WASHINGTON-Technology may be the only way to solve the centuries-old battle between copyright owners and consumers who want authorization to make copies of protected works.
“We don’t have a political solution, but if we could come up with a technological solution maybe we could get a political solution,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, during last week’s subcommittee hearing on digital content.
As movies, TV and music content find their ways onto consumer’s handsets, the wireless industry increasingly must address copyright issues even as digital technology makes these copyright issues more complex for content owners.
Barton said he favors allowing consumers the ability to make personal copies of protected works. “We are not trying to circumvent anyone’s anything. We are trying to strike a balance between a copyright owner and a consumer’s right to make one copy,” he said.
His view is not universally shared.
Rep. Michael Ferguson (R-N.J.) objected to a line of questions directed at John Feehery, executive vice president of external affairs for the Motion Picture Association of America, regarding whether the movie studios would allow even one copy to be made without compensation.
“I think it was a false choice that Mr. Feehery was being asked to make. Technology allows both one copy and hundreds of copies,” said Ferguson. “What if you bought a car and you said that because you bought that one car and for the price of this car you could get one free?”
Ferguson was the main copyright-protection champion to show up at last week’s House Commerce consumer-protection subcommittee hearing. Action on the same topic has also been occurring in the House Judiciary Committee, which seems friendlier to copyright owners.
The debate between technology and copyright has been going on for centuries with some arguing that the invention of the Gutenberg press would be the end of protected material. Of course it wasn’t, said Jim Denney, vice president for product marketing for TiVo Inc.
“Fortunately for innovators, consumers, and copyright owners, the content industry was saved from itself. Each time the content industry failed to eviscerate those technologies in court or before Congress. After failing to throttle the new technologies, the content industry successfully co-opted each new technology and turned such threats into significant profits,” said Denney. “Fair use has maintained the balance between the copyright holder’s exclusive rights and the promotion of progress by innovators.”
In a digital era where copies of protected works can be made with virtually no recognition that they are copies, a regime must be in place to protect the copyright, say content producers. This regime is known as digital rights management. Music publishers, film distributors and other content providers argue that DRM is necessary for copyrighted content to be available on mobile devices.
The U.S. Supreme Court last summer somewhat changed the landscape when it ruled that Grokster Ltd. was responsible for the copyright infringement by its users.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. said, and the Supreme Court agreed, that Grokster’s peer-to-peer software enabled people to download movie content illegally.
One government-sponsored DRM tool, the broadcast flag, was thrown out by a federal appeals court. A broadcast flag is coding that would prevent the indiscriminate copying of content sent over the air. Broadcasters argue a flag is necessary to protect the copyrights of content producers. The Federal Communications Commission agreed, and in 2004, the agency approved 13 different broadcast-flag readers. However, the American Library Association and others sued to stop the movement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the FCC didn’t have the jurisdiction to require a broadcast flag. MPAA and other copyright owners would like it to be reinstated. This was an implied but never stated undercurrent at last week’s hearing.
Technology proponents argue that if Congress authorizes the FCC to require a broadcast flag in DTV transmissions, the commission could wind up as a gatekeeper for innovation.
A legislative draft circulated by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) would authorize a broadcast flag.
RCR Wireless News Reporter Colin Gibbs contributed to this report.
