Technology is breaking down the distinction between Content and Function.
This has a profound effect on Business Models based on IP rights.
The SOPA discussion is a good example of the fight between Function and Content – which IP right will win?
What is Content, what is Function?
Content is the stuff you access and use when you deal with media. A book (the writing, not the physical object) is content.
Other examples of content are music, blogs, film, video, etc. You get the picture (pictures are also content).
Function is what you do with it. Playing a video, copying a song, reading a book, modifying or analyzing data, uploading your photos, etc, etc. are all Functions.
Traditionally, Content and Function are clearly separated. A publishing press produces copies of a book, but the relationship to the content of that book is minimal.
When you scroll through a website reading articles, you don’t perform functions on it that modify or manipulate the content other than storing a copy in the cache memory of your computer, and displaying a view.
So, Content and Function are quite different. You don’t need Content to run e.g. Word or Excel on your computer, but you use their Functions to create such Content.
But that is starting to change. Content and Function are starting to merge – their separation wall is slowly disintegrating.
What does that mean?
Look e.g. at Software as a Service providers. The content they store (the data) is typically only accessible through the functions provided on the website.
If you were able to download the data, and apply the functions on your own computer, that wouldn’t matter. But that is often not the case. You can only get access to the data (the content) through the functions made available in the integrated service.
Any change to either content or data modifies the value of that integrated service to you. If the provider gives you a new analytical tool, the value of your data actually changes, without the data themselves having changed.
And if either the function or the content of the integrated service is unavailable, the other is also useless.
So, the Cloud is breaking down the distinction between Content and Function.
But not only the Cloud. Look at e.g. newspaper Apps on a mobile device. These are software programs, but with functions specifically geared towards specific content. You could not use the Washington Post App to apply functions (e.g. view, post, forward, share) to content from the New York Times website or App.
Content and Function are bundled, they are offered together, and they become the same product or service.
With the rise of User Generated Content, this will massively increase. Look e.g. at www.tabletquiz.com, a website that allows you to easily generate your own App with your own content. In other words, it is User Generated Content and Function (UGCF).
Since it is made in HTML5, it is also platform-neutral, and can run on any environment.
This means that it becomes effectively impossible to apply any kind of Content control system from the outside, because the technology is too open, and too accessible, allowing users to generate not only Content, but also the Function to distribute or reproduce the Content.
So why should I care?
From a business perspective, this has the potential to be quite significant.
This is because Content and Function are typically sold in a very different business model, based on different IP rights.
In a digital world, IP rights are an essential part of the go-to-market strategy. Businesses offer licenses, rights to use, and access to service. These are all based on IP rights.
Content is typically protected by copyright. But Function is not. To the extent function is protected by an IP right, it is protected through the secrecy of software source code (in theory enforceable through copyright, but in practice it is the non-disclosure of the source code that does the trick), or through patents on software.
But what will happen when Content and Function are starting to merge? Which IP right will prevail, and, more importantly, which IP right will the right one for businesses to apply?
In essence, this can go two ways. Function IP rights can prevail, or Content IP rights can prevail.
If Function IP rights prevail, then the merger of Function and Content will lead to looser protection on Content. This has already partly happened as a result of e.g. the fact that technology allows much cheaper copying (Napster and the file-sharing revolution, in other words). In this scenario, the relative freedom of copying a Function will impact the Content interconnected with the Function, making effective protection of Content very difficult, if not impossible.
Under this scenario, any attempt for a DRM (Digital Rights Management) system is effectively doomed.
If Content IP rights prevail, then the merger of Function and Content will lead to stricter protection on Function. In such a scenario, Content will be used to restrict the function applicable to it.
Currently, I see a movement in favor of Function prevailing over Content. But it clear that anti-piracy initiatives are trying to roll back this tide of free Function liberating Content from its copyright protection. The fact that Content-based industries (“Hollywood”) are having a fight over SOPA with technology-based industries (“Silicon Valley”) is a normal consequence of the merger of Content with Function.
In this battle, of course, Function has one advantage that may well be decisive: it is based on evolving technology, and as we have seen from the continued success of Open Source, technology that is based on openness seems to outcompete closed technology. While this seems inconsistent with the paradigm’s of traditional IP theory, it does seem to indicate that Function may well prevail.
What is certain, in any case, is that this evolution confirms my earlier observations about our current IP rights (especially copyright, but also others) being quite out of date, and not fit for purpose in a digital, connected world, based on collaboration, open innovation and sharing of Content.