Lobb critique
From CyberOne Wiki
onathan Lobb
CyberOne
01/03/08
Review of “Copyright and Internet Law”
The Project
“Copyright and Internet Law” is a Scratch game that is designed to demonstrate to the user the absurdity of the United States’ copyright laws. The game achieves its objective by first presenting the user with a range of media, from movies to television shows to computer software to books. After the user clicks one of the media forms, the game details the overly severe punishments that the copyright regime imposes on people who illegally download such media in violation of copyright law. The game then shows the seemingly more attractive, commons-based alternatives that allow all users to have open access to the materials without violating any laws.
The Argument
The project makes a good argument. The current copyright regime in this country is terribly outdated, and the ever increasing ability of Americans (and everyone else) to share information electronically is only making the current laws look more ridiculous. The project does a good job of highlighting the dangers of violating the copyright laws by using both facts (citing, for example, to the Virgin Records America v. Thomas decision in support of the project’s argument that someone might be forced to pay over $200,000 in damages for illegally downloading only 24 songs through Kazaa) and scare tactics (in the form of a demonic “entertainment lawyer” who effectively promises to fully enforce the copyright laws in the future by suing the user for even the slightest copyright infractions). The project also illustrates that certain media interests, such as the MPAA and RIAA, are determined to enforce the copyright laws to the most extreme degree possible and to scare would be violators into obeying the laws. Perhaps the best example that the project provides of these groups’ intent is the hypothetical case involving the illegal downloading of The Incredibles and a few other movies. The project posits that the MPAA would sue the violator for $600,000 (it is unclear whether this amount could actually be derived from the text of the copyright laws) and ultimately settle for $2,000. Sadly, this scenario seems to be a common example of media interests bullying individuals into paying excessive sums for minor infractions of archaic laws (this immediately reminded me of the fairly recent rash of RIAA lawsuits and the website that allows people who have been sued to pay a flat settlement fee).
The project also does a good job of informing the user of the commons-based alternatives that exist, highlighting those that exist through both independent providers (such as Project Gutenberg) and media interests (such as NBC.com). This part of the project might have benefited from some analysis or comparison of the relative advantages and disadvantages of having media concerns like NBC offering commons-based media sharing versus having independent interests offer the same services. It is clear that the project designer thinks that the United States should be moving to more open access solutions, but it would have been interesting to know who she thinks should be moving us there and why.
It would have also been helpful to know just how far away from the current copyright system the designer thinks that we should move. For example, should the copyright system just be done away with, giving artists’ work no sort of copyright protection, or should there be more limited protections, such as an elective rather than a default regime (which would require artists to choose to have their work copyrighted), shorter copyright periods, or more limited penalties for copyright violations, and if so, how should those alternatives be implemented? Also, how should individuals who disagree with the copyright system and want to see changes get involved and work toward solving the problem? What are some of the names of interest groups working on the problem already, and how does the average person help? Detailed analysis of this part of the problem would probably be unnecessary, as it seems to be slightly beyond the intended scope of the project, but it would have been helpful as a user to know a little bit about where the designer thinks the copyright system should end up. It might be sufficient for the project designer to include a link to the Do Not Click website (which includes more information about solutions than the game itself) that she helped to create.
Empathy
While the merits of the argument made in the project are certainly strong, a potential weakness of the argument is that it seems to lack empathy. Objectively, the project reads a lot like a public service announcement that is intended mostly to inform people who use the internet and media-sharing software of the dangers of copyright violation and the existence of open access alternatives. The “project notes” to the game indicate that the purpose is largely informational, and the argument aspect enters only indirectly when the project highlights the ridiculous punishments that exist for copyright violations (and shows the user the scary “entertainment lawyer”). From my own point of view, I found the project as a whole to be convincing in its argument about the copyright system, but I believe that my feelings were largely predetermined, as I hold similar views and did not require much (if any) convincing prior to my viewing of the project. I also suspect that most of the others in the class would react similarly, as class discussion of this issue seemed to produce a lot of support for the idea of a major overhaul to the copyright system. However, it seems somewhat doubtful that someone who is an ardent supporter of the current copyright regime (such as a recording artist) would be at all convinced by the argument. In fact, it might be that someone who holds such views might see parts of the project as supporting, rather than opposing, his views. For example, a recording artist would probably view the Virgin Records America v. Thomas decision as standing for the proposition that people should respect the current copyright laws or face a hefty penalty, and it is unlikely that (without more argument) he would be convinced that the copyright regime should be changed or scrapped. The same logic would apply to the project’s use of the commons-based alternatives. Someone who is in favor of keeping the current copyright system might not see open access to copyrighted material as being a welcome alternative to the overly protective system that we have now.
A way to improve the empathic nature of the project’s argument would first involve making the project more argumentative as a whole. As it stands, the project is more about providing information to the user than making an argument to him, and there would seem to be a limitless number of ways to emphasize the argument over the information. For example, the game could be made more adversarial by pitting the user against the evil media interests and challenging the user to somehow defeat them and allow open access to prevail over copyright. There are a lot of creative aspects to the game, and it would seem like the designer would have no problem reworking it. After emphasizing the argumentative aspect over the informational aspect, the argument could be made more empathic by showing how it would be in the interest of media groups like the RIAA and MPAA, as well as individuals, to have open access to media through some sort of commons. While it is true that many individuals view the copyright system as being more bothersome than beneficial, it seems clear that most media groups feel the opposite way, and it is necessary to show why these groups would benefit from open access. For example, the project gives as an example of a commons-based solution the ability to watch episodes of The Office on NBC.com. The project would have benefited from showing how NBC benefits from offering full episodes of its shows online. Such benefits might include increased revenue from advertising (NBC.com builds several commercials into its shows), DVD sales, and other merchandise (NBC.com offers a wide range of apparel and other show-related material, such as stress balls and bobble-head dolls, for The Office).
As a whole, the project was entertaining, dealt with a subject of contemporary importance, and made a sensible case for change. The argument will be even more effective when it shows why all groups would benefit from an open access solution.
1
