Copyright under threat on the internetThe internet's version of the Boston Tea Party pits technophile against the music and movie industries.
Digg is a popular social networking site that allows users to submit interesting web pages for inspection. Other users then vote (called "diggs") to promote the web page or bury it. The posts with the most diggs are shown on the front page and rewarded with a great deal of traffic. In just a couple of years, it has become one of the most popular sites on the internet. In the end, Digg.com chose its users. Founder Kevin Rose said, "You've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company." Time will tell if the AACS makes good on their threat and files a lawsuit. Such a lawsuit would follow on the tails of YouTube-Viacom lawsuit also over copyright protections. Denizens of the internet are paying close attention to the outcome. Skirmishes over online copyrights stem from a 1998 US law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Amongst other things, the DMCA makes carriers and internet service providers liable for the copyright violations of their users to an extent. This creates a form of vicarious liability where a third-party is legally responsible for the actions of another. The law is also dramatically unpopular with the technophiles who drive the next generation of web services dubbed Web 2.0.
The specific content that AACS was trying to stifle was the HD-DVD encryption key. This key (known since December) would allow people to crack the copy-protection on HD-DVD. This would allow people to create bootleg DVDs. Most technophiles think Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes like copy-protection also prevent legitimate duplication (such as making backups) and strongly disagree with attempts to foist the technology on consumers. The result is that the audienceDigg caters to is the most likely to use or support the use of the HD-DVD key for duplication of movies. The Internet makes it very difficult to go after every user who puts up protected material, especially when so many people can do it simultaneously all over the world. With about 27 million Americans trading music and movies, there are simply too many to go after. The DMCA was written specifically to stop that by making it possible to go after carriers. These are far fewer and have financial reasons to not fight someone else's fights. However, that hasn't stopped the trading of music or movies online. People want to trade music and movies and they'll frequent sites that let them do so. If sites stop letting them do it, they simply move on to the next service. When sites are purely designed to be user-generated content (such asDigg or YouTube) the problem becomes much more acute. In the case of Digg, users kept resubmitting the HD-DVD key despite Digg's attempts to keep it off. When Digg took more aggressive steps, the users revolted. YouTube has constant difficulty with people uploading copyrighted videos. The ongoing Viacom dispute has a team of people watching every movie uploaded toYouTube and sending messages to YouTube where a team waits to delete those same videos. The general counsel for NBC, Rick Cotton, has said that "It's frustrating... and completeinadequate" that YouTube isn't using filtering technology. The core problem is that owners of music and movies have been slow to adapt to new technology and in many cases been hostile toward it. It hasn't been until recently that TV shows were available online yet there was a huge unmet demand. File sharing was meeting that need. Music and movie makers have been even harder to deal with restricting even the copying of their material even in cases where it is technically legal. Many have consistently reacted to new multimedia technology with fear that it would be used to cut into their profit margins. Consumers have simply turned to bypassing those restrictions by going online. Originally, consumers would have to go to special chat rooms to get pirated movies and music. Then came along peer-to-peer software such as Napster, Kazaa and BitTorrent. YouTube, Digg and other sites have become the latest battleground for consumers trying to share and consumer media around the onerous restrictions of the media companies. In the end, the use of the DMCA against social-networking sites will settle into some sort of balance. Some TV networks have moved to place their shows online so viewers can watch them whenever they like. They still include some commercials, but the piracy of these shows has declined because there is little need or demand for alternative outlets. Previously ISPs fought with copyright holders until a balance was struck there as well. However, as technology advances, it's clear that it will advance faster than music and movie makers are willing to go. The clear solution is for media companies to adapt newtechnologies so they can continue to make money (as iTunes has done for music online). Until they catch up, people will be using the internet to bypass them. John Bambenek is a freelance columnist and blogger at Part-Time Pundit. He also writes for several other popular websites such as BC Magazine and the Internet Storm Center. |
relatedarticlesmorebythisauthorfreeupdates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (6)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
Earlier this month the popular website
Comments (6)
felipe Sánchez Iregui said...The case of dig.com has to be treated from a legal perspective, because it just not an issue of principles. Indisputably, there are laws that protect the freedom of expression, but at the same time, unfortunately regular people, can not distinguish the difference between the expression of their thoughts or opinions, with the communications of facts or works that belong to third parties, or what it is even worst, with the communication of illegal matters.
Let us put it in plain words, the case of digg.con is a matter where individuals are loading up information (not opinions) that can be used to anyone for decoding or circumvent barriers to make copies of material that is legally protected. In that order of ideas, it is a duty of the carrier (dig.com in this case) to bring its best effort to avoid or prevent the wrong doing of its users, without any legal liability of its part. What law and defendants can not demand it’s shutting down digg.com.
-- | Thursday, 17 May 2007 at 12:40 am
YEdge said...Felipe,
i agree with your analysis of the legal side. However would it be necessary or fair to place restrictive laws in place? Why not just let market forces take care of the situation within the current legal framework?
-- | Thursday, 17 May 2007 at 5:08 pm
nedu said...Felipe,
Let us put it in the recent words of Mr. Justice Stevens, writing for the Supreme Court in Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001). In this opinion, Justice Stevens quotes the words of Mr. Chief Justice Burger:
“As a general matter, ‘state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards.’”
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/532/514.html
In the current controversy, there is no doubt that people are republishing a fact which the AACS LA would prefer to suppress. But here in America, since the 1735 case of The King v. Zenger, in the Province of New-York, we Americans have looked with deep suspicion and disfavor upon the suppression of any truthful fact.
United States | Thursday, 17 May 2007 at 10:03 pm
Chris Brand said...Of course the “content” in the case of digg.com is just a number - a pretty big number, and one with very particular uses, but just a number nonetheless. That’s quite different to a YouTube posting of some TV show.
The other problem I have with this article is that it characterises DRM as “copy protection” when (a) it’s really way more than that, taking away many of the rights that purchasers normally have when they buy something, and (b) it doesn’t actually prevent copying (all the content is available on p2p networks regardless of the use of DRM).
So we have companies asserting rights that actually belong to the purchasers of things like DVDs (and increasing the cost of these purchasers because DRM licenses cost money), and then laws that make telling people how to take back their legitimate property rights illegal, that end up with legal threats for people posting numbers online.
I wonder why people are upset ?
Canada | Friday, 18 May 2007 at 2:07 am
Malcolm McLean said...Laws have to be enforceable. The current legislation is trying to defend legally a right which can no longer be defended physically.
United Kingdom | Thursday, 24 May 2007 at 6:25 pm
Gordon Tryon said...Begin with the golden rule and end with the rule of gold: we all get paid for our work -anything else is slavery-and if a technology could subvert that transaction we’d expect the state to intervene forcefully to protect us. Why are artists deemed exceptions to this tacit contract? If child pornographers or Murder Inc. were the perpetrators they’d be shut down before lunch. The studios have been lax and obtuse, no doubt, but when the means are in place for penalizing the culprits, such as depriving the identifiable IPS users of their internet access, then all right thinking citizens should support their implementation. Otherwise say good-bye to the creative market as we know it. “The laborer is worthy his hire.”
Canada | Monday, 28 May 2007 at 5:39 am
Page 1 of 1 :
New comment