This week in ICM 501 – Theories of Interactive Media we are learning about Intellectual Property and Copyright. There are two sides to the debate over these two ideas and how distribution of such should be handled.

Most of us that have watched a movie within the last decade, either at the movie theater, or on a DVD, have seen the following advertisement:

Stealing is admittedly wrong. I would not argue that taking someone’s purse or car would, in any way, be right. I am sure that there are those that would justify it so (perhaps under ideals of communistic equal-access “rights” for everyone), but in a society such as ours, where goods are bought, sold, and traded, these material goods are individually owned and should thus remain the property of the owner until that owner deems they no longer wish to retain ownership through official channels, like commerce. The advertisement relates physical commodities: cars, DVDs and purses; to intangible goods: movies, music, and literature.

So then the debate comes to be, to what extent do, and should, individuals retain proprietary rights over intellectual property (IP) through the use of copyright, trademarks, and patents?

History of the Copyright

From Wikipedia, July 30, 2012:

Essentially, the Copyright began as a short-term ownership of the IP during a span that would last just long enough to cover a career for the individual that created it. This is reasonable, as it offered the chance for artists, creators, and those with ideas the ability to make a living off of their work, allowing for innovation, but not at the expense of the next generation. Even when Walt Disney started his cartoon empire, his stories were borrowed and copied from other people’s material, other IP, but with a twist. This allowed him to build the collection of movies we loved as children and our children love today. Take Snow White, Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, Jungle Book, Treasure Planet, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast for example. Yet Disney owns the copyrights to these movies and restricts anyone from attempting to recreate Disney stories in their own fashion. The kicker, copyright law today says that anything you create lasts for your entire lifetime… plus 70 years! Why does anybody need to continue to keep a monopoly for two more career lengths after their deaths? To sum this up:

Digital Rights Management

Along with Copyright, Digital Rights Management, or DRM, is another piece of the IP monopoly that companies have been using to wage the war against creativity and innovation. DRM is essentially “technology that controls what you can do with the digital media and devices you own.” This is part of a letter from Peter Brown at Defective by Design:

You might be aware that the DVDs (or Bluray disks) you buy are encrypted. All of the video and audio on these disks are coded using a key that the hardware attempts to keep secret. Hollywood requires that all DVD manufacturers participate in this restrictive practice, and they can use the DMCA to make any device that doesn’t participate in their scheme illegal. This type of nuisance is but the foreshadow of greater ones to come. Standing behind the technology companies, the film and music industry (Big Media) loom large. To increase their control, they demand technology companies impose DRM. The technology companies no longer resist. Of course many of the technology companies now see themselves as part of Big Media. Sony is a film and music company, Microsoft is an owner of MSNBC, and Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple, sits on the board of Disney. These technology companies cannot be expected to serve the interests of the technology consumer. Big Media hope that DRM will deliver to them what their political lobbying to change copyright law never has: they aim to turn our every interaction with a published work into a transaction, abolishing fair use and the commons, and making copyright effectively last forever. They will say that you accepted DRM and willingly surrendered your rights. That you did so under duress, they will call irrelevant. Amazon’s new movie download service is called Unbox and it outlines what DRM implies. The user agreement requires that you allow Unbox DRM software to monitor your hard drive and to report activity to Amazon. These reports would thus include a list of: all the software installed; all the music and video you have; all your computer’s interaction with other devices. You will surrender your freedom to such an extent that you will only be able to regain control by removing the software. But if you do remove the software you will also remove all your movies along with it. You are restricted even geographically, and you lose your movies if you ever move out of the USA. You of course have to agree that they can change these terms at any time. Microsoft’s newly upgraded Windows Media Player 11 (WMP11) user agreement has a similar set of terms. Each time Big Media force you to upgrade your software, they downgrade your rights. Every new DRM system will enforce a harsher control regime. Apple’s added more restrictions to their music service, and their new video service is yet more restrictive. And so it goes. But this is not just happening with music and video, DRM is being applied to knowledge and information. Libraries, schools, universities are adding DRM, sometimes under duress, often without understanding the consequences. What does this mean for the future? No fair use. No purchase and resell. No private copies. No sharing. No backup. No swapping. No mix tapes. No privacy. No commons. No control over our computers. No control over our electronic devices. The conversion of our homes into apparatus to monitor our interaction with published works and web sites. If this type of invasion of privacy were coming from any other source, it would not be tolerated. That it is the media and technology companies leading the way, does not make it benign. Users of free software are not immune to DRM either. They can be locked out, and their computers won’t play the movies or music under lock. Products can “tivoize” their code (remove their freedom through DRM), delivering it back with malicious features and blocking removal. The RIAA and the MPAA are actively lobbying Congress to pass new laws to mandate DRM and outlaw products and computers that don’t enforce DRM. DRM has become a major threat to the freedom of computer users. When we allow others to control our computers and monitor our actions we invite deeper surveillance. With our personal viewing, listening, reading, browsing records on file, are we not to be alarmed? In September 2005 a Disney executive named Peter Lee told The Economist, “If consumers even know there’s a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we’ve already failed,”. A year later, on October 3rd we made that prediction come true. Now with your help, we can work to put an end to DRM. You are encouraged to Join the campaign at DefectiveByDesign.org and take action. Peter Brown Defective By Design Free Software Foundation

Share and Share Alike

The following is a Documentary that describes the fight against copyright in the form that it stands today:

Conclusion

These are the views of the people, the general public. Imagine if Shakespeare’s works were still under copyright today. How much of our film industry would exist if the laws we have in place today were around since the 1600s? How much creativity and innovation would have been squashed out? What would we have today that we don’t because of the current expansions of copyright law?