In our pursuit to become digitally literate, we consequentially learn some Doctorharsh realities and helpful insights to ensure that we remain on the right side of the law. Many digital users view their activities as free game with little to no restrictions. New content creators or curators are faced with the task of making sure that all content and curation is original work and if not must give credit to original creators. This can be as simple as making sure that you have permission to use your favorite song alongside the YouTube video you have just created.
So how do we know what is free game and what is off limits when it comes to the law and the media we use? The first step is to educate yourself on laws regarding copyright, privacy laws and other legal issues that often go overlooked. Even with insights on this mind field landscape, ensuring that you are using digital content legally is a must.
In an article found on the Electronic Frontier Foundation website titled How The EU’s Copywrite Filters Will Make it Trivial For Anyone To Censor The Internet writer Cory Doctorow presents us with a look at legislation that could allow anyone the power of censorship over the internet. Doctorow begins by defining “notice and take down” explaining that ” it offers rightsholders the ability to unilaterally censor the Internet on their say-so, without any evidence or judicial oversight.” We quickly learn that the problem with notice and takedown is that the material can simply be reposted once taken down.
Doctorow points out that rightsholders would prefer a “notice and staydown.” This process involves rightsholders submitting their content to platforms and then those platforms having the right “filters” in place to determine if the content is copyrighted. The article elaborates by highlighting legislation “Article 13,” “which makes Content-ID-style filters mandatory for the whole Internet, and not just for the soundtracks of videos—also for the video portions, for audio, for still images, for code, even for text.” This presents the argument that the censorship will not help artists or curators.
In an article title 9th Circuit: It’s a Federal Crime To Visit A Website After Being Told Not To Visit It writer Orin Kerr touches on a case between Power Ventures and Facebook. Power was a service that allowed users to “aggregate their contacts on different social media sites.” Facebooks disapproval came with the reality that “Power users also authorized the software to send Facebook messages to other Facebook users for them.” They answered with a “cease and desist” letter to Power telling them to stop and they even went as far as blocking their IP address. Where Power really messed up is by completely ignoring the cease and desist and simply changing their IP address.
It is easy to conclude that when it comes to law and media we must be vigilant in knowing our rights and limitations as users. In striving to become digitally literate, legality can never be overlooked. This module reinforced the principle that when it comes to creating or curating media there are indeed set guidelines that must be adhered to. We can somewhat tie this reality into the concept of “slow news.” Before engaging with media, creating media, or curating media we must make sure that we can legally move forward.
Francisco Healy
