COMMENTARY--As digital media shifts from CD-Rs to writeable DVDs, the question of copyright fair use isn't getting any less relevant.
Millions upon millions of blank CD-Rs are sold every year, and within the next few years, those CD-Rs are likely to be replaced by writeable DVDs in whatever format finally prevails. The subject of what all those consumers do with their millions of discs is a very tricky one indeed, and aside from keeping a small army of lawyers ungainfully employed, it's not a subject that's likely to be quickly (or cleanly) resolved any time soon.
I'm somewhat split on the copyright issue surrounding digital media. As someone whose paycheque exists solely as a function of my ability to create copyrighted material -- this column, plenty of reviews, guides and assorted other technology related content -- I've got something of a vested interest in making sure I'm adequately recompensed for my efforts. If I choose to freely create something for mass consumption, then fine, you can do what you like with it. If, on the other hand, I'm creating something with a vested copyright, and you choose to ignore that, or worse still, profit from it yourself, I'd be keen to have a word with you. I'll be the one in the dark alley holding the baseball bat.
On the other hand, there are plenty of areas where I reckon fair use doesn't get enough of a fair shake. Music and software companies seem to play both sides of the fence on the subject of what you can and can't do with their copyrighted content. I don't see a massive problem with treating most media as thought it were similar to a book. I can read a book, it can travel with me, and I can only interface with it in a one-on-one situation. I can lend said book to my friends, who can read it. There seems little difference with music or software, as long as I'm not simultaneously using the software or music. To the best of my knowledge, Australia doesn't explicitly have the same fair usage rights as the United States, although many people presume we do. I don't see a particular issue with a single-use instance of most copyrighted material, as long as it is single-use at any one time. The existing copyright monopolies -- especially the recording industries -- cry foul at any additional use of their material, falling back on the 'protecting the artists' mantra, although it seems as though these are the same artists the recording industry milks with some terribly one-sided contracts. It's not quite the same in the software industry, where most works are quite specifically work-for-hire, and it's certainly more possible to strike out on one's own if that takes your fancy.
Then there's the suggestion of levies on blank digital media, but what happens when you are in fact burning your own content? Will you get a refund? Do you have to prove it's your own content, and what does that mean for privacy?
Unlike a lot of fair use advocates, I don't have a pro-P2P stance; while those applications do have legitimate uses, it's only the terribly ostrich-like who'd realistically claim that legitimate files make up anything more than 1% of their total traffic, and that's probably wildly optimistic on my part.
The existence of writeable DVD media further confuses the situation. While there are plenty of content creators out there who do have their own (or free) content that ranges into the multiple gigabytes, I'd be surprised if that made up the majority of the market for writeable DVDs. Hop into any DVD related message board or newsgroup, and you'll see a ton of messages either enquiring about or debating copying commercial DVDs. The capacity of a DVD to store material, be it legitimately owned or warezed, just makes the problem surrounding current copyright even worse.
What do you think? Should Australia bring in fair use rights, and what is fair use when it comes to copyrighted digital material anyway? Send us your thoughts to edit@zdnet.com.au.
6%
1%
