Enforcing copyright online has proven to be quite difficult. More than a decade after Napster brought the subject of digital piracy into the mainstream, content owners are still struggling to protect their rights on the internet. They have finally learned one thing though: suing grandmothers (and dead grandmothers) doesn't work.

So what are content owners doing? It appears they are turning their attention to a more receptive audience: politicians.

Last week, in response to a request from the U.S. Commerce Department, the RIAA, MPAA and AFTRA admitted what everyone has known for some time: "the role of lawsuits in solving the online theft problem is clearly limited." They continued, "For instance, bringing clear-cut claims against major commercial infringers is not by itself a solution in the long run. These cases take years to litigate and are an enormous resource drain."

The content owners believe that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which was designed to help protect intellectual property in the digital age, provides service providers with too many loopholes. In turn, their users are able to engage in infringing activity while the service providers feign innocence. According to the content owners, there is plenty of technology available that enables service providers to combat online piracy, but many simply don't take advantage of it because they're not required to.

It's pretty easy to see where this is going: the DMCA needs to be modified and/or new laws need to be passed that would shiftmore of the enforcement burden on third parties, namely service providers. Unfortunately, this is a bad idea. While piracy is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and intellectual property rights shouldn't be minimized, major content owners are likely going to push for laws that presume guilt, put speed before accuracy and shift enforcement burdens and costs onto third parties. None of these things will have a positive impact on the internet economy, and will almost certainly do far more harm than good. One need only look at ACTA to see that 'fighting piracy' will eventually be the justification for all sorts of questionable regulation of the internet and technology.

There's plenty of blame to go around, however, and internet companies do bear some of it. That's because, in some corners, there has been a 'wink-wink' mentality when it comes to copyright. The DMCA's Safe Harbor provisions have provided cover to 'service providers' who would rather turn a blind eye to copyright infringement than do something about it, and in many cases, the Safe Harbor provisions ironically encourage such behavior. And to be sure, content owners haven't been an easy bunch to work with either, to their own detriment, but that hardly justifies some of the 'see-no-evil, hear-no-evil' approaches to copyright infringement.

Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag, and there's a good chance that over the next decade, we'll all realize that a little bit of prevention would have been better than the cure the content lobby is getting ready to have politicians prescribe.

Photo credit: Carolyn Coles via Flickr.

Patricio Robles

Published 13 December, 2010 by Patricio Robles

Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.

2642 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (5)



Piracy is definitely a problem, but we have to keep in mind we have one of the more robust nations in resisting it. In places like Japan, piracy of music, video games and movies is as common as cigarettes are here. This is why it's good to be in businesses that thrive on unique content.

over 7 years ago

Wyndham Lewis

Wyndham Lewis, Head of Business Development at Harvest Digital

When will the music Industry just accept that they need to change their business model along with everybody else.  The clothing Industry is forced to innovate and differentiate itself as copyright does not exist.

Whilst the music Industry decries XFActor, Cowell has managed to develop a route to market, which he gets paid for, for acts that change every year.  The fact that a number of them don't make it is an irrelevance, fashions and interests come and go.  Whilst people can steal the tracks they are a secondary component of what makes the money, advertising, live tours, merchandise, promotions, endorsements etc.... Rather than spending all their time & energy defending a failing business model, the execs should start to focus on creating value for their customers and shareholders. 

over 7 years ago

Adam Hart

Adam Hart, Flash & Motion Designer at The Engine Group

Well said Lewis, couldn't have put it better myself. Musicians believe that the Internet and music piracy has helped them make a name for themselves and increase awareness. The concept of purchasing a licence to listen to a song is out-dated. Maybe if music begins to no-longer generate ridiculous sums of money, we might start to hear better music on the radio.

over 7 years ago



Going after the guilty is one thing. To sue people they knew were innocent of any wrong doing and make them pay is legitimized extortion. It is also a felony. Yet our justice fails to recognize those where the court complaint from the start was false and the attorney who filed it knew it was false. So if we have legitimized taking of money from people using false court complaint demands, Roxanne Austin organized this first with Directv, then does the rest really matter? Why change legislation when we permit the court process to be a proxie in carrying out crimes.

over 7 years ago



This text is invaluable. How can I find out more?

over 5 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.