The Color of Money: Fair Use and Copyright or: Free the Bound Periodicals!

In a recent blog Andrew Albanese -- Library Journal, 9/17/2007 wrote that a new "Study Suggests "Fair Use" Means Big Business." Many believe the record, movie, and publishing industries' attempts to curb or eliminate fair use clauses from copyright law are about corporate profits more than protecting artists. Several artists are now following a path to success pioneered many authors. Essentially they provide free and easily available content of their work. In most cases this leads to more sales and greater profits. This eliminates many of the middlemen, and barriers between the creators and their fans. It also lowers the cost to consumers and creates new markets for artists. When some or all of the content is free of charge this paradoxically leads to more sales.

The greatest threat and fear to almost every industry since the rise of the web is the role the Internet plays in dis-intermediation, or the elimination of the middleman. That was true of brokerages, bookstores, book publishers and now it is striking fear in the hearts of members of the Motion Picture Association. At one time the publishing industry tried to hold back the clock by lobbying for legislation making it illegal to even loan a book to a friend. Yet seeing a movie you enjoy is not the end of profit but the beginning. After watching good movie many will then buy posters, books, t-shirts, DVD's, and soundtracks to the movies they liked. Star Wars started this trend where a majority of profits came from merchandise, sale of home use formats of the movie, and sales in overseas markets. The initial production cost of a movie or a song is rarely covered by its initial release. The real profit comes from the development and cultivation of a fan base after it leaves the hands of the studios and theaters.

This lesson about the transformational nature of the Internet is a difficult and painful one. However, those who have faced it head on in the newspaper industry, brokerage firms, travel agencies, bookstores and other sectors have survived and many learned to thrive in the new environment.

Now there are some numbers to help put these issues in perspective. The Motion Picture Association of America told congress that the total loss to U.S.$20.5 millionU.S. industries and our economy.

Recently another study came out looking at the other side. In August 2007 the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) published a study which revealed that "fair use dependent industries" contributed over $4.5 trillion in annual revenue for the United States. This was approximately one sixth of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP).

So who are the Motion Picture Association, other media and publishing groups really concerned about? New artists, or bankable stars, talented writers or the latest best seller tripe spewed out by Sylvia Brown? What constituencies are best served by expansive fair use laws, artists, educators, students, industry, researchers, or Time Warner? How far along would medicine and biological research be right now if the data from the human genome project was the property of one pharmaceutical company instead of a public resource for researchers, all pharmaceutical companies, university labs and government research projects? Most people want to see others get what they deserve for their work. However, it is pretty clear that the movie industry is more than willing to give a back seat to artists the education system, industry, and the country as a whole, to move their own interests forward, no matter what the costs are for anyone else.

	R. Philip Reynolds preynolds@sfasu.edu rm. 202b 936.468.1453 Subjects - Computer Science, Military Science, Philosophy/Religion, Political Science/Geography

RIS Recommends: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Licensing, Fair Use, and Copyright.