The Fresh Prince of Youtube
A massive war has been raging over copyright laws that are often ignored on the internet. The battles have especially been epic over websites such as Youtube, Myspace, Lastfm, and other sites that have anything to do with music. Some artists such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails do not mind having their music displayed to the world for free. Actually, the two aforementioned bands have both released debuted digital copies one there albums for the price that the customer wanted to pay. This means you could visit Radiohead’s site and download their album, “In Rainbows”, for any ludicrous amount you wanted to pay or you could choose to pay nothing. According to the numbers and the artist themselves, they did just fine as far as pulling in revenue for the albums.
On the other hand, you have artist like Prince, who believes that listening to his music, or watching his music videos, or including his music in a homemade video is a violation of his right to royalties as an artist, and a violation of copyright laws. Technically, he is right. It is a copyright violation, and he does have the right to remove it or take action against anyone who uses his artwork without permission. As a matter of fact, copyright law is on his side in every creative aspect that goes into his art. “Every e-mail, every note to your spouse, every doodle, every creative act that is reduced to tangible form---all of this is automatically copyrighted.” (Lessing 138) The question is, how do we monitor this giant information machine that is the internet, and should the full extent of copyright laws apply to a technology that is still in transition?
In 2007, Prince announced that he was planning to sue Youtube as well as sites like Ebay, and The Pirate Bay. According to one of his representatives, Prince is accusing the sites of encouraging copyright violations. Prince later hired Web Sheriff, a British based company, to track down all the companies that “illegally profit” from the copyrighted materials. In as little as two weeks, Web Sheriff removes as many as “2,000 infringing clips”. (Sandoval)
Some writers assume that the controversy over Prince’s internet inquisition began to boil over with a clip that was posted on Youtube by a mother who had filmed her eighteen month old son dancing to Prince’s song, “Let’s Go Crazy”. Recently the mother filed in civil court, that her video be posted back up, and that she be paid for damages. She claimed she was well within her rights by using a video clip that contained no more than thirty seconds of the song. In the end the video was ordered to be reposted onto Youtube.
Youtube is in violation of the copyright laws, because its users upload videos that contain artist’s work, or they just upload music video that they have ripped from television or DVDs. Peer to peer file sharing networks are much capable and willing to share full digital copies of full albums, full movies, television shows, and so on. (Lessig 68)
This file sharing is considered to be just as much of a criminal act as walking in a record store and stealing albums right of the shelf. The only difference between this and Youtube is that people don’t feel as though they are stealing, because the experience is a lot similar to watching a music video on television. Also, the run-times of the videos are limited to 10 minutes, so full albums can’t be heard in just one video. This gives people the feeling that they aren’t violating any laws. Lessing states that people use the network sharing sites for substitutes for purchasing content, sampling music, access to out of print (no longer sold) content, and access to content that is not copyrighted. This list tells us that there are some people out there with innocent reasons for using peer-to-peer sites and software but, it is almost implausible to write laws that protect the innocent users while still prosecuting the illegal users of copyrighted material. Because the list of situations and nuances that can occur, when investigating the use of these sites, is so long and so finite, it makes the whole situation very complicated.
One might argue, and many former Prince fans have, that he is only waging this for the sake of greed. Many arguments have occurred over the years, as to whether artists are really trying to protect their art, or whether they are trying to make an extra dime. Since 1969, Congress has been making adjustments and extensions to copyright laws for the sake of pleading artists. For example in 1998, Congress extended the law by twenty years, after Sonny Bono’s widow asked that the law be stretched “in remembrance” of the musician.
Recently, Prince was filmed at a live concert doing a cover of the Radiohead song, “Creep”. Prince demanded that the song be taken off of Youtube. In reply, Radiohead’s front man, Thom Yorke, stated “Really? He's blocked it?... Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song." This is just an example of how some artists aren’t so inclined to share their work for free, and some couldn’t be happier. Obviously, there will be a difference of opinion among artists and fans, but how could a law possibly accommodate both parties?
One big point that must be made is that the internet is still deep in transition, and technology is moving so fast that it is going to be very hard to write laws that will accommodate the changes that the internet is facing and will face in the future. There are ways of protecting artist such as the Web Sheriff Prince prefers, and the law suits he also dabbles in. But, as time moves on, we can only assume that it will get harder and harder to protect copyrights on the internet. “What’s needed is way to say something in the middle---neither “all rights reserved” nor “no rights reserved”, but “some rights reserved”. This way we can respect copyrights and still enable creators the freedom to free content as they see fit. (Lessig 277)
In other words, there probably isn’t a happy medium that will occur in the near or distant future. Internet users will still want their free content for whatever personal reason, and Prince and other artists alike will still want their work protected.
We can make all the philosophical arguments that we want about how guns are illegal, but the VCR isn’t, but this battle will certainly rage on in the future. “All locations for any creative work must be protected and regulated” and I believe this to be true and lawful, but people with the power of the internet will find a way to get the material that they want, regardless of how copyright law adapts. (Lessig 117)