OpEd:
The Increasing Problem of Knee-Jerk Copyright Reactions
August 27, 2009 by Kyle BradyTags: Amazon, Copyfight, Copyright, Digital Freedoms, DVDs, ISPs, Netflix, P2P, Piracy, Redbox, Rights
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
Copyright has been a sensitive issue for the last decade, but the actions taken by both governments and corporations are increasingly worrisome for their willingness to use extreme measures that are typically nothing more than knee-jerk reactions, rather than taking well-reasoned measures, that result in the inconvenience, at best, of citizens from all backgrounds, while the future of rich media is threatened. The arenas in which consumer rights, freedoms, and enjoyment are being threatened are many, but include DVD purchases/rentals, Internet usage, digital books/e-books, and music.
The so-called “piracy” of music via the Internet, specifically filesharing protocols/programs, have seen the ire of the recording industry, via the RIAA, for the entire span of the last decade, and arguably initiated the current war of copyright escalation. Regardless of the legality, or individual opinions, on the claim of Fair Use Doctrine by many pirates, the fact remains that access and distribution methods cannot be subjugated for purposes of copyright defense – no matter how much profit the corporations or individuals in question believe they are losing because of it.
This applies mostly to the Internet, as filesharing is now done via the global network. And while organizations, governments [1] [2] [3], and corporations believe that the Internet can simply be filtered, controlled, or managed to prevent actions of presumed wrongdoing, this cannot be. It’s not that this cannot be implemented on a technical level, because it can and is, but rather that the ethics of taking such actions are ethically questionable – how come CD-R’s continue to exist when they can, and are, used for purposes of piracy? What makes the Internet any different?
The technology exists to prevent certain types of traffic over connections, but this assumes that these methodologies are wrong or illegal in the first place, when many legal uses of peer-to-peer networks exist. Subjugating the populace to the benefit of corporations or profiteers is simply unacceptable, especially when throttling connections results in limited freedoms, as it so often does, yet the ignorance of this issue in many courts worldwide continues at an appalling rate.
DVDs are not exempt from the copyright overzealotry either: Redbox, a popular DVD-on-demand rental kiosk service, is now being sued by multiple movie studios to stop the rental of studio releases. The reasoning is essentially the same as that of Internet filtering and litigation, having a basis in profits rather than legality or common sense. Studios have a long history of controlling how their movies are released to the public, with specific timetables for theaters, airplanes, video-on-demand television, home movies, and cable television, but had been slowly adapting to modern times, until recently, due to deals with Netflix, faster DVD releases, and other “new media” distribution methods.
The idea of copyright holders being paid for every single usage of their property is not new, especially to movie studios, and they seem intent on continuing this pattern of behavior, to the detriment of consumers. Redbox is flourishing as customers discover the convenience, just as Netflix has all but decimated traditional video-rental competition, but these are methods which the studios cannot exert absolute control over, and are therefore dangerous entities from their perspective. The difference, however, between filesharing and the Redbox/Netflix issue is clear: interaction with these services is unquestionably legal and cannot be interpreted otherwise – especially since the companies purchase licenses to distribute the content. Yet the persecution continues, as does the war on customer satisfaction.
The fact that this war has bled over into other arenas is not surprising, but that Amazon.com has become embroiled in it is. Amazon has a strong history of forcing publishers, distributors, and studios to do what they want, such as their DRM-free MP3 music store, and yet their Kindle product is heavily DRM’d. Even worse, the digital version of 1984 was recently removed from the devices of customers that had purchased it, because the publisher decided an electronic version of the book was simply no longer interesting, forcing Amazon to “fix” the “problem”. The problem here is potentially worse than that of Internet filtering or DVD distribution restrictions: legally purchased property was later taken from customers without reason or explanation, thanks to its digital nature and the control strings attached. Not only is this ethically wrong, but how is this not theft? If a carpet retailer came in the middle of the night and removed the carpet from a customer’s house without permission, regardless of reason, this would be considered highly illegal – Amazon’s 1984 actions are no different.
There is a disturbing trend buried just below the surface of these actions, and it ironically gives credence to George Orwell’s vision of the future: the freedoms and rights of citizens are being subjugated for higher corporate profits and the benefit of murky interest groups. Even worse, these actions occur with troubling regularity and without any attempt to solve the problem before litigation arises. In the case of filesharing, legal options appear to have stemmed the tide of media piracy (music in the UK, music in the US, and television/movies in the US), but the legal persecution of individuals has done nothing but tarnish the industry’s reputation.
If legal alternatives to piracy can be successful, they should be given the time and ability to be so – not forcibly shut down, or heavily handicapped, due to corporate greed and a supreme loathing for new distribution or business models. This is true not just for music, but movies, television, radio, and digital books as well. Most of the digital markets, or new physical distribution methods in the case of movies, are too young to have reached a level of profitability and success that would placate the publishers and studios, so they need to be allowed time to develop and discover their full potential - which is currently in jeopardy. Individual-label (or studio) entities for digital distribution will never be successful, if only because of the level of inconvenience, so the hope, for both consumers and producers, lies in companies like Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.
Piracy is not the problem, but rather a symptom of a broken system – going after the biggest supporters, and purchasers, of content is not going to make their love for the system any greater. Neither is removing their self-created solutions, like The Pirate Bay, and disconnecting these individuals from the Internet is only going to further enrage them. It is in the best interest of movie studios, record labels, book publishers, and other media companies to look to peaceable solutions to the current problems, rather than wielding governments or courts as a weapon.
Customers worldwide will appreciate the effort, and those that enjoy freedom will breathe a sigh of relief.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
