The Future of Copyright and Entertainment

From The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Topic owners: Joe, Miriam

This is the main page for the Spring 2009 session of IIF:The Future of Copyright and Entertainment, including the original course design; the content of guest presentations and class reactions during the session; and the student presenters' reflections from after the session was complete.

The class examined the changing relationship between amateur and professional creation of cultural goods such as music and video, how the Internet is currently mediating that relationship, and where copyright law ought to fit in. Students in the class (as well as a few other interested folks) posted video responses on seesmic to the following question: "When it comes to the arts, is there such a thing as too much amateur creation?" The student presenters turned these responses, along with some strategically interspliced media clips, into two separate mash-ups: one on the virtues of an expanding amateur culture, and one on its potential pitfalls.

The first half of the session, during which these mash-ups were screened, consisted of a presentation by the student presenters on the various possible crises that might currently be besetting the entertainment industry and the range of possible solutions that have been suggested. There was also some discussion during this time between the presenters, the faculty, and various members of the class.

The second half of the session consisted of a presentation by Stacey Lynn Schulman, Senior VP of Ad Sales of Turner Entertainment Ad Sales Research, concerning how television companies are responding to the rising demand for free online entertainment. A brief Q&A followed the presentation.

back to syllabus

Precis

We are beginning to see more and more choices for where and how to get copyrighted digital art, such as music, TV shows and movies. Gone are the days when it was either download illegally on programs such as BitTorrent or pay for them on iTunes. More consumers can access more cultural content from more creators through more channels of distribution than at any point in history. In this session, we will be exploring how these new avenues of cultural consumption & creation might affect the art and music that we experience in our day to day lives--and just what exactly copyright has to do with any of it.

Concentrating on two forms of content, music and TV programming, we will be examining the blending of amateur and professional creation of cultural goods. In particular, we will be studying the multi-directional nature of cultural production made possible by the Internet, where amateur subcultures create content which is in turn refiltered by industries attempting to attract wider audiences.

Three central questions will occupy us throughout the session: (1) Is there a crisis in the entertainment industry, and if so, just what is in crisis? (2) If there is one, what is the best path forward? (3) What type of art is going to emerge?


Class Session

Part I: Is there a crisis?

People often talk about the Internet contributing to an "entertainment industry crisis" (as of early May 2009, that specific phrase alone generates nearly 2500 hits in a google search.). We wanted to begin our discussion by trying to pin down just what it is that might be in crisis.


Few would disagree with the proposition that exclusive rights regimes like copyright seem ill-suited to digital content on the net. Too many users see peer-to-peer (P2P) downloading as sharing rather than stealing. Too many want to incorporate content into new derivative works like fan videos, musical mash-ups or machinima.

Developments in technology and the rise of Web 2.0 platforms have thrown the content industries into turmoil. Should we be thinking of this as a crisis? And if so, just what is in crisis? Some possibilities:

  • The art. As traditional revenue source begin to dry up, we face the possibility of losing valuable cultural goods.
  • The distribution channels. It's not the content we need to worry about, but merely the mechanisms through which they are delivered to us. Whether these mechanisms have value independent of the cultural goods is a separate question.
  • Opportunities for Semiotic Democracy. Perhaps if the content industries feel forced to stamp out remix culture, we will lose out on opportunities for society to actively engage in culture.
  • Reliance on ads. Though ad-based models are for some the solution, others may worry that saturating our cultural goods with product placement is a crisis in itself.
  • The relationship between the law and social norms. As file sharing and remixing become more and more acceptable, the law seems more distant from the social norms that underpin it.
  • Nothing. The worst is behind us.

Part II: Paths forward

In preparation for the class, we identified six proposed changes for the copyright system, based in part on a discussion from Professor Fisher's class on Advanced Intellectual Property and in part on Diane Zimmerman's essay included in the readings listed below. Some of these proposals are mutually exclusive, while some may easily complement each other. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but represents several different visions of how art and music can and should be created and shared.


Observations from our class session:

  • Some of these models provoked class discussion about the viability of innovative distribution mechanisms. Since many of these ways of monetizing the music and art industry are relatively new, it may be some time before we can judge their efficacy.

Questions for discussion:

  • Is it even possible to make these sort of judgments at this stage, or maybe the goal should really just to allow for the most experimentation as possible and let the marketplace of ideas sort things out?
  • How will each one of these options change the balance of professional and amateur art creation?

