CSE 619 Post 3: Levine

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.

Week 2 Post on Boyle

(Note on this weeks post: I wrote my post and then caught gz's comments on our posts. I will adjust my posts in the future.)

     It is difficult to argue with James Boyle's (2008) assertions in, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind.  After all, he is a professor of law and he works extensively with copyright and intellectual rights.  Throughout the book, Boyle references Thomas Jefferson warning on intellectual rights approximately twenty-five times  according to the index (p. 307).  One of Boyle's strongest arguments seems to be if the law does not pass the Jeffersonian warning, then it should not be passed.  His main assertion is that intellectual property rights should be limited in duration and last only as necessary.  The idea should then pass into the public domain where other innovators can create and improvise from the idea (p. 21).  I can agree with Boyle that intellectual property rights are fundamentally different from property rights.  One protects creative ideas that someone else may have discovered if given time.  The other protects a physical asset that one can own and cannot be given away or taken without the person losing the property.  

     I agree with, and even appreciate his allegory of the farmers'  tale used throughout chapter five to explain the impending lock down of the internet and the public domain.  Indeed, I too became concerned that the figurative use of wire cutters were declared illegal (p. 85).  I lamented the fact that I cannot fast forward through the obligatory copyright warning and/or advertisements that the video maker deems I should watch in their entirety if I want to view the movie.  As the lock down became about what the industry wants rather than what is best practices for intellectual copyrights, I also wondered how intellectual property rights began looking more like a physical asset.  His arguments remain compelling and I catch his sense of urgency that our rights as the public are being curtailed when the rights of the entertainment industry and other corporate industries lock down the public domain.  I agree with Boyle that when an industry can determine which devises can legally access their copyrighted material then the balance of the copyright holder's control has tipped too far in their favor at the limiting of the public domain. 

     When I began reading chapter six entitled "I Got a Mashup", I was expecting to once again cheer Boyle's efforts to protect the rights of the public.  I fully expected to once again agree with his assertions.  This did not happen.  His use of the Ray Charles story of the song "I Got a Woman" helped to illustrate his point that without public domain and a limited term for the copyright coverage of music, our culture stands to lose out on a generation of being able to create as freely as the previous generation. 

     The story, as told by Boyle, explains how Ray Charles began by imitating the style of Nat King Cole.  This is common practice for artists and occurs in most fields.  Ray Charles, as is usually the case, decided to create his own style of playing.  He used a public domain song to create a derivative work that helped launch his career to a new level.  All is well.  

     Where it breaks down, I believe, is when Boyle maintains that once a musician composes a song and records it, others should be able to use parts of the recorded music to create something new.  He maintains it is just like what Ray Charles did with his music.  I do not agree with this assertion.  If you want to play and record the notes and imitate a musicians style this should be allowed.  Once an artist records a song, it becomes more than an intellectual property.  Becca Scott (personal communication, April 18, 2013), a composer, stated, "It's not imitation; it's not even impersonation.  It's more like identity theft when someone takes notes you have played and tries to say they are creating something new."  Each musician has a unique way of playing that belongs to them.  We can usually recognize our favorite artists' style even before we hear their names.  Just because the internet and technology allow for easy copying, does not mean the sound of a musician should be considered public domain.  Their music, yes.  Let the mixers create their own tracks and play the five notes on their own.  This is what occurs when text is quoted.   The musician should be able to control when and where their voice or their performance of a piece of music is used.  Mixers are not imitating like Ray Charles.  They are not reworking a piece of music to make it their own creation.  Mixers are actually pretending to be other musicians.  They then claim they are creating something new.  Perhaps they are, but then so is the identity thief who steals your information. 

      With that said, I also think my argument needs a caveat. There should be defined times when the works of others can be used without worry of copyright infringement. The two instances I can name would be for educational purposes and for personal use. The reason being, the use of material in both of these instances typically is not for monetary gain and those using the work lack the resources or the means to recreate the material. When students create a video for class, they should be allowed to upload it with music that helps them express their ideas. Teachers should not have to spent hours determining if their students have infringed on a copyright law.