Reading 2: Selections from “The Illustrated History of Copyright,” by Edward Samuels
In these chapters, Edward Samuels reviews the history of copyright in the U.S. How do recent developments in copyright law affect the way you handle audio, video and photos in your work as a journalist? Where do you think things are heading in the near future, toward greater protection for copyright owners or greater freedom for consumers?
March 10th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Well, I suppose they make us more cautious, so that we don’t infringe on copyright laws. Instead of just taking a song from iTunes (which would be so easy) and putting it in our broadcast, we have to get the rights first. That’s kind of limiting sometimes, since we can’t just take any song. If it’s too expensive, then we’re out of luck. The same goes from video and photos. In some respects, it limits the ease with which we can give the news. Sometimes we have to settle for second, or third, best. That’s kind of annoying.
I think that we’re probably headed for greater protection. Why would anyone continue to make music for a profit if everyone was stealing it? We’ll need greater protection if we want the industry to survive, and keep producing good work. Also, with the tracking abilities present on the Internet, it’s not too hard to see who is violating copyright laws.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I don’t think that the recent developments specifically affect the way I handle audio, video or photographs – it is more so the idea of copyright in general that guides my choices. I don’t fully appreciate all the nuances of the recent copyright law, so I stick with doing what I know to be safe and do not test the boundaries as I find it frustrating trying to figure out the status for a particular media.
The parallels of this article to the recent writer’s strike over revenue generated from shows available on the internet is a good reminder that the internet does not spell doom for television and music industries, rather that the system will adjust and provide new opportunities for people in the industry. It seems sort of like that flood recently released into the Grand Canyon that is necessary to refresh the landscape and allow for growth.
The idea of renting music that was discussed in one part of this article seems strange – people want to listen to music more than once and to have the opportunity to listen to it in the future without having to rent it again. The only reason I can see for renting a song would be to make a copy of it.
As for where I think things are heading in the near future, toward greater protection for copyright owners or greater freedom for consumers, I think it will always be a changing dynamic as the reading indicated - any technology that makes it easier for people to get what they want without paying for it will be matched by legislation to make sure they do
March 10th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I am definitely more cautious when it comes to using graphics and photos that were created by other people. I always give proper credit, or if it’s a corporate trademark or logo, I don’t use it at all.
Renting music doesn’t seem that different than borrowing CDs or books — or newspapers — from a library. I remember being told in college that we weren’t supposed to photocopy entire books from the library, but I still often had to copy large sections. It was for academic use, though, so it was probably all right.
I think the future will have both greater freedom and greater protection. I hope both sides will work on technological compromises to try to make everyone happy.
Some people will still break the law, but that shouldn’t give journalists an excuse to be unethical.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
As journalists, I don’t think copyright laws necessarily have had much of an impact. I guess it would be nice to take a song without paying for the rights and using it in a video, but it doesn’t make the video any less newsworthy. As to using actual videos and sound recordings that ARE the news, you can still link to them and it’s equally as effective. (And I suppose I’m thinking more about online news and not straight broadcast, but that seems to be the medium that is mostly dealing with the issues.)
When it comes to the future, I agree with Angela. I think people will always try to push the limits (although I think those people are the consumers, maybe bloggers, and not necessarily traditional journalists). But there will always be a very large lobby for protecting the artists’ rights, and I believe they will always be able to push through their legislation.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
First of all, great reading. Just fascinating.
As a journalist, I don’t think this really affects us much. Granted, I’ve yanked a few pictures for the blog project that I probably shouldn’t have, but I’m working on that. Found a lot of great public domain resources too.
Mostly, I’ve found in cases where I would want to use a video or an audio file or an image, people are excited to let me use it. A lot of groups want press and they (I think) feel that the more content they’re providing, the more their contribution will influence the final article.
That might sound a little cynical, but a group protesting cruel practices at a slaughterhouse wants more people to see their pictures of the practices. A rising stand-up comic being profiled wants more people to see a video clip of his act.
I guess to clarify, I mean that copyright issues do affect us, but you can use anything if you get permission. And a lot of people are willing to give that permission. And if you can’t get permission to use it and it’s relevant, describe it. No law against that.
As for the second question, I’ve also got to agree with Angela about that it’s going to be an issue for a long time. But what a fun issue.
