Who Gets to Keep Their Rights?

Last post we looked at some misconceptions held by people about posting content to the internet.  Today, we are going to look at how these misconceptions might influence perceptions relating to online content in general.

The students interviewed for the Vanderbilt article discussed last time held a common belief that once you post your content to the internet, you have given up your rights to the material.  This may explain some common copyright infringement behaviors on the internet.

People commonly run image searches in order to find pictures or graphics.  They then use their findings in a myriad of ways, some that could be infringing and some that would qualify as fair use.  A general assumption that content posted to the internet no longer has any rights attached to it could explain people's willingness to freely use whatever they find.  There are search engines, such as http://search.creativecommons.org that will help users find content pre-licensed exactly for their need.  There are also a large variety of public domain image resources available on the internet.  However, the existence of these resources is not as widely known as something like Google image search.  And, if people think that any image on the internet already comes "rights-free," then why does it matter which search is used to find the image?

One area where the argument that ignorance about rights and posting content online cannot be made is the area of digital music and film downloads.  The respective content industries have, by this point, made it very clear that just because their content is on the internet does not mean the rights-owners have given up their rights.  But, that perception certainly did exist when file sharing and p2p first appeared on the scene.  Many college students (and others) in the late 1990's said of file sharing, "well, if it was illegal, we wouldn't be able to do it."  Thus explaining that since they could do it, it couldn't be illegal.  

While the perception that posting to the internet equals rights-loss has been changed in regards to mainstream, professional, music and video content, it appears the shift has not expanded to cover other professional content, such as images, or amateur content, such as the types of content Facebook users post to their accounts.  The content industries have done a good job of educating users about content-industries' rights.  It's time to educate users about their own rights in their own content.

Confusion in the Minds of On-line Content Post-ers

The Vanderbilt Hustler printed a short article this week entitle "Facebook: Price of a Profile."  (Online version: "Vanderbilt Students Remain Unconcerned with Facebook Terms Change")  Part of the article discusses why some people in the Vanderbilt community did not care about Facebook's new terms of service, which recently caused such a massive uproar. 

The article also shows us misconceptions held by people who use sites like Facebook or post content on-line in other fashions.  Some of these misconceptions are rather disturbing.  These are smart and probably fairly tech savvy people at a good school, yet they seem to have little understanding of their own rights in their content.  The following are quotes included in the article:

• "...as soon as you join you lose rights because it is posted on the internet." - a sophomore student
• "If you put it on a Web site... It's in the public domain." - a sophomore student
• "As I understand it, the old license gave copyright to the user, while the new one gave ownership to the Facebook corp."  - an associate professor

The first two misconceptions are about posting content online in general and are related to each other in that each student believes that by posting their content online, they have given up all rights to it.  This is not true.  Simply posting content you created on the internet does not mean you give up your rights to it. 

In most cases, the site to which you post your content will require you to agree to license your content to them for certain uses.   The sites will at least require you to license your content to them for the purpose for which you are using the site.  For example, Blogger requires that you agree to license to Google (which runs Blogger) a "worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying and distributing Google services," i.e. you are allowing Blogger to post your writings.  Other sites, such as Facebook, use a much broader license that includes rights to use your content commercially, change your content or sublicense your content out to third parties. 

These licenses define how the company who manages the site you are using may use your content, they do not mean you have given up all your rights, and it certainly doesn't mean your content is in the public domain.  The public domain consists of works that are no longer covered by copyright protection.  Either the term of copyright has expired, or the creator has chosen to put their work directly into the public domain for anyone to use freely with no requirements (example).  While posting your work to the internet does put out there publicly, it does not put it into the public domain.

Lastly, neither the old or new(revoked) Facebook terms of service gave ownership of the content to Facebook.  The difference between the old, reenacted, Facebook terms and the new terms was that the new terms did not allow users to revoke the broad license included in the terms of service by removing their content.

These misconceptions may tell us a bit about how users perceive on-line content in general, aside from their own postings.  We'll explore that more next time.

Part III: Developing Decent Digital Distribution Solutions

Last month, we did a follow-up to a November post discussing a class at Vanderbilt University in which class participants were working in groups to develop solutions for dealing with illegal digital downloads.  In the follow-up, we looked at Group One's solution and most of Group Two's solution.  (Nigerian internet prevented any further viewing of the class presentations.)  We now bring you the finale, Group Three's solution.

This ipper will admit that she tends to be a little cynical when it comes to dealing with music downloads and trying to "fix" the current situation.  That being said, if this summary seems too critical, our readers may wish to check out Group Three's solution for themselves.  (You can watch the entire class' presentations here.)

Group 3

Group Three presented a program that included many things already tried or currently being tried.  Their program seemed like something that would garner a lot of support from the RIAA, very little support from the Lessig-wing, and some criticism from the EFF.

Before getting into the detail of their solution, it must first be noted that the group did say they want to encourage and free up music for fair use.  They are not trying to fight small infringements that should be protected by fair use, but rather address the large-scale infringement that hurts the music industry.  The group also pointed out, in passing, that with the increased ease of reaching consumers presented by digital distribution, musicians may not need record labels in the future.  (Isn't that exactly what the record labels are afraid of?) 

