Many believe that part of this “locking down” of the Internet includes adding filters to prevent the dissemination of copyrighted material. Of course, the shade of purple on the net neutrality folks’ faces at the mention of any kind of legislation of this nature can attest to their opinion. And so the real battles begin, in Copyright and Innovation in the Digital Age.
It goes without question that people who make art both want to and have a right to be paid for their work, but it is the mechanism through which this will happen, and the kind of rights structures that are already in place that cause the problems. The lines being drawn when speaking of copyright and digital media are both the hardest to understand and the most heavily defended.
“Music has been taken over by an anonymous mob of music looters,” Rick Carnes of the Songwriters Guild of America decried. Though perhaps that statement is a bit overblown, the issue of illegal use of copyrighted material on the Internet is going unchecked, and incredibly difficult to prevent given the nature of the technology.
However, the problem is only partially the piratical tendencies of some Internet users. The system of who owns what and how to find that information is so antiquated as to be almost comical in this day and age.
Never is it more obvious than in taking the example of YouTube. Of the millions of videos uploaded every minute to the site, they have an extensive software application that uses audio fingerprinting to try and identify not only copyrighted material but also to log its use so that the rights holders can be paid. It only works for the few companies who have agreed to “blanket licensing” with the site — a practice not widespread or supported by some of the artist organizations. For everything else, the process of even determining who owns the rights and ought to be paid is so difficult that it becomes prohibitive.
Chief consul for YouTube Zahavah Levine's frustration peaked while discussing the prospect of combing through all the different databases to find the rights holders to some songs, each held in separate locations and often neither searchable nor online. “Money is being left on the table! And we want to pay, we have to pay, but....it's an administrative issue, not an economic one.”
Again, we run into issues of disparity in the rights structure among different kinds of media, just like terrestrial radio and satellite radio have different requirements, YouTube content, being video is considered a “sync” and is considered under different laws than music played by itself. Other examples raised included legislation against DVR distributors, similar to cases against VCRs back in the day, where because the content is being stored on a central server and “re-broadcast”, it is possible to consider that a violation of the laws in place.
Article comments
1 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Great Article...
...with each new technology, there are new opportunities for people to get involved with big media.
Yea, but Radio & Television combined didn't have the cost-to-access ratio in it's favor like the internet does. With both Radio & TV, the consumer would've had to spend big bucks to get involved on the program level. Nowadays, an inexpensive PC & a decent internet connection allows just about anybody to showcase their ideas & passions.
[I have to read some more...I'll be back with some more thoughts/comments]