The Media Law Notebook
In the Final Chapter of the book “Design to Thrive: Creating Online Communities and Social Networks to Last,” Dr. Tharon Howard writes: “Technology Changes Rapidly, Human’s Don’t. ” Dr. Howard points to four future areas that he states will the “battlefield” of the future:
1.) Copyrights and intellectual property
2.) Disciplinary control v. individual creativity
3.) Visual, technological and new media literacies
4.) Decision-making context for future markets
As an instructor of Media Law and Ethics, I found Dr. Howard’s analysis of intellectual property and content ownership quite interesting. He stated that “copyright protected publishers.” It can be argued that intellectual property law “protects the system” rather than individual writers. For example, broadcast journalists working for CNN or other mainstream media outlet know and recognize that their content is “owned” by the producer. However today, with nearly every cellular telephone having the video production capability, millions of people are “armed and ready,” to create content. Where is it “published?”, Who owns this content? How does the producer monetize the production value?
In a recent lecture at Clemson University, Henry Jenkins, the author of “Convergence Culture” underscored the mainstream media’s failure to successfully monetize the global sensation started by Susan Boyle in Britain’s Got Talent show. While the networks new they “owned” the content, they could not proceed rapidly enough to monetize downloads of the performance, thus losing a legitimate revenue-generating opportunity. Jenkins talked of the “clogged arteries” of the traditional media production system. These same clogged arteries may be found in intellectual property rights.
Media law and ethics remain at the pivotal time period as new methodologies are defined for content creation, licensing, control and distribution. The Internet has prompted a disruption that will ultimately produce change. Law scholars, attorneys, judges and entrepreneurs will ultimately face a future tug of war over intellectual property rights as the traditional walls of ownership crumble.
You make a great connection between Dr. Jenkins' lecture and Dr. Howard's text. Intellectual property is in a similar place to the publishing industry due to new technologies that allow for quick dissemination of information. I also think that Dr. Jenkins' point that content owners may want to leave certain content available, even if it violates copyrights, because that content promotes and advertises for them. He used the example of YouTube videos of people recording their own versions of songs from Glee to illustrate this point. I personally feel that the field of intellectual property needs to become more proactive instead of reactive in how it deals with copyright infringement. It seems to be stuck in a world where information cannot be distributed within seconds.
ReplyDeleteI agree that copyright law protects publishers and institutions. In fact, in "Who Owns Electronic Texts," I traced the history of copyright law back to the Stationer's Charter and show that the law actually has its origins in censorship. Copyright started in order to protect the church from the publication of heretical and seditious texts.
ReplyDelete