Abstract–
As stated on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website, “The term ‘copyright’ refers to the legal ownership rights that authors and artists have over their creative works.” A vast variety of works, including books, music, films, paintings, sculptures, computer programs, databases, ads, maps, and technical drawings, are protected by copyright. Software and other digital assets, as well as original literary, musical, and artistic works, are all protected by copyrights. Digital content is widely available, which has made it simpler to distribute and copy copyrighted materials without authorization. This has increased internet piracy and decreased revenue for copyright owners. Technology has constantly led to changes in copyright law. However, traditional ideas of copyright are under threat from the advent of digitization, notably the division of works into discrete categories. The ease of reproduction and the seamless transfer of digital works pose previously unheard-of difficulties for copyright law. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) took action after realizing how digital technologies would affect copyrights. The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), together known as the “twin internet treaties,” went into effect in 1996. The right to public communication, the management of rights information, and the anti-circumvention clauses are the three main characteristics of these accords.
Copyright confronts a competition from innovation. Public debates, commercial enforcement measures, and court decisions frequently ignore innovation in favour of concentrating too much on the risks associated with copyright infringement. The most crucial element in economic progress is innovation. In the digital age, digital copyright rules are essential for controlling how digital content is used and distributed. These legal frameworks influence innovation, creativity, and information access by regulating the rights of producers, distributors, and consumers of digital works. The goal of copyright laws is to achieve a balance between the public interest in encouraging innovation and creativity and the interests of creators. Although copyright law contains restrictions and exceptions that permit the use of copyrighted material for reasons like study, education, criticism, and parody, it also gives authors the exclusive right to their works. These restrictions promote an innovative culture and unrestricted idea sharing.
This article explores how copyright law and policy affect access to digital content, and consequently, access to knowledge and learning. It assumes that the law should adapt meaningfully to technological advancements. Therefore, as copyright law evolves to combat digital piracy, it is also expected to evolve in ways that support lawful usage. Copyright law serves both private and public interests: the private interest involves the author’s exclusive rights to benefit from their creative work, while the public interest focuses on the distribution and use of these works by the public. This article examines how well private rights in the digital realm are balanced against public interests, particularly the right to access knowledge and educational materials.
Keywords
Copyright, copyright infringement, Digital, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Innovation
Introduction
Copyright protection is automatic, which means that a work is covered by copyright law as soon as it is made and fixed in a tangible medium, like a sheet of paper or a computer hard drive. On the other hand, copyright holders now find it more challenging to protect their rights due to the ease of digital copying and distribution.
With the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, the United States of America (USA) adjusted copyright to the new circumstances. Numerous treaties, including the Computer Directive (1991), the Database Directive (1996), and the Information Society Directive (2001), have been passed by the European Union, including those that just address copyright. The EU enacted the Lisbon Strategy in 2000 and the Digital Single Market Strategy Paper in 2015 with the aim of establishing a Digital Single Market. It eventually embraced the 2020 European Strategy. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) packages were created by the EU Commission in 2020 as well. In 2016, the EU Commission produced and released a package to update copyright as part of the Digital Single Market Strategy.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 1998 gives copyright holders the ability to remove content that violates their rights from the internet. After receiving notification from the copyright owner, online service providers like YouTube and Facebook are required by the DMCA to delete content that violates their rights. The difficulty of detecting content that violates copyright is one of the main obstacles to copyright enforcement in the digital era. It might be challenging for copyright owners to find every incident of infringement due to the large volume of digital content that is readily available online. Furthermore, because the internet is anonymous, it may be challenging to identify the person or organization causing infringement. The growth of file-sharing platforms, which let users distribute copyrighted content without authorization, is another problem. Among these services, BitTorrent is the most well-known since it enables peer-to-peer file uploading and downloading. File-sharing services are frequently used to distribute copyrighted content without authorization, even though they are not inherently criminal.
Research Methodology
This paper is of descriptive nature and the basis of research is both primary as well as secondary sources for the deep and comprehensive analysis of the digital copyright laws and their impact on innovation. Primary sources such as statues, case laws and secondary sources of information like newspapers, journals, articles and websites are used for the research. This article reviews how copyright law evolved in response to the effects of digitization using an empirical-analytical methodology.
