Recently, I was visiting with a friend. He was very excited to show me a video about an amazing new virtual choir project. The video is 17 minutes and is well worth that time:
http://www.ted.com/...
Eric Whitacre is a classical composer who has written several modern choral works. One day, out of the blue, a young woman sent him a YouTube video of herself singing only the soprano part. He was entranced. And was struck by an inspiration: what if other singers sent him similar videos, and then they composited them together? They could create a virtual choir!
And, so, excited, he recorded a sample track so everyone would have the same timing, and sent out a call on his blog, inviting others to participate. He was overwhelmed by the response. (He was especially pleased that someone else volunteered to do the assembly, because it quickly became much bigger than he imagined.) But suddenly, time and distance didn't preclude participation. People from all over the world contributed voices. A woman isolated in Alaska. People from small villages and large cities. Young and old.
Many of the participants even created friendships based on their introduction within the choir.
Two beautiful pieces of music have been created, and the composer is thrilled. A whole new method of creation and performance has been developed.
And it all started with an act of copyright violation.
That's right. Singing the part, recording it, and uploading it, even if you mean it only for your grandmother, is generally a violation of the composer's copyright and performance rights. You're supposed to get specific permission and pay a royalty for it. As we know, being young isn't an excuse, and heck, YouTube should have known that she wasn't singing her own original composition and blocked her from uploading it in the first place.
So how large a fine should YouTube pay, and should they really still have access to their domain name of youtube.com? Should this young woman go to prison or would a five figure fine be sufficient?
Of course, her intent wasn't to steal. It was to communicate back to the composer, and to share with him how much she loved his creation.
Here's the thing. Copyright is meant to benefit not copyright holders, but the American people as a whole. It's meant to promote expression and artistry and the development of ideas and intellectual property. It is not meant to prevent others from doing so or to provide an indefinite exclusive royalty. Copyright is meant to protect the creator and allow her to benefit from her work, and then after an appropriate period, pass into the public domain for the benefit of all humanity.
Obviously stopping piracy is important. I don't condone anyone stealing text, music, or video to avoid paying the original artist. But, rules need to be written with the understanding that it's impossible to anticipate all new forms of innovation, and that not all "infringement" actually harms or even displeases the copyright holder. The current rules, where step one is a cease-and-desist and a takedown notice, handle that kind of case fairly well.
Holding third parties accountable - as social media websites and webhosting services are - is not fair or appropriate, just as it's not fair to punish Ford if I drive recklessly or drunk in the car they sold me years ago. A third party that refuses to respect takedown requests, or who actively fights copyright holders, is of course a different matter. But, it seems to me we can write law to deal with organizations like that without sweeping up every website with a form and a submit button.
Safe Harbor is important. Fair Use is important. And you shouldn't be able to seize a domain without action by a court of law.