these aren't rights.