Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Internet's Dangerous Future

With the integration of the Internet into everyday life, the average user is able to experience many conveniences. One of these conveniences is the existence of all kinds of free material for entertainment and educational purposes. One of the most popular recent developments is that of the video hosting and distribution sites. Web sites such as YouTube.com and MySpace.com have made sharing videos, on just about anything, both easy and fun. From funny commercial clips to home videos, these sites offer millions of users the chance to share what was once impossible. Unfortunately, the average user does not realize many of the seemingly innocent tasks they perform, may be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This idea has created many ethical questions as the practice has become so deeply seeded into many users' lives. The majority of the intent appears innocent, with the primary goal socialization, but that does calm the angry owners of copyrighted material. The question still remains on where to place blame as well as what steps can be taken to minimize a group of violators that could number in the millions.

The DMCA

In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was established in response to the complaints of the digital media owners and producers. The idea was to create a law to limit pirates from circumventing the copyright protections placed by the owners (Boucher 2002). The act set out to accomplish several things and some of the general highlights included:

· Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.

· Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.

· Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.

· Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.

· In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.

· Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.

· Limits liability of nonprofit institutions of higher education -- when they serve as online service providers and under certain circumstances -- for copyright infringement by faculty members or graduate students.

· Requires that "webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies. (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm)

At the time, the law was not made specifically to address online video distribution and hosting. However, with the growing popularity of these practices, the DMCA is used to reference possible violations of the law.

Video Distribution and Hosting Ethics

It is quite possible that among the large group of internet users, most have either visited or participated in video sharing sites. Perhaps the most popular, YouTube.com offers users access to loads of free media that ranges from sports clips to homemade videos. What the average user may not realize is that many of the videos he/she watches or uploads may be copyrighted material. Still there remains the group who understand the material does not belong to them, but fears little consequence in distributing this material.

The DMCA has made it clear that this material is only the property of the original owner or producer, but the clarity ends there. The problem tends to dwell in discovering who is responsible for the violation. In video distribution there are two important yet separate parties. First there is the user who decides to knowingly or unknowingly share a piece of media that is copyrighted. Second there is the host who provides the platform for the sharing and distributing of this material. So who is committing the infringement? The initial outburst was to attack the sites hosting this material. Youtube and similar sites have faced legal threats and blame for allowing this to continue. Many argue that stronger filters and technology dedicated to catching copyrighted material need to be put in place (Popa 2007). In the meantime, large hosting sites maintain they are not the ones uploading the illegal material and to eradicate it completely, would use unrealistic resources. That certainly hasn't stopped companies like Viacom from filing billions dollar lawsuits to rectify "losses" (Arrington 2007).

Then there is the other party, meekly slinking off into the shadows. The users in this case often maintain anonymity and are free from begin caught. The problem is users are a much more dynamic, small and untraceable target. There is a growing attitude that it is time for the direct infringers to come under fire. The problem is that this seems unlikely, because it is simply easier to target large corporations. Attempting to pursue a lawsuit against someone with one or two violations pales in comparison to the statement a large scale lawsuit would make. This may seem a bit hypocritical for those claiming to be fighting the good fight, the ones supposed to be on the side of good ethical practices. But, sides will disagree, and those one this quest will make sure to it is known that this is the most effective process for the target goal. It is just unfortunate that how that goal is achieved is valued so little.

At the end of the day, while it seems these sites bear the brunt of the attack, they are not exactly innocent. These sites certainly turn a tidy profit, much of it from the attention drawn by the videos they so vehemently oppose publicly. No, it is not right to say they are unfairly persecuted, just that they only share the blame. For too long, the difficulty of catching users has caused the people to look elsewhere at an easier target. It is because of this that some companies may be dissolved (see napster), but the people will still begin infringing again with little fear.

Conclusion

Video hosting and distribution has received much attention as of late, but is ultimately not going anywhere anytime soon. The violated may continue to pursue easy targets like youtube, but will find this is only one small part of the ethical dilemma. Even if one falls, there will be so many more to take its place. Perhaps Rick Boucher is right and it is time to rewrite the DMCA (Boucher 2002). This seems like an overwhelming "where do we begin" type of problem. In the end, it is going to take a much larger, collective effort to crack down on these infringements and right now the violators vastly outnumber the violated. Just remember the next time you post a clip of your favorite show or a highlight of the game last night, you are more than likely breaking the law and someday, maybe not soon, you could find more trouble than you bargained for.

References

Arrington, M. 2007. Viacom Drops a $1 Billion Nuke on Google. Retrieved April 29,

2007 from http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/13/5217/

Bosovage, J. 2006. Is That Legal? Upload Videos At Your Own Risk. Information Week, Issue 1102. Retrieved April 26, 2007 from ProQuest databases.

Boucher, R. 2002. Time to Rewrite the DMCA. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from

http://news.com.com/2010-1071-825335.html

Pike, George H. Google, YouTube, Copyright, and Privacy.Information Today. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from EBSCOhost databases.

Popa, B. 2007. Youtube is Under Attack! Retrieved April 29, 2007 from

http://news.softpedia.com/news/YouTube-Is-Under-Attack-46480.shtml

UCLA. 2001. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Retrieved April 28, 2007 from

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm