Apocalyptic copyright epidemic
p2pnet.net News View:- I’m fascinated by research reports that cater to subjective interests and promise doom or golden mountains if some sort of solution is (not) implemented. The solution, or part thereof, is usually included in the report, available at several hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The title of the following report captures it all: The Global Copyright Pandemic: A First-Aid Kit for Publishers and Information Providers. Even if this title has the ingredients of doom and salvation, I don’t think it’s particularly well-chosen. Judging on the title alone, one would think the world is about to collapse under an apocalyptic copyright epidemic. But all the report offers is a first-aid kid – some disinfectants and bandages to put on a wound that’s spreading like wildfire, it says.
Luckily there’s more than a title to judge on: a press release, since I can’t afford to spend $695.00 to read "startling statistics on common user behaviors and attitudes" and get into the safe zone. A taste of what’s upon us:
The Internet has led to a copyright infringement pandemic that is sweeping the globe, and the information industry has failed to respond, according to Outsell, Inc. The analysts estimate that 89 percent of workplace information users forward Web content – including text, pictures and video – without knowledge of or concern for copyright protections. This puts employers at risk and robs the information industry of big revenues.
Yes, big revenues, the gold that’s lost by unrestrained sharing of information due to the internet. I can only wonder if the report touches on the extra work productivity and revenues provided by this sharing. But I can do it with a little of the salve that’s in the first-aid kit:
"What’s missing from the industry associations is a coordinated effort to clarify the mixed messages about copyright that leave users befuddled and indifferent. It’s not about being a bad guy, or aggressively pursuing litigation, or clamping down on distribution with technology or burdensome copy restrictions, but rather about taking a stand, setting boundaries, and eliminating the ambiguity that users experience. That unified industry approach to copyright is missing today."
That’s the true preacher’s message: don’t come down with force, but spread a clear, unified message to change user behaviour.
Don’t fixate on technology that allows widespread sharing with legal and technological measures, but tell users they shouldn’t reach for the apple of knowledge that’s right at their finger tips.
I’d consider this an ambiguous message, if I was an "industry association": take a stand, but don’t get hated for doing so. But then, I’d also make sure to buy this report because I wouldn’t want to miss out on a possible antidote to the copyright pandemic and also miss the golden mountains just over the horizon.
Rik Lambers – CoCo
[Lambers is a former researcher at the Institute for Information Law, Amsterdam, who's now in transition to a new full time job in the field of IP/Internet law. He's also an associate member of the European INDICARE project, which researches consumer issues related to DRM.]
August 9th, 2005 at 12:42 am
August 9th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Ooops! I hit the “Return” Button, instead of the “Tab” key.
How many of you have been lured into sending whatever Web Page object you’ve been looking at to a friend or relative? What can possibly be so different in other cases?
I mean: if I copy something (anything, whether it says I may or not) and send it to my brother for his information or enjoyment, what have I done wrong? After all, it was right there, hanging out in wide open cyber space for one and all to notice.
If the item being sent were a favorable movie review (do they truly exist?), would the cartels take up arms against the culprit sending the review to a friend via email?
August 9th, 2005 at 5:55 am
This whole thing seems bogus somehow. Isn’t it the stance of the RIAA if they can see what is on your shared drive and it is what they think they own, don’t they take a copy to er, prove it? Yet every computer users computer and its contents is unique in some its contents. In that, you could say that each computer is a unique in what it contains and no two are the same. Isn’t part of copyright that uniqueness? That its one of a kind? For that matter if it is legal for them to get a copy of your contents, how is that different than getting a copy of a web page? They are both on the net.
This idea of 1’s and 0’s being copyrighted material is sort of bogus too. It isn’t like it is something tangible, say like property. If you rip the drive apart, can you show me the material? After all, it isn’t fixed permanetly there. As it isn’t permanet and can be easily changed, how is that fixed? Crap, how can it even be property? I can’t even see “intellectual” as being part of the equation, considering the 1’s and 0’s. I am sure it is just me but the laws seem really screwed up in this aspect.
How about lawyers? Constantly the infringment is being done for evidence, for information, for displays in court, yet you will be hard pressed to get so much as an acknowledgement of such infringement is even occuring. Xerox is a near household name and it is capable of just as much infringement as p2p. It makes its presence known in our courts just as easily as in our homes and businesses. So what makes lawyers above the copywrite laws in this aspect?
August 9th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
“This idea of 1’s and 0’s being copyrighted material is sort of bogus too. It isn’t like it is something tangible, say like property. If you rip the drive apart, can you show me the material? After all, it isn’t fixed permanetly there.”
It’s all part of the whole. In and of itself those zeros and ones that exist on the hard drive are meaningless, but so is the grain on celluloid film. If you rip apart a drive, no you won’t be able to see the magnetic information, because we humans have a limited scope to our vision. If we could see magnetic information we’d also see the imprint on the drive platters. Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean its not there. Also, there is nothing that is truly permanent, just ask the folks at the national archives trying to recover old recordings and films.