Review of Literature
Legal scholars’ philosophical stances illuminate the salient characteristics of the digital copyright environment. These opinions range from favouring a more balanced strategy that takes into account both public and private rights to calling for the total abolition of copyright protection. Extreme minimalists contend that copyright laws should be repealed for digital works because they are out of date and do not reflect modern society (Halstead 2002:195; Meeker 1993:195). Neo-classicists contend that the public interest should balance the power possessed by copyright holders (Appel 1998:149, 1999:205–238). Post-modernists pioneered the idea of user-generated material and have a subjective approach to digital copyright, seeing it through the lens of collaborative engagement with texts (Appel 1999:205–238). Supporters of the moderate strategy emphasize how crucial it is to implement restrictions and exceptions to digital copyright works.
Digital Technology and Copyright Laws
In the digital age, digital copyright rules are essential for controlling how digital content is used and distributed. These legal frameworks influence innovation, creativity, and information access by regulating the rights of producers, distributors, and consumers of digital works.
- Protection of Intellectual Property: Digital copyright laws allow authors, publishers, musicians, filmmakers, and software developers the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and exhibit their original works, thereby offering them legal protection. By enabling creators to earn from their intellectual property and invest in the creation of new works, this protection encourages innovation and creativity.
- Promotion of Innovation and Creativity: Copyright laws are meant to strike a compromise between the public’s need to support innovation and creativity and creators’ rights. These regulations have some restrictions and exceptions in addition to giving the creators exclusive control over their works. These exclusions permit the following uses of copyrighted content: research, teaching, criticism, and parody. In this way, copyright rules facilitate the free flow of ideas and encourage an innovative culture.
- Digital Rights Management (DRM): Digital rights management (DRM) technologies are used to limit access to digital content and prevent illicit copying, distribution, and modification. Their use is governed by digital copyright laws. DRM can prevent illegal usage and copying of copyrighted works, but it can also stifle innovation by preventing consumers from accessing and utilizing digital content in novel and creative ways.
- Fair Use and Fair Dealing: The provisions of ‘Fair use and Fair Dealing’ in copyright allow for certain uses of copyrighted content, such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, are permitted under copyright law provisions without requiring consent from the copyright owners. By offering a legal framework for the use of copyrighted content in ways that do not unreasonably impede creativity or freedom of speech, these regulations foster innovation.
- Digital Distribution and Access: Digital copyright laws govern the distribution and access to digital content through online platforms, e-commerce platforms, streaming services and social media networks. These laws regulate issues such as licensing, royalties, digital distribution models, and the rights of users to access and use digital content across different devices and platforms. Digital distribution has transformed the way content is consumed, distributed, and monetized, presenting both opportunities and challenges for creators, distributors, and consumers.
6. Emerging Technologies: Digital copyright laws must adapt to technological advancements and emerging trends in areas such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. These technologies present new opportunities for innovation and creativity but also raise complex legal and regulatory challenges related to ownership, licensing, attribution, and enforcement of copyright rights in digital environments. Technological protection measures (TPMs) are used to prevent infringement of digital copyright works, and bypassing these measures is against the law. Since books and other educational resources are closely linked to learning, there is a strong connection between copyright law and education. Consequently, any copyright provision that restricts access to these works will also restrict access to knowledge, which can widen the knowledge gap.
Fair Use Doctrine and Digital Copyright Laws
The fair use concept has evolved in part due to the impact of digital technologies on copyright law. According to the law, fair use allows for the restricted use of copyrighted content for teaching, research, news reporting, criticism, and commentary without obtaining permission. Fair use is determined by taking into account four main factors: (1) the intent and nature of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the quality and quantity of the portion used; and (4) the impact of the usage on the copyrighted work’s potential market or value. Nevertheless, in the digital era, fair use’s reach has been curtailed by the DMCA.
• The intent and nature of the use: This element takes into account the use’s commercial or non-commercial nature as well as whether it’s transformative that is, adding a new message or meaning to the source material or just a copy.