The group then went on to explain that their way of address this large scale infringement is top-down legislation with tighter restrictions on music.  As they explained it, "it's the government's responsibility to protect its creative population."  Their suggestions: crippling peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, stronger DRM protection,  and increased copyright education in schools.

Restructuring Peer-to-Peer Networks

P2P networks would be reverted back to a former version of themselves, available only through certain organizations such as universities or employers.  All users would be required to register with the network and the network would be responsible for how the users used the networks.  Networks would be notified if users conducted illegal file sharing on the network.  The networks would then be required to block the users, sort of like the developing program between the RIAA and ISP providers that would slow down or shut off the internet of those using it to infringe copyright.  As the group put it, consumers would be "pressured into using P2P networks only for legal activity."

One stakeholder in attendance at the class' presentation suggested the book, The Spider and the Starfish by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom.  He explained to the group that this book does a great job of outlining why P2P can not be controlled in the way suggested by the group.  The group suggested that the reason P2P cannot be controlled is because the laws do not support such control.  To fix the problem, the group said, "regulate it more," give the government more "freedom" (the group's word) to track P2P and go after people who are using P2P for illegal purposes.  Privacy issues anyone?  How long before the EFF is all over this proposed legislation?

Adjusting DRM

The group did not just advocate strengthening DRM; they also advocated reducing it.  Sound like a paradox?  What they suggested was a tiered structure in which consumers can choose a price level for their downloads.  The higher the price, the less DRM protections, the lower the price, the more DRM protections.  It's sort of a different take on pay-per-use.  The group explained that they want the consumers to be able to use the media in the way it was meant to be used, listened to, watched, etc, but not change it or manipulate it.  More of what Lessig would call Read/Only art and less Read/Write.  (Some sure-fire opponents to this manner of using art here and here.)

The group explained that the DRM would not stop consumers from doing anything that would constitute fair use, and used putting an i-tunes song on a cd for a friend as an example.  (We'll skip the issue some groups might have with whether or not that's fair use.)  How will the computer/software/DRM know that the user is making a cd for a friend and not a cd to sell?  How will it know that the way in which that consumer is using the track would constitute a parody or a de minimums use?  In short, how can the DRM be programmed to decide if the consumer is using the file in a way that would constitute fair use?

Increased Education

The last section of the group's program was increased copyright education in schools and in the community.

In Schools

This suggestion was very similar to one made by Group One in their presentation.  Start teaching children at a young age, in elementary school, about the evils of illegal downloading and the piracy aspects of copyright law.  As the children get older, bring in more details of the law and increase the students' understanding of copyright.  Group Three got a little more specific and suggested including actual copyright cases in this instruction so that students can see what uses are and are not allowed.

The Community - Rock the Schools

The community part of the education would come in a series of concerts the group titled "Rock the Schools."  They described this concert series as similar to Live Aid, raising both awareness of the evils of copyright infringement and money for copyright education in schools.  The concert would include popular musicians, industry stakeholders like the RIAA, politicians and other important public figures.  (Creatively demonstrated in the group's power point presentation by some neat photo remixes.)  The concert series would raise money through ticket sales, donations, merchandise, at home pledges and sale of the concert on itunes.   How much could actually be raised in donations is questionable. 

Wrap-up

Overall, there's some doubt as to the effectiveness of this program.  There's already a lot of backlash towards restrictive DRMs, increased regulation brings in a lot of other legal issues.  Education is being attempted and may show results in the future as norms towards downloading change.  As for Rock the Schools, it's very likely that more people consider funding AIDS research or medication for poverty-stricken children as a more worthy cause than protecting millionaires from copyright infringement.  (But as it says above: cynical author here.)

Follow-Up to: Developing Decent Digital Distribution Solutions

In our previous post, Developing Decent Digital Distribution Solutions, Ip's What's Up reported about a Vanderbilt University class called "Stealing in Music City" where the students had to develop a new digital distribution system for the music industry.  The three student groups presented their solutions last week Tuesday, December 2nd.  The video of their presentations is now available on YouTube and VUCast.

The video itself is almost an hour long, and Ip's What's Up doubts many of its readers have time to watch the whole thing.  We wanted to summarize the groups' projects for you.  Unfortunately, the Nigerian internet didn't like that plan.  So, we offer you a summary of the first group and most of the second group.  (Our apologies to Group 3.  We are sure you put a lot of effort into your project as well and will report on it as soon as we're able.)

Groups one and two each consisted of three, visibly nervous, first-year students.  It is apparent from their presentations that they learned a lot about copyright and the music industry during their semester and that they put a lot of work into developing their solutions.  We hope their professors are proud of them and will continue the seminar in the future.

Group 1

The first group pulled ideas to improve the music industry from a variety of sources.  They talked about revising the copyright law to make it easier for artists, consumers and labels to understand, particularly the areas relating to ownership, fair use and the public domain.  That's probably good for everyone, except the attorneys.