1. Preserve the legal status quo, but enforce the rules

Some already established powerhouses such as the Beatles and J.K. Rowling have simply chosen to avoid digital content altogether. We might think of this limited group as the Zealots, who would rather avoid the difficulties raised by net-based distribution because, frankly, they can afford to do so. A more tempered version of this attitude is adopted by artists such as Metallica, or the producers of TV shows and movies who allow their work to be distributed on iTunes, but who insist on policing any unauthorized sharing of their work as violations of their copyright in the work.

Some scholars have posited that the real problem is that enforcement is simply too costly; it is only because litigating against all infringers would cost exorbitant amounts of time and money that content industries are compelled to seek disproportionate damages from a few unlucky defendants in order to maximize deterrance. Accordingly, they propose reducing enforcement costs in order to allow more streamlined infringement litigation against easy cases of violation--allowing deterrence to solve the problem without restricting legitimate creativity and innovation.

2. Preserve the legal status quo, but encourage innovative distribution mechanisms

Questions for discussion:

  • Are any of these channels of distribution clearly more likely to succeed than others (and how, by the way, should we be defining success?)
  • What factors are likely to predict success?
  • Are these channels of distribution likely to help one type of musician over another?


  • Aimee Street lowers the cost of discovering new music by setting price according to download popularity.
  • Grooveshark, which charges for downloads from its user-uploaded library but actually gives a cut to the original uploader.
  • Advertisement-driven revenue models such as at Imeem, the third-most popular social networking site on the Internet as of August (behind only facebook and MySpace), or the still-in-the-works Vevo, a premium music-only spin-off of YouTube.
  • Tip jars, used by Radiohead and Girl Talk for their latest releases, where customers pay as little or as much as they deem appropriate.
  • National levies, most recently enacted by the Isle of Man--where a tax earns residents a blanket license for unlimited P2P downloading, with a portion of the proceeds going back to the industry.
  • Network-based blanket licenses, such as Choruss, arranged between record labels and ISPs.


3. Preserve the law, but institute Technological Protection Measures

Questions for discussion:

Digital Rights Management is criticized on many fronts. Some view it as an overly restrictive measure that prevents the creation of art that would be justified by the doctrine of Fair Use. Others view it as a hopeless enterprise because as technology advances, people will find ways around the DRM. What role does it play then, in the future of copyright online?

iTunes was likely the most obvious example--that is, until its recent decision to drop DRM restrictions. With iTunes joining the major record companies in abandoning this approach, many now wonder whether DRM will continue to play much of a role in the future of content distribution and production.

Some years ago, Professor Nesson led an effort to promote less absolute forms of technological protection, known as speedbumps, which relies in part on kinder, gentler versions of DRM.

4. Increase Reliance on a CC system as an Opt-Out

Artists relying on CC-style licensing schemes simply opt out of an exclusive rights regime by assenting to downstream sharing and in some cases creation of derivative works. Flickr is a popular mainstream photo-sharing site that allows users to elect various CC marks.

5. Relax IP Laws Themselves

Questions for discussion:

  • How will relaxing the IP laws change the balance of professional and amateur art production?
  • How will it affect the type of art we consume?
  • How will it affect the stable meaning of cultural goods? What do we lose in this process?


Some argue that letting copyright recede into the background is not enough--we need to reform our copyright laws themselves. In Remix, for example, Lessig advocates for adopting a European-style fair-use system where regulated and unregulated uses would be clearly and categorically delineated by statute in order to simplify the law ex ante.

6. Education

Some believe that we can preserve the current distribution models by engaging in aggressive educational campaigns to reverse the shift in our underlying norms regarding copyrighted content.

Part III: Is the art changing, too?

In this part of the session, we looked at the art itself and grappled with empirical and normative questions. We identified bi-directional sharing on the internet: from Professional to Amateur and from Amateur to Professional. We had asked the class to share their thoughts on these matters on Seesmic, and created a mashup of their responses which we screened in class.


Questions for Discussion

  • Is there a movement from professional to amateur creation of art?
  • How do you distinguish between the two?
  • How much remix culture do we want to tolerate?
    • Dial up property rights too much and mashup culture can't survive. But dial them down too much and we lose the stability of cultural icons.
    • Should we be concerned about an over-reliance on remix as a portion of amateur creativity? If we allow everyone to mash up Disney & Star Wars, will we have fewer LonelyGirl15s and Obama Girls?
  • What happens when subculture art forms, such as fandom, are co-opted by mainstream media?
    • Is this a healthy sign of industries adapting to the times?
    • Or will fans lose interest in remix culture if it becomes a marketing tool?


