Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

February 25

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

Assignments

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class today. Information on the assignment can be found here.

Readings/Watchings

The mechanics of copyright law

• Wikipedia, Copyright Clause

• U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

• 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Digital applications and new challenges

• Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright (watch first 6 minutes)

• James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane

Copyright solutions

• Creative Commons, A Shared Culture (video, watch all) and Spectrum of Rights

• Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet

• U.S. Department of Commerce: Internet Policy Task Force, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (Executive summary only)

• Maria Pallante, The Next Great Copyright Act (skim Section II (323-339) only)

• Maria Pallante is the Register of Copyrights for the United States.

Recommended Readings

• Lewis Hyde, Common As Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership (video, watch from 2:12 to 24:37)

• Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read (introduction and Sections I and II only)

• Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy

• Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Introduction only)

Class Discussion

REMINDER

Your comments must be submitted before 4:00PM ET on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the participation policy for more information.

Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)

---

This is related to an earlier class, but a great article on Wikipedia's bots has just been published on The Verge... This machine kills trolls: How Wikipedia’s robots and cyborgs snuff out vandalism --Seifip 17:53, 19 February 2014 (EST)

What an interesting article! It seems rather shocking to me that users would protest the implementation of bots to patrol vandalism on Wikipedia. One comment cited in the article is that "Editing bots are wrong for Wikipedia, and if they allow it they are letting go of their vision of community participation in favor of the visions (or delusions) of grand technological solutions". This seems like an argument made on principle rather than for practicality's sake. Surely we benefit from these anti-vandalism bots, as Wikipedia would be worthless if people were allowed to make whatever edits they pleased, due to the proliferation of internet trolls.

---

Regarding Copyright laws, it seems that there are many ambiguities and potential loopholes inherent in the system. How is it acceptable for musicians to freely perform "covers" of popular songs-- oftentimes to the extent that their entire act is merely covers, such as at weddings, corporate events, restaurants, etc.-- yet plays cannot be performed live without the consent of the author/copyright holder? It is not altogether uncommon in these situations for an artist to be paid to perform someone else's work, for the purpose of entertainment. What is the difference, then, between these situations? Based on Grimmelmann's article "Why Johnny can't stream", it appears that there are is an endless string of individuals and companies finding new ways to circumvent the laws, so that new laws must be implemented. Where does this stop? Is this due to rebellion against unfair copyright restrictions, companies merely trying to exploit artists and capitalize on their work, or individuals trying to be greedy or subversive?

By the way, has anyone heard about Aereo's progress, and/or where it currently stands in the legal system? I looked it up online and it seems to be taking on members who want to pre-register for the service, though the article was written in August of 2012, so you would think it would be out by now. Castille 13:08, 23 February 2014 (EST)

I was also curious about where the Aereo case(s) were currently... and happened upon this update published last week (also in arstechnica) "Aereo loses copyright fight, gets banned in 6 states" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/aereo-loses-copyright-fight-to-tv-networks-in-utah/

and as Comcast/NBC "cuts a deal with Netflix"...as well as potentially merging with Time-Warner... just how "lovely" is that?!  http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/02/24/does-netflixcomcast-deal-remove-obstacle-to-twc-merger/    Psl 11:35, 24 February 2014 (EST)

---