Consumers should have the right to use technology, to benefit from innovation and to access entertainment while making sure that artists are properly compensated.
In the opening address marking the start of the 2007 Consumer Electronics Association(CEA) Gary Shapiro, CEA President and CEO, made plain his contention that consumers are increasingly frustrated by overbearing intellectual property rights and restrictions.
Added to consumer frustration is the frustration of manufacturers and companies who wish to make content more readily available to consumers but, are stymied by government legislation or fear of litigation.
The technology to put content at consumers fingertips irrespective of time, place, or location is a dream that one would think we all share yet, there are those who purposefully hinder this from happening because of their own selfish motives or considerations.
Some of the emerging technologies pose a great threat to current business models and methods of revenue production.
Streaming Cable TV over the internet, for instance, replaces the need for your local Cable TV provider. Software like TVUPlayer poses a direct threat to their very business model, and so it comes as no sup rise that they are challenging the ability of users to shift content to a different location. Even though the ads are not removed, the feed is unaltered, they still dislike the fact that one is rendering their services obsolete.
Music is probably a better example of how fears of new technology become lines in the sand and lead to a hysteria of litigation and cries for new legislation to protect it from “unauthorized” uses.
Apple’s iTunes has taken fears of “unauthorized” usage by consumers to the next level. Fearful of letting their content be co-opted by digital distribution technology, they have incorporated numerous checks and balances to prevent consumers from ever really having full control over purchased material.
Here’s a few of the rules:
- Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers
- Restricts converting to other formats: Songs only sold in AAC with Apple DRM
- Limits portable player compatibility: iPod and other Apple devices only
- No remixing: Cannot edit, excerpt, or otherwise sample songs
How’s this for fair-use rights?
Shapiro made a good point in that technology must never be feared simply because it may make some business models outdated.
He said:
How far will the advances in storage, transmission, broadband, display, search, transfer, and other rapidly growing customization, personalization and recognition technologies take us? Our digital world is a world of opportunity. It is a global opening of the American dream and it rewards the clever who can think outside the box. Come up with a new service, application, technology or content which solves a problem, improves efficiency, entertains or delights and you will be rewarded with fame, fortune or both.
We are entering a world where soon anyone can access what even the rich could not obtain just a few years ago. It is a marvelous world of opportunity, knowledge and immediacy. It is a smaller world and it is a better world.
That imagination and this new convergence deserve to go far and we must be so careful we do not put limits on them simply because they are different and change the world and the businesses we knew a generation ago.
He made a good point in that even the poorest among us have access to news and information that would have been unimaginable even just a few years ago. The internet allows us to deliver content on an even playing field, and all can potentially access whatever video, audio, and image material that they desire.
Yet, there lies more hurdles ahead than just that of business model fears.
Shapiro noted:
The biggest area of contention today is that of intellectual property. For more than two decades, I have led a team of great industry advocates fighting proposals that would restrict, tax, ban or hobble our technology. We have not been entirely successful. Small and large companies now face debilitating lawsuits. Consumers are frustrated. Venture capitalists say it is too risky to fund companies that shift content in time, place or location.
We agree that content creators must be compensated. We understand and share the aversion to those that steal content without authorization and resell it. Commercial piracy is wrong. But we draw a different line on what is acceptable in the home. We believe consumers should not be in legal jeopardy if they do something with lawfully acquired content and keep it in their home. We believe that consumers have rights and that the copyright laws need to be changed to reduce potential damages for companies launching new products where the copyright law is unclear or where the inventor does not intentionally or directly infringe copyrights.
Again, whatever happened to fair-use rights?
If I pay for a song doesn’t the song then become my property to listen to whenever and wherever I please? Or is it merely on loan?
When I buy music from iTunes I cannot play it other portable music devices, thereby preventing what may be better devices from competing for my listening experience.
Shapiro furthered:
Piracy is wrong. But ordinary consumers are not pirates, and private conduct may be unauthorized – but that does not mean it is piracy. Consumers have the right to use technology, to benefit from innovation and to access entertainment while making sure that artists are properly compensated.
Movies are another example of how an industry fears technology. Many people no longer have the time or the desire to travel to a cinema to watch a movie. They want to watch it on their own terms, at the place, the time, and in the format of their own choosing. Movie studio execs lie awake at night in absolute dread over what this means for the future of their business but, they fail to recognize the potential for new and innovative methods of delivering content to consumers.
Movie studios are afraid that changing methods of distribution so that content can be delivered digitally online will only encourage piracy, and having already seen what piracy has done to the music industry they are reluctant to embrace a new vision.
