COPYRIGHT CONUNDRUM

June 2003
		Is downloading copyrighted music tantamount to stealing? Lawrence Lessig, an expert on Internet law from Stanford University's Law School, and Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America, answer your questions about this heated debate.

Online NewsHour Special Report: Copyrighting in the Digital Age Forum Introduction If I can go to my local library and check out and copy a CD for free, why can't I copy a digital CD from an online friend? Given that distributing a large number of xerox copies of a book without proper authorization is illegal, why would P2P be any different? Please explain how the DMCA will or will not impede further technological innovation and scientific research of new media devices? And, does this law violate my fair use rights as a consumer? Are the RIAA's "cease-and-desist" notices to alleged Internet pirates a violation of my personal property rights? How do musicians benefit from the RIAA's actions against alleged Internet 'pirates'? Would music companies consider developing an online service similar to that of Apple's iTunes or develop their own P2P networks? Does the U.S. constitution rely on patent and copyright laws as way to advance the arts and sciences, or to protect business interests? Is it illegal to download the MP3 version of a song that I have already purchased? Would outlawing anti-copyright devices in theory extend copyright terms for eternity?

An anonymous viewer asks: Forty-six professors of intellectual-property law argued that the DMCA's [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] anti-circumvention device provision creates a modern Stationer's Guild. It allows copyright holders to control technology, much like the Stationer's Guild controlled the printing press. Without anti-copyright devices, wouldn't that extend copyright terms for eternity? Lawrence Lessig from Stanford Law School responds: Yes, and in some cases, it already has. Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive, for example, recently testified before the Copyright Office, about the effect of the DMCA on the ability of archives -- like his -- to make archive copies of old software. He had a bunch of great titles from the 1980s -- the original Tetris, the original Visicalc, and an early version of 123 -- all of which were protected by copyright protection systems. Under the DMCA, those protections can't be circumvented, even for the purpose of archiving those works. And as absolutely no one -- including the copyright owners for that software -- has the technology to unlock those digital locks, the effective term of protection for that software is effectively perpetual. Again, the DMCA is extremism. It is time Congress did something to restore balance. Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds: The DMCA Anti-Circumvention provision is intended to encourage innovation, both in the artistic community and the technological community. Artists will be more likely to create and invest in creation of art if they believe that they will be able to protect the market for their works. And their work is more likely to be made available in exciting new ways if it can't be stolen in the process. Take a rental model, for example. Some music fans may want to rent 500 reggae songs for a weekend party, instead of buying all those CDs. That's a great new option for consumers, but it will only be made available if the copyright owners felt confident that the song files would "time-out" on Monday morning. Under the DMCA, the U.S. Copyright Office examines every three years whether or not this provision requires additional exemptions beyond those built into the statute. To date, nobody has suggested that copy control technologies have locked up a work that should be in the public domain.