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.
I think you have chosen from Levine (2011) the cornerstone issue for educators: digital citizenship. Not long ago, I was dealing with The National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), specifically, the fourth standard for teachers (NETS-T), which requires us to “Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility”, and it is not a simple issue.
ReplyDeleteWe are privileged to have the opportunity to learn about responsible uses of the Internet but the truth is there are many concerns among educators and, in addition, there are professionals in our field that cannot keep pace with their students’ digital habits. Here is an article from March, 19, 2013 by Sarah Ludwig and published at the American Library Association “Techsource” website, where she addresses the growing gap between the use of digital resources between teachers and students:
http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2013/03/skills-we-can-t-teach-facilitating-authentic-experiences-with-digital-citizenship.html
As you said, it is not easy to teach digital citizenship when the Internet has available both free and illegally shared copyrighted content (Introduction, p.3.) I agree with you that lawmakers could simplify things permitting the use of copyrighted material for educational purposes.
Where I have my doubts is with the “blanket” license for Internet service providers (Chapter 9, p.234), an idea you find viable. I already mentioned the reservations I have in my post, but you have provided me with additional concerns. If such licenses were approved, I wonder how public schools and school districts will face the additional costs in their already tight budgets. Will lawmakers consider exceptions or reductions for education facilities? Will the providers consent to perceive less from schools? Will textbook publishing companies oppose to a “blanket” license fearing massive losses in their sales (given that all the content would be legal, free, and accessible)? How about those countries that will not agree to establish a “blanket” license? It is not an easy problem to solve.
Hi Tamie,
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure I agree with your idea (or Levine’s) to saddle ISP’s with not only providing Internet service, but policing it as well – I feel they should be separate identities, particularly as they have different, very separate goals. For example, should the same people that build the highways, also be charged with ensuring that no one speeds or drives drunk? Should the phone companies also monitor their lines toward the cause of anti-terrorism or to roadblock drug deals? ISP’s provide the service, and I’m glad that as of now, they’re not required to monitor it – these costs, no doubt, would be passed along to consumers who are likely using the majority of their service legally. As is stated in FreeRide, “it would be impractical for Internet service providers to have legal responsibility for everything they carry on their network” (Levine, 241)
I do agree with your ideas on promoting digital citizenship, however – we should promote legal and intelligent ways to use the Internet – and more importantly, teach others how to judge the accuracy, legitimacy and any bias of the myriad of sources available on the open web.
Works Cited
Levine, Robert. Freeride: How Digital parasites are destroying the culture business, and how the culture business can fight back. New York: Doubleday, 2011. Print.
I do believe that service providers can monitor downloads and the file size. I am fairly certain parameters could be established. Only those IP addresses that repeatedly download files within the parameters would be checked. I am not suggesting that they monitor content as in what is being shared and uploaded. Just check on activity that may be suspect.
DeleteWhile those who build roads do not have to monitor those who use them, there are those who do so. I would rather have service providers checking and issuing warnings than a government agency. If service providers do not do something, then eventually content will be filtered by some government agency. The technology exists to monitor usage because cell phone companies monitor usage each time we access the internet with our phones.