A couple of months ago Keith Henning, a prominent copyright blogger, (http://copywrite.org/2008/10/14/blog-ending/) recently quit blogging. This comes close on the heels of what was probably the most prominent copyright blogger, Bill Patry, also quitting his blog (http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/08/end-of-blog.html). Bill is lead copyright counsel for Google, and his ideas on the field of copyright reflected the progressive stance that is part of Google's business culture.
Both of these bloggers cited similar reasons for ceasing their blogging activities. These included the benign aspects of limited time and communication from weirdoes, and the more troubling aspect of the overall "depressing" state of copyright law. The trends in copyright law, as both bloggers attest, seem to be almost universally negative. We discussed the influence of major corporations, namely Disney, on the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in class. And if the opinions of these bloggers are to be believed, that influence is ubiquitous in copyright legal reforms. Mr. Henning cited the current example of the Pro-IP Bill, saying that "there is nothing in [it] to benefit actual people or even creators, only things to put the screws to anyone unlucky enough to get to in the way of a record label or large movie house." Based on the limited information that I have and my natural cynicism, I'm inclined to believe him.
The theme of corporate influence over copyright law is reinforced by Henning's fourth reason for quitting, which is how incredibly depressing it is to interact with victims of the RIAA's litigation campaign that contact him. The RIAA suits have been riddled with legal, factual and constitutional errors, and yet they have managed to extract over $300 million from thousands of defendants, many of whom are innocent, while only conducting a few trials that have actually made it to court. It is difficult to conceive of how such a Machiavellian scheme could succeed without the tremendous resources and influence of a multi-billion dollar industry.
Copyright law is fun. It has probably been the most interesting field of law that I have studies thus far, and my interest in it extends beyond classroom. But I share the opinions of the recently retired copyright bloggers that it is being destroyed by the influence of wealthy organizations. Perhaps that is part of what makes it so interesting, to see what the dirty old RIAA is up to next. It helps to have a definite villain in any good story, and the RIAA assumes that role in an almost vaudevillian fashion.
Despite my dismay with the direction of copyright law, I will continue to monitor it in the future, and hopefully will get to practice it someday. I will certainly be watching the first web-based simulcast of Harvard Professor Charles Nesson's oral argument against the RIAA. It is currently scheduled to be broadcast on Feb. 24 on Harvard's Law School website. The RIAA has opposed the broadcast, to which amici such as the AP, Hearst, PBS, NPR and the EFF have responded, so the date and time have not yet been finally determined. But they will soon and the information will be on the internet if you are interested. I'll bring the popcorn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment