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.