Peter Bradwell
Researcher
Peter Bradwell is a researcher at Demos. He is interested in digital identity, technology and the ways that information and knowledge is shared...
at 6:24pm on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
We're in the midst of accumulating and reflecting on the material we have drawn from the various video workshops for this project. And naturally we're starting to revisit some of the questions we started with around the production and consumption of video - whether it be in workshops, in people's front rooms or through places like YouTube. What is its value? What does it give to the people producing the content, or those watching or sharing it?
Something that is hovering in front of us is the issue of intellectual property and copyright. So I couldn't resist highlighting the recent news about Google and Viacom's legal spat. The short story: Viacom is annoyed that people keep posting unauthorised copies of its programmes. They've counted it up for us: apparently there are 150,000 examples of copyright infringing, grainy 5 minute clips from its archive on YouTube.
There are to my mind two main reasons why the strategy followed by people like Viacom in these situations is wrong-headed and damaging - both to themselves and much more importantly to everyone else.
1. They fail to acknowledge the cultural and social effects of the increasing ability to share content - whether it be songs, video, pictures - using new technology. More importantly, they utterly fail to acknowledge the damage that changing the laws around technology to reflect rights holders' interests so narrowly would have for the way these technologies work. The types of content at issue form an integral part of how the world around us is represented and expressed to us, and to the way that ideas spread. This popular culture is part of the currency through which we build meaning and understanding around our place in the world. So it is important that the channels, where they appear, for people to comment on and rework and discuss and critique that content are respected. If we accept that culture plays an important role in influencing or shaping or expressing our ideas and values and norms, then we have to look at laws and policy that enshrine our right to critique and comment upon it. We shouldn't uphold or design more rights that limit unduly who decides what commentary or use is 'authorised'.
2. We should have little sympathy for most of the business argument either. Whether it is film or music (and I am generalising somewhat...), in the main these outfits have been so slow to adapt that they have consistently damaged their own businesses, and made life harder for the people they sell to. Movies are a classic example. These industries grew up because they helped us to solve some problems around making and distributing culture. Some of these problems no longer exist. Their argument that wiring technology to make them reappear seems rather perverse.
In both cases, there have been people shouting about forward-thinking, progressive solutions and new ideas for at least the last 5 years. Instead of listening, they keep trying to sue them.
Something that is hovering in front of us is the issue of intellectual property and copyright. So I couldn't resist highlighting the recent news about Google and Viacom's legal spat. The short story: Viacom is annoyed that people keep posting unauthorised copies of its programmes. They've counted it up for us: apparently there are 150,000 examples of copyright infringing, grainy 5 minute clips from its archive on YouTube.
There are to my mind two main reasons why the strategy followed by people like Viacom in these situations is wrong-headed and damaging - both to themselves and much more importantly to everyone else.
1. They fail to acknowledge the cultural and social effects of the increasing ability to share content - whether it be songs, video, pictures - using new technology. More importantly, they utterly fail to acknowledge the damage that changing the laws around technology to reflect rights holders' interests so narrowly would have for the way these technologies work. The types of content at issue form an integral part of how the world around us is represented and expressed to us, and to the way that ideas spread. This popular culture is part of the currency through which we build meaning and understanding around our place in the world. So it is important that the channels, where they appear, for people to comment on and rework and discuss and critique that content are respected. If we accept that culture plays an important role in influencing or shaping or expressing our ideas and values and norms, then we have to look at laws and policy that enshrine our right to critique and comment upon it. We shouldn't uphold or design more rights that limit unduly who decides what commentary or use is 'authorised'.
2. We should have little sympathy for most of the business argument either. Whether it is film or music (and I am generalising somewhat...), in the main these outfits have been so slow to adapt that they have consistently damaged their own businesses, and made life harder for the people they sell to. Movies are a classic example. These industries grew up because they helped us to solve some problems around making and distributing culture. Some of these problems no longer exist. Their argument that wiring technology to make them reappear seems rather perverse.
In both cases, there have been people shouting about forward-thinking, progressive solutions and new ideas for at least the last 5 years. Instead of listening, they keep trying to sue them.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments