For the past century, the vast majority of creative artists have been protective of their intellectual property rights. For writers, musicians, painters, dancers, and photographers alike, intellectual property laws have historically provided important protections that ensure that their work cannot be passed off as the creation of someone else, who could then reap the benefit (in terms of recognition, reputation, or remuneration) rightfully belonging to the creator.
However, in this current age of digital media, when creativity in certain arenas relies heavily upon the ability to freely access and distribute information, where artistic creations themselves benefit from viral marketing techniques, many are arguing that intellectual property laws must be “carefully limited to protect [a person’s] rights to create, access, and distribute information, as well as to develop new ways to do so.”
One of the main roadblocks to such distribution and creation techniques is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which was passed in 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The DMCA is a US copyright law which prohibits the production and dissemination of technology meant to circumvent measures taken to protect copyright. It heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. (The European Union passed similar legislation, the EU Copyright Directive, or EUCD, in 2001, spawning its own Campaign for Digital Rights in opposition.)
US-based organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Creative Commons (CC) insist that the DMCA goes too far, arguing that, for instance, one could face jail time for simply attempting to move song tracks purchased from a legitimate music download site to a personal stereo, since it is illegal under the DMCA to create or use the software necessary to make such a transfer.
In addition, the EFF says, many bands attempting to distribute their music are negatively affected by such legislation. “You want to distribute your hip hop band’s music, but the P2P [peer-to-peer file-sharing] system that’s revolutionized your ability to reach listeners is being sued out of existence, a company claiming to own a patent to all streaming media technology is demanding licensing fees, and record labels are breathing down your neck over the samples you’ve looped.”
Such circumstances have caused many to contend that Big Brother is attempting to control the free flow of information that advances in digital media have afforded.
In his 2003 article “The Digital Imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle,” John Walker asserts that there is an increasing crackdown on the ability for internet users to voice their ideas. “I have become deeply and increasingly pessimistic about the future of liberty and freedom of speech, particularly in regard to the Internet,” Walker writes, saying that the most likely candidate to usher in real censorship is likely to be digital rights management, or DRM. (Wikipedia defines DRM as “any of several technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device.”
But not everyone is as worried about DRM as John Walker is.
During a recent interactive podcast, Cory Doctorow, co-editor of Boing Boing, one of the world’s most popular blogs, who is also an award winning sci-fi novelist and digital rights activist, apparently agrees with J.P. Morgan, who believed that there is no greater equalizer that the free market.
“I think ultimately the force that will drive DRM out of the marketplace — is the marketplace. There is no market for DRM. There is no customer who woke up this morning wishing that there was a way that she could do less with her music. So, to the extent that these companies have shareholders, and these shareholders have got their eyes on the ball, they aren’t very happy about the fact that these companies aren’t making music available in the form that consumers want to buy it in.”
But some wonder whether consumers are actually buying the music or if they are getting it for free. The music site Rhapsody grants customers a lengthy 14-day free trial period, during which time almost any song can be downloaded free of charge to the consumer.
As Doctorow pointed out in that same discussion, however, “iTunes has shown that people will buy stuff even if you can get it for free. So, you can compete with free, but it seems pretty implausible to think that you can compete with free by making something that sucks,” which he contends is precisely what happens to products with DRM.
Both sides continue to fight for their beliefs. Creative Commons offers legal agreements for authors, musicians, and other artists to shift the copyright protection of their work from all rights reserved to some rights reserved, for those wishing their work to be freely distributed and used by others. And the EFF regularly appears in court to argue for increased digital freedoms. However, those battling for strict copyright protection are also coming up with new artillery.
New digital fingerprinting technologies make it easier than ever for sites to identify and filter out copyrighted material, even when it comes in the form of blurry video clips. “As technology companies mature,” says said Paul Kocher, a creator of digital fingerprinting technologies, “they are realizing that the rule of law is better than the anarchy in which they were formed.”
But don’t look for digital rights activists to jump on that bandwagon anytime soon.
