avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


related to journal+cine_500
6 + dmca
1 + drm
6 + innovation
7 + online_film_distribution
view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags
This article discusses the implications for the innovation of new technology as impeded by changes to US copyright law. The DMCA, passed in 1998, grants copyright owners increased control over the uses, access to, and technologies used in conjunction with media content. Despite this increased control, the threat of piracy has only gotten stronger, seriously affecting revenues for entertainment and media industries.  
 
The terms of the DMCA make it illegal to circumvent technologies known as 'digital rights management' or 'technological protection methods' put in place to restrict certain uses of media such as 'ripping' or copying. This aspect of the DMCA has been heavily contested. Special technologies, or 'digital locks', were developed to protect the control over the uses of digital media such as DVD's and CD's. It is illegal not only to produce software or devices that aid in this circumvention, but to circumvent in general. An unfortunate twist in this situation involves US trade negotiations which have successfully lobbied (or in some cases, bullied) other countries to adopt similar copyright changes (Australia, Japan, Chile, and Singapore, for example).
 
A major concern for scholars, lawyers, and concerned consumers is the turning tide in copyright law. What was once granted for a limited-time and considered an encouragement for artists to produce has shifted to a private sphere aimed at protecting the monetary and intellectual wealth of content producers.
 
Discussed at length is the DMCA's running over of a technology venture known as the ReplayTV4000. A Tivo-like device introduced in 2001, the digital video recorder also boasted the ability to skip over commercials during the recording of television content. US t.v. studios fought the makers of the ReplayTV4000, hindering company growth, thus driving it out of the market and out of business - all before even going to trial. This leaves Tivo and any other possible competitors left scratching their heads. How can they innovate? The DMCA stalls innovation, leading to dead technologies that lack any future consumer conveniences that would ensure the growth and future adoption of such a technology.
 
The article also touches on three other technologies that may be eliminated by the DMCA: dvd-copying software, digital television tuners, and HD radio (which is similar to digital video recording technology).
 
The authors conclude the article by lamenting that Hollywood's great story-telling is doing a number on Washington, which in the end is only going to hurt consumers as well as the future of entertainment and tech industries.  I believe that Hollywood is only hurting themselves here - by trying to place more controls over content, they are limiting the opportunities for technological progress and consumer convenience.  This article's arguments dissect the many different consequences of DRM technologies and provide me with specific examples of how these technologies are killing innovation.

Author Fred von Lohmann discusses the role of the 'gatekepers' (such as exhibitors, insurers, distributors, and broadcasters) when filmmakers may have to clear copyright uses in their own works. While fair use is supposed to protect the transformative uses of copyrighted materials, many gatekeepers and large broadcasters and studios are failing to honor the principles of fair use. Instead, we are seeing more of what von Lohmann calls a 'clearance culture' in which full expression is stifled at the hands of media gatekeepers. The content controllers are requiring clearances for every instance of copyrighted material in films, even if it falls under fair use. This is causing many films either to be abondoned during production or distribution or for filmmakers budgets to be severely drained by obtaining clearances.

The rise of internet distribution offers new outlets for filmmakers who can not afford the traditional methods of distribution. von Lohmann identifies two distribution options: video hosting sites such as YouTube or Yahoo Video that can get your film to an audience for free and immediately, as well as by purchasing bandwidth from an ISP and running your film online via a filmmakers' own server.

Internet gatekeepers such as a YouTube or an ISP are more lax than traditional ones due to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. In the case of online video content sites, they use a 'notice and takedown' policy to enforce copyright infringement violations. In order for a video hosting site to be free from monetary damages incurred through a copyright infringing video posted by a site user, the host must issue notice to the user that the content requires them to takedown their video, followed by a 'counternotice' option for the user's benefit in the event that a user wants to challenge the takedown. So long as the site removes the copyrighted content in a timely manner and follows this procedure, they will remain exempt from prosecution.

If a filmmaker decides to host his own video by buying a service from an ISP, a similar safe harbor under the DMCA protects the ISP's from any possibly copyright lawsuit. Under this provision, ISP's are not required to follow the 'notice and takedown, counternotice' steps as outlined above. They are viewed as only the 'pipe' in providing access, not an entity that can enforce the content present on computers owned by others and therefore out of its control. As in video content sites, ISP's do not act as middlemen in any copyright lawsuits, therefore leaving the filmmakers or other users to work out their own disputes with copyright owners directly.

von Lohmann argues that these new distribution tools represent a new creative freedom or at least, should ensure new creative freedoms in the future. Under these new options, filmmakers' work can reach the proper audiences first - unlike in traditional media distribution in which work must pass through insurers and lawyers first.
tagged cine_500 journal online_film_distribution by djaime ...on 06-APR-08
Lessig,L . "The Architecture of Innovation" Duke law journal [0012-7086] 51.6 (2002). 1783-.
tagged DMCA cine_500 innovation journal by djaime ...on 01-APR-08
CURRAH,A . "Hollywood, the Internet and the World: A Geography of Disruptive Innovation" Industry and Innovation [1366-2716] 14.4 (2007). 359-.
Henkel,J . "Welfare Implications of User Innovation" The Journal of technology transfer [0892-9912] 30.1 (2004). 73-.
tagged cine_500 innovation journal by djaime ...on 01-APR-08