DRM

Series links:

• Part 1 - Introduction
• Part 2 - Copyright and the Public Domain
• Part 3 - Copyright and Technology
• Part 4 - Positioning Copyright (This page!)
• Part 5 - Policing Patents
• Part 6 - Closing Comments

Copyright's Position has Shifted

Copyright was originally designed to be held by individuals, and used by individuals.

For individuals, litigation is expensive. But for corporations, it's much cheaper.

In a way, you could say copyright's position hasn't changed at all, but that society has shifted around it. That's probably an argument for another day, though - what's important to note is that copyright has an implicit assumption that the owner operates in certainty and at great expense.

That's what prevents routine abuses of copyright. The great expense for the individual.

But corporations don't have that problem, and they have - for some time now - been getting more and more egregious in their abuse of others via copyright law.

Series links:

• Part 1 - Introduction
• Part 2 - Copyright and the Public Domain
• Part 3 - Copyright and Technology (This page!)
• Part 4 - Positioning Copyright
• Part 5 - Policing Patents
• Part 6 - Closing Comments

Technology - Copyright's Bane and Boon for over a Century

Copyright has had a dependably repeating relationship with technology for over a century now.

The relationship goes like this:

1. A new innovation comes along, which either makes copyrighted material more easily available or makes it easier to create copyrightable material without expertise
2. The incumbents, threatened by this, complain like heck
3. The market (and maybe the incumbents) adapt, and much money is made
4. Something new is invented, everyone forgets history and goes back to step 1

It happened with the automatic piano player - "Musicians will go bankrupt! Who will learn musical instruments when the machine can play for them?".
It happened with the radio - "Who will pay for records if they can hear them for free?".
It happened (quite famously) with the video cassette recorder - "Who will pay for films when they can record them from the TV?"

And yet - as in each of the cases I mention there - after incumbents predict the death of their industry, they then they embrace the technology and make MUCH money from it.

Note that examples which allowed more creativity - cheaper cinefilm or video cameras, cheaper home recording, cheaper distribution - don't generate such protests. I'll let you figure out why that is yourself - but if you must have a clue, then it is the words "monopoly" and "distribution".