Newbie Guides The Internet Guide Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet

The Internet has been called many things. Offhand, the one that first comes to mind is, “the last frontier for freedom.” Perhaps this is because the medium has yet to become excessively encumbered with laws and restrictions. Some refer to the World Wide Web as a “free for all.” Usually this particular phrase is voiced tongue in cheek, and for Internet critics, it’s often repeated with contempt. I mention the word “free” in the opening remarks of this piece for a purpose. The idea of the Net being the last frontier of freedom may be in jeopardy for several reasons. Let’s look at them. The Internet is overflowing with free offers. Commercial Websites, in an effort to attract visitors to their sites, are giving away all kinds of things. Magazine subscriptions, Websites, cameras, clothes and computers are just a few of the freebies being offered. But it’s not promotional offers that threaten some of our basic freedoms. There’s something else going on, and if it isn’t brought under control, the regulators will be more than happy to apply a few speed bumps to the last frontier.

What I’m talking about is, the misappropriation of intellectual property. Intellectual property is a piece of artistic work created by someone and protected by a trademark, copyright, and occasionally a patent. A few years ago, as the Internet was making its way into mainstream America, I heard that anything published on the Web was exempt from copyright protection. I quickly did some checking and was relieved to learn that wasn’t true. For a moment I became just a little concerned. But what if it were true? As of the middle of the year 2001, there were more than two billion Web pages in existence. Without protection from copyright theft, the Internet would make for an enormous database of material for individuals or companies seeking something for nothing. Never before has it been so easy to claim another’s work as your own. There are companies that spend thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds to create state-of-the-art Websites. And for about £100 anyone can buy a software program that allows the user to download the site to disk, change the significant individual company information, remove any obvious trademarks, and publish the site as their own.
The question in my mind is this, “is this okay?” Technically speaking, there aren’t any laws keeping people from doing this, yet. But aside from the use of unabashed creative license when it comes to Website design, there are more serious issues at hand.

At present, there is an international dispute simmering over the free distribution of copyrighted music and video over the Web. And it presents an interesting dilemma. In the spring of 2000, a company called Napster went into business. One of the co-founders developed a software program that allows the fast and easy transfer of MP3 music files over the Internet. At first glance one might think this was another milestone in the ever-growing world of technology. And that would be true. It’s the application of the software that has the music and movie industries in such a tizzy.
What Napster has done is actually quite clever. Using the Internet, they’ve formed an association of people who wish to both borrow and lend music to other people in the association. It works like this. When an individual signs up for membership, he provides Napster with a list of music he is willing to allow others in the club to download, using the software developed by the company. In exchange for this, he has access to all of the music offered by the other members. Each member downloads the software from the Napster Website, which includes a directory of available tunes and an online chat forum. This way, members can find out who has the music files they are looking for, and who is currently online making them available. It’s like an international music library with an unlimited supply of inventory.

What this does is allow people to download entire music CDs and collections and make copies to keep. The music industry and many recording artists feel this is outright piracy. The company contends that the arrangement is simply a big music lending co-operative. One might easily get the impression that once an individual has paid for a legitimate copy of a CD, that it is his to do with as he pleases, including lending it to another. I think the question comes down to this, is he really lending it? The argument can be made that he is, and be compared to the arrangement book borrowers have with libraries, but very few people have ever borrowed a library book, and made a copy before returning it. To do so is against the law.

It seems both sides have valid points. Is the digital transfer of music a violation of the law? We know that to sell the music file would be a violation. But no one is selling anything. With every new wave of recording technology that has come along, from early tape recorders to audio and videocassettes, the holders of the copyrighted materials felt their livelihood threatened. In reality however, piracy was discouraged because of the difficulty in mass duplicating audio and videocassettes. But the Web changes everything. Mass duplication of music is occurring, even if it happens one recording at a time over the Net. And the bottom line is, the people who created the music are not being paid for their work.

A Federal judge ordered Napster to stop the facilitation of the music downloads. The company was granted a last minute stay of the order. Everyone concerned awaited the final outcome. It almost goes without saying that this issue will needed to be resolved in the courts. Though digital duplication hasn’t presented a threat to the book publishing industry yet, at least on a large scale, it’s possible we’ll see similar conflicts arise here as well. And this all comes back to the point I made in opening. When people give cause for governments to regulate or restrict something, politicians on both sides of the aisle are all too happy to oblige. It seems only fair that both sides of the issue have their day in court. That’s what this country is all about. I think we’ll all be able to live with whatever decision the courts hand down. There are laws that address copyright infringement now, and if it’s decided that’s what is happening, let it be so. Politicians always seem to want to create more laws where existing ones would work well if only enforced. In my opinion, that would be a shame. It would be a sad day to see more restrictions imposed on the last frontier of freedom.

History Of The Internet