What do I think are the biggest issues/problems with Digital Copyright today?
- Cost of Enforcement
Governments and corporations spend a lot of money and time each year trying to enforce copyright laws and handing out copyright infringement notices to people, often even when the person receiving the copyright infringement notice has only used a short segment of a copyrighted video clip or one or two copyrighted photos from a whole gallery in fair use. No profit is really lost for these corporations when people use a small part of a video clip or a few photos from a gallery to help improve their own video or blog, because when you think about it, if the person viewing the video or blog in question was interested in viewing the full video or gallery, then they would pay to view it, rather than settling on a small part of it in a video or blog. However these corporations still spend money on trying to enforce copyright laws against these more-or-less innocent people.
- Fair Use/Grey Area
Often, people are allowed to use a small portion of a video clip in a video review in order to help relate their review to the video they’re reviewing. However, (particularly on YouTube recently), people are being given copyright infringement notices and having their videos flagged and removed, even though their content falls under fair use. Using money to hire clever lawyers, corporations can manage to make these videos seem like they are infringing on their reserved rights, when realistically they don’t. The end result is that the person who made the review is left with a sour taste in their mouth after having their video taken down, leaving them feeling bad despite having not really done anything wrong.
What are my solutions to these problems?
There will always be people who will want to upload copyrighted content onto the internet, either fairly or with the intent of making an immoral gain. Therefore, there should be measures put in place to protect the people who want to upload copyrighted content fairly.
One idea I have is if there was a universal domain/website that anyone could use to make money for something they have a copyright on, or fairly and legally upload copyrighted content. On this hypothetical website, people would be encouraged to upload at least mostly their own content while also being allowed to upload copyrighted content amongst their original creations. However, before the content being uploaded goes live on the site for anyone to view, a moderation system would view it and determine who owns whatever content is copyrighted in it. Non-obtrusive ads would be displayed on the site and the money made from these ads would go to the people who own the copyright to the content being viewed.
As long as all of the systems put in place were implemented properly and were maintained efficiently, the website could serve to be very useful for copyright owners and fair users alike.
Source: https://www.offthemark.com/image/data/cartoons/2004-12-12C.gif
What is your opinion of the current NZ and overseas legislation attempting to protect the owner of the work?
I feel that the legislation being used currently, although it has good intentions, simply isn’t working as well as it should. If a person makes some form of media or content, they should be entitled to making money from that content. However, when a person or corporation makes some form of content, I feel that they should be only be entitled to own the product itself, and not peoples experiences of it.
For example, not long ago the company ‘Sony’ tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to trademark the term “Let’s Play”. Despite the fact this was an instance of trademark being used and not copyright, it’s related to what I mentioned prior. I feel that Sony certainly has the right to make money by selling their consoles, but I don’t feel they should be allowed to make money from internet videos that use the term ‘Let’s Play’ in their title or somewhere in the video, because it is an ambiguous term. More so, it is a term that was generated by people who used product, and not by the people who made it. I feel there should therefore be clearly defined rules around exactly what a person owns when they declare a copyright on something.
What are the problems that copyright legislation is attempting to solve?
- Ownership of Work
For a person to make something, it may take them dozens, hundreds, or potentially even thousands of hours to produce it. For this kind of input, a great output should surely be returned, including monetary gains. However, there are always people who will try to reuse this same content, either in fair use or with intent of making a profit. The copyright legislation being enforced around the world today is attempting to stop people from making a profit of any kind from media, content and ideas made by other people, in order to protect them from people who want to take a share of the money returned from the work input into their creation.
- Originality
If there were no copyright legislation whatsoever being enforced, people could easily make “original” creations that are really moderately or heavily based off of someone else’s work. But since there is a copyright legislation being enforced around the world, people are basically forced to be more original, which is good because otherwise everything would be a rehash of something else. And that would make for a less diverse and interesting world.
Source: https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI934_artlaw_DV_20090128144059.jpg
Who is the legislation protecting (really)?
In a lot of instances, it seems that a number of wealthy corporations have a lot of power when it comes to handing out copyright infringement notices to people. Therefore, it seems like the legislation is really protecting them, as it allows them to be able to do this, making them even more money, rather than the people it should really be protecting, like people who are using copyrighted content fairly.
What business approach might solve many of the problems?
I feel that a system should be implemented into the copyright legislation that doesn’t allow people to hand out copyright infringement notices unless they have factual, conclusive evidence of such an incident that does not fall under fair use.
What laws might help or hinder?
The “fair dealing” law that is enforced in New Zealand already could help to serve as a basis for such a system (mentioned above). The system could employ parts of the “fair dealing” law and improve upon it to make a system that could both protect people who are using copyrighted content fairly, and the owners of this content.
However the Copyright Act that is already enforced would have to altered dramatically, and some or many of New Zealand’s politicians may oppose this, due to the cost and time involved in doing so. With the Copyright Act being enforced, if a differently functioning system was used, the two would clash and neither law would be able to be enforced properly.
What has to change for your solution to work?
Many of the laws and legislation that are already being upheld today will need to be altered or even completely rewritten altogether. Many of them allow for people or organisations or people to spend money to buy Copyrights on particular things, and then throw their weight around with that Copyright. Many parts of the different laws would need to be changed to stop people from being able to do this, as well as still allowing them to be able to hand out copyright infringement notices to people who really are infringing on their copyright.
Two examples of Fair Dealing that I have come across
- Recording content on television
When I was a kid, I used to often use my families VCR and blank video tapes to record cartoons on television that I really liked so I could watch them later. As with pretty much any kid, I never thought about the legal ramifications of this, but thinking back on it now, I feel that what I did would have fallen under fair dealing. I feel that this is the case because I had no intention of making a profit or gain by recording these cartoons. I mean, I was already going to watch them more-or-less for free anyway, so nothing really changes other than the time that I end up watching the recorded content.
One example of this was the “Betamax Case“, where it was decided that recording television shows on VCR’s falls under fair use.
- Reviewing videos
“In a battle over the use of viral videos, a humor program, Equals Three, reproduced viral videos from another source, Jukin Video, and commented on them, often reproducing the clips in their entirety. Important factors: The court determined that in the case of 18 of the 19 videos, Equals Three used no more than necessary of each video for purposes of its commentary; and that the jokes and commentary added something new to the viral videos. Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 14-09041 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).”
Source: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/
In this case, a YouTube Channel that ran a show called “Equals Three” would review viral videos. I feel that this is also a case of fair dealing since in these video reviews, a lot of original content is added to make it more unique and original. “Equals Three” would also only show the most relevant parts of the video, rather than showing the whole video, so that if people were interested in watching the full video they would have to go watch the original uploaders version.
Bibliography
https://www.offthemark.com/image/data/cartoons/2004-12-12C.gif
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI934_artlaw_DV_20090128144059.jpg
http://www.polygon.com/2016/1/12/10754130/lets-play-trademark-sony
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
frodo2016 