• The copyrighted work’s nature: This criterion takes into account the work’s creative or factual nature, as well as whether it has been published or is yet unpublished.
• The portion’s amount and substantiality: This aspect takes into account the proportion of the copyrighted material used in comparison to the entire work, as well as whether or not the piece in question is the “heart” of the work.
• The impact of the usage on the prospective market for the copyrighted work: This element takes into account if using the content will make the original work’s market less viable.
Because it is now so simple to copy and distribute copyrighted content online, the fair use doctrine has grown more intricate in the digital era. To address the issues of copyright infringement in the digital age, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1998. Even in cases where the usage might be deemed fair use, the DMCA mandates that online service providers take down content that violates copyright as soon as they get notification from the owner. This process is called the “notice-and-takedown” method. This clause has drawn criticism for having the ability to restrict free speech and acceptable uses of copyrighted content, such as fair use.
Copyright and Innovation
Copyright faces a challenge from innovation. The most crucial element in economic progress is innovation. It promises novel approaches to communication, entertainment, and commerce as well as new business models. However, innovation is hard to notice, particularly when compared to pirated copyrighted works. Copyright holders are likewise put at risk by innovation, as their business models are directly targeted. To put it briefly, innovation is important, dangerous, and underappreciated.
The Napster ruling presents a perfect environment for a natural experiment that told the tale of a service’s explosive ascent to 80 million customers and equally swift fall into closure, insolvency, and individual liability. It is challenging to draw a general judgment about the impact of the Napster verdict on investment and innovation in digital music based only on logic and analytical thinking.
Some have argued that the decision harmed innovation.Others have claimed that copyright liability like that imposed in the Napster case promoted innovation. Many respondents thought that the Napster ruling resulted in a “wasteland” of venture capital and decreased creativity. “Just a new high-tech way of Bootlegging,” was how Dr. Dre bemoaned Napster. Napster was compared by Lars Ulrich to “walking into a record store, grabbing what you want, and walking out,” with the exception that “you are under arrest” being used in place of “file’s done.” Furthermore, Paul Stanley of Kiss said that file-sharing is “like me stealing your car and telling you I’m sharing your transportation,” in the same way as someone who “grabs an album and leaves a store” gets “put… in handcuffs.”
Impact of Napster’s decision on Innovation
It is quite evident that the Napster decision and service had significant ramifications. The injunction and its consequences stopped software developers in their tracks who were planning to deliver advancements in digital music. Investors could potentially risk bankruptcy or personal culpability. New ideas were also discouraged by the Napster ruling, which led to many lost opportunities, including the labels’ inability to implement innovative business structures.
Had the Napster decision been different or if the parties had reached a settlement, it’s highly likely that digital music distribution would have seen greater innovation. The respondents argued that the ruling: (1) discouraged innovation, (2) restricted advancements in technology like filtering, (3) inhibited “alternative delivery methods” that would have given consumers new ways to access music and (4) led to many lost opportunities.
Venture Capital’s Importance
The Napster ruling has a substantial impact on venture capital investment as well as innovation. Venture capital is essential to startups since it offers money and advice during the initial phases of a business’s growth. Typically holding a position on the board of directors, venture capitalists (VCs) contribute financial resources and actively participate in the company’s operations. For tiny businesses, who “come up with the new approaches” in “any field that has been highly innovative,” venture capitalists (VCs) are essential.” Innovation would be “stifled by orders of magnitude” in the absence of venture funding. The establishment of businesses like Amazon, Apple, Cisco, Facebook, FedEx, Google, Home Depot, Microsoft, and Skype was greatly aided by venture capital. In the “very, very risky situation” of having to invest millions of dollars without knowing if specific ideas would work or be accepted in particular markets, venture capital and angel investors play a “key role.” Venture capital “funds risk,” because innovation involves both creativity and risk. A challenge faced by researchers attempting to determine the connection between copyright legislation and venture capital funding in the music sector is the combination of elements that may have contributed to funding decreases in the early 2000s. The Napster ruling may have been one factor, but the early 2000s tech bubble implosion may also have had a role.
