This article looks at the subjects of intellectual property rights and copyright from a range of perspectives. This is all quite a minefield, and in the context of the curriculum it's easy for it to become either boring (bogged down in legalistic mumbo-jumbo) or reduced to a set of "Don'ts".
What I've tried to do here is summarise a range of viewpoints in the form of brief statements and questions, and suggest ways in which the material might be used in a school context.
I have also tried to keep myself out of it, in the sense that I've reported, as faithfully as I can, a range of views expressed at a conference I attended, without attempting to put my own spin on them.
How this article has been written
This was the subject of a recent Westminster eForum event. I’ve summarised the issues in the form of a series of short statements and questions that you might want to use to inform your team’s teaching in this area. I’ve numbered the points in order to make it easier to refer to them.
I’ve done it in this way, rather than as a straight report or summary, because I think what would be more useful for you is to know the issues that have been identified by those who deal with IP issues as part of their everyday working lives.
Also, the points made have been filtered by my own interpretation, which is why I have not ascribed them to individuals. If you would like to read the original presentations and discussions, the transcript of the proceedings is available for purchase from the Westminster eForum website.
How the points have been arranged
The points do not all appear in the order in which they arose in the seminar. I have juxtaposed some points in order to provide a contrasting view, whilst in other cases I have sought to provide a reinforcing view.
Where this report ties in with the curriculum
What this report shows is that copyright protection is not a simple issue. It’s not just a matter of greedy multinationals trying to maintain an antiquated business model whilst latter-day Robin Hoods bravely fight a rearguard action.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that some of the restrictions on legally-obtained material are quite high, and the punishment for transgressors draconian. Can there be a compromise that recognises the interests of the various parties involved?
And how important are the legal and moral issues, as well as the technical ones?
As you might have surmised by now, this is a really interesting set of questions, and you can use this topic and these points to address a number of curriculum objectives.
For example, here are some questions that may be relevant vis-à-vis the curriculum you follow:
1. Does “digital citizenship” have to entail breaking copyright laws?
2. How has the ability to share and download files illegally affected the economy? That is, what has been the effect of information technology on everyday life in this respect?
3. Can legislation in any sphere of life be future-proofed in this day and age?
4. How can copyright owners protect their work from being copied and shared?
5. Does it matter anyway?
How to use this report
There are a number of ways in which you might use this report, depending on factors such as your objectives and the age of the class. For example:
1. Ask the class to read all the points, or a particular selection of them, and then have a formal debate on the issue.
2. The debate could be extended online, in the shape of a forum.
3. Why not invite a local artist, musician or author into the school to give a more personal perspective on the issues?
4. Take just two or three of the points and ask the students to do further research on them, and then report on their findings.
5. Carry out an online survey to gather people’s views on the matter.
The report: 30 issues to consider
1. We need to strike a balance between fostering talent (stronger copyright protection) and encouraging innovation (more flexibility).
2. We also need copyright protection legislation that (a) is respected and (b) can be enforced.
3. Is it necessary for copyright legislation to be continually updated to reflect changes in technology?
4. People’s behaviour changes over time, as does technology. For example, online file-sharing is now regarded as acceptable by a large number of people.
5. If legislation is passed today, it could lead to unforeseen consequences tomorrow when new technology arrives on the scene.
6. Should private users be exempted from copyright legislation in order to allow them to copy material from one format to another with impunity? This would be one way of maintaining respect for the law (ie people will no longer be flouting the law because the activity will no longer be illegal). Is this a legitimate argument? After all, one might argue that you could address crime by making any crime legal if it is difficult to enforce the law in that area.
7. If the activity were to be legalised, what might be the economic consequences?
8. Differing terms of copyright between countries make it possible for content creators to lose out on royalties as their material is used in one area but not another. For example, sound recordings are protected in the EU for 50 years after death, and 95 years after death in the USA.
9. There are several different stakeholders as far as copyright is concerned: the creator, the public, and a host of commercial interests in between.
10. Therefore any copyright legislation represents a trade-off between the various interests.
11. There is conflicting evidence on the effect of file-sharing (eg of music) on sales.
12. One view is that online music privacy is preventing the record industry from developing legitimate online markets.
13. Another view is that the music industry is not adversely affected by illegal file downloads because (a) there are no longer any “killer” bands like The Beatles and (b) the “long tail” ensures that there are hundreds of small, niche, markets catering for every musical taste.
14. Should ISPs be made to police the internet in the form of reporting people who are using their internet connection to illegally download copyright-protected files?
15. What are the technical, moral and legal questions involved in that approach? Answer (in a nutshell):
Technical: The ISP can identify the IP address of the computer used to download the files, but not the person doing it. It could be a family member, or a hacker who has taken over the computer for that purpose.
Moral: There is a presumption of guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way round. The model also implies mass surveillance. Is this right?
Legal: Is it legally permissible to “snoop” on people in this way? What is a fitting response: to ban the person from having internet access on a “three strikes and you’re out” basis, or to ask people to investigate what’s happening in their own home and deal with it themselves?
16. Would a good compromise be to ask the ISPs to formulate a voluntary code of practice for handling copyright issues?
17. Ronald Reagan’s Rule: The ten most dangerous words in the English language are:
“I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you.”
Was Reagan correct?
18. Consumers need to be given a genuine alternative to illegal file-sharing that takes into account their desire to shift formats.
19. In reality, it is impossible to prevent illegal file download sites from operating. Firstly, as soon as you shut one down, it will appear again very quickly with a slightly different URL. Secondly, there are many countries with whom it would be virtually impossible to reach an agreement in this area.
20. Illegal download sites can make as much as £10,000 per month from advertisements. In other words, some search engines could be said to be inadvertently financing a lot of these illegal activities.
21. Do online music (say) pirates actually perform a valuable service? It should be remembered that pirate radio in the UK helped to transform the British radio scene, and several “pirate DJs” have received honours, eg in the form of a knighthood.
22. Any proposals for legislation should be understandable, fair and future-proofed.
23. There’s a case for saying that Digital Rights Management (DRM) software is not wanted by the majority of consumers, and that it does not work anyway because there are ways of getting around it. Anything digital can be copied or reworked.
24. Should legal processes be changed to make it less prohibitively expensive for a copyright owner to prevent a website making illegal copies of its material available? In the UK, it can cost £20,000 (around 37,000 USD) to get an injunction. In the area of money owed, it’s possible to start legal proceedings for only £50.
25. Many content creators crave recognition rather than riches (eg on YouTube). Perhaps alternative forms of copyright protection, such as Creative Commons licensing, should be accepted by the mainstream.
26. Much of the content on the web has zero value, either in creative or monetary terms. Should there not be protection for works that have creative value?
27. Copyright legislation should not be used to shore up a failed business model, but if the reason the model is failing is copyright infringement, the Government should act.
28. Is the call to relax the laws on copyright really just a means of encouraging plagiarism?
29. Are some of the people who call for content to be free really just asking commercial companies to subsidise the internet for them?
30. Are some of the people who call for content to be free actually simply dogmatists who believe that there is only one correct view of the future – their own?
Further information
To buy a copy of the transcript when it is available, either email Jayne Cole at the Westminster eForum or keep checking the Forum’s Publications page.
This article was published in the November 2008 issue of Computers in Classrooms. For more information about this free newsletter, and how to obtain back issues, please click here.
I'd be interested to learn whether you found this report useful, and if so, how. Please leave a comment, or email me.
Subscribe to article summaries