Category: Copyright

The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog: The Content Wars

The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog: The Content Wars

Chicago Law faculty member Randy Picker writes about how the “content battle” over freely-found-and-downloaded vs paid vs ad-supported media will alter our media landscape. It’s an incredible point which needs more examination and discussion, but I would argue that the view expressed here must be checked by other emerging trends.

If we really live in a world in which only a single copy can be sold and then it will be free everywhere, we will need to abandon sales of content.

This is not necessarily true. While it may be technically possible to get content for free, many still choose to pay for content. Reasons vary from “supporting the artist” to the ease, convenience, and quality of paid content. Additionally, social norms are in many cases holding this outcome in check. For example, many downloaders of Japanese manga and anime adhere to a principle of supporting the paid content once it becomes licensed in their own country. In some cases, this includes removing links to the original copies (thus making the paid copies more convenient to obtain).

The sold copy has represented a simple way of organizing consumers to pay for content. When consumers pay for content, they are the patrons served by content producers. If consumers don’t pay for content, the advertisers are the patrons and it is their interests that will be served.

There is an additional way in which content is being changed through Internet culture which warrants mention: user manipulation. In a digital world where songs are mashed together or put to video, or foreign media are translated at an incredible rate, the control over a creator’s message is being drastically reduced. However, while control may be reduced it does not necessarily follow that income, status, or the purity of the original message will also be degraded. From a media theory standpoint, this moves us more explicitly away from the “bullet” model (where a communicator sends a message which has an effect on the listener) towards a feedback model. Under this understanding, a dialog takes place between creators and the audience, who are acknowledged and more engaged in the creation of culture.
The tension between the creation of content and the use (or reuse) of content need not be seen as a war. Hopefully it is an element of a more robust, interactive, and yet still profitable media system.

Music videos on YouTube

YouTube is courting the music video industry with the hopes of “in six to 12 months, maybe 18 months, to have every music video ever created up on YouTube,” (says co-founder Steve Chen). I haven’t made my fondness for YouTube a secret, and I specifically hope that they’ll be working with music video providers from around the world. The ability to have such a clear window into other cultures is one of the service’s greatest strengths (even when stretching the limits of copyright).

It also brings to mind the idea of “network effects,” where the more people gather around one technology the more popular it becomes. I think it’s reasonable to argue that people are more likely to think of particular sites for content, rather than an owners site. If this is the case, people might be more likely to go to YouTube for music videos rather than MTV, or to Google Videos for Government Archives content. Here, the network effect operates by people identifying a type of content with a service. The more popular that service becomes for that content type (regardless of ownership), the more individuals will gravitate there–even if that service has a lousy interface. Content owners may loose some of their control, but exposure may also be greatly increased.

Google’s Library

In case you don’t have the time to read Battalle’s The Search, a pretty good substitute might be an article in today’s Washington Post (Search Me?). The article discusses a number of issues around Google’s book project which got me thinking: could a bit of creative lawyering and calling Google a “library” be a possible escape for the project’s leagal liability. The point is made that:

To index the Web, Google first sends out software programs called “crawlers” that explore the online universe, link by link, making copies of every site they find — just as Book Search makes a digital copy of every book it can lay its hands on. Web sites are protected by copyright, so if you don’t want your site indexed by Google and its search brethren, you can “opt out,” usually by employing a nifty technological watchdog (a file called robots.txt) that tells search engines to bug off.
Ditto for books, Google argues: Publishers and authors can opt out by informing Google that they don’t want their books scanned and made searchable.

It looks as though the “transformative use” argument is being made, but I wonder if this could be extended to the notion that, much like a traditional library, all Google is doing is collecting material and making it available for a limited public use (a few pages, as opposed to a limited-time loan). I’m not saying that this argument is necessarily persuasive, or even right, but rather creating an analogy between a data warehouse and a physical book warehouse. As it is, copyrights basis in “the copy” pretty much makes the argument untenable (but this basis is up for debate).

…in other stories grabbing my attention today

Michael Geist is picking up on the emerging Blackboard v D2L patent fight. Not exactly sure what to make of this yet, as a large part of my job involves working with D2L software (I’ll note, for one of its earliest and largest clients). For more, keep an eye on Michael Feldstein’s blog.

