Among the issues addressed in the readings for this week's class include the evolution of copyright laws in the United States and the question of who legitimately can own (and therefore control) information. While the "file-sharing" controversies over music and movies are far from settled, it has been established that we are--to some extent--responsible for what we choose to share with others online, regardless of the grey-areas and loopholes we might be afforded under Fair Use. That is, the RIAA has been successful in holding individuals accountable for the music they have shared with others using P2P programs. We know it's wrong (even as we still do it).
While the dust has yet to settle on the sharing/transfer of music/movies, I worry that a far more important issue is flying low under the public radar. At least to us academics (and--as I would argue--to all literate people with access to the internet), the digitization of books and other texts currently being done by Google and other parties is more culturally significant than whether we ought to pay for the lastest Nelly Furtado single.
I read a fascinating article in the New Yorker a few weeks ago on this subject, and I encourage you check it out. The legality of these projects depend on the Fair Use exceptions of our current copyright laws, but it looks as if Google might settle with the publishing companies who have demanded that they cease and desist. One of the authors we are reading this week weighs in:
But a settlement that serves the parties’ interests does not necessarily benefit the public. “It’s clearly in both sides’ interest to settle,” Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School, said. “Businesses in Internet time can’t wait around for years for lawsuits to be resolved. Google wants to be able to get this done, and get permission to resume scanning copyrighted material at all the libraries. For the publishers, if Google gives them anything at all, it creates a practical precedent, if not a legal precedent, that no one has the right to scan this material without their consent. That’s a win for them. The problem is that even though a settlement would be good for Google and good for the publishers, it would be bad for everyone else.”
While I am thrilled to be alive in an age when the world's written information might be organized and accessible to all, the prospect of Google and the publishing industry having a monopoly over it worries me. Might we run into the same issues that currently plague the music industry? That is, would this promote the arts and sciences as the Founding Fathers hoped, or could this be another win for the established content industries and a blow to artists and writers like us?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
John-
I agree that this is a huge issue with serious repercussions for all copywrite protected written materials. I love being able to do my research online rather than going to the library and spending lots of money on photocopies. In the cases of journals this falls under fair practice but Google's plan goes beyond fair practice. If I was the author whose copyrighted material was now going to become public domain and I would not receive compensation I would be upset
The Internet is growing far faster than anyone thought it would to become proactive for copyright protection and I think there will be major problems causing legislation in the fairly near future. Jack Valenti was far ahead of his time in being proactive for his industry but people didn't listen to him and the printed word is just getting into the arena being reactive instead of proactive.
Intellectual property in the realm of law needs to walk a fine line so as not to have Big Brother getting too involved. It will be very interesting to keep an eye on this issue over the next few years to see what will happen.
From our readings, I would conclude that literal "intellectual property" might encounter the same "shakeout" as the music industry has - that is, practically no loss of revenue despite proliferation of "downloads". In other words, if "Big Publishing" exerts too much muscle, we'll have a "pushback" of scans and uploads as we saw with "Big Music" and "Big Movies" and lawsuits with a "fair use" settlement. We can only hope.
Post a Comment