Copyright Reform: Approaching Critical Mass?

[chrystalline]

I wonder if I may be a bit too vocal about my opinions on the state of copyright; I had two different people tell me about the article on Slate yesterday (and it’s almost the day before yesterday - I’m staying up too late!). One was my boss, who told me about it at work. I checked it out and sent myself a link so I could refer back to it when I got home. When I checked my email, I had two messages with the same link - the one I sent myself, and one from my mom.

For the most part, Slate is talking about fannish behavior and the way that some major media are finally figuring out that it can sometimes be beneficial to turn a blind eye to what is technically copyright infringement. Some caught on quicker than others, as fans of Firefly and Star Wars may remind us.

In a tangentially-related story, Youtube is putting in filters to try to block copyrighted content. Nice thought, but it’s not going to work well. If they manage to block all copyrighted content, they will lose the majority of their audience. In order to work, though, they’re going to have to have cooperation from all the major media companies, and that’s going to be tricky, too. Worse, adding stuff to the signal to try to keep it from being uploaded will undoubtedly degrade the signal, just as Macrovision does to VHS and DVD in the current marketplace, and it’s just as certain the uploaders will find a way to strip the filter from the signal eventually anyway.

It’s apparent that a lot of people are interested in this. I hadn’t actually reached the point of actively planning copyright lobbying yet, but I’m about there. I feel very strongly on the subject, and I’m seeing more chatter on that subject in other places, too. My mom recently joined the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) and her first copy of the association’s magazine, Communications of the ACM, (Oct 2007 Vol. 50, No. 10) contained an article by Pamela Samuelson titled “Does Copyright Law Need to Be Reformed?” (copyright 2007 ACM 0001-0782/07/1000 $5 if you want to get a copy of just that article) She speaks in favor of reform, generally in the same direction I favor, and at the end of the article, she says, “A good copyright law is possible, but will only be achievable if someone gets to work in trying to bring it about. This will be an important project for me in the next several years. I welcome suggestions from Communications readers about what a good copyright law would look like.”

The internet (and why is it that email has been standardized from e-mail, but spelling/grammar check still wants to capitalize Internet?) is forcing a change. The traditional copyright does not work in our modern technological atmosphere, and the efforts of the old-style copyright powers to prevent that shift are doomed from the start. Lawsuits against a significant portion of the population will not work. RIAA has been winning so far, because most people will do almost anything to avoid going to court and because, under the current law, most of what individuals do with music has become illegal. Court will most assuredly rule in RIAA’s favor. The lawsuits have not had the desired effect, however, as the number of people using P2P filesharing networks only continues to grow.

In Digital Copyright, Litman makes the point that, if the majority of the population ignores a law, it eventually ceases to be a law. States have obsolete laws on record, but they are unenforced and often ridiculed. For example, many states have laws against adultery. When was the last time you saw anyone arrested for that? Divorced, certainly, but arrested?

In the case of copyright, the population as a whole observes its own understanding of what copyright should be, not out of malice, but because the actual law is incomprehensible. Laws should make sense, because people will only heed laws they can understand. If Congress were to enact a law that all citizens under 5’2” must play hopscotch on Thursdays at 2 am, nobody would do it. It makes no sense. The current form of the copyright law is just as ridiculous.

Originally published at Chrystalline. You can comment here or there.

Comments

[mellymell.livejournal.com]

On a semi-related note, what do you think about Radiohead putting their new album up for download with the stipulation that listeners pay whatever they feel they want to for it? Personally, I think that's pretty awsome. They even make a box with artwork available for purchase for those who cling to traditional methods of aquiring music and seem to like that sort of thing. I have to wonder what sort of "fair use" comes with an album for which you paid whatever you felt it was worth. I'd think it would be much more open than one you'd purchase traditionally.

