My topic for the final project will be
about copyright/IP. The philosopher will be Nozick, the same person I did for
the presentation. There were some topics that crossed my mind, but didn't
include in the presentation. One being content creators on YouTube/other video
hosting sites. Nozick talks about entitlement of property. As a gamer, I watch
quite a bit of games on YouTube. Content creators create videos by placing a commentary
over the game they were playing. These content creators get a portion of the ad
money from YouTube for the viewer traffic. A while back, some game publishers
argued they are entitled to some of the revenue as well since their games are a
large part of the content. Nozick states that those who expend the time and
resources to make the content has entitlement over it regardless of the process
in which the content was made. Both the game publishers and the YouTube content
creators put time and resources into the video, so who should have the rights
to monetize the content?
Nozick would argue that game
publishers have the right to ask for a piece of the revenue derived from ads.
Since the publishers were the ones that “bought or contracted for all other
held resources used in the process”. He would also say the EULA states that
buying the game (software), you are granted personal non-commercial use of the
software. You do not own the software as that is the IP of the publisher. With
that said, when a content creators receives revenue from ads, they would be “steal(ing) from others, or defraud(ing) them, or enslave(ing)
them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or
forcibly exclude others from competing in exchanges. None of these are permissible modes of transition from one situation to
another.”
I would have to argue against
Nozick. In my opinion, the videos made by combining games and commentary are
the results of creativity. The resulting transformation is a new form of
entertainment. Viewers watch the videos not only for the game, but also for the
ability to interact with the content creator and the community with similar
interests. Videos created by content creators are very similar to remixes. Borrowing,
stealing, transforming, adding existing content/ideas to create something new. I
understand the game publishers “bought or contracted for all other held
resources used in the process” of making the game and it is their intellectual
property, but intellectual property laws (Copyright Act of 1790 / Patent Act of
1790) were meant to protect intellectual property by providing a brief period
of exclusivity to prevent copies. The videos created do contain intellectual
property of others, but isn’t that true for everything? Hollywood transforms
the old into the new. Many movies were based off of existing plays, novels/comics,
other films, TV shows, toys, etc. In a way, content creators do “steal(ing) from others, or defraud(ing) them, or enslave(ing)
them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or
forcibly exclude others from competing in exchanges. None of these are permissible modes of transition from one situation to
another.” That again, can be said for everything else. Steve Jobs of Apple
famously stated “Picasso
had a saying -- 'good artists copy; great artists steal' -- and we have always
been shameless about stealing great ideas." Henry Ford said a
similar statement, “I invented nothing new. I simply assembled the
discoveries of other men whom were centuries of work…progress happens when all
the factors that make for it are ready and then it is inevitable.”
The videos might have used intellectual property owned by game
publishers. It actually helps them as the videos are pretty much free
advertising. Under EULA’s, the software is strictly for non-commercial use. The
definition of non-commercial use is blurry and depends on how one perceives it.
Non-Commercial Use - “not primarily intended for or directed towards
commercial advantage or monetary compensation. The inclusion of “primarily” in
the definition recognizes that no activity is completely disconnected from
commercial activity; it is only the primary purpose of the reuse that needs to
be considered.” Content creators make their videos for fun, entertainment, community,
etc. The revenue is not the primary purpose.
References
A Remix Manifesto – Brett Gaylor
Everything is A Remix – Kirby Ferguson
Creative Commons – Lawrence Lessig
No comments:
Post a Comment