One change needed is to recognize the ability of computers to duplicate virtually any type of material, from text to sound to visual material, and to take that development into account … revised copyright law should reflect that some types of transmissions of works also could fall under copyright jurisdiction … distinctions must be made between transmission of works or performances and transmission of copies of works or performances.
Predictor: NII Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights
Prediction, in context:The following is from a 1994 article in Communications Daily about points made in a study by the Clinton administration’s NII [National Information Infrastructure] Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights: ”One change needed is to recognize the ability of computers to duplicate virtually any type of material, from text to sound to visual material, and to take that development into account, the report said … revised copyright law should reflect that some types of transmissions of works also could fall under copyright jurisdiction … distinctions must be made between transmission of works or performances and transmission of copies of works or performances. When a copy of a work is transmitted to be captured in a computer to be stored without being shown, there’s no violation, the Group said, but when a user brings up images, then under copyright law definitions, a ‘performance’ has occurred, violating the law. Because, in a digital world, copies may be virtually identical to originals, the Working Group recommended that laws be expanded to take that into account. Transmission of a copy could be a violation, it said, depending on the use to which it’s put. The NII Group also said the law should be amended to prohibit copyrighted material from being transmitted into the United States. It recognized that this suggestion is unenforceable, but said the restriction should be in law as a remedy. At the same time, it recommended that it be made illegal to import, make or distribute ‘devices, as well as the provision of services that defeat anticopying systems,’ such as an anticopy chip for digital audio gear. The report said, ‘The lack of a public performance right in sound recordings under U.S. law is an historical anomaly that does not have a strong policy justification – and certainly not a legal one. Sound recordings are the only copyrighted works that are capable of being performed that are not granted that right.’ Bills, supported by the administration, would cover only digital transmissions, which pose the ‘greatest threat’ to copyright owners, the report said.”
Date of prediction: July 7, 1994
Topic of prediction: Controversial Issues
Subtopic: Copyright/Intellectual Property/Plagiarism
Name of publication: Communications Daily
Title, headline, chapter name: Digital Rights Endorsed: NII Panel Recommends Minor Changes in Copyright Laws
Quote Type: Paraphrase
Page number or URL of document at time of study:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=3257d64bc66b7cf0832c34451a9399cc&_docnum=2&wchp=dGLbVtb-lSlzV&_md5=c6ab08d3a557996192a02bffeeb9115a
This data was logged into the Elon/Pew Predictions Database by: Anderson, Janna Quitney