The conflict between websites that
revolve around user generated content and copyright are nothing new in modern
culture. There is still a very fine line between what is actually acceptable and
what is not. This line is still yet to be defined. As mentioned in the book Remix by Lawrence Lessig, these issues of
intellectual property are getting increasingly harder to police. He states that our laws need to be drastically
rethought out and reformed to adapt to these new forms of media distribution.
One
up and coming social media site that falls into this category is Justin.tv, a
video streaming website and service. Justin.tv is similar to YouTube in that it
allows for anyone to create their own video content to be shared with the
world. All one needs is a capture device and some form of software, most of
which is free, to upload to the site. This makes it so that anyone can create
their own live broadcasting channel. The site is also like YouTube in that it is
sustained by advertisements, and even gives popular users the option to sign a
contract with the site and earn money from their own ads.
Surprisingly
what ends up being the most broadcasted and most watched form of content on the
site is streamed video footage of users playing video games. It has even become
so popular for the site that they now feature all video game related channels
on a separate domain called Twitch.tv. It seems amazing that what is generally
considered to be a type of media that is meant to be experienced in an
interactive manner is enjoyable for people to watch and experience vicariously.
It is interesting to note though that in South Korea they have been
broadcasting footage of competitive video games on the internet as well as
cable TV for over a decade now. This phenomenon has grown to become a
significant part of their pop culture and turned into what is basically their
national sport. Who would have thought that video games could be viewed as a
spectator sport?
The
rest of the content featured on the site is mostly just live video feeds of
people recording podcasts or talk shows. Occasionally, sponsors of sports teams
will broadcast exhibition events, but that’s really about it for content. The
site also filters all the channels for content that is noticeably infringing on
copyrighted material. You aren’t likely to find streams of Disney movies or
network television, and if you do they won’t be there very long. Because of
this, the site does manage to follow in accordance to the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.
However,
the huge user base of video game streamers is a growing concern. Should these
internet broadcasters be allowed to make money off of others viewing
copyrighted material on their channels? There is currently a bill pending in
the United States Senate, Bill S.978, that makes streaming copyrighted material
over the internet for commercial or financial gain a felony punishable up to
five years in prison. The bill does not address specifically whether streaming
video games is covered, but many speculate that it could be easily grandfathered
in and leaves the option to sue open to the parent company. There have since
been many petitions started by people who make money in their spare time by
streaming video games and other content that could potentially be punishable by
the bill. One could be potentially liable even if copyrighted music is being
played unintentionally in the background of one of their videos, similar to the
Lenz v. Universal case. What happens if a song that is protected by copyright law
is part of the soundtrack to a game being streamed? There are all of sorts grey
areas and implications that this bill brings up.
Due
to these grey areas, one reform that needs to happen to accommodate these types
of sites is that the copyright laws regarding streaming need to be simpler and
more specific. This is one of the reforms that Lessig mentions in his book. I
think most companies and consumers would argue that streaming footage of
someone playing video games will not affect the overall sales, at least not
negatively. People who were not likely to purchase a game in the first place
may have just as well rented or borrowed it from a friend. By watching live
footage they do not obtain any permanent possession of the product. If anything,
streaming can really be viewed as free marketing. The bill should be changed to
exclude this type of streaming from copyright infringement since there is not a
direct copy of the product being distributed.
This
change would be overall very beneficial because it would transfer over to other
user created video sites like YouTube. The issue of copyrighted music playing
in the background of videos is something that needs to be reconsidered legally.
Anything that would decrease the amount of people getting punished for
copyright infringement when their intent was not profit in the first place would
be greatly beneficial.
Another
reform mentioned in the book Remix by Lessig would be deregulating amateur
creativity. One very great asset of video sharing sights is that they promote
the education of video production. While streaming and creating videos isn’t
necessarily a difficult task, there are a lot of opportunities for one to spend
time increasing the production value if they decide that it is something they
want to pursue as a hobby. Many of these skills would transfer over if they
decided they wanted to go into broadcasting or the film industry.
One
example of this from Lessig’s book is where he mentions kids creating AMVs, or
anime music videos. These entail editing clips from Japanese animated movies
and television shows with music. While this violates all sorts of copyright
laws, most of these kids really put a great deal of time into producing these
“music videos.” In the book, one father even mentions that his son was able to
get into university after showing the portfolio board his AMVs.
While
it may not entail the creation of original work, there is much to benefit from
being more lenient on this type of media sharing. There is virtually no
financial damage being done to the copyright holders. In return, these kids are
given the motivation to learn to create and develop the skills to express
themselves through new mediums. It would be a huge educational disservice to
punish this sort of media production. Learning and education is something that
has always needed to be exempt from copyright because its motives, for the most
part, are not primarily for profit.
The
ways in which people seek entertainment and education are evolving. The first
impulse of the older generation may be to punish what they don’t understand.
They are blinded by tunnel vision. These are not children being unproductive
and lazy, these are students of the greatest learning community man has ever
known, and they are teaching themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment