Copyright: Educational versus Entertainment Content

Since the introduction and widespread use of digital media, many people have come to believe that copyright law needs to be amended. And while it may not be likely to happen, there are some things worth considering if the laws were updated. For example, it might be helpful to distinguish between types of content to balance commercial interest versus the greater good. Balancing the interests of the private sector (businesses) and the public good has after all engaged government since the Progressive Era of the early 20th century.

With regard to copyrighting publications in the academic world, it would help if the law at some point in the past had distinguished between material which is educational and that which is of entertainment value; this might have avoided much of what is called the Open Access (OA) movement. OA has been an effort by the scientific and research community to make as widely available as possible the publications resulting from research conducted at universities, laboratories and other not-for-profit facilities and which has very little commercial appeal outside of the university libraries which purchase it.

If the law had treated educational content more fairly it would allow for wider distribution and copying due to the general belief that education is a public good whether it takes place in a school or formal institution or on one's own. If material that is designed to inform rather than entertain was easily available and reusable, separate from (for example) feature films or popular music, we wouldn't have what Jim Neal of Columbia University called civil disobedience in copyright violations that take place today at universities among faculty and graduate students.

It is not helpful to subject use of an article on the evolution of reptile locomotion to the same restrictions as the use of a popular music release or a feature length Hollywood production.

This is one fairly easy call that copyright law amendment could address: is the work primarily educational or research in nature or is it purely entertainment. Undoubtedly there would be some debate over certain creative works, but recognizing the distinction would be a good framework for debate. Disputes could perhaps begin with the establishment of whether the work is mostly factual or mostly artistic. Again, a Beatles single is a creative, artistic work while an article detailing the morphology of bone marrow cancer cells is almost entirely factual.

[see my earlier post on other alternatives to rights in the entertainment realm]

Are Broadcasters Next?

I listen to a lot of podcasts and increasingly it's becoming clear that some content is not being read by a person and spoken into a microphone but rather the text is converted to voice automatically using software. I can tell not because the voice sounds anything like the 1960s version of what Hollywood thought robots would sound like in the 21st century but because of slight mispronunciations and misinterpretations of the words. Two of these that come to mind are created by BusinessWeek and the Economist.

I wonder if it won't be possible one day to take a text document and use a piece of software to generate a voice narration of the words using the voice of famous people. There are hundreds of hours of archived sound recordings of famous people and presumably machines can parse a person's voice into just about anything you want it to be. So if you fed both the text and corresponding audio files of the entire corpus of Walter Cronkite (for example) into an artificially intelligent machine, then the system could eventually "learn" how Cronkite would say just about any word, syllable or phrase.

This system could then take any text you submit and generate a pretty damn good impersonation of Cronkite reading what you've written whether or not he's ever been recorded saying it. The system will have learned the idiosyncrasies of an individual's voice, inflection, pronunciation, pauses, etc. to fool perhaps even the speaker's family.

The implications are of course huge. First there are legal challenges. Would it be legal to take the voice of Michael Jordan and use it to pitch a sneaker brand that he is not currently affiliated with? Obviously not but in today's lawless web environment, who's gonna stop it? You could get almost anyone to say almost anything, I would imagine, including U.S. presidents making promises that they never made and holding them accountable to them. So there's fraud to be considered.

But how about the convenience factor? Let's say a manufacturer of designer clothes wants Whoopi Goldberg to be their spokesperson. She hasn't got the time to go into a studio and read a bunch of copy several takes in a row. So she signs permission for the company to take her voice and the aforementioned system that can create the illusion that she is talking when in fact she's relaxing at home. She (or her agent) would of course have to authorize the content and use of her vocal likeness, but the bottom line is, I think the technology is probably here already.

But alas, like so many modern phenomena, the law lags behind.