Senator Leahy has announced he will be introducing a new bill to combat online piracy. According to this article, he stated, "There's no First Amendment right that protects thieves. It protects speech."
Now, at the start of the article, I pretty much agreed with Leahy's sentiment. Despite growing up at a time when free music and videos was pretty much the norm, I can't articulate any reasonable argument that would support the piracy of copyrighted content.
Then, I read that one of the supporters of the bill was Major League Baseball (MLB). For those who are familiar with YouTube, you may be aware that the MLB, and especially the NFL, attempt to keep their content off the site. On the other hand, the NBA has it's own NBA channel, and actually encourages its content being posted.
In contrast to music, TV shows, or movies, there is a very small market for replays of sporting events that occurred a decade ago. In other words, people buy CD's and DVD's that were released ten years ago; they don't pay for old sports footage.
Yet, the MLB and NFL don't want their content posted. While this is less of a 1st Amendment argument than a good business argument, it makes little sense to suppress the dissemination of content, even if protected by copyright, if it promotes your own sport.
Joel, I am equally confused with the logic in these types to statutes. The DMCA is a classic example of traditional copyright regulation being broadly applied to the internet world. The problem as I see it is that the traditional nature of communication, the nature of piracy, business relationships, and avenues of profit; have all changed dramatically on the internet. Still it seems Congress, as spurred on by the lobbying industries (MLB and NBA among others), is attempting an awkward marriage of traditional copyright doctrine and contemporary internet communications. In my opinion the result is a gross misevaluation of the underlying principles that informed copyright in the first place, the “advancement of useful arts and sciences.” It seems those interests might be better served on the contemporary internet by deregulation whereas in the traditional sense they may have been better served by regulation.
ReplyDelete