Copyright Battles Are About Controlling New Technologies

from the seems-like-it dept

Copyright guru William Patry has a really interesting post remembering Harvey Schein, the man who oversaw the American launch of the Betamax VCR as head of Sony's American division. That was, of course, the product that produced the famous Sony decision upholding the legality of the VCR and its "record" button. The Betamax precedent is widely seen as a foundation of the modern consumer electronics industry because it gives manufacturers confidence that they can build useful media tools without worrying about liability should their customers use the tools to infringe copyright.

Patry mentions an aspect of the case that I hadn't realized before: MCA/Universal, the lead plaintiff, wasn't just worried that the VCR owners would tape shows rather than watching re-runs. It was also planning to release a laser disc technology called Disco Vision. MCA/Universal apparently worried that a successful Betamax VCR would have undercut the market for laser discs. Schein is quoted as saying "I don't think it was accidental that the company that took the lead in fighting the videocassette held all the patents on the videosdisc."

This will sound eerily familiar to anyone familiar with more recent copyright controversies. For more than three decades, Hollywood and the recording industry have consistently tried to use copyright law to stop any technology they didn't control. In 1992, the music industry persuaded Congress to mandate cumbersome DRM for digital audio formats, stunting the development of that technology. In 1998, the music industry unsuccessfully tried to sue the MP3 player out of existence. Also in 1998, at the behest of the copyright lobby Congress enacted the DMCA, which gave content creators unprecedented control over the design of technological devices. Hollywood has used the DMCA to effectively outlaw set-top boxes that act as DVD jukeboxes.

Of course, in every one of these cases, the copyright lobby's arguments have focused on the threat of "piracy." But when they've won, the practical result has been to give content creators the power to control the evolution of media devices. And when Hollywood and the record labels control technological progress, the results aren't pretty.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  • icon
    Steve R. (profile), 22 May 2008 @ 12:58pm

    Vertical Integration

    The "attack" on competing technologies, I believe, is really a form of vertical integration. Companies want consumers to buy into their entire product line, hence interoperability is silently quashed.

    At one level (engineering) interoperability is disabled through proprietary formats and proprietary connectors. At another level, through the legal process (the thrust of this post), to blatantly outlaw competing technologies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Overcast, 22 May 2008 @ 1:32pm

    This may well be one of those times - when the market decides.

    Perhaps - we should just let them have their way - AKA give them the rope to hang themselves with.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2008 @ 3:09pm


      This may well be one of those times - when the market decides.
      Monopolies (e.g copyrights) are about thwarting the free market so don't place too much faith in that solution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon, 22 May 2008 @ 2:31pm

    I wish we could just let these companies die off. Everyone stop buying merchandise from them. See how they like it then. Obviously, this will never happen. But, they are scum and do nothing to try and cater to their consumers needs and tastes. They try to force upon us what they want us to like and how we get it. Guess what, that is why people are stealing music and movies. That doesn't make it right, but it is what happens. And they will never win the battle to stop people from stealing. It will be a never ending battle for them, which I would assume they lose money on. How many of the people that they get large claims from can actually afford to pay them. And how much did those lawyers cost. And what does it do to their companies image. Seems like a lose - lose - lose situation to me. And after all is said and done, the file sharing will continue. It may be a different method or whatever, but it will continue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.