How to Fix the Internet Copyright Problem Now - Will SOPA & OPEN Create Jobs & New Revenue Streams?

Jan. 21, 2012 - PRLog -- The main players representing copyright industries sat at the table with the architects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 for over five years before the DMCA was made law. During that period of discussions and hearings copyright proponents and technology proponents were well informed about the "...ease with which digital works can be copied and distributed..." and at the same time, that "without clarification of their liability, service providers may hesitate to make the necessary investment in the expansion of the speed and capacity of the Internet." These quotations are contained within the Senate Calendar No. 358 105th Congress 2d Session, Report 105-190 (May 11, 1998).

And so, the record shows that there was plenty of advance notice to the stakeholders that something very big was about to go down. So what the hell happened?

Human error. The leadership at that time simply missed the opportunity to work together to monetize these new activities and now we're doomed to weave a tangled web trying to control the natural activities on the Internet, in vain.

Technology proponents pretty much got what they wanted out of the DMCA and this promoted the growth of the Internet and related technologies - I get that and although it appears to be one-sided, I agree it was a necessary action.

But what about copyright proponents? They screwed up. If you and I sat in meetings for five years in which we were told that due to this emerging new technology it will be very easy for people to copy and distribute our assets all over the world, would we have said "Ok, we'll just deal with those things as they happen"? - I don't think so. What they should have done sometime within those five years of meetings was to introduce plans to monetize the natural Internet activities of easy copying and sharing. Unfortunately, judging from the outcome, that did not happen in any significant manner to make a difference or to provide balance to the DMCA for all stakeholders. I don't think it was even brought up for discussion.

Over the years, I've been very vocal about what should have been done and in fact I’m currently applying those principles to an emerging non-Internet technology - multimedia messaging. But within this release I just want to focus on how to fix the Internet intellectual property problem - after the fact.

There is a very common activity that humans perform all over the world that is analogous to the Internet. This common activity had the same problems in its early stages whereas a person having the best intentions could unintentionally cause serious harm to others along the way so laws and measures were put in place to regulate and minimize the negative aspects for the good of the whole. These laws like most things are a work in progress and require updating as times change. But these laws were impossible to enforce before the fact or as the infraction happened and also there were chronic violations of both types, intentional and unintentional. So what was done about this? The activities were monetized.

The common activity I am referring to is driving and the traffic laws that go along with that activity. These traffic laws are a major source of income for jurisdictions all over the world. It's not rocket science - people screw up, they get a ticket. Sometimes people screw up on purpose, sometimes not. Either way, it gets monetized and that's productive! Does it deter illegal activities? Not totally, but realistically speaking, it causes the vast majority of people to be very careful not to get a ticket.

This approach would not only have a profound effect on the Internet intellectual property problem but it will also provide a new revenue stream to States, provide new employment opportunities and probably spawn new industries too.

Let me explain how easy this would be to deploy.

Imagine that Jerry Brown, the Governor of California contacted Google/YouTube and asked if they had a way to segregate their users by State. For those of you in the know about basic technology the segregation of end users by State is a very easy thing to do via fundamental database management. So once Jerry gets the obvious answer he then asks on behalf of intellectual property rights if YouTube would be willing to add to its California users’ upload page a simple short paragraph (affidavit) that states by checking this box (mandatory) you certify that you have the right to upload this content etcetera etcetera and anything to the contrary is punishable by a misdemeanor minimum fine of $250 and a maximum 6 months in jail etcetera etcetera (typical language found within our traffic laws).

This would transform the current non-productive "take down" policy into a productive vehicle for new revenue to the State whereas, if during the take down period it is found that it was indeed an infringing upload that user would get a ticket - simple as that. It's not rocket science. Do you think this will deter infringing uploads on YouTube? Probably not totally but just like traffic violations it will deter the vast majority of intentional violations while at least monetizing the unintentional and chronic offenders’ activities. Of course these principles would have to be legislated or otherwise legally deployed in each State desiring to participate.

Will the tech community complain? Probably at first, but by doing so they would be exposed as frauds should they try to hang their hat on a "keep the Internet free" smoke screen. So I would guess that the vast majority of intelligent and enlightened tech community members would understand this to be a fair remedy. Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.

These tickets may be issued by the State only when there is a violation and just like a traffic ticket you get a court date and/or pay the fine by the deadline. If you ignore the ticket there will probably be a warrant put out for your arrest (just like a traffic ticket). In fact, I just got burned for a $25 fix it ticket in Malibu, California because I missed the appearance date. After being told for about three weeks after the infraction that I was not yet in the system so they couldn't accept my $25 fine and proof until I was, I totally forgot about the court date and they stuck it to me! I got something in the mail saying I owed a $1500 bail and my license would be suspended etcetera etcetera. I immediately made another court date and the judge dropped the charges because I had proof of insurance but I still had to pay a $425 handling charge. WTF! You think the city of Malibu is making money here? If I had simply kept my current proof of insurance in my truck I wouldn't have this problem.

Now, let's follow the (hypothetical) money in the YouTube situation. John Doe got busted uploading some infringing content or got caught downloading a YouTube video. The State would collect any monies due and the money would be distributed as States normally do but since the revenue is gained via intellectual property infringement some of this money would go to the intellectual property community via the "Internet Intellectual Property Collective". That collective would be responsible for making the proper disbursements to the rightful owners.

Our leaders in the intellectual property community, tech community, legislature and elsewhere have a fiduciary duty to get these problems solved on behalf of the people. The traffic analogy while not perfect has worked for years in societies all over the world so why would it not work now?

It’s time for intellectual property based industries to understand that it is counter-productive to try to control Internet activities using over reaching measures like diluting due process. Likewise it’s time for the tech community to understand that it is counter-productive to disrespect intellectual property laws by refusing to acknowledge value for the digital medium of expression.

It’s not rocket science – it’s called productivity.

max davis