Since the popularity of the internet and digital distribution, digital content creators and consumers tried to find common ground. I am a digital content creator whose company produces and produced traditional content. As an individual, I am a consumer of digital and traditional products. PBP’s income is based on the ability to sell products protected by copyright laws so I follow the digital piracy debate. Some individuals feel that piracy is a right, because it only hurts multibillion dollar companies. Some individuals believe that regulating digital theft is an impossible task. Some of us who make money from the sale of these digital products know that digital piracy hurts the small companies and the individuals.
Since 1897 the Copyright Office of the United States became a separate part of the Library of Congress. One of the Copyright Office’s main duties encourages creativity and the deliverance of knowledge while allowing the copyright holder to earn money on their creations. In essence, any original work that is not a fact is copyrighted once it is created. In a court of law, it is difficult proving that an individual created a work unless that individual has acceptable proof. For this reason, most individuals and companies register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office.
The internet posed a problem for copyright holders, because of the limitless places someone can post content. Copyright holders found it difficult to control someone’s illegal use of their works on the internet because many individuals stood behind “fair use,” and webhost providers and website owners worked on the honor system. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has been abused and misused because many people do not understand it, some people want to cause trouble, and others want to take the easy way out.
Regardless of the reasons for the misuse of the DMCA, without it copyright holders do not have any protection. According to the DMCA, website holders are required to take copyrighted materials or pages down when individuals or businesses violate the copyright laws. If someone sends a letter of violation, the web hosting company can immediately take down the page or ask for proof before taking down the page. Most companies choose to simply take the material or page down. It is simpler, but the companies cannot be held liable if there is not any proof. The company can also solicit the U.S. copyright office for the information the same way that publishers find out about copyrighted material. It takes a little work, but the information is easily available.
Artists who contract with a record label already protect their lyrics through text and the sound recording copyrights. Whether or not they contract their material, they can lose their copyright through a contract. Payments from these contracts not only deal with copyrights, but with publishing rights. Most record labels and artists register through royalty rights management companies who deal with the publishing rights in a manner similar to the U.S. Copyright Office. Most of the time, this information is determined in the contract process and registered during or after the recording process. It is the same with authors and publishing companies. Usually the use of the material is stated in the contract.
For instance, PBP’s poetry publishing contracts usually copyrighted the poetry book in the author’s name with PBP’s exclusive right to use the work for a certain amount of time. PBP could also use 20 percent of the poetry book for marketing purposes. PBP could basically display 20% of the work without legal repercussions from the authors. PBP was one of the first companies to use Google Books prior to industry acceptance. The authors were also told which portions of the books they could release.
I understand how individuals unfamiliar with copyright laws and publishing laws might be confused by the process. This confusion was true prior to the internet. Most small companies who could not afford long term legal representation operated like PBP and at least hired an attorney during certain instances like contract review and interpretation. Artists who act as their own business are at a slight disadvantage, but can become members of certain organizations who provide some assistance to writers and authors. All of this was true prior to the internet in a world much larger than the internet. The internet does not exclude individuals from following the laws. When in doubt, get proper help to understand the area of business in which you enter. Not only does the proper use of the internet and its laws reduce confusion, but it provides jobs. Although these jobs are not the same jobs eliminated by technology, they are careers people can begin.
The law is a great way to bring the internet community into copyright compliance with the rest of the publishing community. If someone is a true copyright holder of a specific work that he or she believes is being infringed, he or she should be able to provide that proof with the violation notification. Only then should the webhost or website comply. It is the most reasonable best practice. At this point, whoever needs to dispute it may contest it in court as other companies solve disagreements of ownership. The DMCA is fair to the copyright holder and website providers. Webhost providers can keep these documents of proof as protection. The internet should not be a tool to circumvent the copyright laws.
As with anything that can be reproduced in today’s society of extreme technology, the DMCA was established to eliminated improper use of digital material, but copyright owners are aware that it will only minimize and slow down the improper use of digital material. Companies like Napster changed their use of illegal material to profitable and legal material by partnering with record labels and companies which cater to independent artists. Like other companies who chose to continue and comply with the law, Napster presents its form or understanding of the DMCA law in its ‘Terms of Use.’ It also states that it monitors sites which use its services for compliance. Artists are more concerned with individuals using their music for commercial use and not receiving payment while the individual illegally using the material receives payment (bootlegging), than individuals copying the material from their computers to their mp3 players. You cannot really stop that form of use, but sharing the content with millions of people on the internet eliminates millions of potential buyers.
Who is responsible for the copyright infringement, especially if the site is similar to sites like YouTube? VeVo is a site similar to YouTube with more of an artist friendly form. It allows artists who submitted their works through certain partners to gain revenue from videos. It almost ensures that the material is in compliance with the law. Sites like YouTube run the risk of not being in compliance with the DMCA. When it was purchased by the record companies it had no choice, but to comply with laws that the record companies championed. Record companies do their best to find individuals and companies which are not in compliance with the law. One at a time they sue individuals who grossly disobey the law and are caught. Like the real world, some individuals get away with breaking the law and others do not get away with it.
Larger companies now spend more money tracking down these IP addresses and find the guilty culprits. Companies and individuals find ways to secure their works, but even the government cannot stop all hackers. Most individuals do not like the security features on some music or books they purchase. The law allows companies and individual artists a way to retrieve damages from those who break the law.