Despite all the possible alternatives to the current copyright system that we have discussed this semester, no one proposal stands out as holding promise for the future of copyright. There is difficulty in finding an alternative system that allows authors to have their constitutionally guaranteed incentive and at the same time allow for the maximum public benefit. With ever changing technology the enforcement of copyright law is becoming more and more difficult. In addition, the mainstream view of most media downloaders is that they are not really doing anything wrong. This makes it terribly unpopular for copyright holders to enforce their rights by using the courts and is why we have seen so few cases filed against illegal downloaders. Without the ability for authors to enforce copyright protection the laws become useless and the incentive for creation ceases to exist. So what is the best plan for the future of copyright?
I feel that the best chance for the future of copyright is to take the "mend it, don't end it" approach. The current copyright system is the best available program we have and with the continuing adaptations to technological advances it can provide the incentives and public benefits which are so important. There are three major steps to working with current copyright law in order to make it effective. First, copyright holders must use the current laws to there full extent in order to protect their rights. Next, copyright holders, and in particular their organizations, must work with technology manufacturers in order to incorporate copyright protection into the next generation of media equipment and software. Finally, legislation must keep up with changing technology in order to protect the rights of authors.
Copyright holders must use the current law to its full extent in order to create deterrence that will prevent people from infringing activities such as illegal music downloading. Prosecuting as many violaters as is economically viable will send out a strong message of zero tolerance and will also be a springboard to new legislation. By using the current law fully copyright holders will have legitimacy when they seek legislative change since they have exhausted their legal remedies. The view that breaking copyright law is no big deal is pervasive and organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are only letting it continue by not prosecuting as many violators as possible. To date only several thousand people have been sued by the RIAA and a handful of people by the MPAA. They are sending out the message that it is acceptable to illegally download media as long as you are not one of the big offenders. By suing as many people as possible the organizations would send the message that even one illegal download is wrong. This would drive many of the illegal downloaders off the P2P networks and make them use a music download service which pays royalties.
The next step is for copyrightholders and their organizations to work with manufacturers in order to coordinate copyright protection. We have seen this work already in several ways. Many CD players do not work if the CD does not have the proper encryption and it is the same for most new DVD players. In addition, companies are including protection in their software such as Microsoft and the copyright protection to be built into its new operating software. These are just examples of how working with manufacturers can make copyright protection much easier. Soon all CD and DVD players will have some sort of protection system installed. As new software and hardware comes out organizations like the RIAA need to work with companies to ensure protection. This type of cooperation could also be made law by Congress if companies are not willing to comply. So far it seems that such an extreme is not necessary since companies are voluntarily working with copyright holders. With technology companies working with copyright law it will be less necessary for Congress to intervene and adjust the laws.
The final step in mending current law is for legislation to keep up with the changing technology and its effects on copyright. We spent a lot of time talking about recent copyright laws like the DMCA and potential laws like the Induce Act. These are two excellent examples of how legislation can try to keep up with the changes. Even though the DMCA is not perfect it offered some new protections to copyright holders. The Induce Act is greatly influenced by the copyright organizations and the potential drafts seem to favor their rights. Congress is clear that it will pass laws that will protect the current system and does not seem to support a major overhaul. As long as Congress continues its dedication to protect copyright holders they will be able to adjust the current copyright law to work with the changes. This makes the system flexible and able to change if copyright law becomes too weak or too strong.
There are many things that are uncertain about the future of copyright, but one thing that is clear is that new innovations like P2P networks are here to stay. Copyright law has to adjust to these new changes, or be buried by them. Declining CD sales are one tangible way to show the effect of letting people get away with breaking the law. If we want to enjoy the level of creativity that has lead to so many movies, songs and art we must be willing to give up the easy and free ways to violate copyright laws. And if we are not willing, then copyright holders must force us too in order to protect our system which fosters creativity and public benefit.