The Concept of Copyright in Digital Media - Essay Example

May Copyright in Digital Media: Pros, Cons, and Alternatives to Existing Copyright Laws Before the advent of computers,mobile communications, the Internet, and digital media copying tools, copyright issues were much simpler. Copyright law is based on the Constitution, a product of the Founding Fathers’ concern for private intellectual property. The Constitution gives Congress the power “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” (Ratner). Since then, copyright rules and regulation have evolved to catch up with technological changes (Picker). The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) embodies the legislative shift from treating various products as public resources to seeing them as corporate assets (Wright 83). DMCA was designed to give corporate content producers, “global protection from piracy in a digital age” (Wright 83). Different viewpoints on the ideology and goals of copyright laws are embedded in the history of copyright protection. Some support it for the interest of owners and publishers/producers, others oppose it because it breaches the First Amendment and lacks consideration for diverse stakeholders, while several people offer alterative ideologies and licensing solutions. For Tighter Regulations and Implementation of Copyright in Digital Media Chloe Albanesius writes for PC Magazine and she reports an example of implementation of copyright laws in the Internet. She describes the agreement between ISPs and content companies: “Do you subscribe to HBO or did you illegally download [a TV episode]? If it's the latter, you might find yourself in receipt of a warning from your ISP, thanks to a new agreement between Hollywood studios and service providers.” She notes that ISPs and media firms believe that with the help of one another, they can stop illegal sharing online. Furthermore, Albanesius illustrates how their collaboration works through the “Copyright Alert System.” Several warning stages are present in this system: Going forward, users will get a notice if they are suspected of illegal downloading. If they ignore that message, the ISP might resort to pop-ups or redirecting to special Web sites that display the alert. If those too are ignored, the ISP will turn to “mitigation measures,” which could include throttling or permanent re-direction to a warning landing page until contact is established. (Albanesius) The system aims to protect copyright through several security layers. Albanesius depicts how ISPs and content owners work together for a tighter implementation of copyright laws. The strengths of Albanesius’ article are her specific example of copyright implementation and the description of the role of ISPs in copyright law, while its main weakness is not interviewing Internet consumers and their reactions to the “Copyright Alert System.” Albanesius provides a specific example of copyright implementation, which concretizes the actions that the government and ISPs are taking to protect copyright owners. By describing how “Copyright Alert System” works, including its limitations, she fully explains it to Internet users. Moreover, Albanesius illustrates the role of ISPs in copyright law. ISPs have a large role to play in ensuring that copyright law is applied in the digital sphere (Albanesius). Their support is critical to the effectiveness of these laws (Albanesius). Despite these strengths, Albanesius does not interview other stakeholders. Her article does not have interviews with Internet consumers, and so readers will not know their reactions to the “Copyright Alert System.” Readers will not know how users, especially those involved in accessing P2P sharing websites, feel about this system. Without user feedback, it will be hard to know if they follow copyright laws or not. Albanesius’s article enlightened readers about the actual implementation of copyright law with respect to ISPs; however, she could have improved the discussion in her article by including the views of Internet users. Randal C. Picker, Professor of Commercial Law at the University of Chicago Law School, supports tighter rules and regulation of digital media copyright, especially considering technological advancements that promote digital piracy. Picker notes that technology complicates copyright laws. He stresses the conflict between copyright law and new technology: “Since at least the advent of Napster, the music industry has struggled to find a strategy to control illegal downloads of music. Technology made it very easy to rip CDs and share the results with the world.” He underscores that technology threatens the profitability of content industries. Nevertheless, Picker explains that technology produces both opportunities and threats to copyright laws. He supports the Protect IP Act, which would inflict obligations on intermediaries and infrastructure providers to prevent users from finding and accessing sites that infringe copyright laws. He states: “The idea behind this is simple: if technology has created the problem of easy file sharing, technology also should provide the solution.” Picker believes that these laws are relevant, if they utilize technology as leverage in the fight against digital piracy. The strengths of Picker’s analysis are his understanding for the rights of content owners and publishers and consideration for the complex relationship between technology and copyright law, while his weaknesses are his absence of collaboration with other stakeholders and limited sampling of references. Picker makes a good point in promoting content owner rights. After all, they invested time, effort, intelligence, and money in their products, and they are getting ripped off because of peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing and piracy and digital pirates, who profit from illegally selling copyrighted products. Furthermore, Picker does not neglect the role of technology in supporting copyright law. His conclusion asserts the interaction between technology and lawmaking: Technological engineering is frequently easier to do than institutional engineering and yet these systems need to coevolve and to do that we need to talk across the disciplines in a coherent way. If we fail to do that, we will produce a sloppy result that will not accomplish anything for law or for technology. (Picker) Picker is persuasive because if technology is swift in violating laws, lawmakers must use technology to improve the effectiveness of its copyright policies. Despite these strengths, Picker fails to integrate other stakeholder concerns. He seems to be too biased for the interests of copyright holders, when digital media consumers involved in P2P should not be overlooked. They have legitimate interests too that cannot be ignored through restrictive copyright laws. Moreover, Picker has discussed limited cases. He only mentions the Rojadirecta Case and misses other cases, where punitive copyright law affronts consumer access to potential public digital media resources. He must widen his resources to strengthen his arguments for tighter regulations and implementation of digital media copyright. Hence, Picker offers a case for punitive copyright laws, but his article can be argued as not responding to diverse stakeholder concerns. Against Tighter Regulations and Implementation of Copyright in Digital Media Jeffrey A. Tranchtenberg of the Wall Street Journal explores the limitations of copyright in the digital world. He reports a legal suit concerning digital media copyright that affected two publishing companies. HarperCollins filed a copyright-violation suit against Open Road Integrated Media Inc. in federal court in New York (Tranchtenberg). HarperCollins wants to stop Open Road from selling an e-book version of Jean Craighead George's 1972 children's novel “Julie of the Wolves” (Tranchtenberg). Open Road is managed by Jane Friedman, a former CEO of HarperCollins (Tranchtenberg). Open Road believes that HarperCollins only has print, not e-book, publishing rights. The case between these two publishing companies has been settled out of court, but it opens discussion on the extent of copyright in the digital age. The strength of this article is that it explores the restrictions of copyright law, while its main weakness is that it did not include the views of the writer, Friedman. The article indicates that firms should not be too restrictive in applying copyright to digital media because the latter is in a different public domain. This is a good point because copyright laws might be too restrictive that it disables the development of new business models, thereby killing competition. Nevertheless, Tranchtenberg does not interview Friedman. Readers might be interested in what she has to say and if she has approved this use of her book in digital form. Tranchtenberg can boost the breadth of his coverage if he interviewed as many relevant stakeholders as he can. Michael Filby, a Lecturer in Law at the University of Hertfordshire, argues that the restrictive and punitive approach to digital media copyright is not the only option for opposing parties. He disagrees with the American conservatism outlook on intellectual property: “This corporation-focused approach treats intellectual property as physical or tangible property, and subjects IP to the same breed of restrictions and controls as if it were a piece of owned land or property” (208). He uses ideological criticism by exploring the underlying principles of restrictive punitive laws. In addition, Filby suggests a new licensing framework that supports openness and collaboration under the principles of Cyber Socialism. The characteristics of Cyber Socialism are: Policy is developed around the interests of internet users; Intellectual property regulations are cut or abolished entirely; Consumers are also producers, and producers are also consumers; Digital rights / restrictions management is intrinsically immoral. (Filby 209-210) Cyber Socialism does not conflict with media owners, especially when consumers and producers overlap. Using this ideology, Filby recommends the Creative Commons, which Lawrence Lessig, who has written on freeing copyright regulation, and Eric Eldred, whom Lessig represented when the former questioned the constitutional soundness of randomly “expanding the default copyright term from life plus 50 years to life plus” (Filby 217). Creative Commons concern a flexible licensing structure that acknowledges content owners. Filby explains one of the most important licenses in the Creative Commons structure: “…the Attribution (CC BY) license is the most open and unrestricted in that it allows end users to use the licensed work for any purpose, the only proviso being that credit must be given to the original author” (218). Creative Commons is similar to open source licensing for software. Filby provides an alternative ideology that supports a new open business model for digital copyright. The strengths of Filby’s article are his proposition of new ideology that can widen the dialogue on digital copyright and consideration of diverse stakeholders, while the main weakness is his lack of discussion with firms and parties who oppose it. Filby’s discussion of Cyber Socialism expands the ideological alternatives to a punitive approach to digital copyright. He provides another view of seeing the values and goals of copyright protection, instead of being locked in the same mindset as existing copyright laws. In addition, Filby considers different stakeholder concerns. He does not support digital media users alone, but also recognizes the corporate agenda of digital copyright owners. His realistic assessment of diverse interests enhances the validity of his arguments. Nevertheless, Filby does not directly include corporate perspectives in his article. He does not interview firms and their reactions to his proposed Creative Commons business model. As a result, he fails to ensure that he has accurately assessed the current aspirations of these firms, and how these interests can be integrated into his Creative Commons proposition. Filby can enhance the persuasiveness of his article, if he has included interviews with corporations and provided proper resolutions to their concerns. Claire Wright, Assistant Professor of Law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, studies cultural diversity in a digital global society. She states: “Most important, the field of cultural studies teaches that any group of people must define itself in order to maintain its autonomy and assert its ‘difference’ in the world” (Wright 26). She asserts that autonomy is critical in a digital global society. Wright is concerned of the imbalance in values, when some countries dominate others through their media products. She says: Rather, it is the imbalance between the ‘language’ or content items reflecting the norms of content producers in the U.S. and a few other powerful nations and ‘language’ or content items reflecting the norms of alternative cultures around the world that the field of cultural studies teaches threatens the viability of those alternative cultures. (Wright 26) She fears that alternative cultures may be under threat through dominant-nation based content. Wright believes that these alternative cultures must be protected and not assimilated into dominant content values. The main strength of Wright’s article is her emphasis of autonomy in developing nations, while its weakness is that it does not connect cultural values with copyright issues. Wright believes that people in developing countries have the right to protect