Professional-->Amateur

Remix culture is characterized by art derived from content produced by mainstream media, such as fan videos, musical mash-ups or machinima. A great example of Remix culture that exemplifies the "bricolage" of art creation in general is George Bush Doesn't Care about Black People. Youtube is chock full of musical mashups. The musician Kutiman recently released an album of youtube samples, woven together seamlessly. Fandom is another example of active consumption of cultural products. These secondary creators thrive in online communities or social networking sites, where they share the resulting "Fanfiction" or "Fanvids." Fanfiction.net has a massive library of fictional works that build upon well established story lines from books, movies and tv shows. The popularity of fandom cannot be underestimated. Time Magazine reported that "[a]s of the week ending Aug. 25, 2007, the site ranked in the 159th position of over 1 million websites, putting Fanfiction.net ahead of sites such as Apple.com."] Henry Jenkins provides a great guide for how to watch a fan-vid.

Amateur-->Professional

One example of the professional art world using amateur creations is the Youtube Symphony Orchestra. In 2008, Youtube called for video auditions for the YouTube Symphony Orchestra. Musicians were asked to submit video performances of a new piece written for the occasion by the renowned Chinese composer Tan Dun. Winners were invited to travel to New York in April 2009, to participate in the YouTube Symphony Orchestra summit, and play at Carnegie Hall under the direction of Michael Tilson Thomas. All submissions are to be mashed up and premiered at Carnegie Hall on April 15th, 2009.

Another example may be the remix musician mentioned above. Is Kutiman really an amateur? His album is considered groundbreaking because its composed of the "most random and mundane individual recordings of a bunch of youtube nobodies" but together they sound great. Arguably, Kutiman is an established artist, having released his debut album a year ago, in February 2008, and has created a mainstream album from "true" amateur work.

Some "professional" content creators do not allow unauthorized sharing or remixing, but have identified the popularity and power of fan-created works, and allow limited mashups and remixes for marketing purposes. Larry Lessig and Henry Jenkins speak of "collaborationist" companies who see "fans as important collaborators in the production of content and as grassroots intermediaries helping to promote the franchise." Jenkins has studied the phenomena of transmedia, multiplatform storytelling, or the use of many media to engage consumers in a particular franchise. One example of transmedia is the Second Life version of CSI:NY episode, launched by CBS and discussed in the New York Times. Another famous one is Audi's 2005 ad campaign called The Art of the Heist, which involved an online mystery to be solved by Audi fans. Companies now launch sophisticated campaigns that harness the interactivity of Web 2.0. Internet transmedia seems to mirror if not exploit the consumer involvement that defines fandom. Lessig explores this type of "sharecropping" in chapter 8 of Remix. The examples abound...

  • In 2008, the WB launched WB.com, with online only shows. The site allows users to watch tv or "remix tv" with the "eblender"
  • Bravo has a video mashup feature on its website where users can mash video clips from the show and music
  • In 2006, the Washington Post gave viewers a chance to make their own interview with Dana Milbank using a video mash up on their website
  • Paramount Pictures, CBS, FX Networks, Atlantic Records and NCAA have all worked with Gorillaspot, a company that created and distributes a video editing platform, described here. You can mashup videogames using this platform at mashade.com
  • In 2009, Stephen Colbert's not-so-subtle invitation to remix his interview with Lawrence Lessig resulted in these mashups.

Readings

Assigned & Optional Sources for Class

  • The Past
    • REQUIRED: James Boyle, The Public Domain, Chapter 6: I've Got a Mashup --The historical ironies of our constraints on remix culture.
    • OPTIONAL: James Boyle, The Public Domain, Chapter 5: The Farmer's Tale: An Allegory -- learning from our misadventures in digital rights management.