But, considering piracy is already a rampant affair mainly because they offer no legal method of online distribution, the best option is to embrace it rather than fight a losing battle like the music industry has done for so many years. That should be the real message of the music industries failures, that it was their refusal to embrace technology that caused them to lose so much.
Viable alternatives to piracy is what industries need most. If it is the only option consumers have then it should come as no surprise as to what they choose.
A few of the studios announced distribution deals with BitTorrent Inc. a few months ago but, will it go far enough? The details as to the type and selection of available content have not yet been released, so it’s anybody’s guess as to whether or not it will be a viable alternative to piracy or not.
Gary Shapiro made one last point as to how he and the CEA want to see consumers right protected so that technology isn’t impeded by unwarranted concerns from intellectual property rights holders.
He announced the creation of the Digital Freedom Campaign, a “common sense” initiative to preserve and defend the rights of consumers.
He noted:
The Campaign is clear that consumers have certain rights. These are common sense rights and are supported by many respected groups. Indeed, a growing group of innovators, artists, students and consumers know that they have a stake in the IP debate. The digital revolution provides new opportunities for artists to create, distribute and sell their works, but this revolution is not a done deal. It can be thrown off course if we smother the ability of technology to progress. We are at risk of not only restricting good, new helpful technology in ways we cannot envision, but this same technology is allowing anyone to be an author, filmmaker or broadcaster.
If the campaign also seeks to uphold the CEA’s position on “Protecting Consumer Recording Rights” then the truly are on the side of consumers.
From “Protecting Consumer Recording Rights”:
CEA believes in the protection of intellectual property while maintaining consumers’ home recording rights, and ability to use lawfully acquired media for noncommercial purposes. In addition, CEA believes threatening digital rights issues should be subject to inter-industry resolution rather than government imposed technology mandates.
CEA promotes the following guiding principles with respect to intellectual property in the digital age:
• Innovation and Content
Consumer electronics manufacturers oppose piracy, and support the intellectual property rights of copyright holders. However, it is important that copyright law’s traditional balance between copyright holder rights and innovation be maintained.We also believe it essential that policymakers distinguish between “piracy”—i.e. the mass, unauthorized commercial reproduction of a copyrighted work—and noncommercial consumer conduct. CEA opposes approaches that would, under the guise of attacking piracy, impose disproportionate
costs on the technology industry or hinder technological innovation.
• Fair Use
Fair use – the privilege of non-copyright owners to use copyrighted material for purposes of criticism, for purposes of display, for purposes of personal consumption, and so on – remains vital to consumer use of such materials in the digital age. For example, consumers should retain the right to private, noncommercial
home recording of content originating as TV or radio broadcasts, as well as the right to time-shift and placeshift lawfully acquired content.
• Home Recording
Home recording and piracy should not be confused. Home recording practices have nothing to do with commercial retransmission of signals, or unauthorized commercial reproduction of content.
• Warning Labels on “Copy Protected” Compact Disks
All compact disks equipped with “copy protection” should carry clear, conspicuous and informative consumer warning labels.
• Anti-Circumvention
The anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), make decrypting a copyright protection scheme illegal, even if the purpose is to allow fair use of underlying material. For example, this language could make it illegal for a consumer to remove spyware placed on a computer by a “copy protected” CD. The DMCA should be changed to ensure that no penalties arise from circumvention so long as no infringement occurs.
Consumer rights are always under assault it seems, and it’s refreshing to hear about another group of people taking a stand.
Sure the group may have underlying concerns for profit and viability, it is a business organization after all, but, I think it is their quest for innovation and satisfying consumer demand that make it an important ally for consumers.
RELATED NEWS AND “HOW TO” GUIDES:
Watch The Simpsons, The Office, Jackass, South Park, Lost, X-Men, and More On-Demand For Free
Watch TV for free with “Pick and Watch”
TVU Player gives you FREE Cable TV
BitTorrent keeps going legit’; Azureus to offer BBC shows …
New Sony TVs will stream video from the internet
Netgear partners with BitTorrent Inc.
Could BitTorrent Inc. be the new model for file-sharing legitimacy?
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
uTorrent – A Beginner’s guide to BitTorrent downloading
Top 10 P2P Friendly Colleges
Is 2007 the year the CD died?
Stream Rock N’ Roll Concert Classics for free on “Wolfgang’s Vault”
20,000 YouTube music videos at your fingertips
vNES: play Nintendo games in your internet browser
SOULXTC: “walkin’ the streets of P2P”
Related Posts
- Device lobbyist taking fight to consumers
- Digital Freedom Campaign Begins, Claims Right to Download Movies, Music
- RIAA After Consumers Again
- Copying Own CDs Still Not Legal
- Pres-Elect Obama: What Does it Mean for P2P?
Loading ...