In undergrad, I did a story about the DeCSS computer code that lets people rip DVDs. I know, boring right? But there were all these incredibly cool, incredibly clever ways people were spreading the code.
The government had banned the code as a file, so this one group started selling T-shirts printed with the HTML for the code. Can’t ban a T-shirt, right? This other guy wrote out this 40-page poem describing - in haiku - how to type the code. Can’t ban a poem.
So, it’s going to be an issue for a long time and, frankly, I’m glad of it. It’s a really cool topic that, in a cynical reporter way, will continue to make some great stories for us to write.
Here’s a link to the haiku:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/decss-haiku.txt
And here’s a snippet:
We will use these few
internal variables:
t1 through t6,
unsigned integers.
k, pointer to five unsigned
bytes. i, integer.
March 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I don’t think copyright protection will be able to keep pace with evolving file-transferring technologies, and that “sharing” music on the internet, which is really a euphemism for “stealing,” (ok, I’ve done it too) won’t be dying out anytime soon. The internet is a great new frontier, where impotent regulation laws mean we decide what is right and wrong. I stopped file-sharing when Napster was sued back in the 90s, but it wasn’t because I feared being sued myself. I feared downloading a virus from hackers, who unfortunately won’t be dying anytime soon either.
But even if I was immune to the web bugs, I don’t think it is in my, or anyone’s, interest to swindle starving artists of hard-earned business.
I now subscribe to a $12.99 monthly service from Rhapsody, which lets me play virtually any song from established record labels, whenever I want. For $15 a month, Rhapsody gives you the right to download any of these songs to a portable Sansa mP3 player. I have no problem paying a small fee for my “free” music, and feel better knowing that I am supporting musicians in at least a minimal way.
I think we all agree there should be some system to reward artists for their creative endeavors, and that the current state of technology threatens the continuation of such a system. Users of this technology will have to decide for themselves how they will wield it.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
The concept of renting music interested me. My first reaction was similar to Angela’s, why would anyone do this? People want to listen to music over and over. If anyone were to do this, it would likely be so they could steal a copy (as I know people who frequently copy DVDs they rent). But then I thought of Napster. The basic membership to Napster allows users to store music files – but only on the Napster Web site. To actually download them and call them your own you have to pay far more. Isn’t this like renting in a way? You don’t really own them. You just get to listen to them (rent them) when you have an internet connection and some spare time.
As for the future, I feel like we are headed toward greater protection for copy writers. When everyone was going crazy with the Internet, music became a free-for-all. Why buy the CD when you can download the songs for free? Downloading was easy, the songs were of a decent quality and no one was really tracking your illegal activities. Many kids probably didn’t even think what they were doing was illegal. But then the recording industry stepped in. Now if you go to download songs it is very hard to get a good version, one without techno beeps and blurbs to keep us from stealing music. Even though I was a fan of music downloading in the past, now I will go to iTunes and pay the $.99 to get a guaranteed flaw-free song. The recording industry association’s lawsuits, though they seem to be few and far between, still kind of scare me. I would rather fork over the cash then ending up having to fork over thousands to some recording artist who I didn’t care enough about to buy the disc in the first place.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
We are in a world where it is so easy to exchange information, pictures, recordings, etc. So it is only understandable that copywrite laws are going to get more and more protective. There are issues (such as sharing files over the internet) that weren’t an issue 20 years ago. While copywrite laws can be incredibly frustrating when trying to put video, websites and such together with all the current (and future) copywrite laws. But these are things that people never had to deal with 20 years ago because technology was so different. Therefore it is only understandable that copywrite laws need to be updated. And should be updated. People deserve to get credit for their work. I would hate to have someone use a video/picture/recording I’d done and not give me credit. It isn’t fair. Especially if they are getting money for what they are using my work in.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:27 am
I was especially interested in learning more about player pianos in this reading. My aunt has one, and I remember sitting at it trying to memorize how to play “On the Road Again” as a kid.
I didn’t realize that those rolls could represent actual performances. I thought a factory poked those holes in the sheet mechanically following the exact written music. I don’t know; maybe the rolls my aunt had were made that way.
But what an interesting new layer that gives the rolls - the person who wrote the music should have a right to it, but so should the person who did the performance.