their cultural values, even as they access dominant digital media products. She shows concern for cultural autonomy in the digital age. Nevertheless, her article does not relate cultural values with copyright issues. One potential point is arguing that people in developing countries should have the right to access and to share what can be considered as public resources. This way, they can express and spread their cultural products without fear of legislative and related financial consequences. But since Wright does not explore these implications, she does not strongly link cultural diversity and digital copyright. The Harvard Law Review presents a case, C.B.C. Distribution & Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., which argue that copyright rules can infringe on people’s freedom of speech. The plaintiff believes that some digital media products are public resources that they have freedom to share with others (Harvard Law Review). In C.B.C v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, it is held that the First Amendment preserves that baseball statistics are part of the public domain, so online fantasy baseball providers can freely use them without paying for them (Harvard Law Review). The court emphasizes the expressive functions of digital media for the public (Harvard Law Review). The strength of this article is that it underscores how restrictive copyright laws impinge on the First Amendment, while its weakness is that it does not explore solutions to this legislative problem. It notes that one of the most significant problems with tight regulations is its clash with people’s freedom of speech. It shows that the boundary between public and private resources is hard to determine. The article, nonetheless, does not consider potential legislative solutions. Digital media copyright laws must not violate basic freedoms, but how to do this is a serious concern for all stakeholders that is not amply discussed in the article. Alternatives to Tighter Regulations and Implementation of Copyright in Digital Media In her article for the University of Baltimore Intellectual Property Law, Kristen M. Cichoki provides an alternative licensing structure for digital content that will benefit publishers, libraries, and library patrons. She criticizes copyright law for being too restrictive on public libraries: “The traditional role of the public library as intermediary is being altered by recent changes in contract practice between publishers and libraries, alterations to copyright law, and new applications of technology to digital content” (Cichoki 9). She believes that copyright law must consider the special needs of public libraries and their patrons. Cichoki recommends a licensing framework that allows libraries to provide their patrons full and traditional access to digital media products through reformations in copyright law and a rights management scheme. She states: What is needed is 1) a licensing framework that can enable libraries to provide their patrons full and traditional access to works in digital form; 2) a reformation of copyright law, specifically § 108 and the DMCA, that will truly accommodate the distribution and uses of digital content and; 3) a rights management scheme that can adequately balance both access and security of digital content. (Cichoki 26) She presents a licensing framework that can serve the conflicting needs of copyright owners and library users. Cichoki believes in the rights of libraries for special terms because of their important role as provider of public knowledge. The strength of this article is its view of copyright law from a specific sector, while its weakness is its lack of interviews from firms. Cichoki has depth of analysis from a particular sector. As a result, she provides an interesting analysis on copyright laws and their loopholes for this sector. She champions their cause, which expands the discussion of copyright laws. Nonetheless, Cichoki does not interview firms to know their response to these licensing agreements. She can balance her reporting with these interviews, so that readers can understand the acceptance rate for these licensing agreements among firms. Conclusion Picker argues that copyright law must be strengthened to reduce illegal piracy and sharing that can kill entertainment and knowledge industries. However, the main problems with copyright in digital media, according to Wright and Ratner, are that it can hamper freedom of expression and reduce access to digital forms of works for the poor and public in general. Ratner, Filby, and Cichoki offer alternative ideologies and business models to resolve copyright issues. These sources indicate, that, because copyright in digital media intersects social, economic, political, and cultural issues, affected stakeholders continue to grapple with the implications of and alternatives to existing digital media copyright laws. Works Cited Albanesius, Chloe. “Pirates Beware, ISPs Agree to Copyright Alert System.” PC Magazine 30.8 (Aug.2011): 1. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. Academic Search Complete. Cichocki, Kristen M. “Unlocking the Future of Public Libraries: Digital Licensing that Preserves Access.” University of Baltimore Intellectual Property Law, 29. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. Lexis Nexis Academic. Filby, Michael. “Regulating File Sharing: Open Regulation for an Open Internet.” Journal of International Commercial Law & Technology 6.4 (Oct. 2011): 207-223. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. Academic Search Complete. Harvard Law Review. “Intellectual Property -- Eighth Circuit Holds that the First Amendment Protects Online Fantasy Baseball Providers' Use of Baseball Statistics in the Public Domain. -- C.B.C. Distribution & Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P.” Harvard Law Review 121.5 (2008): 1439-1454. Web. 29 Mar. 2013. Academic Search Complete. Picker, Randal C. “The Yin and Yang of Copyright and Technology.” Communications of the ACM 55.1 (2012): 30-32. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. Academic Search Complete. Ratner, David. “Music 2.0 -- The Future Of Delivering Music Digitally,” University of Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 136. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. Lexis Nexis Academic. Tranchtenberg, Jeffrey A. “New Fight Breaks out over Digital Rights to Old Books.” Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition 259.8 (11 Jan. 2012): B7-B7. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. Academic Search Complete. Wright, Claire. “Reconciling Cultural Diversity and Free Trade in the Digital Age: A Cultural Analysis of the International Trade in Content Items.” Akron Law Review 41 (2008). Web. 27 Mar. 2013. Lexis Nexis Academic. Read More