Collegiate Times

Students and faculty members listen to Patricia Aufderheide speak in Torgersen Hall about copyright law and policy on January 29th, 2009.

PA

: I think it is exhilarating and a wonderful time. During the Obama campaign, everyone used social networking to include themselves with the political process. However, I think that the part where people share private information is a short-lived phenomenon. We are going to see both better ways corporations harvest people and use it. Then see people protect themselves from the corporate grip.

CT

: You really believe that companies would take advantage of these people?

PA

: I believe every corporate marketer is figuring out how to social-market more effectively. The nave belief of sharing personal information with the world won't last very long. It leaves people too vulnerable in the long run. Marketers are moving faster than anyone else to take advantage of social networking to create communities.

CT

: Okay, so I have to bring up YouTube. It is reported in 2007 YouTube consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet in 2000. In March 2008, YouTube's bandwidth costs were estimated at approximately $1 million a day. Isn't this a nightmare for policy and copyright lawmakers? Having to adapt to this exponential growth in video sharing?

PA

: That's why I'm so interested in the fair use aspect. Fair use is absolutely critical in understanding how YouTube will grow, because presently, large corporations are telling Google that they need better control over what people post. YouTube has been criticized frequently for failing to ensure that its online content adheres to the law of copyright. One of the ways that Google and other video sites are dealing with the challenge is having automated searches for copyrighted footage. It says that YouTube has taken down your work, and if it's wrong, then let them know. People's rights have become limited.

CT

: We all see those YouTube videos being taken down. Organizations like Viacom are issuing lawsuits against Google under the terms of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Are the lines drawn down as clearly as they used to be? We can't be labeled criminals because of this.

PA

: People make new material out of existing material; that's what people do. It's very evident that it's digital copying, but it doesn't make it wrong or legal. Clearly Viacom, Disney, and other copyright holders speak out because their business models are in the toilet. They can no longer base their business models by owning the original copies. They do not have the right to tell us we're criminals by reusing their material.

CT

: We're not seeing these corporations loosening their grip on their own material. Do access control technologies like digital rights management (DRM) have us by the nose?

PA

: DRM is dying, but the problem is that legally the DMCA criminalizes any breaking of encryption, even if you have legal reason to do it. You can't claim fair use since the DMCA overrides it. Copyright holders say it won't be a problem because they just want to watch it, not reuse; legislators thought they were doing the right thing.

CT

: Regardless of legislature, do you see video culture expanding in 15 to 20 years?

PA

: People are consistently storming in the DMCA asking for exceptions... Enough people claim they can't do their work and create new outlets for culture if companies are pushing to criminalize this legal behavior. I think what YouTube is showing us is that there is not going be a distinction between culture and video culture. We will see a merging of all these forms.

I don't know if we'll call it video anymore.

Continue Reading:  « Previous12