Historian warns against copyright-fight heavy hitting
No one likes a bully
Copyright-dependent industries risk alienating the public and undermining intellectual property laws with their unregulated and aggressive tactics, according to an historian who has studied nearly 400 years of piracy and intellectual property law.
Adrian Johns, a professor of history at Chicago University, told technology law podcast OUT-LAW Radio that the behaviour of large multinational companies whose business is based on copyright, such as record labels, publishers and broadcasters, threatens to turn the public against them.
"There's a trend towards almost absolutism, which I think is very unfortunate and could in the end be self-defeating," he said. "The big concern that I have is not the one that most people have which is that this is going to crimp the future of cultural change, though I think it may do that. It's that eventually the nit-pickiness of this kind of move might create a backlash that is more damaging than what it is trying to prevent."
Johns has just published a history of piracy, noting that the concept was first applied to ideas, rather than maritime theft, as early as 1650. He said that current industrial practices relating to the defence of intellectual property are risky.
"The policing of piracy, the detection of it, the interdiction of it – those have become extraordinarily large and diverse multinational industries," he said. "There's a potential issue there in that they're largely unregulated and the codes by which they operate within civil society have not really been articulated."
"There's an increasing body of evidence that the policing of intellectual property has too often involved impinging on civil liberties, freedom of speech, privacy concerns, things that society may actually value at least as highly as intellectual property itself. There's a risk of an explosion there, I think, and it's a risk that the defenders of intellectual property themselves would do well to take note of," he said.
Johns said that he was not an advocate of the free culture movement which seeks radically to reduce the power of copyright laws, but his analysis will be welcomed by those who think that multinational companies are exerting too great a political and social influence in the name of protecting their income streams.
The UK's Digital Economy Bill has been a focal point for protest, particularly the parts of it which will force internet service providers (ISPs) to cut off internet access points used by people accused of copyright infringement.
There was further outrage this week as it was claimed that an amendment accepted in the House of Lords forcing ISPs to block access to entire websites accused of hosting copyright-infringing material was lifted directly from proposals written by record label trade body the BPI.
The Bill will face further debate in the Lords before passing to the House of Commons. Politicians face a race against time in getting the Bill through both houses before Parliament dissolves for this year's general election.
Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com
OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.
No shit Sherlock?
Good work Prof. Just about what several million sensible people have been saying for years. Even within the media industry, there have been cautionary voices warning about the perils of attacking your own customer base.
Here in the UK though, I'd suggest we have a more pressing problem than this, or even the Digital Economy Bill. And that is, how far are our politicians bought and paid for by the media industry? That industry has only to produce a wish list and politicians and bureaucrats are falling over themselves to grant it. We're dealing with something far deeper than a difference of opinion over digital rights - we're dealing with people who ought to be representing us, but who are clearly bought and paid for. When laws that represent the values of vested interests are pushed through against the palpable will of voters, then something is very seriously wrong with our democracy.
I've seen claims that the majority of people have made illegal downloads at some time. As a point of democratic principle, how can something that most of us do be illegal?
While we all argue about digital rights, I think we need a far more fundamental enquiry into lobbying systems and the power of the media industry over what are supposed to be our elected representatives. Not to mention a certain all-powerful non-elected non-representative.
DRM doesn't work
A couple of times now I've purchased a DVD that flat-out refuses to perform on my computer. (Apparently the manufacturers would much prefer you only run it with a TV). The answer - run it through software that strips off the copy protection. As a bonus the end result can be stored on my terabyte external drive.
If it were not for the fact that copy protection makes these DVDs almost unusable, I'd never have had to learn to rip them. So what is DRM for? It really gets up the nose of the average punter, yet if I can get around it any moderately good pirate can too.
On the other hand, it's teaching an entire generation of otherwise law-abiding citizens how to use pirate torrents and DVD crackers.
... I lost any remaining sympathy whatsoever for the cause of the *IAAs on after an exposure to a suit of the local metastasis thereof on the Finnish national TV. If they insist on the attitude employed so far - perhaps, most evident in the ACTA negotiations at this time - I suppose one has to conclude that P2P filesharing is, in fact, a form of civil disobedience, a moral duty.