  • The Present
    • REQUIRED: A Brave New World: The Music Biz at the Dawn of 2008
    • REQUIRED: Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide 2006, Chapter 4: Quentin Tarantino's Star Wars (password required)--An overview of the tensions between fan-creators and the movie industry. Includes examples of participatory and interactive mainstream media.
    • OPTIONAL: Sarah Trombley, Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 647 (2007)--discussion of Fanvidding as a challenge to corporate control of their media, in the context of Remix Culture and the Fair Use doctrine.
    • OPTIONAL: What fair use? Three strikes and you're out... of YouTube --A brief look at potential chilling effects in current copyright enforcement


  • The Future?
    • REQUIRED: Diane Zimmerman, Living Without Copyright in a Digital World, 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1375 (2007).--A summary of the various approaches that people are experimenting with and some thoughts on where we can go from here.
    • REQUIRED: Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget), N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 2007. --Models based on altruism might work for the already established...
    • REQUIRED: The Robotic Tale of Jonathan Coulton -- ...but might they also yield fruit for the up and coming?
    • OPTIONAL: Conversation between Rob Merges and Madhavi Sunder on cultural theories of IP on the UChicago Faculty Blog (Note: this material was posted too recently to make it into the required reading list for the actual class session, but students were strongly encouraged to have a look. We consider it a very good and concise debate over the virtues and limits of cultural production beyond the professional class.).
    • OPTIONAL: Rasmus Fleischer on The Future of Copyright --a chilling vision of things to come?

Further Research

The following sources weren't on the list of readings provided to students before class, but would be helpful for anyone interested in pursuing this topic further.

Pre Class Assignment (due two days before the class session)

We had two goals with this assignment. First, we hoped that by requiring the class to read and think about these issues before class, our actual class discussion would be deeper. Second, we wanted to use the raw material on Seesmic to learn about what people thought and to incorporate that material in our presentation.

Go to http://seesmic.com/videos/eM1YUCgAmh and, with your groups, upload a video answering the following question: When it comes to the arts, is there such a thing as too much amateur creation? In giving your response, please identify whatever costs and benefits you think are associated with the growth of amateur culture.

In addition to departure points for discussion, we will be using these clips as raw material for a "mashup" that we will be showing during class. In order to give us enough time to prepare this, please have your videos up by 9 am FRIDAY MORNING. We will send out a reminder on Thursday.

Class Participation

Session Recap

Our power point presentation, based largely on the discussion outlined above, took about an hour, including class discussion.

Stacey Lynn Schulman's power point presentation lasted for the remainder of the session.

Teacher's Guide

The following section deals with the strengths and weaknesses of a course on this topic done in this format.

Evaluation of the Class

The IIF seminar required students to pick a topic and teach a class on the topic. We picked the future of copyright and entertainment as a topic out of personal interest but also because the class showed much interest in the matter during one of our early meetings. Nonetheless, both of us were excited to research this relevant and dynamic topic.

We may have bitten off more than we chew. It may have been wiser to split the class into two, with one session concentrating on the music industry and one session concentrating on film and tv.

On the pedagogical front, we fell in the trap of many novice teachers: we had too much material to share and not enough time to discuss it. We had allotted one hour to our power point presentation and discussion and one hour to our guest's power point and discussion. In retrospect, we should have allotted more time do discussion and less time to frontal teaching.

Use of Technology

1. Choice of Seesmic.com

Seesmic had been used by previous groups in our seminar and we enjoyed using it as a tool to prepare for other classes. We especially liked that seesmic allowed discussion threads.

2. Were our goals met?

We had two goals with this assignment. First, we hoped that by requiring the class to read and think about these issues before class, our actual class discussion would be deeper. Second, we wanted to use the posted videos to learn about what people thought and to incorporate that material in our presentation.

Although several students commented that they did not understand the question presented on the wiki, all the posted videos had insightful comments about the value of amateur creation. This material was useful during our presentation because we could guide the conversation and include people based on their comments on seesmic.

3. Other technology

The only other technology we used was iMovie to make the mashups. We decided against interactive question tools during the class session because we had found them distracting in previous sessions and we wanted the class to be fully engaged.

Suggestions for Future Iterations

Strengths

New Additions

Further Questions

There are many more issues to discuss on this topic. We would have liked to discuss the larger picture, by presenting the question of audience:

Who exactly is the audience that we need to convince? Is it institutional gatekeepers like movie studios and record companies, or is their control waning? Is it simply a critical mass of artists who will use Creative Commons or some equivalent move away from traditional exclusive rights regimes? Is it a critical mass of consumers who will actually begin using these websites rather than iTunes? Legislators? Judges? Steve Jobs?

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Future_of_Copyright_and_Entertainment&oldid=2848"