Copyright & Intellectual Property

Today people spend a great deal of time and energy communicating and creating on the Internet. Intellectual property is defined as “a creative work of art, writing, film, or software that belongs to a legally protected owner” (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, 2012, 534). Basically, as you would gather from the name, it is considered the “property” of the person/company that created it. Copyright is “the legal right to control intellectual property” (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, 2012, 534). Copyright holders have the privilege to legally sell, use, or license the copyrighted material however they wish. Controlling/protecting intellectual property on the Internet is a huge concern of many people and companies; copyright infringement is a hot topic. Protecting intellectual property is important, but how far is too far? Good intentions don’t necessarily guarantee that the means to control intellectual property are reasonable to the content holder AND the many individuals using the Internet.

Copyright was designed to give some credit/compensation to creators, encouraging others to create as well (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, 2012, 454). This is only temporary; eventually works should be considered “public domain,” where they are considered “everybody’s” property and people can freely use them. Well, that’s the idea anyway; the U.S. Congress has passed legislation that extends copyright protection way past the intended lifetime of the author (currently, it is the author’s lifetime + 70 years) and the Supreme Court is even considering “re-copyrighting” some works (such as HG Wells’ Things to Come) already in the U.S. public domain.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) is a piece of legislation that was passed in 1998; it was intended to update copyright rules to allow for modern technological advances (such as CDs). It introduced the “anti-circumvention provision,” which made it a crime to do things like duplicating certain media (Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport, 2012, 272). This act is also significant because of the “safe harbor” provision which gives websites, such as YouTube, some protection in regards to hosting copyrighted material. As long as YouTube removes videos in response to DMCA takedown notices, initiated by unhappy copyright holders, YouTube won’t be held responsible just because a user uploads copyrighted material. This has given creativity a chance to grow, but at the same time, also allows abuse of the DMCA takedown notice.

Reference
Straubhaar, J., LaRose, R., & Davenport, L. (2012). Media Now. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.