Long's article covered a variety of information, and she explained terms with which I am just becoming familiar. Copyright basically rewards the creativity of creators' works of literature, music, and more, so that they are compensated for their efforts and can determine how their works are copied and sold. Currently, the creator or copyright holder has copying and distribution rights for his or her life plus 70 years. This essentially covers his or her heirs' lifetimes, who could likely be difficult to locate. The House of Representatives, at the time of this publication, was looking to grant use of these "orphan works," so long as a good faith effort to find the copyright holder was made, even unsuccessfully. I like the term copyright holder, because I immediately think of the media's coverage of the sales of the Beatles' songs' copyrights. The amount of money involved incredible. Now I am beginning to understand how valuable future copyright permission must be for the holder.
Education, research, and public knowledge, however, need to use copyrighted works and they do not always need to have permission to do so. This is the doctrine of fair use, which Long explains is a way to permit unauthorized, limited use of copyrighted works in certain situations for the public benefit. Right here is where I thought of librarians and the library, and that was because of the word public. The ramifications of copyright are serious to librarians--librarians would not be able to loan materials without special provisions in the copyright act.
So now it comes to copyright and the digital age. As broadcasters prepare for the conversion to digital television in 2009 (that sounds like a television commercial!), the Congress is looking at broadcasters wanting to have encrypted signals so that programs cannot be copied and rebroadcast. These are the same rights that cable and satellite providers enjoy. This is known as a "broadcast flag." For librarians, the effects are immeasurable. Teachers and students would not be able to use "flagged" content. Also, library archives, such as Vanderbilt University's, which stores TV news broadcasts for many years for research, would be adversely affected.
Do you think that our new digitally broadcast channels should get their "broadcast flag" protection? I wonder if the major networks and local news channels that they transmit are considered public domain.
Let me know what you think...
Long, S. A. (2006). US copyright law: the challenge of protection in the digital age. New Library World, 107(9/10), 450-42.
3 comments:
Arg, this is a tough one! I'm wondering if there's a way that educators, archivists, etc. could buy some sort of legal form of a "de-encrypter" (I know, I think I just coined a word!) or some such idea so that these works would still be usable for fair use/education purposes. It might be kind of like buying movie licensing rights to show public viewings of a movie as in a library or for a group of students at a school. Am I making any sense??
I'm sure that someone will be more than willing to sell rights or provide a de-encrypter in one form or another. If there is money to be made, capitalism will find a way.
Broadcasters should not be granted 'broadcast flags' for their 'new' digital content. Fair use policy, especially in schools, trumps their potential attempts at encrypting content. If a teacher/librarian has to acquire permission for EVERY single piece of information that he/she uses, the whole situation becomes ridiculous and counterproductive. I understand that ideas need to be protected from those trying to make an unauthorized buck, but there is a limit.
After reading your entry, I have a question: Why are cable and satellite providers already protected? I'm just curious. I've been thinking about it and can't come up with a definitive theory.
Post a Comment