I don’t think the idea of audio rental is so wacky. When you go to a concert, you can only see it live once. For this reason, I would be up for just renting player piano rolls, for example, since they represent a single performance. A song on a CD is not so different. I wouldn’t be too upset about not owning that performance for the rest of my life, especially considering that I could re-rent it when I wanted it.
I was actually just thinking about audio rental today in examing my listening habits on iTunes. I tend to buy a collection of songs and then listen to them day and night for months until I can’t stand them a minute longer. Then I comb through the options for another few weeks until I’ve gathered together a new set of songs. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I don’t need to own these songs forever. Sure, it’s nice to find an old mix you’ve made, but I’d be ok with just renting songs for a few months and then giving them up with the option of renting them again when I want. Besides, that could save me a lot of hard drive space.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Personally, I’ve avoided using multimedia if it’s not in the public domain. If I’m on deadline, I don’t necessarily have time to make the calls to get permission to use the file I want. It’s almost more of a hassle to use the copyrighted material. Now, if the multimedia is crucial to the story and illustrates a key point, then I would take the effort to get permission.
I agree with Sandi’s point that linking to copyrighted material can be just as effective. Linking to other materials gives the reader a stepping off point for readers to learn more. If a reader is really interested in the topic, they will click on to see the original multimedia document.
Thinking about the future, I predict that there would be greater protection and greater freedom. Copyright laws exist so people don’t “steal” material from artists. Without greater protection to protect artists from increasingly crafty consumers, will art and music continue to be produced at the rapid rate it is? The answer is probably.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I agree with Christina that there will probably be a movement in both directions to protect artists and to protect consumers. I think the rules are still being hashed out but limits and freedoms are still being determined and I can’t say that it will favor one group over another.
I think what copyright issues apply to me now are not terribly complicated. It’s pretty clear: I can’t use a picture that I don’t have permission to use. I can’t play an entire song that I don’t have permission to, and I think that’ll be easy. Like Paul said, there are some good sources for material that’s available for all to use, but it’s not perfect.
Besides, any major news organization we might work for will have access to so many of these materials we won’t likely have to worry since they already have protocol in place for how to handle these matters. The concern is for smaller publications and individual journalists who want the same access.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I really enjoyed this reading. I confess that I sometimes find copyrights very annoying - when I had to stop downloading music on Napster, for example, or when I’ve found the perfect YouTube video to include in my blog, but I can’t verify the original source. Then again, I need to start thinking of myself as a producer of bona fide intellectual property, and understanding why we have a right to lay claim to our own ideas. Once, a few weeks before the end of an internship, I pitched a bunch of story ideas, none of which were assigned to me. A few months later, a story was published, written by a staff writer, that was down-to-a-T what I suggested. I didn’t follow up and I have no idea if someone else simultaneously pitched something similar, but I still felt robbed. The arts world should be creating an atmosphere of trust whereby artists feel safe sharing their ideas and products, because art (writing, music, photography, etc.) doesn’t do us much good if it isn’t shared.
That said, I feel copyright laws are headed for stricter protection. Record labels continue to crack down on illegal file-sharing, and even everyday writers like me are tacking (c) on the bottom of unpublished work. Like Phil and Hanady said, there will also always be public domain items available. Maybe stricter laws will force more people to share their content, so that the pool of creative commons material will get larger, and we’ll end up with more best-of-the-best content (photos on par with the AP’s, for example) to work with.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
In general, the tightening-of-reins in the copyright world has just made me, like many people have said, more cautious. I’ve heard so many horror stories of 14-year-old mp3-sharers receiving exorbitant fines, major corporations suing high school newspapers, etc., that I find it frightening to even toe the line. How do you balance the potentially very beneficial sharing of information, the spreading of innovation, with the legality of doing so?
But I can certainly understand why companies are cracking down. How can anyone in the music industry profit from CD sales when you can listen to nearly any song for free on YouTube? As Andrea said, I think we’re headed toward stricter protection, but I also think we’ll be entering a period of innovative ways for corporations to profit from consumers getting things like TV shows, movies, photos and songs online instantly. Have you seen hulu.com? If you haven’t, you’re probably going to hate me for sharing that, but it’s amazing.