On the production end, the group adopted the licensing model mentioned by David Byrne in a Wired.com article.  Through the group's version of this model, artists could only license their recordings to a label for a limited time, rather than assigning the entire copyright to the label.  (The label would not be allowed to own any masters.)  The group adopted this plan because they believe labels play an important role in promoting artists but also think artists should have more say in their careers.

On the distribution side, the group incorporated two ideas supported by Professor Michael Bressman.  (Professor Bressman teaches the IP Clinic at Vanderbilt law and visited the undergraduate class as a guest speaker.)  The group suggested an increase in the number of legal online music distribution sites and that these sites should use monthly fees rather than per song payment arrangements.  The group seemed unaware that there are more music download sites than iTunes, but perhaps that was just their example.  [Some music sites: iTunes (the standard), eMusic (which is monthly subscribtions), amazon.com (drm free), napster (the newer, legal version), payplay.fm, puretracks, there are many more.  Note: Some of these will not work outside the US.]

The group also looked at changing social norms, turning illegal downloading into something un-cool instead of something normal.  The ideas here were a bit reminiscent of anti-drug and anti-gang programs (Downloading Abuse Resistance Education?), and made this Ipper feel rather old.  Their suggestion: include internet safety and copyright in the existing elementary school computer classes.  These classes already teach students how to type and use the internet; they should teach how to do it safely and legally.

In addition to incorporating music downloading etiquette into computer classes, the government should also use things like pamphlets and public service announcements to educate people about piracy.  They suggested these tools be a bit less extreme and a bit more honest than the RIAA's versions.

Overall, it seemed the group attempted to address several different aspects of the music downloading issue: the relationships between people in the industry, the availability of legal downloadable music for consumers, and the social norms that still seem to lean towards acceptability for illegal downloading.

Group 2

Group 2 took a different approach and developed a unique system for digital distribution.  They described it as using the technology of file sharing but ensuring artists and labels get paid.  Their system consists of a government run network that sounds sort of like a Facebook for record labels and publishing companies.

Record labels, publishing companies and independent artists with more than twelve songs can sign-up to be part of the network.  They will get their own page that they can design however they'd like.  They can use the page to promote different artists, activities and events, and to offer downloads of their catalogues.  (The reason for the minimum of twelve songs has to do with balancing the costs and benefits of the system for independent artists.)

The consumers choose from one of various subscription levels.  Each subscription allows them to share a certain number of files per month, with the platinum level giving them unlimited access.  The prices for these subscriptions are intended to be fairly low in order to shift the economic supply curve: lower cost = more downloads.  It's a little confusing if the "sharing" involves offering tracks already in consumers libraries for upload/download by another, or if it really just means downloading from one of the label/publisher pages.  (This may be clarified later in the group's presentation, if anybody is able to watch the whole thing and can add some clarity to this point, please leave a comment.)

The government is in charge of setting up this network and managing it, as well as acting as a sort of collecting society for all transactions on the network.  The group chose the government to run the network in order to eliminate the cost created by a middle-man like iTunes and because they felt the government would bring a certain neutrality, less focused on profit and more focused on boosting the economy and supporting the industry.

Although similar in some ways to existing on-line stores, their system seems to present some unique ideas.  If it does indeed involve file sharing with a collecting society-type entity tracking, it offers some definite benefits over existing on-line music options, like locating those hard to find remixes.  There would be a lot of details to work out before such a system would be viable (such as ensuring that tracks are properly identified), but it's certainly an interesting idea to ponder.

 

 

{related to digital distribution...]

Developing Decent Digital Distribution Solutions

A couple of press releases recently caught the Ippers' attention.  Two groups are each working to ensure that fans get their digital music and artists get their money, but they're working from different angles.

Getting the Infringers to Fight Infringement

Freshman at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, politely called "first-year students," are developing a new distribution system for the music industry.  The project is part of a seminar called "Stealing in Music City."  In addition to their own perspective as the ones trying to get the music, the students will have the input of various industry stakeholders and experts, including Alice Randall and this Ipper's own copyright professor, Steven Hetcher.  Hopefully the students have some very interesting and viable ideas.  The class will present its three solutions in class next week Tuesday.  Ip's What's Up will let you know when we hear about any of them.  (Full press release.)

Europe Re-Evaluates Collective Management

This week, WIPO is also looking at the affect of the digital age on music distribution.  The Conference to Examine Future Development of Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights in Europe meets this week Monday and Tuesday in Brussels.  The 400+ participants are listed to include: "collective management organizations, lawyers, academia, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, developers of digital technology and services and creative industries."  Where are the users?  Looks like the student group at Vanderbilt might be smaller but more comprehensive in its stakeholder input. (Full press release.  Conference Info.)

It's great that collecting rights organizations in Europe are engaging in discourse about the changes in the industry and the role they can play in facilitating positive developments.  Some other countries could use a few good collecting organization conferences, especially in the developing world.  (Africa, the Middle East, India.)