As with all issues, there are multiple viewpoints each competing
to draw a crowd of supporters to help advance their cause. The issues
surrounding copyright are no exception. This week as I read Robert Levine's
(2011) Free Ride: How Digital Parasites
are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight
Back I realized one of the victims of the copyright laws is educators. As we try to teach our students to be good
digital citizens, it becomes difficult to do when we find the copyright laws
difficult to navigate. With rules and regulations so complex and with a large
number of internet users engaging in what is considered copyright infringement,
it becomes difficult to teach students how to appropriately engage in using the
internet. Often times, as in the use of YouTube, educators are not aware that
their usage provides revenue to someone and so their use of the service
constitutes commercial use. Navigating the copyright sea is fraught with
dangerous shoals that can make it difficult to instruct our students on being
good digital citizens.
At the same time, as we try to educate students about the
legality of downloading media, we are competing with companies and internet
providers who are making money off of those who are engaging in this type of
behavior. According to Levine (Chapter 10, p. 241) these companies, like those
who are downloading, all seem to claim they cannot be held responsible due to
the DMCA. The internet providers say they
are not responsible because of the way the laws have been written and the illegal
down loaders say they are not responsible because the files are available. After all, who wants to pay for something that
can be obtained for free. Indeed, some educators probably do not see the reason
why they should pay for something that can be obtained for free. It is
difficult to tell our students to not copy and paste information from the web,
when there are news services making money from gathering news stories others
have written and making a profit out of collecting the work of others (Chapter 4, p 127). In other
words, how do we teach good digital citizenship when the vast majority of those
using the internet are engaged in breaking copyright laws?
Levine's solutions to help stabilize the dissemination of
culture on the internet makes sense. If internet service providers are held
accountable for the content that runs through their services and online locker
services for information stored on their sites, then the biggest offenders
could be shut down. Locating illegal sources could become more difficult to
locate than legitimate sources. People would be encouraged to purchase rather
than pilfer their media (p. 241). When, as Levine states, the technology
industry receives benefits at the expense of those who are creating, then
something needs to be done. The technology may not have existed at the creation
of the DMCA to allow internet providers to manage the content that flows
through their service, but it now exists as is evidenced by YouTubes success at
screening copyrighted work before posting.
Once it becomes the norm to purchase media, then educators
will be in a better situation to teach students how to be good digital
citizens. Hopefully, in the process, the laws will be rewritten to allow
educators to understand when and how to use copyrighted works without
infringement. They will also be able to
explain to students how to locate legal works that can be used to enhance
school projects based on the creative commons license endorsed by Boyle in The Public Domain. There is no one
solution for every creative endeavor. Some will chose to give their works away
while others will chose to maintain their rights to distribute their works. A
solution that does not allow both of these groups to exist, cannot produce a
viable creative culture.
