Copyright Reformed

Admittedly, my reading of this week’s material was tainted by my reading of Lessig’s novel Remix over Christmas break, which actually uses some of the same tables as the Free Culture book. Perhaps due to that novel, or the fact that I am a digital child raised on Napster and Youtube, I found myself strongly agreeing with the various assertions that copyright law has overextended itself in the digital sphere. However, what I think the debate devolves to is one of copyright’s purpose: if the application of copyright law does not encourage innovation but rather restricts it, does that really serve copyright's original purpose?

As Netanel details in Copyright’s Paradox, we have come a long way from an era where copyrights were granted purely for “maps, charts, and books” and lasted for only 14 years. Indeed, from hip-hop cd’s to digital databases, in the modern era we can create and disseminate information in radically different ways – and these new ways too deserve IP protection. The problem, however, is that copyright is not just protecting old work – it’s pedantic enforcement is stifling new creation. When, as described in Copyright’s Paradox, a documentary cannot show a 4.5-second image without the threat of a corporate lawsuit, we should seriously doubt whether copyright is serving the public interest.

As described, copyright originally was never meant to prevent people from expressing themselves in their homes by singing in the shower or putting on a small play (i.e. it was meant to curb profiting from someone else’s work, not sharing privately with others). Copyright, it seems to me, has always tried to strike a balance between two different and competing cultures: a culture of sharing and collaboration, and a culture of exclusivity and profit. I wonder if you agree with this assertion. Do you think that these two competing cultures frame the debate? And, if so, do you agree that we ought to regulate each of these cultures differently? (Should we regulate differently when high school cheerleaders post a Youtube video of them dancing with a popular song playing in the background versus when an online radio station plays the same song?)

Thankfully, based on the vast new proliferation of debate and discourse on copyright and internet law, I think people are finally beginning to catch on that copyright protections have been overzealous. We simply cannot allow Mickey Mouse protectionism to indefinitely shield corporations or we will hurt the consumer; we simply cannot apply protections to stop people from creating any derivative works or we will hurt innovation. There's some hope that iTunes' new approach to DRM and the use of Creative Commons licenses are finally revolutionizing copyright for the digital age, but only time will tell whether such solutions work effectively.

Also, on a somewhat different note, Litman implies in her descriptions of the Green Paper and White Paper that policymakers are fundamentally disconnected from the interests of the public in their approach to regulating digital media. Anyone peripherally familiar with the Internet would probably concur that the law is behind technology. If policymakers can't keep up, however, what can they do in the first place?