[chrystalline.livejournal.com]

I agree with you; I don't actually listen to Radiohead, but when I saw the news that they were doing that, I thought, 'well, maybe I should give them a try.' (Though for all that I haven't actually unzipped the file and listened to it yet.) Their site was horrible, from a web design standpoint, but that's not really the issue here.

I would think fair use is fair use, regardless of what you paid for it, but people are funny/strange. Some will be more inclined to follow the traditional rules of copyright because they didn't have to pay for it and neither do the others, if the 'pay what you think is fair' setup stays valid, but others will see little value in something they didn't have to pay for, and so will share it with everyone on the P2P networks. [ /armchair psychologist ]

Were you aware of Andreas Viklund (http://andreasviklund.com/)? It's been several years now since my brother gave me a collection of MOD files of Viklund's music, but he's still offering his music online for free. I rather like his stuff, and the fact that he's willing to offer it free for download is cool. He does web design, too - I was tickled when I realized that a WordPress theme I liked was based on one of his templates.

[klhillers.livejournal.com]

Hey there...remember me from waaaay back with Mamma Mia? I've been keeping up with you, although half of what you say in terms of "geek speak" goes right over my head :) Anyway...Radiohead. I love the band. And as a side note their website is supposed to look traditionally unattractive and dorky, it's Radiohead. Artwork from past albums might give you a better idea of their style, completely unconventional. Any complaints past that and I've got nothing :) An article I read recently stated that the average price people chose to pay for their downloadable album was about half of the average cost of a physical album, if I remember correctly about a third chose to pay nothing, but this could prove to be an effective strategy because of the partnership with the special edition box set. I am inclined to buy the box set (as it includes the download file), I think if they had issued the download by itself they'd be dead in the water without establishing a minimum payment suggestion. But you went and checked it out-have to admit that the hype and curiosity is a great ally! This is the first wave of inevitable change in music distribution, the experiment, we'll have to see where it goes.

[chrystalline.livejournal.com]

Of course I remember! Sorry about confusing you; I almost never talk over people's heads on purpose, but I'm really not very good at figuring out what is normal. I've inadvertently insulted people by explaining things they already knew, because they asked and I couldn't tell whether or not they were serious. I get asked about things all the time, and I've just gotten used to the idea that if people ask, it's not common knowledge and I should explain it. There are downsides to being highly educated.

Ah, so they make it look bad on purpose. I'd have to say they succeeded, and while it still functioned all right for me, the blog where I found this news had comments from people who couldn't get it to work unless they removed the financial figure altogether and paid nothing. Sounds like part of the experiment would have been better with a more normal website. I haven't seen any of the followups, though.

The hype was a big part of it, no question. I think that downloadables are never going to be big business, though, because there is no tangible object to make the buyer feel he got his money's worth. That's a big part of the reason I don't want to get into it, unless the DRM is removed or the price is significantly lowered. Ebooks, for example; I considered getting some a while back, until I realized they were charging the same price for a DRM-hampered ebook as a run-of-the-mill mass market paperback which can be resold and won't go *poof* if your computer has a seizure.

There are people making a living online, but it's the merchandising, not the original creation, that brings in the money. Webcomics come to mind; the comic itself is free to view, the site has ads on it, and they sell both ad-free memberships and comic-based merchandise. It works, for a few who have enough of an audience, and I suspect that's where things are going to have to go for other creative businesses.

I've heard a rumor (I haven't investigated it yet) that this is why Lucas is rich; he negotiated for merchandising rights to Star Wars, and since the studios hadn't realized yet how much money would be in that, they let him keep them. People buy one or two copies of any pre-recorded movie. They buy bazillions of toys, posters, clothes, etc. What I don't understand is why the rest of Hollywood hasn't really caught on to that yet. Only the kids' movies make action figures and clothing and stuff like that. Why? If a movie is good, people are going to want to collect stuff, even if they're not kids anymore. Especially if they're not kids anymore, because kids can only get what someone else buys them. Adults have their own money.