Category: Copyright

At YouTube, another day, another copyright battle

This headline from a blog post on CNet sums up well what I’ve been thinking a lot about lately: The state of copyright law ensures that an emergent business which is not on unquestionable legal ground must endure a great deal of pressure from content owners.

What do I mean by the state of copyright law? Currently, service providers are granted immunity from copyright as long as they take down infringing material at an owner’s request (DMCA). YouTube could arguably fit in this category because they don’t monitor what individuals upload until they receive one of these letters (which they obviously follow through on). Yet, on the other hand, if one makes a ‘business model’ out of infringement (Grokster), there is liability for the infringement of users.

The legislation and case law in this case has created a situation which (as is common in copyright) is far from clear for owners, providers, or users. The result: if YouTube chooses to fight, may be a trip to court which would resolve the issue–but in what way? Will the courts create a threshold of how much infringement a business model could allow? This could create further complications for other providers in the future.

As copying becomes easier and managing control becomes more complicated, simpler rules will serve business and users the best because of a decrease in litigation. From what I can tell (at a very quick glance), the Copyright Modernization Act proposes to add greater complexity to this very issue.

I’ll try to post more about the Act and the pending WIPO treaty sometime soon.

Other Sources:
Copyright Axe To Fall On YouTube? (Slashdot), YouTube in Copyright Cross Hairs? (Reuters/Wired)

Group response to the RIAA video

RIAA copyright education contradictory, critics say | CNET News.com

It looks as though a number of groups are going to “issue a joint statement condemning some statements on the Recording Industry Association of America’s video.” Pointing out the discrepancies and generous interpretations of the law must be done, but I hope that the statement also notes the role that Educause played in the creation of the video.

“First, we were told we should not enforce our rights,” said an RIAA representative responding to critics of the video. “Now we are told education is wrong, too. We won’t accept such a do-nothing approach. We’ll continue to work with respected higher-education groups to engage students to think critically about these issues.”

This RIAA spokesperson has received an important message: education about copyright is not the answer. For the public to truly accept and adhere to copyright law, we should attempt to open a dialogue between owners and users. If the public is alowed to have a stake in the law they are expected to adhere to, there may be greater compliance than in a law which is imposed on them.
For more on the video and the role of Educause, see the last few posts under “Copyright.”

A bit more on the RIAA video

A bit more information about the New RIAA Video addressed earlier. It turns out that it was produced while working with Educause, the organization dedicated to the issue of education and technology and is also responsible for handling the .edu domain name. This is surprising to me, as one would have thought that there would have been greater thought and input into creating a balanced yet convincing piece. Someone could have at least checked their legal quote!

Here are a few story links:

New RIAA Video

LawGeek: New RIAA “Scare” Video for college students

Here’s an interesting take on a video for college students recently released by the RIAA. Aside from the production quality (you would think they would have access to decent music), there are a number of points worth mentioning.

First, as the Law Geek says, “They claim that any kind of copying without permission is illegal.” This disregard for fair use defenses is typical, but I would argue that it is also a troubling attempt to sway public perceptions of the law (which are admittedly already not in line with the law) beyond the tenuous balance that copyright already attempts to create.

Second, the video quotes 17 USC 501, 506 as: “Federal law provides severe civl and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental, or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings.” This isn’t a quote from the law–I suspect it’s a quote from the new FBI warning on compact discs. When you use quotes and a cite, most often you take the words verbatim (this is not considered infringement).

Finally, the price paid for a downloaded song is consistently referred to as a “fee.” This is consistent with the view of many digital content providers that as one acquires a license for a copyrighted work, he or she never truly “buys” or “owns” it. I would argue that this goes against the public conception of how the majority of the public thinks about a piece of music that they pay for and “physically” have on their computer.