The Copyright Debate's Missing Element

There is certainly no lack of debate about copyright, and whether it promotes or hinders creativity. But in one important respect, that debate has been badly skewed, since it has largely discussed creativity in terms of pre-digital technologies. And even when digital methods are mentioned, there is precious little independent research to draw upon.

That makes the following particularly significant:

Doctoral research into media education and media literacy at the University of Leicester has highlighted how increased legislative control on use of digital content could stifle future creativity.

The Digital Economy Act 2010 alongside further domestic and global legislation, not least the ongoing ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’, combines to constitute a very hard line against any form of perceived copyright infringement.

Research implies that these pieces of legislation could stifle the creative opportunities for youngsters with tough regulation on digital media restricting young peoples’ ability to transform copyrighted material for their own personal and, more importantly, educational uses.

The key phrase here is "young people", because they are using content, including copyrighted materials, in quite different ways from traditional creators. As the researcher commented:

“There is a growing risk that creativity in the form of mash-ups, remixes and parodies will be stifled by content producers. With no clear ‘fair use’ policy, even when it comes to educational media production we are in danger of tainting many young people’s initial encounters with the law."

The current approach, embodied in the Digital Economy Act and elsewhere, risks not only stifling the younger generation's creativity, but alienating them completely from any legislation that touches on it. (Via @Coadec.)

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Getting Going with Gowers

The Gower Review was an important document for the UK. It offered a thoughtful and rigorous analysis of the current copyright situation there, and looked at some of the problems the new digital world has with current copyright legislation. It also made a number of pretty sensible recommendations - even if it chickened out of calling for a reduction in some copyright terms, which Gowers himself admits that pure logic calls for.

Now we have the question of how that Review will be implemented. To move things on, here's a consultation document from the UK Government asking for people's views.

The main issues it considers are how to:

* enable schools and universities to make the most of digital technologies and facilitate distance learning;

* allow libraries and archives to use technology to preserve valuable material before it deteriorates or the format it is stored on becomes obsolete;

* introduce a format shifting exception to allow consumers to copy legitimately purchased content to another format, for example CD to MP3, in a manner that does not damage the interests of copyright owners; and

* provide a new exception for parody.

Specifically, it asks how those exceptions should be implemented. And I have to say, it does that with real intelligence. The questions it poses, soliciting input, are spot-on in terms of exploring the ramifications of copyright changes. I thoroughly recommend a slow perusal of the main document, since it provides a wonderful introduction to the thorny issues that copyright in the digital age must deal with.

None is thornier than DRM. Again and again in this document, questions arise about how people can be given the ability to derive the full benefit of copyright material when DRM gets in the way - and to what extent they should be allowed to circumvent it.

Of course, my answer is simple: get rid of the whole damn lot. Even a year or two that might have seemed radical or utopian, but with nearly all the main record labels embracing that strategy - and the film companies about to begin their own slow slouch towards Bethlehem - I think it will soon be seen as the best and most sensible thing to do.

Linden Lab: Yes, They Really Get It

Further to this post, here's conclusive proof that the people behind Second Life get it:

Linden Lab objects to any implication that it would employ lawyers incapable of distinguishing such obvious parody. Indeed, any competent attorney is well aware that the outcome of sending a cease-and-desist letter regarding a parody is only to draw more attention to such parody, and to invite public scorn and ridicule of the humor-impaired legal counsel. Linden Lab is well-known for having strict hiring standards, including a requirement for having a sense of humor, from which our lawyers receive no exception.

In conclusion, your invitation to submit a cease-and-desist letter is hereby rejected.