This article deals with the DCMA and how it is being violated in schools and what is being done about it. In 2005, a study was conducted by L.E.K. claiming that 44% of the movie industry's loses were from illegal downloading by college students. However, in a repeat of the study in 2007 it was found that only about 15% applies to college students. The press has dubbed this the "200 percent error." The MPAA apologized and said that the false results were an isolated error, but they still have focused their glares on colleges and universities. They claim that even with the number going down to 15%, that they are still losing $250,000,000 of revenue. Tracy Mitrano states in the article that it would have made sense to target colleges 10-15 years ago when they were the only ones with enough broadband speed to do it, but not now since it is far too widespread. The MPAA has back down a bit after realizing that sending intimidating letter and "rancid rhetoric" was not a successful business strategy. The MPAA admission of error in their study could have an effect on the house's decisions on the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007. The bill is to help universities prevent digital theft. Cornell University has tried many companies like Ruckus and Napster, but is tired of wasting time and money on something that doesnŐt even really help. P2P sharing is worldwide, not something that just happens on campuses. Cornell University receives notices in accordance of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that tells them that they need to find out who is doing the illegal acts and report them. We talk about this in class. We said that it would not work because schools have to follow a code of privacy. It is illegal to even tell parents where their kids are. So far the university hasn't given out information, but has instead made violated pay a server cost and make them take a copyright class. The problem is that law is having trouble keeping up with technology and now that the RIAA and MPAA are losing money through distribution and not through the content they are getting upset.
Running Over Fair Use Like the Hogwarts Express?This next article deals with the debate of fair use, copyright infringement, and what is and what isn't public domain. Specifically this article deals with Harry Potter and what other people can and cannot do with this world and these characters that J.K. Rowling has created. A while ago the lax of copyright protecting in dealing with fan-written websites were mostly left alone because they served as free advertising. However, not too long after that Warner and Rowling decided that this free advertising was not need and in fact made them angry. They filed a lawsuit against RDR books when they decided that they were going to publish a print edition of The Harry Potter Lexicon website. Anthony Falzone agreed to help defend RDR against the suit based on the fair use principle laid out by the DMCA. There is a line drawn out between what the original author owns and what other secondary authors get to do based on it. That is the principle of fair use and one that is still getting ironed out. Many think that Rowling and Warner are "running over the line like the Hogwarts Express" and that they are demanding copyright protect that goes far beyond what has been deemed protectable by copyright acts. Even the NYT's Joe Nocera stated, "No one is saying that anyone can simply steal the work of others. But the law absolutely allows anyone to create something new based on someone else's art. It has long been true fro writers, filmmakers, and other artists. That's what 'fair use' means." We talked a lot of fair use in dealing with the DCMA and how fair use is such a grey area in most copyright battles. It's hard to discern exactly how much protection a person should get and at what point that protection cuts into the rights of the public.
Bit Debate: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair UseWe talk a lot about fair use in the music industry and watched a documentary on copying music in order to make a new track based off an old one. This article addresses the same issue. In the now digital world, it has become so easy to take full song or parts of songs and remix then in new ways. It has become a major part of our culture. The article asks Rick Cotton, the general counsel of NBC what fair use is and he goes on to explain it as best as he can. He points out that in no way does he finds the epidemic of P2P file sharing of entire songs and movie fair use. He says that fair use is fair use and it has nothing to do with the easy of the digital world. You can make fun, criticize, and comment on a work without getting in trouble as long as you donŐt reproducing or copy the work. Some people even argue that anything done in a "non-commercial" nature can be deemed fair use, but this doesn't hold up in the Copyright Act. There must be something that changes the original work. Fair use is on a right, which is how many people view it now. Fair use is only an exception to the owner's exclusive rights. The Copyright Act sets our a four factor test that includes the purpose and character of use, the nature of use, the amount taken, and the importance of what is taken. Tim Wu argues that there used to be a well-understood line between original authors and secondary authors, but today things are more confusing. Authorship has become a grey zone and most things test will fail the "four factor test," but will still be allowed. He believes that fair use need to be something that adds to the value of the original. Rick thinks that fair use should be decided case to case, whereas Tim thinks that it will get nowhere without a stable system. This is a debate that is still continuing and one that most like will for a long time. The issue of fair use is hard to find a single ruling on because there are so many different cases.