What’s the most important decision in making a television program? (Even though I’ve been a TV producer for 30 years, I don’t think anyone has ever asked me that question.) You might be surprised at my answer: coming up with a good title.
I bring that up because developing the title of NBR’s Thanksgiving special was no easy task. My first choice was “Protecting Intellectual Property.” That was an accurate description, but hardly a barn-burner-- and when I suggested it to NBR’s top editors, it predictably went down like a lead balloon. After going back to the drawing board and considering scores of alternatives, we settled on “Copy Protection.” I have to agree that it’s an improvement. But while short and catchy, I still wonder whether it conveys the full scope and gravity of the subject we’re examining.
Here’s why: American companies involved in products based on Intellectual Property (everything from books to music to drugs) generate more than $5 trillion each year. Their business models depend in large part on having exclusive control over the products they develop. Copyright, patent and trademark laws give that control to them—enabling the companies to make money from everyone who buys an authorized copy or replicates the item (under license).
That system worked fine for the past two centuries. But now it’s being threatened by rapid changes in technology.
Here are some examples. For holders of trademarks, brand names are now facing online attacks from “cyber-squatters” and “typo-squatters,” who seek to electronically divert consumers from the brand’s official website.
For inventors, the quick pace of tech change means delays in bringing new breakthroughs to market. That’s because their patent applications must wait in line as the U.S. Patent Office struggles to process a huge backlog of patent applications.
And for publishers and distributors of print, music and video products, the implications are even worse. Thanks to digital media, it’s never been easier to get around copyright restrictions. Once someone has downloaded a song from a CD, the resulting file can be shared with hundreds of friends via the Internet (without any additional payments going to the artist or the record company). Those and other forms of unauthorized copying are costing the industry a reported $60 billion.
There is also another side to the copyright story. Authors’ and artists’ rights have to be balanced against the public’s right to free speech. Furthermore, consumer advocates note that anti-piracy measures and copy protection devices have largely failed to stop file-sharing. And they say prosecuting thousands of individuals for this practice (as the record companies are doing) isn’t likely to make a dent, either. As one of our guests put it, “we’re trying to regulate digital media with rules designed for a pen-and-ink world.”
So what’s the solution? Some artists -- like the British rock group Radiohead -- are no longer trying to control the use of their music. Instead, they’re making it available online without restriction, and those who copy it can simply pay whatever they want. (Doesn’t that sound like a method that PBS invented many years ago?) But given the public’s desire to get something for nothing, I have my doubts that going to the honor system is the answer.
Clearly, as the U.S. economy continues to move from manufacturing and into “knowledge-based” industries, these issues will become even bigger. Ultimately, we may have to consider going to a whole new system of compensating authors, artists and inventors. But for now, the question of how to provide “copy protection” (as well as patent and trademark protection) still stands. And that’s why I urge you to tune in to this NBR special on Thanksgiving Day….regardless of its title!
Comments
Property -- including books, films, music, software, and more -- contributes $5 trillion to the U.S. economy each year. And, theft of that property costs more than $60 billion a year. That is 1.2%. Retail stores experience more than 2% a year, but they don’t have FBI protection, customs agents, and a court system to sue 26,000 people. Has anyone ever figured up how much consumers are over charged because companies have a 120 year monopoly instead of 14 years?
PATRICK ROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE said ” I think the better question is why are so many people trying to take these works without even kind of compensation for the artists.” People see large content organizations benefiting from lobbing congress for a government sanctioned monopoly excessively expanded at the expense of the public’s use of the material which is contrary to the purpose of copyrights. Companies do not need a monopoly for 120 years to make a profit. People see their rights of fair use trampled, and recording machines crippled and cost added. Shouldn’t government be more concerned about the good of society than the profits of large media companies?
It is a shame that some readers cannot read past the first paragraph before calling people traitors and the zealotry of technologists. . Passage of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution was due mainly to Noah Webster who worked unceasingly on its behalf. He worked for copyright laws, wrote textbooks, Americanized the English language, and edited magazines. Noah Webster certainly had a vested interest in the passage of copyright laws. It is ironic that he believed that it was only a man who had no economic interests and sought no economic advantage who could serve well.
Noah Webster (1758-1843), along with his friend and contemporary Ben Franklin (1706-1790), felt that it would take seven years to print and sell enough books to reach a profit. Today, one movie can reach a profit in one weekend. To extend a copyright monopoly from 14 years to the authors’ lifetime plus 70 years is very unnecessary and costly to society. When laws become as outrageous as copyright law, people lose respect for the law and their representatives that made the laws. Copyright legislation has become little more than corporate welfare or Government sanctioned robbery. How many consumers think it’s fair to be forced to buy from an unregulated monopoly? Copyright law is not a basic Right of Democracy; it is a privilege granted by society.