Effect of Napster’s decision
According to innovators, “we wouldn’t have any iPods today” if the labels had prevailed in the legal battle against the Rio, the original MP3 device. However, “because the iPod was popular” is the “reason why iTunes is popular.” It is believed that the “100% proprietary end-to-end Steve Jobs-owned ecosystem that he created himself and pushed through the labels based on his personal relationships” was the only factor in Apple’s success. Another argument against the Napster verdict is that it “locked” us into “the Apple ecosystem,” which hurt digital music.
Record label representatives described Napster as “devastating” and “terrifying.” With the labels being “thrown into a world they were not prepared for,” it was a “sudden shock to the system.” As one commenter succinctly put it, “Napster enabled anarchy.”
Senator Sherrod Brown expressed concern that illicit file sharing and unapproved duplication of digital content hinder musicians from enjoying the results of their labour and could hinder artistic creativity and jeopardize technological advancements.”
The New York Times expressed regret that the consequences of piracy include decreased economic activity and creativity, as authors become discouraged about generating a living from their works.” As a senator, Biden stated “Intellectual property (IP) is a very precious resource that, if left unprotected, is akin to allowing coal to be taken from our mines, water to be taken from our rivers and streams, and oil to be extracted from the earth.” With regret, Biden said, “We don’t approach it as if it were a natural resource being stolen.” From inexperienced musicians to production teams, and from fledgling social media businesses to major film studios, piracy “harms everyone.”
Case studies
In the Google Books case, Google scanned millions of books as part of its Library Project and Google Books effort, forcing authors to sue Google for copyright infringement. However, the district court decided that Google’s projects came within fair use, which was upheld by Court of Appeals.
In Cambridge University Press v Patton, Georgia State University (GSU) was sued by three publishing corporations for copyright infringement. The argument revolved around GSU’s electronic reserve system, where instructors frequently uploaded scanned passages from books that their students were assigned. The court referenced previous ‘coursepack cases,’ (such as Princeton University Press, and Basic Books) noting that when educational use is carried out by a for-profit copy shop, it is considered commercial. The court also emphasized that the digital use of a copyrighted work doesn’t automatically qualify as ‘fair use’ simply because it is distributed via a hyperlink instead of a traditional printing press.
Suggestions
It is recommended that copyright protection in emerging nations should be adapted to the unique economic and social circumstances of these nations. Subsequent investigations into digital copyright and knowledge access may concentrate on estimating the influence of copyright legislation and regulations on the production of knowledge.
Additionally, studying individual communities and suggesting frameworks to address their unique challenges would be beneficial. As technology progresses, it is crucial for lawmakers to continuously revise intellectual property laws to balance protecting innovation and creativity with safeguarding copyright owners’ rights and promoting the spread of knowledge and ideas.
Conclusion
There are some restrictions and exceptions to copyright law, thus protection is not absolute. It is often accepted that users are entitled to access copyrighted content without obtaining consent from the copyright owner. Reproducing works for personal study is usually allowed under fair dealing agreements. But as was already indicated, these fair dealing clauses might be completely undermined by technological protection measures, or TPMs. Any fair dealing rights that a user may have, are effectively nullified if a TPM prevents them from accessing a work. Restrictions on technology have a substantial overall effect on education and learning.
In the digital age, digital copyright laws are vital in determining how innovation, creativity, and information access are shaped. Copyright laws can support the development of a dynamic and vibrant ecosystem of innovation and creativity while ensuring that the interests of creators, users, and the general public are fairly balanced. These laws do this by offering legal protection for creators, encouraging fair use and fair dealing, and addressing new challenges and opportunities presented by digital technologies.
Copyright law has experienced significant transformation in the digital age. It now encounters numerous complex challenges due to the ease of copying and distribution, the rise of user-generated content, evolving business models, enforcement issues, and the need for international collaboration. Balancing the protection of creators’ rights with fostering innovation and ensuring access to creative works remains a difficult task. Nevertheless, the digital era also offers vast opportunities for creators to connect with a worldwide audience and for individuals to engage in collaborative culture. To remain effective and relevant in this rapidly evolving digital landscape, copyright law must evolve alongside technological advancements.
AUTHOR:
ANUSHKA SINGH
COLLEGE: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI.