Iwaskiw 1

Christopher Iwaskiw
Radford Skudrna
ENGL101S, Section 0511
November 26, 2014
The intended audience for this essay is anybody who uses the internet for more than a
daily email or news check. Because of the increasing prevalence of online technology to
complete our work and school tasks, this audience is growing and growing every day. In
particular, a peripheral goal of the study is to "spread the word" about the problems with the
internet copyright system, and raise awareness towards readers who may use the internet
frequently, but do not understand why they cannot find their favorite song on YouTube or a
video or post they love was taken down with a copyright violation. A secondary audience to my
argument may include those who are more particularly in support of a governmental control
method of regulating copyright; a technique more in line with the recent SOPA and PIPA bills.
This audience may include lawmakers, as well as members of the film and music industry.
While the general audience may be more incline to agree with my argument, this secondary
audience will assuredly be dissenters. Therefore, this argument will attempt to address this
secondary audience as well as inform the general, internet-using public.
Adjusting the Norm: Why Internet Copyright Law Needs Small Change, Not Big Change.
Of the estimated 353,860,227 people living in North America, 84.9%, or just over 3
billion of them use the internet, according to a recent survey by internetworldstats.com. On
this website, the statistic and organization is listed with "Copyright 2001 - 2014, Miniwatts
Marketing Group. All rights reserved worldwide." (Internet World Stats). This "" symbol is

Iwaskiw 2

called a copyright notice, and lets a reader know that a work of intellectual property is
protected by copyright (iusmentis). We often take all of these facts for granted, but because
both the internet and copyright law are so prevalent in today's culture, it makes sense to study
how the two relate in tandem. As a matter of fact, the two have an interesting story and
ongoing problems associated between them. Identifying and solving the problem of copyright
on the internet will correct decade-long disputes and protect artists, filmmakers, musicians and
writers from losing their intellectual property rights.
What are intellectual property rights? An intellectual property, or IP, as defined by the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), refers broadly to the creations of the
human mind. Intellectual property can be an idea, a theory, a statement, or a work of art
(WIPO 3). As devices emerged throughout history to easily copy and share intellectual works,
authors and artists began fearing for their livelihood. In the 18 th century, a system of law called
copyright emerged to protect the rights of IP creators. The WIPO says on these rights:
Intellectual property rights protect the interests of creators by giving them property rights
over their creations (WIPO 3). Copyright protects IPs from being used without the creators
consent.
However, when the internet was birthed and an all-new digital era was created, new
challenges were thrown in the face of copyright lawmakers. The new challenges were formed
due to the incredible level of connectivity and transparency, as well as the relatively cheap and
easy ways to digitally copy intellectual works. Because the internet has exploded into the
phenomenon it is today, used every day by nearly everybody in the western world, it has

Iwaskiw 3

become virtually impossible to control how works get shared, disseminated, and altered (Yoder
385). The core argument for intellectual property rights is a sentiment we often take for
granted: an artist or creator deserves credit and payment for their work. Many intellectual
properties take hundreds of thousands of dollars to create, and the more pirated copies are
used, the less money goes to the creators to create new works for fans to enjoy. The argument
also falls under a matter of principle; for example, as a creator of intellectual property,
including works of writing and music, it would upset me for my works to be used without
receiving credit. The essential view that a majority can agree with is The principle of any kind
of property is that the owner may use it as he wishes, and that nobody else can lawfully use it
without his authorization. (WIPO 7)
Intellectual property laws, like many government policies, can be quite controversial.
Susan K. Sell begins her journal article on the subject with a statement that Intellectual
property policymaking is one of the most contentious and important regulatory issues in
contemporary politics.(Sell, 67) The internet copyright infringement debate came to national
attention on January 18, 2012 when popular sites Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, and others
participated in a mass protest against a bill in Congress at the time, the Stop Online Piracy Act
(SOPA). Proponents for the act included major entertainment and commerce corporations,
such as MasterCard and the MPAA. Their goal was to target file-sharing pirate websites and
shut them down to prevent bootlegging of copyrighted materials (Wortham, 2012). SOPA, as
described by the U.S. Congress, was To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and
innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property and for other purposes. (United States, 3)

Iwaskiw 4

The new sorts of legislation being developed in the realm of internet copyright are not
without heavy opposition. When the United States Congress held a hearing to discuss the
enactment of SOPA, John Conyers of Michigan began by stating an account of the views in
opposition of the bill. He began by presenting the following satirical image;

This image displays the kind of attitude many internet users have towards government
copyright legislation. Conyers went on to detail, on a more serious note, the problems that
opposing parties had with the bill; that it threatens freedom of expression, and inadvertently
involve[s] non-infringing operator[s], and that this would violate their constitutional rights.
(United States 23-25) Essentially, the core principles of recent government copyright legislation

Iwaskiw 5

is to target the foundations of internet technology and shut down websites themselves, instead
of targeting only liable posters of content. This is due to the emergence of large, hard-toregulate, user-generated websites such as YouTube (Weatherall 114).
The effects of internet copyright law are far-reaching and affect anybody using the
internet. Consider, as an example, an experience of professional vocalist and songwriter Jillian
Aversa, as displayed on the social media site Facebook:
"Oh my god, are you kidding me?! YouTube took down my Destiny 'Hope For the
Future' music video due to copyright violation! How does that make any sense?
It's an arrangement using absolutely ZERO samples from the original, and it's not
even for sale! Even the ORIGINAL song isn't for sale - and Paul McCartney
HIMSELF said he liked our version! There is no way this video shouldn't qualify
under fair use." (Jillian Aversa)
In this case, because of an alleged violation of copyright, or perhaps a lapse in the system used
to flag infringing content, Jillian's work was denied exposure and her fans were unable to enjoy
the video. She reasons that her work falls under the precept of "fair use," that is, the criteria
for using copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder (Demac 5). Clearly
there is a problem with how intellectual property is protected in the online digital environment
of the web. Is there a solution, or will a community always be left unhappy?
This study will suggest a possible solution to the stated problem. In my opinion, the
responsibility for the policing of infringing content should lie with intermediaries such as
websites. Any additional policing needed should be provided by the offended parties such as

Iwaskiw 6

the MPAA and the IFPI. I will attempt to dispute various opposing views and alternative
solutions as well. My proposed solution is not a major overhaul of the current system, but
rather an adjustment of the current scheme.
Before delving into my proposal, a brief understanding of the government's attitude
towards internet copyright legislation is necessary. One of my major contributing sources is
Kimberlee Weatherall's 2012 article for Media International Australia, "The New (Old) War on
Copyright Infringement, and How Context is Opening New Regulatory Possibilities." This work
seeks to explain that the recent attitude of governments is to police the internet with
legislation, which is a departure from the "compromise" achieved decades ago.
Weatherall, in her commentary, delves into the world of the mid-1990s. She explains a
compromise that the government made with internet intermediaries; that is, as long as site
owners remove infringing material as soon as they are aware, they will not be proved liable.
This negotiation stood for a decade or so. Technology began to shift and the U.S. government
began discussing and creating legislation in 2009, such as SOPA, to target "rogue websites."
Weatherall argues, "where the mid-1990s compromise focused on removing infringing
material, SOPA required the wholesale removal of sites." (Weatherall 113) The government no
longer was targeting the content on the internet as much as the "architecture" of the internet.
Weatherall ponders that "the question of interest is why [SOPA] could be taken
seriously at all." (114) In the past, Peer-2-Peer file-sharing sites such as Napster, Limewire, and
Morpheus provided an organized, widespread, and easy-to-use outlet for illegally downloading
intellectual property (Yoder 385). However, infringing intermediaries are moving more towards

Iwaskiw 7

self-interest, particularly due to the advent of internet providers such as Netflix, Amazon,
Spotify, and other services paid for by subscription or advertising. Weatherall describes the
compromise agreed on in the 90s as a "hands off" approach. She describes that there is a
"...tension between a historical 'hands off' approach and the new regulatory impulse" (118),
pointing out the challenge that internet copyright opponents face in the future.
Although Weatherall's essay is explanatory in nature, it has subtext that implies
disagreement with the shift in governmental outlook. In my argument, I would tend to agree
with Weatherall. In my opinion, instead of a substantial overhaul, the current system needs
small changes. The target of copyright law should be on infringing works; websites should be
responsible for policing their own content. They should be held liable as soon as they are made
aware of the content, which is a process known as "safe harbors." These safe harbors make
sure that websites will not be held liable unless they are made aware by a user flag
(PlagiarismOnline).
Problems encountered through this solution are made apparent by stories such as
Jillian's flagged music video. Because any user can flag content for copyright violation on many
sites such as YouTube, it becomes easy for anybody to abuse the system. This is why the
system needs to be tightened up to include more involvement from offended parties, such as
the movie and music industry. If these massive money-making industries are interested
enough in protecting their content, they should invest in agents to review flags and make sure
they are truly infringing. If this were the case, something like Jillian's video would have been
understood to be fair use, and would not have been removed.