You cannot dismiss Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which mandates Congress to set the period of copyright. Anyone who would oppose this basic Right of Democracy as "greed" and "robbery," in another time would have been known as traitors to the American Constitution. Your segment on copyright and the blog entries that followed at your website reveal the zealotry of technologists who have no regard for the Constitutional laws of civilized society. BTW, the inclusion of Radiohead only served the hype before they signed with major label distribution after the marginal success of their stunt, which will probably not be repeated.
Copyright legislation has become little more than corporate welfare or Government sanctioned robbery. People have little power to change this attack on society except by the vote and jury nullification. Public education about this problem is hindered by economic benefits to the media and lack of concern by public watchdogs and politicians.
Background - In Article 1, Section 8, the Constitution instructed Congress what to do regarding copyright — secure "for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" — "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". The first Copyright Act to protect books, maps, and other original materials were granted only to citizens of the United States, on May 31, 1790. The Copyright Act gave protection for a period of 14 years, with the right of renewal for another 14 years. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, copyrights would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998, also known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. A republican congress and a democratic president, all of, who had a vested interest in bilking the consumer, passed this act. In contrast, an U.S. patent last 20 years from the date the patent application is filed, and must be new, useful, and non-obvious. The average cost including legal fees can reach $25,000 per patent and the process can take up to 5 years. There are no such restrictions on copyrights.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which implements two 1996 WIPO treaties. It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself. It also heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. This law only benefits large content organizations while limiting innovations and consumers choices.
Our founding fathers laid out a bargain for creators of intellectual property: We want you to develop original art and science, so we'll give you an incentive — a temporary monopoly on the use of your work. The exclusive rights granted by copyright and patent law constitutes a government-granted monopoly. This monopoly is granted in order to incentivize the production of such works and discoveries, purportedly for the public's benefit. The perpetuation and expansion of such exclusive rights is not cost-effective; it benefits a few (esp. large organizations in the content industry) at the expense of the public, and the public domain. This practice of term extensions are a financial benefit to heirs of the author and licensing companies at the expense of the public’s use of the material which is contrary to the purpose of copyrights.
Creativity flourished well before copyright existed. The European Renaissance saw a burgeoning of intellectual talent, the like of which has not been seen since. It occurred before the existence of copyrights, and was spurred by artists copying each other's techniques and works without legal restriction. The argument that copyright law protects and encourages development is seen by many as hype intended to provide moral justification for laws which in fact are there to protect the incomes and wealth of copyright holders, many of whom are not the original developers anyway. The ease and convenience of being able to obtain and preserve many intellectual works across the Internet, it is argued, will lead to greater development if copyright law is abolished.
Copyright is inherently contrary to the ideals of free speech and expression, which are valued highly by free societies. Some companies abuse copyright privileges by suing or threatening to sue those who clearly are within their rights under fair use, but who cannot afford to defend themselves in court. It is clear that many copyright holders are abusing the copyright privileges bestowed by society. These abuses have been ignored or encouraged by our representatives and consumers have suffered financially and morally.
Copyrights like patents can be very valuable to holders and very costly to society. Copyrights should be registered and fees attached like patents and corporations. Their term should be no more than 4 years and renewable for 3 more. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) should be repealed. If we want a free market, government must get out of the way.
Tom: As the editor of the report, I must say there was no deliberate attempt to misinform the audience in reporting about the court case. To the best of my knowledge, everything that Erika Miller said was factual-- it was the first jury verdict among thousands of cases filed by the record industry, and the jury did order the defendant to pay $222,000. We did not go into the circumstances or merits of this particular case-- and the only conclusion Erika made was that "sums like that are sure to further heat up the debate over copy protection."
If and when the verdict is overturned, I have no doubt that NBR will report that as well. For the record, we have no agenda on this matter-- except to provide our audience with a better understanding of this subject and related recent developments.
Watching your report, I was struck by your deliberate attempt to influence your audience by misinformation. Specifically, as you well know, the recent court case in Minnesota was decided by a jury instruction that was patently wrong. The case is on appeal, and only the plaintiffs believe they won. Why would you jeopardize your show's reputation by propagating such malarkey as legitimate? One has to wonder if you perform such abominations in other sectors of business industry as well.