The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been conducting a series of workshops in order to solicit the public’s opinion about the development of a National Broadband Plan that will connect Americans through increased broadband (high-speed internet) availability. Today’s event focused specifically on the role of content in the broadband ecosystem.

The nine person panel brought a variety of perspectives to the debate, but central to the discussion was the need to develop technologies that provide consumers with reasonably priced and hassle free options when accessing creative works online. And at the same time, these options need to respect and protect the many creative works (and compensate their creators!) that are being accessed online.

Kathy Garmezy of the Directors Guild of America (which represents directors and filmmakers of all stripes) gave a testimony about both the excitement and concern that directors have about the digital future. Movies move us; they make us weep and get us excited. Because of our love for movies, we want to have them, to own them. This desire to obtain something which we love so much is often a double-edged sword. When people download movies illegally, they are actually hurting those people and things that they love.

Composer Alex Shapiro, the only working artist on the panel, shared how she has benefited from high-speed internet access. She has been able to develop an international business, bypassing many of the traditional gatekeepers, through the internet. She emphasized the need for high-speed internet access throughout the country – in both urban and rural areas – so all artists can maximize their talent in ways fitting to them. Yet, even though she has seen many successes because of internet and other new technologies, she shares concerns about the possible negative consequences of digital opportunities. She said that copyright owners need to embrace the internet, but we need to ensure that they get paid for the works they do.

Charles Slocum of the Writers Guild of America, West (which represents writers in the motion picture, broadcast, cable and new media industries) echoed Alex’s sentiments. He talked about how his writers have persevered and have been successful by using both traditional and new technologies. By embracing the openness and viral capabilities that the internet provides, some writers have seen unprecedented success in a relatively short amount of time. Yet, he said, that it is important to preserve the openness of the internet will preserving the rights of copyright owners.

Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge reminded the FCC that not all creative works online come from Hollywood. A kind gesture; though only she and Michael Carroll, a professor of law at American University, seemed to make a distinction between the types of creative works posted and found online. Michael went so far as to make a distinction between amateur and professional works, which insinuated that other panelists – because they represent professional creators – do not care about amateur creative works.

He also said that online standards should not discriminate between good and bad content. Fair enough, but what is considered “good” and “bad” content? Hollywood has produced a number of movies that have flopped in the box office; no one can deny that. So are they considered “bad” and therefore not subject to protection and compensation when posted online?

Or, does the distinction between good and bad content lie in the distinction between professional and amateur creator? If this is the case, then all professional creative works would be considered “good” and all amateur creative works would be considered “bad”. So I guess my friend whose garage band posts its songs on MySpace would be considered “bad” (because they’re amateurs, after all).

His band should just stop creating, then, since its music is “bad”. They probably don’t care about their copyrights anyway, because only professionals do, right?

The truth is, not all amateur creators, whether they are good or bad, have a blatant disregard for the ownership of their works. Actually, a lot of creators are quite passionate about protecting the rights to their works – whether posted online or produced in the physical world.

Patrick mentioned in his remarks three artists – in varying stages of their careers (and one could argue levels of professionalism) – who are extremely passionate about the ownership of their works. They are also extremely passionate about embracing the speed and openness of the internet and other new technologies in order to promote their works and share them with wider audiences.

So, let’s remember that the degree of professionalism and quality of work that creators produce varies greatly. It’s not professional creator against amateur creator. Nor is it “good” creative works versus “bad” creative works. It’s about creators and their works broadly. And, no one creator should be denied the right to benefit from his creative works when they are posted online.

Share this:

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm by Lucinda M. Dugger and is filed under FCC, copyright law, copyright opponents, creators, culture, economy, events, internet, p2p, piracy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.