Iwaskiw 8

Another proposed method comes from William Fisher's Promises to Keep. This new
approach, coined as the "Fisher Plan" by Frank Pasquale of the Boston Review describes a new
system involving taxation and fees. Fisher elaborates the logistics as follows: a creator wishing
to receive copyright registration for a work in a digital medium such as music or video would
register with the copyright office, and their computer file would attain a "digital fingerprint", to
be used in an advanced online tracking system. Music and movies would become available
online for free, and using the tracking system, the government would keep count of the amount
of times the each work is used online. Then, the government would subsidize the content
creators with a tax placed on internet providers. Fisher estimated in 2004 that a tax of six
dollars a month to use internet providers would cover all of the costs allegedly inflicted on the
movie and music industry (Fisher).
This kind of method, using public funding to subsidize content creators, would
ultimately be unsuccessful, in my opinion. Increasing taxes is already a quite unpopular
decision that any politician would be unlikely to pursue, especially considering the use of this
new tax. Also, due to the exponentially increasing rate of internet users and the ever changing
landscape of the web, the logistics Fisher calculated in 2004 would not translate successfully a
decade later.
In conclusion, it is apparent that copyright law requires change in some manner.
However, this change does not necessarily need to be substantial and monumental. A more
subtle approach would affect both internet users and industries less, and be more of a

Iwaskiw 9

compromise. In order for the internet's ability to share and grow intellectual property to
remain intact, both sides may have to take a hit.
Works Cited:
1. Demac, Donna A, and Rosemary Reilly. Is Any Use "fair" in a Digital World Toward New
Guidelines for Fair Use in the Educational Context. New York: Freedom Forum Media
Studies Center, 1996. Print.
2. Fisher, William W. "Chapter 6: An Alternative Compensation System", Promises to Keep:
Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law and
Politics, 2004. Print.
3. Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics. Miniwatts Marketing Group, 2014.
Web. December 31, 2013.
4. IUS mentis: Law and technology explained. "The copyright symbol" iusmentis, 2006. Web.
5. Jillian Aversa. "Oh my god, are you kidding me?! YouTube took down..." facebook.com.
November 15 2014, 1:27 AM. Web post.
6. PlagiarismToday "Red Flags, Takedowns and Copyright Law" PlaigiarismToday, 2009. Web.
September 23, 2009
7. Sell, Susan K. Revenge of the Nerds: Collective Action against Intellectual Property
Maximalism in the Global Information Age International Studies Review 15.1, 67-85.
Web. 25 Sep. 2014.
8. United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Stop Online Piracy Act: hearing before
the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth
Congress, first session, on H.R. 3261., November 16, 2011 N.p.: Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 2013. Web. 25 Sep., 2014.
9. Weatherall, Kimberlee. "The New (Old) War On Copyright Infringement, And How Context Is
Opening New Regulatory Possibilities." Media International Australia (8/1/07-Current)
143 (2012): 110-121. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
10. World Intellectual Property Organization. Understanding Copyright and Related Rights.
Geneva: WIPO, 2006. Print.
11. Wortham, Jenna. Public Outcry Over Antipiracy Bills Began as Grass-Roots Grumbling The
New York Times. New York Times, 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 25 Sep. 2014.

Iwaskiw 10

12. Yoder, Christian. A Post-SOPA Shift in International Intellectual Property Norm

Creation The Journal of World Intellectual Property 15.5-6 (2012): 397-388. Web. 25
Sep. 2014
Bibliography
1. Copyright Warning *COPYRIGHT WARNING-L+ Dont risk copyright infringement penalties;
return required pledge. Message to Chris Iwaskiw. 26 Sep. 2014. E-mail.
2. Digital Culture Wars: Sopa and the Fight for Control of Online Content. DigitalCommons@UM
Carey Law, 2012. Internet resource.
3. Harper, George K. "The Copyright Crash Course" University of Texas Libraries, 2007. Web.
4. Hayes, David L. "Internet Copyright." Computer Law & Security Review. 17.6 (2001): 363-370.
Print.
5. Hughes, J. "A Short History of ``intellectual Property'' in Relation to Copyright." Cardozo Law
Review. 33.4 (2012): 1293-1340. Print.
6. Iwaskiw, Christopher. "Digital Copyright Law: Internet Killers or Protectors of Property?"
2014. Web.
7. John TotalBiscuit Bain. WTF is SOPA ? aka The American Government trying to ruin the
internet Youtube Web. 25 Sep. 2014.
8. Solley, T. "The Problem and the Solution: Using the Internet to Resolve Internet Copyright
Disputes." Georgia State University Law Review. 24.3 (2008): 813-842. Print.