"Copy Protection" - Interview with Patrick Ross and Alex Curtis
Thursday, November 22, 2007PAUL KANGAS, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT ANCHOR: To talk more about some of the issues about copyright law in the digital age, joining us from Washington we have...Patrick Ross, executive director of the Copyright Alliance. That's a coalition of individuals, industry groups, and corporations that promotes the benefits of copyrights and favors stronger copyright protections. And Alex Curtis, director of policy and new media for Public Knowledge, a Washington organization dedicated to consumer rights in digital media.
KANGAS: Patrick, let's start with you. As we heard, some content companies affiliated with your group have tried to stop unauthorized music and video sharing by suing thousands of individuals, but with file sharing so widespread, isn't this like trying to stop a flood by putting a finger in the dike?
PATRICK ROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE: Well, you have to ask should artists just simply forfeit their ability to protect their rights? Yes, it is an uphill battle, but I think the last thing we want to do is to take away the ability for them to even try. I think the better question is why are so many people trying to take these works without even kind of compensation for the artists.
KANGAS: Interesting. Alex, what does your group think of these lawsuits? Aren't the record companies just protecting their rights?
ALEX CURTIS, DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND NEW MEDIA, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE: They are, but I think something more needs to be considered -- consumer voice. And, even thought artists deserve to get paid and copyright owners deserve the full extent of the law to be able to go after infringers, it is not necessarily the best PR move the industries like the RIAA and the MPA to the extent that they sue their fans. And, there definitely needs to be some sort of middle ground so that consumers' needs are met as well as getting the artists paid.
KANGAS: Now Patrick, in another attempt to stop file sharing, some record companies require copy protection software when their music sold online, usually through the Apple iTunes store. And, yet, none other that Apple CEO Steven Jobs has suggested that online music copy protection be dropped. What do you think of that idea?
ROSS: This is another example where the market can play itself out. We are very early in this stage. If artists want to use technology to help protect their rights, that's great. When you buy music you are only buying a certain set of rights. Alex's group would want you to pay one price and get everything, but that means my in-laws who only might want to have one simple use with music have to subsidize his friends who are doing multiple uses.
KANGAS: Alex, I take it you would like to see anti-piracy software dropped from online music sales, but wouldn't that result in an end to the recording industry as we know it?
CURTIS: I don't think so. I think consumers overwhelmingly have gone after the use of unencumbered, non-copyright protected digital music. If you look at Radiohead's recent push for selling their music, they've gone un-DRM. iTunes has gone un-DRM. Amazon has gone un-DRM. The studios are understanding it that the consumers want un-DRM, meaning un-copy protected, songs so they can use it on more devices and use it more flexibly. Traditionally, the DRMs don't work and unfortunately the industry is learning that hard lesson now.
KANGAS: Let's move on to a related issue involving video. YouTube, which is owned by Google, is testing new software. That software should detect when copyrighted video is posted, enabling YouTube to remove it within minutes. Patrick, would that be good for everyone?
ROSS: Well, I think anybody that profits off of somebody else's creative works without even asking to have those creative works on their site should be taking proactive steps to protect that. But, right now, it is really mostly vaporware that we are getting from Google. We have no idea what this is going to entail, and it is probably going to require a lot more work on the part of the creators in order to make this work. But, it is a positive step.
KANGAS: Alex, is there a downside to automated copyright filters?
CURTIS: Definitely, and this even goes back to your last question. There is a think in copyright law that is a limitation of copyright law and it is called fair use. And, it's essentially an intent-based standard to look at why you are using the work, and if you are using it for the proper reasons under fair use, then it is not an infringement. Many of the uploads to YouTube, like the prince dancing baby -- if you've ever seen that on YouTube -- clearly not a copyright violation. It is a fair use. A lot of uploads you YouTube and sites like that are fair use. Unfortunately, the software that Google has put out and some of the others have tried to put out, don't compensate for fair use. Their intent... A computer can't understand an intent of a user uploading a file.
KANGAS: Patrick...in agreement or disagreement?
ROSS: Basically, fair use is something art creators use everyday. It is very important, but it should not be conflated with the idea of free use where you can do anything you want with the work without getting consent from the creator.
KANGAS: Gentlemen, I want to thank you for voicing your very different views on this important subject. My guests Patrick Ross of the Copyright Alliance and Alex Curtis of Public Knowledge. Thank you gentlemen.
