Is the DMCA Working?

[Michael Knutson]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://mashable.com/2010/08/24/riaa-the-dmca-isnt-working/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Mashable+(Mashable)&utm_content=Google+Reader' target='_blank'>http://mashable.com/2010/08/24/riaa...t=Google+Reader</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) isn't happy with the U.S. copyright law. Speaking at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum, RIAA complained that the DMCA "isn't working for content people at all.""</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1282706350.usr17748.jpg" style="border: 0;" /></p><p>No, the RIAA says. Unable to look for violations in file sharing on sites such as RapidShare, unable to police searches on any of the common search engines, or even unable to locate photos on Facebook, the RIAA is again back to complaining about the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), providing a safe harbor for entities that do not have complete control over content that they host. &nbsp;But, they already have the right to request that infringing material be removed whenever identified, so I'm not sure what more can be done, legally or otherwise. Of course, YouTube totally disagrees with the RIAA, and says that the DMCA *is* working. &nbsp;So, readers, what do you think? Is the DMCA working? Are you happy with how copyrighted material is protected? How far will the RIAA take this?</p>

[mckinleytabor]

These laws have allowed large multi-national media companies to strip rights away from creative artists and form monopolistic cartels such as the RIAA and MPAA. These monopolistic cartels are attempting to use US and other countries laws to create a business model where they claim ownership over all culture and then make money licensing our own culture back to us.

Yes, I too am unhappy with US copyright law, however, I strongly disagree with the RIAA interpretation on what is wrong with the laws. A century ago, copyright law was arcane and difficult to understand, but it affected very few people. Today, copyright law is arcane and difficult to understand, but it now effects almost everyone.

We need a copyright system in this country that:

1. Protects the rights of artists and limits the ability for those rights to be taken from them by contract. Original creators of copyrighted works should have greater protection and fewer restrictions than assignees.

2. Codifies the principles of "fair use" of copyrighted material for Noncommercial, personal, educational, and informational uses.

3. Prohibits the "automatic" assignment of copyright based on creation alone.

4. All copyrighted works should pass into the public domain after a reasonable period of time, and that time should not be extendable durning the lifetime of the work.

5. All copyrighted works should be registered and renewed annually for the duration time before they enter the public domain. Any works not registered or not renewed automatically enter the public domain. This will prevent the problem of "orphaned works".

6. The "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA need to be expanded to not only protect non-editorial publishers of content such as Youtube, but should penalize copyright holders for abusing the "take down" system.

7. The anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA should be repealed. There should be a clear understudying that the purchase of media entitles the purchaser to use that media in any way that is consistent with the principles of "fair use". This includes (but is not limited to), personal backups, transcoding of media for other storage mediums, making copies of that media for all devices that the purchaser may own and otherwise transferring the media (all all rights there to) to a third party once the purchaser is finished using it.

8. Copyright law should acknowledge that the nature of "digital" works often involves the creation of copies not strictly governed by copyright law. The law should acknowledge the difference between the creation of a "copy" which is indented as a reproduction of the work for distribution, and the creation of a "copy" which is made in the normal corse of ownership of a work by the purchaser.

9. Copyright law should never be used as a system to promote or sustain any single method of distribution of works.

10. There should be a narrow definition of what constitutes a "work". Items not falling into that definition should not be protected by copyright law. (i.e. a painting of a building should be a copyrighted work, but the building itself can't be protected by copyright law.)

[Yanis]

Yes, I too am unhappy with US copyright law, however, I strongly disagree with the RIAA interpretation on what is wrong with the laws. ...

Very well argued and I agree with all but 3. and 5. This is quite problematic and although I concede that there are good reasons for this there are quite strong counter arguments.

Personally I think that the RIAA et al are cutting off the head of the goose that lays the golden eggs. I am asotounded at how many large copyright holders want their material "taken down" from sites such as You Tube.

Two points. First it has been shown that there is a high probability that file sharing actually increases sales of product. Most music for instance is bought by file sharers and that file sharing is in large proportion used to investigate new music for the purpose of buying music based on what people find online. Not only is going after file sharers loke putting a finger in the leaky dyke, it can actually be counter-productive. By the same token You Tube actually is a good means by which publishers can be made known. If these people took full advantage of on-line oppertunities then they would increase revenue. But instead they are greating a lot of bad publicity for their companies.

Second point is that the DMCA serves only to protext large corporations not artists. The amendments to the copyright act in fact run counter to the purpose of the modern copyright act which was to encounrage crativity. It has been demonstrated in a number of high profile cases (take the Men At Work case for instance) that the law stifles creativity in a way that is quite severe.

I fear though that the big money will continue to write legslation and the real loosers, the artists will be left to languish.

[mckinleytabor]

I completely agree with you on the issue of writing legislation.

It is difficult to address copyright law reform without also touching on campaign finance reform. Big Media expends vast amounts of money influencing elections so as to have the ear of lawmakers.

I have often felt that many of the problems faced in our society could be addressed if we were able to remove the influence of corporate spending on our electoral process.