Finally, the Times has an article about Paparazzi 2.0, where anyone with a cell camera stands to profit from selling quick pics to tabloids. Now celebrity privacy can be added to the list of areas of media law individuals may need to “be more aware of” in the world of anybody-can-publish (something Ashley Simpson knows well). It appears in at least these cases, there are still organizational checks within news and tabloid firms to keep the issue from falling totally on a photographer.

Finally finally, here’s a good note on “Astroturfing 2.0” from Ars. If my old pro-market comment-ers on net neutrality were in fact involved in this, they might like to know that their efforts were appreciated in that they really forced me to further examine and clarify my own views. If they were legitimately commenting–thanks for the same reason!

Slashback

Long time no blog, so it’s time for my own kind of “slashback,” or a look at previous stories worth mentioning.

Law

Patriot Act Bypasses Facebook Privacy

A student’s facebook profile was accessed under the Patriot Act when he applied for a government job. Privacy and legislative scope issues, all rolled into one story.

YouTube and the copyright cops: safe… for now?

One of my favorite sites, YouTube.com, is coming under increasing legal fire from copyright holders. For now they’re being a good corporate citizen by removing copyrighted material when asked under the rules of ISPs in the DMCA. One to watch.

Chat rooms could face expulsion

The House passed a law (DOPA) designed to limit access to social networking sites to protect minors. I need to go through this and the pending telecom bill to make a more informed comment.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality debate highlights need for thoughtful action

I start with this post, because I think it’s vital to have an informed opinion on this debate. Click on the “Audio” link to listen to two of the biggest names in the formation of the Internet debate on the value of legislation in this area. Their one point of agreement: if we legislate, it needs to be informed, specific, and narrowly tailored to address the potential dangers (admitted by both) of a non-neutral network.

Microsoft asked to explain network neutrality stance, fights to avoid vote

Microsoft is feeling the heat from its shareholders to make a statement on net neutrality. This is surprising to me, since they’ve been much more vocal than Apple in favor of neutrality. Perhaps more specifics from stakeholders such as Microsoft could help sway the debate; or perhaps there is an effort to avoid treading too close to anti-trust waters.

Cell Phones Presage Future of Non-Neutral Internet and Verizon Wireless: Unlimited, Yet Limited, Access

One thing that I was struck by on my European trip was the advertisements for cell phones…not for service providers, but for the actual phones. Now that I’m back, I do see a few ads for phones, but they’re all attached to wording like “Available only through Cingular.” Essentially, the phones and their functions are tied to the whims of the network providers–the cell phone companies. Personally, I would be more likely to buy and use a smartphone if I were able to use the applications and Internet services that I want, which are closed out due to common polices among service providers. These articles are great examples of the drawbacks to non-neutral (closed) networks.

Google

I just read The Search by John Battelle, so Google issues are pretty hot in my mind.

AT&T Labs vs. Google Labs – R&D History

Links to two articles which are comparing the “new” and “old” ways of doing R&D within telecom companies, as well as how history (and banked capital) impact this process and innovation. I’ve blogged about R&D in America before, and this is a great look at some of the details on how this is (and is not) changing.

Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search and Text Mining the New York Times

In the last chapter of The Search, Battelle looks at some of the directions of the future of searching. One of his more interesting points is the idea (actually from Tim Berners-Lee) of the “Semantic Web.” The idea is that the more data we gather about our preferences (search history), and the more our computers are able to segment digital data into more meaningful categories, the better our searches will become. These articles are right on point.

Personal

Why we have trouble concentrating

The C-Net Blog pointed me to this interesting article on getting better at concentrating. My “Search” reading has made me realize just how much Google has impacted my ability to concentrate. I’m serious. It’s a wonderful tool, but it makes it too easy to get off on a tangent by starting a search with an “I wonder about…” type of thought.

Finally, in the weather dept.: Thursday’s Downtown Storm Created A Violent Mini-climate

Thursday’s intense rains came down so hard and so fast that the storm created “its own little climate” in downtown Madison with new fronts streaming out from the central city, a meteorologist said today. …

The most serious call came early this morning when thick black smoke was reported pouring out of the front of a building at 1301 University Ave. in a row of five storefront buildings.

That’s my work 🙂