While much of the North American continent remains plagued by heat and drought conditions, the Internet continues to be deluged by the flood of mainstream media content pouring onto it. My reporting on this newest phenomena has jogged a memory of late autumn of ‘05. That was when the issue of protecting the rights of video content producers (i.e. television networks) came to the fore. American media empires have been quietly pushing internationally for a new treaty that would grant them 50-year copyright to all footage they generate.
Washington Post staff writer Jonathan Krim articulated the argument well in this report. The subject is worth a second look now because the positions around the treaty, both pro and con, are extensions of the Napster, music file-sharing debate.
All arguments boil down to the merits of protecting an established, infrastructure-laden media entertainment industry from the rapid technological changes and therefore from economic opportunities present for nimbler, smaller upstart companies and individuals.
To some, this treaty is nothing more than an intellectual tariff. To others, it represents nothing more than an effort to standarize international law. But what would it mean for the small, independent content provider, and for the web-viewing public?
If implemented and taken to it’s logical conclusion, the treaty could have the following affect:
